Few arguments about this great film

"First of all, the way Ms Foster was treating Daniel seemed exaggerated and not appropriate. If she is supposed to be among the smartest people who are working in Judgment City, smart people (from the way the film portrays it) don't usually treat other like this, even if she is supposed to be prosecuting him."

You're not specific about how you believe she treated him. What do you find inappropriate exactly? And how do you think smart people normally treat one another? I'm just not clear on this.

"What's with those funny/awkward moments she had to show from Daniels life? Most of them had nothing to do with fear, and I can see no use of showing them but to humiliate Daniel and make fun of him. Is that how smart people are supposed to do things?"

Fear may not have been a direct cause of those little moments, but fear led up to them, maybe. Besides, it also shows his overall dumbness as a "little brain," and need to perhaps go back to Earth.

"Female Judge: "Thank you so much. That was so nice."
Ms. Foster: "Mmm, it was nothing."

I don't see how that exchange implies that Foster gave a "gift" to the judge. It's not Earth, it's not a courtroom, and Foster's not a "lawyer." These people don't even sleep, do you really see them giving and accepting gifts the way we do?

How I took it was the judge was thanking her for the bright and friendly greeting, and I thought it was funny how Daniel looked thoroughly confused by that. He probably read into it the same way you did, but it was really just an innocent exchange. We're supposed to not understand a lot of things the big brains do.

As for the Casio thing, I don't think Daniel was just approached by a random someone looking for an investment. Daniel was given a stock tip by someone he knew and trusted at a time he was looking for something to invest in, but because of that deep-seeded fear of success, he wouldn't take the risk. Cattle just felt safe to him, clueless as he was about it.

In my opinion, much of the point in the surprising behavior was to make us uncertain in an amused way. The behavior and conclusions you mention seem dubious to us as indicative of something much more intelligent, but is that simply because we're not so intelligent and thus don't get it?

That wouldn't have worked as nicely if most folks thought that the behavior of the seemingly permanent residents of Judgment City was clearly more intelligent. In my opinion, it's a very skilled and subtle approach by Albert Brooks that has both comedy value and a serious philosophical aspect.


http://www.rateyourmusic.com/~JrnlofEddieDeezenStudies

The way I view the film and the actions in the "Court", is that they were all events to help Daniel come to a realization. Throughout the film, we are told that he isn't necessarily on trial, but in a sort of test to see if he is ready to move forward. Everything that happened in the "Court" was a chance for him to deal with his fears head on. In the end, everything culminates with him facing his fears and fighting to be with Julia and move on. So my interpretation is that Ms. Fosters actions, and days that she showed, were all a test. When Bob doesn't show up on one of the days, that is a test that Daniel needs to overcome. He was faced with someone who is unfamiliar. We see from Julia's basic demeanor and encounters, her mind is already in a safe zone, so her "Court" seemed to be a whole lot more laid back.

First of all, the way Ms Foster was treating Daniel seemed exaggerated and not appropriate. If she is supposed to be among the smartest people who are working in Judgment City, smart people (from the way the film portrays it) don't usually treat other like this, even if she is supposed to be prosecuting him.
I think mainly she was doing it because she really had hatred towards Bob Diamond, especially when Bob rubbed in the fact that she lost her last case. So really it was a fight between them

What's with those funny/awkward moments she had to show from Daniels life? Most of them had nothing to do with fear, and I can see no use of showing them but to humiliate Daniel and make fun of him. Is that how smart people are supposed to do things?
She did say that a bunch of them were just plain stupid based. The mouthwash shampoo perv scene, moving car one, the saw table, the chainsaw ones. The used car I think was poor decision on account of Daniel knew they laughed behind his back and yet he didn't go and confront them.

The coat hanger car window one I never understood what that was all about

And what's with these 2 lines:

Female Judge: "Thank you so much. That was so nice."
Ms. Foster: "Mmm, it was nothing."

Doesn't this imply that Ms. Foster gave a gift to the judge? Is that ethical? Is that how smart people act?
Knowing her, probably. Or probably they were being sarcastic to each other.


My second issue is about one of Daniel's 9 days situations, the one in which he declined the Casio advice, which was classified by Ms Foster as a result of fear.

I don't think that has anything to do with fear. In the investment world, it's not uncommon to be approached by people who make such promising claims to make you invest money in bogus companies. The worst we can say about Daniel here is that he failed to do his Due Diligence properly. He ended up investing in something anyway, and didn't have fear to invest in cattle. So his failure is not due to fear but due to poor judgment.
This one really has me thinking that too. What's more interesting is that she says today he would have had this much. Well, he's dead 2 days ago, so how much was it then, and only 1 day to enjoy it. What if Daniel invested, then she probably would have grilled him for not cashing out and now the money's no good since he is dead.

That's what I could think of about the film so far. It's still my favorite, and I always watch it again every once in a while.

stop over thinking- was a great film leave it at that