"Paris Trout" translates to the screen better than any work by John Grisham. The 1949 southern small town atmosphere is flawless, but it is the tremendous character development, lacking in Grisham's films, that drives "Paris Trout". Barbara Hershey as the suffering wife, and Ed Harris as the disillusioned lawyer are terrific. Dennis Hopper was born to play the evil character Paris Trout, and he delivers an "Oscar" worthy performance. Living in a fool's paradise, Paris makes his own rules, and attempts to control everyone else. This behavior leads to murder, and eventually insanity. A true product of his environment, Paris cannot deal with losing control. The consequences of his loss are both sad and fascinating. - MERK
19 Reviews
Little-Known Film Is Worth A Look
ccthemovieman-14 July 2006
Dennis Hopper, Barbara Hershey and Ed Harris: now there's three last names- beginning with H-in their prime in the 1980s actors for you. Here's a bigger oddity: nary a profane word spoken by either Hopper or Harris in this movie!
There also is very little violence. However, when it occurs, it is shocking. Hopper plays his normal evil person and is convincing, as always. The film is fascinating for the first half but then bogs down with the romance between Hershey and Harris. It picks up again at the end.
The scenery here of the rural South of the 1940s is very pretty. This is an odd film; almost hard to classify, but certainly worth a look. As you can tell by the number of reviews, it's not a well-known film. I saw it twice and enjoyed it both times.
There also is very little violence. However, when it occurs, it is shocking. Hopper plays his normal evil person and is convincing, as always. The film is fascinating for the first half but then bogs down with the romance between Hershey and Harris. It picks up again at the end.
The scenery here of the rural South of the 1940s is very pretty. This is an odd film; almost hard to classify, but certainly worth a look. As you can tell by the number of reviews, it's not a well-known film. I saw it twice and enjoyed it both times.
Brave performance by Dennis Hopper as a corrupt bigot....
moonspinner554 July 2006
Well-crafted cable drama is troubling as an entertainment per se, but is still skillfully-made and worth-seeing for the leading performance by Dennis Hopper. Adapted from Pete Dexter's prize-winning book about racist businessman in 1949 Georgia who is tried for the murder of a black child, this atmospheric movie captures a particular time and place with style, and Hopper's acting is award-worthy (he doesn't accentuate the Southern bigotry bit with camp fervor--instead he's menacing and quite creepy). As directed by Stephen Gyllenhaal, the film is well-mounted and provocative, but with a story and characters so despicable, it does run the risk of turning off many viewers before it even gets to the second-act. **1/2 from ****
evil with a human face
dtucker8614 April 2002
Dennis always amazes me and I think this is probably his best film. If you think he was bad in Blue Velvet, just watch this film. There is no other actor who could have played this role better. It was like someone wrote the part just for him. He is so chilling that you want to turn away. It made me sick the way he brutalized his wife and killed that little girl in cold blood. Paris Trout is a demon in human form. He has no remorse, no conscience and is probably the worst villian in the history of the movies.
Pretty rough, but great movie!!!
cinegreece6 May 2008
Paris Trout is a pretty rough movie. Sometimes it gets too hard to watch, but there is a good reason behind this choice of the director. Rascists are mentally ill people most of the times. If not ill surely misguided. Paris trout is a nearly crazy man and all he deserves is what he gets in the end. This movie is pretty good. Acting is simply excellent. Dennis Hopper makes a great job in his very disgusting role. Ed Harris is once again the big catch in the movie. He gives a great depth to his character. Writing is pretty beautiful. Makes you wonder about many things. Direction is very solid. Everything with this movie was about right. Watch it, but be prepared. It's tough watching movies like that.
Trout by name, barracuda by nature
tomsview1 May 2014
Warning: Spoilers
Set in Georgia in 1949, this movie makes Tennessee Williams' Southern dramas seem light and fluffy in comparison.
The thing that drew me to the film was the cast. It has two terrific actors Barbara Hershey and Ed Harris, and one who has always been harder to define, Dennis Hopper.
Hopper plays Paris Trout, a bigot and a racist. As portrayed here, he is without a redeeming feature.
Paris runs a general store with his wife Hanna. When Paris believes a young black man owes him money, he goes to the man's home and shoots his sister and twelve-year old niece. It's a tough scene in a movie that has quite a few tough scenes.
Paris is charged with murder. His racism is so ingrained that he feels hard done by. He pleads self-defence and is defended by his somewhat compromised lawyer Harry Seagraves (Ed Harris). However, Paris' wife Hanna (Barbara Hershey) believes him guilty and draws away from him. This sets off a violent reaction in Paris; he attacks her, violating her sadistically. Hanna then has an affair with Harry. Although he gets off the murder charge, Paris finally goes over the edge with jealousy and rage, leading to a bloody climax.
For all I know, Georgia may have been swarming with Paris Trouts in 1949 just as depicted here, but there are couple of things I feel let the movie down.
The first is that Dennis Hopper's performance as the objectionable Paris Trout is very one note – the only thing he doesn't do is strangle someone's pet kitten. However, there is little attempt to explain his brutality. He mentions that he had been in World War One. It's a throw away remark, but surely that experience should have been given more significance – it could even explain some of his behaviour.
The second follows from the first. Why did Hanna marry such an ignorant, mean-spirited man as Paris Trout? She is beautiful, intelligent and kind; the connection just doesn't ring true. At one point she tells Harry, "There was a sureness about him that was missing in my own life", but it's hard to buy. I feel more information was needed before we can fully believe their union. There may have been more in the book, which didn't end up in the screenplay although both are by the same hand.
Maybe I'm alone in this, but I think more shading with Hopper's character would have made it a more balanced movie, and probably an even more tragic one.
The thing that drew me to the film was the cast. It has two terrific actors Barbara Hershey and Ed Harris, and one who has always been harder to define, Dennis Hopper.
Hopper plays Paris Trout, a bigot and a racist. As portrayed here, he is without a redeeming feature.
Paris runs a general store with his wife Hanna. When Paris believes a young black man owes him money, he goes to the man's home and shoots his sister and twelve-year old niece. It's a tough scene in a movie that has quite a few tough scenes.
Paris is charged with murder. His racism is so ingrained that he feels hard done by. He pleads self-defence and is defended by his somewhat compromised lawyer Harry Seagraves (Ed Harris). However, Paris' wife Hanna (Barbara Hershey) believes him guilty and draws away from him. This sets off a violent reaction in Paris; he attacks her, violating her sadistically. Hanna then has an affair with Harry. Although he gets off the murder charge, Paris finally goes over the edge with jealousy and rage, leading to a bloody climax.
For all I know, Georgia may have been swarming with Paris Trouts in 1949 just as depicted here, but there are couple of things I feel let the movie down.
The first is that Dennis Hopper's performance as the objectionable Paris Trout is very one note – the only thing he doesn't do is strangle someone's pet kitten. However, there is little attempt to explain his brutality. He mentions that he had been in World War One. It's a throw away remark, but surely that experience should have been given more significance – it could even explain some of his behaviour.
The second follows from the first. Why did Hanna marry such an ignorant, mean-spirited man as Paris Trout? She is beautiful, intelligent and kind; the connection just doesn't ring true. At one point she tells Harry, "There was a sureness about him that was missing in my own life", but it's hard to buy. I feel more information was needed before we can fully believe their union. There may have been more in the book, which didn't end up in the screenplay although both are by the same hand.
Maybe I'm alone in this, but I think more shading with Hopper's character would have made it a more balanced movie, and probably an even more tragic one.
Ugh, I hate that man...
natashabowiepinky22 May 2013
I watched this film in stunned silence. Dennis Hopper may have played some nasty people in the past, but he's really excelled himself here as the beast known as Paris Trout. Child murderer, rapist, wife beater, con artist... And the worst aspect of it, he doesn't think he's done anything wrong. This is a guy who stands up in a courtroom lying through his teeth, yet he is so delusional he believes he's telling the truth. There isn't a single redeeming feature about this monster, and I'm sure if he existed there would be a special place in hell reserved between Hitler and Ian Brady for his sorry carcass.
But what of the rest? Well, his wife at least has some sense (Apart from marrying the **** in the first place) and clears off early, and his lawyer actually develops a conscience during a trial for an unspeakable crime Trout has committed and leaves him high and dry too. Oh, if only this would happen in real life! Then again, pigs might fly. Paris's ex and his former attorney then fall in love (Mostly over hatred regarding Trout) and move in together, but you just KNOW this story ain't gonna have a happy ending...
Extremely well performed and cast, Hopper steals the show as the beyond redemption Paris, who seems to get sicker and more sadistic with every passing scene. Barbara Hershey is also good value as the wife who FINALLY develops a backbone, and Ed Harris deserves plaudits for portraying a lawyer who has a heart (DON'T FAINT). Beyond the initial story, there's not a lot more to be told here, and some plot elements seem a tad unnecessary (what was all that stuff about rabies at the start)? But for an acting showcase, it's admirable, and further cements Hopper's reputation for tackling some of the more horrible roles with plenty of gusto... 6/10
But what of the rest? Well, his wife at least has some sense (Apart from marrying the **** in the first place) and clears off early, and his lawyer actually develops a conscience during a trial for an unspeakable crime Trout has committed and leaves him high and dry too. Oh, if only this would happen in real life! Then again, pigs might fly. Paris's ex and his former attorney then fall in love (Mostly over hatred regarding Trout) and move in together, but you just KNOW this story ain't gonna have a happy ending...
Extremely well performed and cast, Hopper steals the show as the beyond redemption Paris, who seems to get sicker and more sadistic with every passing scene. Barbara Hershey is also good value as the wife who FINALLY develops a backbone, and Ed Harris deserves plaudits for portraying a lawyer who has a heart (DON'T FAINT). Beyond the initial story, there's not a lot more to be told here, and some plot elements seem a tad unnecessary (what was all that stuff about rabies at the start)? But for an acting showcase, it's admirable, and further cements Hopper's reputation for tackling some of the more horrible roles with plenty of gusto... 6/10
Read the book
raebari19 January 2007
This is what films are supposed to be about. Not dripping with profanity, computerized special effects, sped-up chase scenes. It is one of the most faithful book-to-screen renditions in existence although naturally some of the scenes from the book had to be trimmed in order to make the film conform to typical length. But no problem--the skill of the actors and director create the essential thrust of the film. This book concerns true events that happened not far from where I live, and people hereabouts still speak of those events. As for the comment that the fox/rabies/little girl portion of the plot seems disconnected, not true. The fox, the manner in which the kind townspeople respond to her being bitten, the diametrically-opposed behavior of Trout toward the same little girl, and the manner in which the lives of all humans in small towns are interwoven, make for superb writing and film-making. You will never forget either film nor book. Scenes from both will always crop up, especially the bottles--the scene with Hershey and later the contents of the safes.
Watched once and could never watch again
judywalker225 November 2008
I watched this movie once and could never watch it again. I didn't have any problem with the performances they were all good, Hooper, Hershey and Harris are always good. I didn't have any problem with the plot, yes evil people probably do exist in the world, I suppose; as we're all capable of doing evil to our fellow man. But the problems I had were more with the pace, its slow and with the violence. I never did or would have read the book this story is based on and I don't necessarily have trouble with violence in general but I do have trouble when it involves children. So I watched it once, got really sick and disgusted by the little girl screen and never watched it again. I only gave it a five because I am a huge fan of all three man stars.
Harrowing tale of brutal Dennis Hopper character and his impact on the town.
bluetwin9 November 1999
I saw this in a theater and later found out it was actually a HBO movie in the U.S. but had been amazed by how well done it was. The acting is superb - Dennis Hopper does evil men like almost no-one else, Barbara Hershey and Ed Harris are good in whatever they do. It starts out as a harrowing racial drama but soon grows larger into a tale of authority and the evils of power over those who are weaker unless society and its laws protect them. A powerful and disturbing movie. 9/10
Depressing with little to offer
oordt15 August 2005
This movie, although well shot and superbly acted, was awful. I felt as if I was watching a car accident--sure I kept watching but I really wanted to turn my head. The plot leaves little to be desired, was extremely disjointed, and the ending was abysmal. Although, it did fit the tone of the movie, I was hoping for something to improve this movie. I still don't understand what the references to rabies and the child get bit by the fox at the beginning of the movie. Fifteen minutes of plot that really didn't do much. It's really sad to see a movie with fine actors and a beautiful set wasted on such an awful, awful, story. There's not much more to say about this movie. Save yourself the time and watch c-span. It'll be more uplifting.
Above the law Bigot
NobleGMan13 January 2005
Paris Trout is an excellent movie, Dennis Hopper delivers and outstanding portrayal of a sick, demented man who really can't see the evil of his ways. He treats everyone with contempt and is just a truly nasty character. You wonder how he winds up marrying his wife and why his lawyer would continue to try and get this man out of every legal predicament he gets into. Barabara Hershey plays his sweet, innocent wife and does an excellent job of pulling off the portrayal. Ed Harris portrays his lawyer. Much of the film's power derives from Hopper's uncompromising performance in the title role, as an unapologetically bigoted loan shark who holds himself to be above the law in a small Southern town. I recently bought the movie on DVD to watch again, I had not watched the movie since the early 90's and it's still as powerful today as it was then. A friend of mine recommended the movie to my wife and I and it's one of the few dramas that I can really watch and hold my attention. Worth the price to own!
A literate portrayal of good and evil.
Jill-6812 February 2001
A very literate drama, filled with characters who can speak like poets. Ed Harris is a Southern gentleman lawyer caught up in a set of circumstances that soon escalate beyond his control. His frustration is palpable, and his quiet desperation makes him a man to be pitied. Barbara Hershey is an angry victim of demoralizing abuse in a stultifying environment of prejudice and psychosis. Dennis Hopper is the embodiment of this psychosis. And these three characters are tied together in a tortuous Devil's knot. A fascinating portrayal of good and evil. Put the kids to bed before you watch.
Well done, as long as you don't compare it to the book
ladygrey1312 May 2004
I recently checked this book out of the library and could not put it down! I was please to find out that there was a movie made and lucky enough to get my hands on a copy. The movie does do the book justice. The actors are all perfect for the roles. My only one real complaint is that, while Dennis Hopper is pretty creepy and played the role of Paris Trout better than anyone else could have.....he just didn't scare me like the Paris in the book did. He just wasn't mean enough. I also thought that they left out (or changed) to many of the confrontations between Paris and his wife. Maybe that is why he didn't come off as crazy as he did in the book. All in all I give it an A++. One of the better movies I've seen lately! If you've seen it, read the book too!
Paris Trout...nearly flawless, completely abhorrent and amazing
bobbycormier23 May 2010
put the kids and some of the adults to bed. hopper, hershey and harris are amazing. this is a truly brutal story. and reading some of the other reviews here, i was shocked to realize it was based on a true story. hopper is about as brutal of an innocent as you'll ever see portrayed on film. he just doesn't get it. he has no back-story that would indicate that his character is truly as repugnant and as destructive as a character could be. meanwhile we are all fed clues as to his time and his place in that time that would indicate why he has an innocence of mind that would drive him conversely to do the horrible things that he does. he believes he is above the law because he is a product of a person who would believe that way. he brutalizes his wife and, most distressingly, murders people who he has always believed that it was his right to lord over. the murder scene of the mother and her young girl are riveting(acting)and incredibly shocking. when Paris incredulously finds that the law is against him, he descends gradually into a period of psychosis that he never recovers from because everything inside of him tells him that he has done no wrong and that he is being conspired against. his paranoia makes him place glass on the floors of his bedroom to detect footprints. and, for my money, hopper's best scene (a simple, intense and short one) is when he opens his kitchen cabinet and says, "FOOD in CANS!" i won't go into more details of the story because of other reviews here. and i won't tell the ending. what i will say is that hopper's performance here is probably the most transcendent of his long career. -bobby cormier
..took two viewings..
fimimix26 June 2008
Warning: Spoilers
"Paris Trout" certainly is not for everyone. I, like many users. really could hardly stomach it, but couldn't stop watching it. I did not know it was based-on a best-winning novel; I wondered how such big stars would appear in it. I can only judge by other users' comments that director Stephen Gyllenhaal stayed fairly close to the plot of the novel. If it's main character, "Paris Trout" (Dennis Hopper), were that demented, I doubt if I would have read the entire book. While the plot is so disgusting, I am aware that such evil people do exist. I've known some.
I agree with other users who question the relevancy of the girl-fox part of the plot; in my opinion, she had no need to worry about developing rabies, because she was murdered, to set-up the movie's intention to tell a tale about a very wicked human. I thought ALL of those actors-actresses who played "the Sayers" were stellar in their roles. Ed Harris ("Harry Seagraves") was perfect for his role; lack of character-development does not inform the viewer he was "Trout's" lawyer for all of his evil doings. Ditto, Dennis Hopper ("Paris Trout") was evil incarnate in his role....frightening how well he portrayed a man who knew no remorse. Barbara Hershey ("Hanna Trout") was superb; I kept wondering how she could allow herself to be abused for so long, but humans CAN be trapped in such a psychologic hell. Ray McKinnon ("Carl Bonner" ?) was very convincing how a person can be controlled.
Author and screen-writer Peter Dexter either has a vivid imagination, or did a great deal of research, to write such evilness. His development of his characters is close to ingenuity. Whatever medium "Paris Trout" was intended for, it certainly brilliantly portrays the worst in human life. Twice was enough - I don't think I would watch this movie again.
I agree with other users who question the relevancy of the girl-fox part of the plot; in my opinion, she had no need to worry about developing rabies, because she was murdered, to set-up the movie's intention to tell a tale about a very wicked human. I thought ALL of those actors-actresses who played "the Sayers" were stellar in their roles. Ed Harris ("Harry Seagraves") was perfect for his role; lack of character-development does not inform the viewer he was "Trout's" lawyer for all of his evil doings. Ditto, Dennis Hopper ("Paris Trout") was evil incarnate in his role....frightening how well he portrayed a man who knew no remorse. Barbara Hershey ("Hanna Trout") was superb; I kept wondering how she could allow herself to be abused for so long, but humans CAN be trapped in such a psychologic hell. Ray McKinnon ("Carl Bonner" ?) was very convincing how a person can be controlled.
Author and screen-writer Peter Dexter either has a vivid imagination, or did a great deal of research, to write such evilness. His development of his characters is close to ingenuity. Whatever medium "Paris Trout" was intended for, it certainly brilliantly portrays the worst in human life. Twice was enough - I don't think I would watch this movie again.
Unusually Mature Southern Drama.
rmax3048234 August 2009
Warning: Spoilers
I'll make this summary as succinct as I can.
Dennis Hopper is Paris Trout, a big frog in a small 1950s Georgia pond, who runs a store and lends money. He's aided by Barbara Hershey, his wife in a loveless marriage. Hopper gets into a pointless argument with an African-American debtor, takes his assistant to the man's shabby house to collect, and winds up shooting a black woman and her twelve-year-old daughter. The daughter dies.
Ed Harris enters the picture as Hopper's defense counsel. Harris and Hershey fall for each other. Hopper is convicted of manslaughter and given a light sentence by an all-white jury, but immediately bribes his way out of the slams. Deserted by his wife, faced with the impending death of his mother, Hopper goes berserk and shoots several people, leaving himself for last.
Well. This would have been SO easy to turn into another trite story of noble blacks abused and railroaded by nasty whites, with Ed Harris the recherché hero who demands that the justice system adhere to the law.
But the intelligent screenplay by Peter Dexter doesn't make it that commercial -- or that morally easy. This is a believable story of confused and complex people, not a Manichaean tale of good and evil.
Without in any way excusing Hopper's character for the deliberate shooting, the screenplay gives him a personality that's both familiar and exotic as he edges from penny-pinching self-involved and gloomy into a paranoid psychotic.
The story isn't set in the segregated South of the 50s just to give it modernistic oomph either. The winds of post-war change were stirring the leaves of the magnolia and the kudzu. Hopper is a veteran of World War I who cannot accept the prodromal symptoms of this change. In his world, everyone carries a gun, cares for his neighbor, keeps the blacks in their place, and understands the norms -- not necessarily the laws. The story almost HAS to take place in the South because in no other part of the country are Americans so hard-headed about history and the received traditions.
Not that the South is denigrated. Far from it. Its corruption and racism are accepted matter-of-factly -- as understood -- but its citizens are happy enough to take part in such rites of intensification as Confederate Day parades. That includes the perceptive Ed Harris, who wears a grey Confederate kepi during the celebrations. Those traditions are held in honor by the script, although they are justly pruned of their least constructive features. At the end, when three bodies are being buried, Hershey's voice over tells us that that's the problem -- it's easier to bury things than forget them, and I assume that's Dexter's way of trying to tell us that the core values of the South -- self-reliance and all that -- will survive the current tide of social change. The script almost prefigures the Civil Rights backlash that would follow the 1960s when, on the witness stand, Hopper explains to the jury in simple words that "I figured a white man had as much right to make a living as a colored." (Affirmative action, anyone?)
The dialog is full of felicities. Dexter has captured the tendency of some of the more eloquent Southerners to pump up their remarks with occasional elegance, sometimes for comic effect. Harris is likely to use words like "contention" and "transcends" in the court room, while the populace at large is likely to have trouble reading its own written statement, as Hopper is on the stand. (Sophisticated Yankee-types sometimes use "ain't" for the same purposes.) At the same time, everyone speaks, moves, and thinks slowly, as if exhausted by the heat.
The performances are uniformly good. Aside from the principles, Wallace Wilkinson is fine as the ICU doctor who placidly describes how and why the little girl is dying of her wounds. Whoever plays the thin, languid, intense DA is equally outstanding.
The direction, in itself, is nothing special except to the extent that it guided the performances. At least it isn't MTV, which is a refreshing change. Imagine a director willing to give the audience time to absorb a scene and unwilling to treat us as easily bored teens who are eager to switch channels. The photography is too dark. The location shooting captures the ethos of the place but there's little in the way of exteriors.
Nice job though.
Dennis Hopper is Paris Trout, a big frog in a small 1950s Georgia pond, who runs a store and lends money. He's aided by Barbara Hershey, his wife in a loveless marriage. Hopper gets into a pointless argument with an African-American debtor, takes his assistant to the man's shabby house to collect, and winds up shooting a black woman and her twelve-year-old daughter. The daughter dies.
Ed Harris enters the picture as Hopper's defense counsel. Harris and Hershey fall for each other. Hopper is convicted of manslaughter and given a light sentence by an all-white jury, but immediately bribes his way out of the slams. Deserted by his wife, faced with the impending death of his mother, Hopper goes berserk and shoots several people, leaving himself for last.
Well. This would have been SO easy to turn into another trite story of noble blacks abused and railroaded by nasty whites, with Ed Harris the recherché hero who demands that the justice system adhere to the law.
But the intelligent screenplay by Peter Dexter doesn't make it that commercial -- or that morally easy. This is a believable story of confused and complex people, not a Manichaean tale of good and evil.
Without in any way excusing Hopper's character for the deliberate shooting, the screenplay gives him a personality that's both familiar and exotic as he edges from penny-pinching self-involved and gloomy into a paranoid psychotic.
The story isn't set in the segregated South of the 50s just to give it modernistic oomph either. The winds of post-war change were stirring the leaves of the magnolia and the kudzu. Hopper is a veteran of World War I who cannot accept the prodromal symptoms of this change. In his world, everyone carries a gun, cares for his neighbor, keeps the blacks in their place, and understands the norms -- not necessarily the laws. The story almost HAS to take place in the South because in no other part of the country are Americans so hard-headed about history and the received traditions.
Not that the South is denigrated. Far from it. Its corruption and racism are accepted matter-of-factly -- as understood -- but its citizens are happy enough to take part in such rites of intensification as Confederate Day parades. That includes the perceptive Ed Harris, who wears a grey Confederate kepi during the celebrations. Those traditions are held in honor by the script, although they are justly pruned of their least constructive features. At the end, when three bodies are being buried, Hershey's voice over tells us that that's the problem -- it's easier to bury things than forget them, and I assume that's Dexter's way of trying to tell us that the core values of the South -- self-reliance and all that -- will survive the current tide of social change. The script almost prefigures the Civil Rights backlash that would follow the 1960s when, on the witness stand, Hopper explains to the jury in simple words that "I figured a white man had as much right to make a living as a colored." (Affirmative action, anyone?)
The dialog is full of felicities. Dexter has captured the tendency of some of the more eloquent Southerners to pump up their remarks with occasional elegance, sometimes for comic effect. Harris is likely to use words like "contention" and "transcends" in the court room, while the populace at large is likely to have trouble reading its own written statement, as Hopper is on the stand. (Sophisticated Yankee-types sometimes use "ain't" for the same purposes.) At the same time, everyone speaks, moves, and thinks slowly, as if exhausted by the heat.
The performances are uniformly good. Aside from the principles, Wallace Wilkinson is fine as the ICU doctor who placidly describes how and why the little girl is dying of her wounds. Whoever plays the thin, languid, intense DA is equally outstanding.
The direction, in itself, is nothing special except to the extent that it guided the performances. At least it isn't MTV, which is a refreshing change. Imagine a director willing to give the audience time to absorb a scene and unwilling to treat us as easily bored teens who are eager to switch channels. The photography is too dark. The location shooting captures the ethos of the place but there's little in the way of exteriors.
Nice job though.
A memoir of a dark period in our history
mkidd3128 July 2011
Warning: Spoilers
This was a very interesting movie about a time period in America that is hardly discussed anymore. The movie also resonates on many levels. It can be seen as a harsh commentary on race and the dual system of justice that existed at the time, as well as a commentary on class relations between the rich and poor. Paris represented two things. First he represented the white ruling class in a southern Georgia town less than one hundred years after the end of slavery, and the psychological social structure that had developed and endured during slavery was still alive and well although rarely mentioned. In the movie race is like the 500 pound elephant in the room that everyone knows is there but we dare not discuss. Secondly Paris represents the business community which had it's ruling rights at that time in such a way that when he blatantly broke the law, he was indignant about being charged. As if to say "I am above the law". This attitude still exists among some capitalists who refuse to pay taxes by writing everything off but become upset by the creation of programs to assist the disenfranchised of society. So this movie was disturbing as a social commentary of a period in America's dark past, but needs to be remembered.
Till death do they part.
mark.waltz22 August 2023
Warning: Spoilers
That's what the brutal, lying, racist and completely hateful Paris Trout (Dennis Hopper) barks at his wife, Barbara Hershey, aghast at the hate crime that Hopper has committed against a black family, all because the young black man he loaned money for a car to needs money to repair it after an accident that he did not cause. Hopper demands loyalty that he doesn't deserve, having brutally shot the sister and niece. They lie together in a field, preparing to die, but the little girl manages to live another couple of days, leading to Hopper needing a lawyer, brought up on charges. The mother (Tina Lifford) surprisingly survives but continues to reside in the nightmare of those memories.
It's obvious that the court appointed Ed Harris absolutely despises his client, and the time is desperate for Hershey who fears her unjailed husband after he violates her in the most disgusting manner for showing up to the funeral. A bond grows between Hershey and Harris as the obviously psychotic Hopper becomes all the more sickening.
The performances are spectacular with Hopper frightening in every way, having no conscience as he murder for no reason and vows revenge for what he considers betrayal. His racism is just one aspect of how vile he is, and Hopper leaves no element uncovered in exposing this monster for the living, walking and breathing demon he is. Hershey is strong and vulnerable, and Harris gives every indication in his defense that while he has to defend Hopper, he'd like to see him end up locked away. Hard to stomach for how awful the actions are, but quite an important film, and a must for students of social injustice.
It's obvious that the court appointed Ed Harris absolutely despises his client, and the time is desperate for Hershey who fears her unjailed husband after he violates her in the most disgusting manner for showing up to the funeral. A bond grows between Hershey and Harris as the obviously psychotic Hopper becomes all the more sickening.
The performances are spectacular with Hopper frightening in every way, having no conscience as he murder for no reason and vows revenge for what he considers betrayal. His racism is just one aspect of how vile he is, and Hopper leaves no element uncovered in exposing this monster for the living, walking and breathing demon he is. Hershey is strong and vulnerable, and Harris gives every indication in his defense that while he has to defend Hopper, he'd like to see him end up locked away. Hard to stomach for how awful the actions are, but quite an important film, and a must for students of social injustice.
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
