BUL 3130 Movie Review Extra Credit Assignment Watch one of the following movies
ID: 447427 • Letter: B
Question
BUL 3130 Movie Review Extra Credit Assignment
Watch one of the following movies and answer the questions below on a separate piece of paper. Your review should be typed, spaced.
A Civil Action (1998)
A Few Good Men (1992)
Amistad (1997))
Anatomy of a Murder ( 1959)
A Time to Kill (1996)
Class Action (1991)
Erin Brockovich ( 2000)
To Kill a Mockingbird (1962)
12 Angry Men (1957)
Kramer vs Kramer (1979)
Philadelphia (1993)
Presumed Innocent ( 1990)
My Cousin Vinny ( 1992)
Inherit the Wind (1960)
Judgement at Nuremeberg (1961)
Reversal of Fortune (1990)
In the Name of the Father (1993)
The Insider (1999)
The People vs. Larry Flynt (1996)
The Verdict (1982)
I watched Erin Brockovich ( 2000), but if you feel comfortable choosing another movie that is completely understandable
SHORT ANSWERS:
WHICH MOVIE DID YOU WATCH?
REAL CASE OR FICTION
CIVIL/CRIMINAL CASE
STATE OR FEDERAL CASE
WHO ARE THE PARTIES TO THE SUIT?
WHO ARE THEY ATTORNEYS?
SUMMARIZE THE MAIN LEGAL ISSUE
WHO WON?
ANSWER IN PARAGRAPH FORM:
WAS JUSTICE SERVED? WHY OR WHY NOT?
HOW DOES THE MOVIE PORTRAY THE ATTORNEYS and THEIR ETHICS?
WOULD THIS MOVIE INSPIRE SOMEONE TO BE A LAWYER? WHY OR WHY NOT?
YOUR OPINION OF THE MOVIE AS WHOLE- INTERESTING OR INSPIRING?
DID YOU LIKE IT? WHY OR WHY NOT? INCLUDE SOME DETAILS
MEMORABLE QUOTE FROM THE MOVIE;
Explanation / Answer
WHICH MOVIE DID YOU WATCH? -12 Angry Men
REAL CASE OR FICTION - Fiction
CIVIL/CRIMINAL CASE- Criminal Case
STATE OR FEDERAL CASE- State
WHO ARE THE PARTIES TO THE SUIT? - the convict is a boy who is alleged to have killed his father
WHO ARE THEY ATTORNEYS? - its a new technique wherein a group of people chosen to arrive at a verdict
SUMMARIZE THE MAIN LEGAL ISSUE - The case is of a young boy living in a shanty slum , alleged to have killed his father , but the technique used to resolve it is a bit different from other cases
The issue is to arrive at a consensus among all the jurors and to prove unanimously that the boy (convict) is guilty of murder
WHO WON? this movie is based on techniques of consensus building, intially among the jurors ,only one person is of the opinion that the boy is not guilty while the rest assumed him to be guilty of the murder
The one juror with his negotiation technique is able to persuade and bring forth many facts and with lot further probe and dliberations ,finally it is concluded that the boy is not guilty of murder
ANSWER IN PARAGRAPH FORM:
WAS JUSTICE SERVED? WHY OR WHY NOT?
Yes, the justice was served ,because it gave the poor boy enough support in form of deliberation to arrive at a right conclusion
HOW DOES THE MOVIE PORTRAY THE ATTORNEYS and THEIR ETHICS?
The technique adopted ,which aims at complete consensus without which a verdict was not possible
WOULD THIS MOVIE INSPIRE SOMEONE TO BE A LAWYER? WHY OR WHY NOT?
Yes, especially the negotiations and consensus building techniques presented by the juror in terms of asserting his points also making other listen
YOUR OPINION OF THE MOVIE AS WHOLE- INTERESTING OR INSPIRING?
Both interesting and inspiring , the best part of it explains that one need not shout and vent anger to prove something , the most effective way to consensus building can be through facts and with equal poise ,at the same time making others think on the points beyond their own subjective bias
DID YOU LIKE IT? WHY OR WHY NOT? INCLUDE SOME DETAILS
It is one of my favourite movies , for it include an art of getting message across to the most difficult audience and with lot of persuasion by winning arguments
the apporach presented in this movie, if applied in real life can also do wonders in communication
Related Questions
Navigate
Integrity-first tutoring: explanations and feedback only — we do not complete graded work. Learn more.