Sick and sad message

I finally watched this film today not knowing anything about its plot, only that Edward Norton pulls off a magnificent performance. That he did, and the same goes for most of the cast. Now, to the story, and, more importantly, its message.

Okay, to be honest I saw that twist coming from the first act. There were times when I doubted myself and I innerly hoped I was indeed wrong. Cue final scene and Aaron admits there was no Aaron. So, story aside, what are we left to think? That people with multiple-disorder syndromes are just hoaxters? That there isn't such an illness after all and that regardless of circumstance people must face the same consequences? Even death???

It really hurt to do so, especially considering Norton's stellar acting, but I had to give this movie a 1 as I got extremely sickened by the sad and inhumane undertones. It's like the author of the book this is based on (and most likely shared by the filmmaker) is trying to tell all potential jury members: "Never believe their insanity bogus. Hang 'em all!"

It just makes me want to puke.

I think rating it 1 is so utterly wrong, because of Norton's brilliant performance if nothing else.

That being said I would agree that the movie is seemingly sending a pro capital punishment and anti insanity defense message. A bit before the climax Gere's character says "I choose to believe that not all crimes are committed by bad people. And I try to understand that some very, very good people do some very bad things.", only to be "proven wrong" in a way in the end "Hey, you're gonna thank me down the road, because this is gonna toughen you right up, Martin Vail! You hear me? That's a promise!"

It IS true that "some very good people" are capable of doing "some very bad things" and it may seem like this movie is blurring that message in the end. Still, it also shows the well-admired priest as an abuser, his influential friend who was pro capital punishment as a murderer, and the act of murder validated by the prosecutor herself "Do you know what I would do if someone did that to me? I would kill him, I wouldn't hesitate". If anything, it raises questions of who is a good person and what is a bad thing.
If murder out of revenge for abuse is bad, than voila, so is the capital punishment, that is nothing more than murder out of revenge. If murder out of revenge is done by a manipulative person who we condone for that, does that make it any less right or wrong?

On my opinion not making things black and white is a quality and this movie definitely has it - even if the director didn't intend to take a stand on the topics OP mentioned it was all still very thought provoking and at the same time ambiguous enough not to be classified one way or the other.

There is exactly zero evidence to support the existence of dissociative identity disorder (and all the fugue disorders, really). There is no mechanism in the human brain that allows consciousness to be divided and isolated from itself. The movie does a great job of underscoring the reality that psychiatrists are fools to believe in something that has no scientific basis.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0074958/

It surprises me how many different views a person can take on a single movie. For me, this movie wasn't so much about faking mental disabilities, or the catholic church and their affiliation with abuse of choir boys. I thought the movies central point was based on Martin Vails realization at the end that acting as a defense attorney for known criminals and keeping them out of jail isn't something he can justify anymore.

Martin Vail is a top defense attorney who has made his career defending known criminals with no regard for morality issues and he takes on the case for free just because he knows how famous it will make him if he can win it. It's the classic case of watching a bad person learn a lesson in a brutal way but in my dream world Martin Vail changed his ways after this case and stopped defending men like Joey and others he knew to be guilty.

Marty - "I don't care if you're innocent"

Throughout the movie Martin Vail narrates and tries to convince us that everyone deserves the best defense possible regardless of the circumstance but of course our justice system is not perfect and this stance allows for situations such as these to occur where a guilty man can be allowed to walk free because of the way our system is designed. I would agree that the moral of the movie is somewhat questionable because it could be interpreted as saying that out justice system is favored too heavily for the defendants and this is a scary notion. Perhaps the movie writers would argue for a system of guilty before proven innocent which exists in other nations and is a pretty scary idea in my mind.

In that final courtroom scene it seemed obvious to me that Martin knew exactly what he was doing setting up the inevitable confrontation even giving hints along the way. He wasn't trying to get an innocent man off he was just trying to win any way possible and using that as excuse on the way. Morality had never been an issue for him before it wasn't going to be this time. He even described his case in the beginning as a *beep* story".

Rating a movie a 1/10 because you disagree with one of the more subtle morally objectionable view points that you inferred from it seems kinda silly too when there's so many other factors at play. Edward Norton's performance alone has to count for something.

You're an utter moron for giving that rating on that basis. And the reason you're a moron for doing that should already be obvious, but it clearly isn't, to you.

Idiots like YOU make me sick,

[deleted]