User reviews

Just catching this now -- wasn't here when it aired. Of its time, of course. I haven't read the books -- but as I have mentioned in reviews for other book-to-screen adaptations, when you read a book, you are the director; when you watch an adaptation, you are watching someone else's direction of the same story. So, there will be something wanting, no matter what you do.

Storylines are intertwined quite smoothly. Mr. Elliott's performance as the smart, wealthy, capable attorney was as stellar as ever (and you can see glimpses of his future successes, in this performance). Ms. Zuniga had to play a character that seems at odds with itself every so often. There were times when I was scratching my head about that character's reactions to her circumstances. Ms. Kalember did a good job in both parts. Mr. Ventresca portrays the sleazy lawyer perfectly -- he inspires loathing right off the bat. The second storyline ends rather oddly, a little difficult to suspend disbelief, but hey, this is TV, not real life.

Ms. Whitman's Elena is the one wildcard in this mini-series. A good job by a very young performer, she was able to show different reactions a child might experience between warring parents wonderfully well.

You'll need to watch the two parts in sequence to get the overarching storyline. Enjoy!

You could do worse than staring at David James Elliott for three hours.

This was a two-part miniseries featuring the same characters in different stories. The second story is better than the first.

The first part has Paget (Elliott) being asked by his former lover and mother of his son (Sharon Farrell) to defend her when she is charged with murder, though Paget hasn't practice criminal law in years. During the case Paget and his assistant Peralta - she is in a bad marriage- declare their feelings for one another.

The second part has Paget being accused of killing Peralta's husband.

Look for baby boomer actor Don Francks as well as Tricia O'Neill.

It was a very interesting movie for television. Would purchase it if possible. I did tape it already and have watched it many, many times.

I think DJE(David James Elliott) does a fantistic job. But think DJE always does a fantastic job in anything he does. His facial expressions are just super. But then again he is a super actor. The rest of the cast did a wonderful job also.

There are some parts I would have like to have seen played differently, but then again I didn't write it so I'll just enjoy the movie over and over again.

I love watching David James Elliott. I'm a JAG fan all the way. It was great not being sure whether he was going to turn out to be the good guy or bad guy. This movie had me on the edge of my seat until the end. Great acting. Great movie!

This was an excellent movie since it kept you guessing until the end. Good courtroom scenes and movie went at a good pace especially since it was 3 hours long. Definitely recommend it.

All there is to say about this Poor, Poor mini series is Don't waste your time. It is beyond trash, all reels should be destroyed. Yes, It was that awful! I was so excited to see it after I had read the book. Which is a great court room drama. The book so amazing, which is usually the case. Yet, This mini series, WOW, It really was pathetic, the every thing that should not be allowed for viewers, (in case they have a sensitive tummy).

No *'s

Acting, Well there was not any.

Worse then the Worst Soap.

READ the book, it is Excellent!!!!!! ! !

The story is riveting, although the screenplay just bit too drawn out in places. I think the 3 hour run time could be shaved by a skillful editor by deleting a couple of scenes here and there without losing any of the drama or suspense. After a couple of hours in, the viewer knows where the climax is headed to and I felt myself saying to the tv, let's get on with it. Every single actor did superb work in their roles...it was far superior than most made for tv productions. The only other flaw would be something for trial attorneys. The defense attorney does a great job shooting holes in the key eyewitness testimony, but does not even cross-examine the final 'clothing' witness for offering what is only circumstantial evidence. Then, in summation, the defense does not even mention the prosecution's wholly circumstantial case (clearly reasonable doubts were on the table) but rather gives only a brief appeal to character. The final, final scene, although delivering great shock appeal, would likely be unnecessary to the outcome if the defense attorney was scripted to be more adept at courtroom defense.