From the Hip

Tonal shifts, murder by hammer (not shown), Judd Nelson's hair, and yes, even a vibrator.

What I've just described to you sounds like a misheard phone conversation. It's not. What it is, is a list of ingredients in this movie. From the Hip is a movie that has all those things and is still somehow watchable. Stranger too, it's entertaining.

From the Hip should never work. And it doesn't. Not for a second. But it's fun and it holds your attention until you forget just how preposterous and unrealistic it all is.

It's a legal dramedy. Yes, it really does combine three genres, and you know what? There's even a little thriller in there. The movie doesn't exactly merge genres, but rather, it switches from one to the other at certain times. It starts out as a screwball comedy, moves into a heavy legal drama, and by the third act, it enters gripping legal thriller territory. Yes, the tonal shifts are that jarring, but somehow give the movie charm. It's as if the screenwriter forgot the earlier parts while writing the later parts, and once he put it together, realized he had no time to make them fit better. But it is fun.

Judd Nelson and John Hurt are great in this movie, and Judd Nelson gives probably the most likable performance of his career. Unlike the tool he played in The Breakfast Club (1985), you actually want to root for his character here.

While it's totally unbelievable and unrealistic, it's pretty fun and entertaining, and if you weren't super into the over-the-top comedy in the beginning, it gets better, so don't worry. It's like if Hudson Hawk (1991) became a completely serious movie halfway through. It even maintains the seriousness right up until the climax, which seems very derivative of many other legal thrillers until you realize that this movie preceded them all. Check it out. It's worth at least one watch, and it's just a nice movie to be able to say you saw.

Mmm, I liked it… quite a bit. Bob Clark writes/directs this comedy courtroom drama with many screwball antics but also well managed serious elements. Having it sit in both camps could've been disastrous, but while it isn't always 100% in convening them together. I found it hard not be gripped, and trying to wipe the grin of my face. However it's a glowingly clever little concept (falling in two parts), which is brought across by Judd Nelson's bouncy performance. He plays Robin Weathers a young, brash Boston lawyer that goes about things in a very unconventional manner, but these questionable methods gets the results. Embarrassment for his firm, but everyone else loves it. So after his first big win, he joins the firm's partnership and then finds himself dumped with a murder case which he has no hope of winning. This was purposely done, so his partners could get rid of him.

The smart-lipped script is very agreeable with the smooth flowing pace and playful score adding to the amusing diversions. The comical interplay is quite heavy with ballistic energy in the early stages as the courtroom is a show-stopping circus of noisy gags (which has great snappy performance from Ray Walston as the judge of the courtroom), but when it gets to the main case that's when those dramatic aspects mingle in (like its stinging if transparent climax), but never leaving the theatrically colorful zinger and humour behind. Clark makes it work, as it's never over-cooked and has a purpose to steering the action and situations. John Hurt is amazing as the intensely cocky defendant that Nelson's character must try to acquit. There's fine support from the likes of Darren McGavin, Dan Monahan, David Alan Grier, Nancy Marchand and undoubtedly lovable Elizabeth Perkins (whose beautiful smile simply lights up a room).

A novel crowd-pleaser that's always thinking on its feet.

Quite simply I love this movie, not because I have an affinity to any of the actors but simply because it's a very easy way to pass a couple of hours.

For movie which attempts to broach one of the legal systems greatest dilemmas (how to defend the guilty) the screenwriters and director somehow manage to deal with the issue seriously yet without allowing the movie to become heavy and dry.

You will laugh as there are many genuinely funny scenes and yet you will also appreciate the very real and serious ethical dilemma "stormy" finds himself in.

John Hurt does steal the show somewhat with a performance that is nothing short of chilling, but the movie is not just about John and the supporting cast are pretty good as well. Criticism of Judd Nelson for this role is certainly unwarranted.

If you want a nice easy watch, which you can chose to just enjoy or to actually have a proper think about then this is a very good place to start.

Do yourself a favour find the movie in a bargain bin, watch it and wonder why you never bothered to see it before

A funny, insightful script that is treated a bit too lightly by the principals. No one looks like they're taking the story seriously except John Hurt, whose performance towers above everyone else's (it's too bad he only occupies the screen for 20 or so minutes). There are the odd moments of idiocy, and the entire effect is like an above average episode of a television law drama.

My favorite scene is where Judd Nelson crouches behind a table full of classic literature, tossing out books at the judge. Sometimes, Nelson doesn't quite know what his character is doing, but he manages to entertain and keep the focus on him.

But the first half of the movie is farce and the second half (Hurt's story) is serious drama. At one point this is signaled by Dan Monahan, who says, "This isn't fun anymore." There are some good gags throughout and the drama could hold its own if the first part of the movie weren't so long. It could have been shortened considerably to make the John Hurt story longer and more effective. I enjoyed watching this movie and would recommend it to anyone who likes television law type shows.

What should an attorney do when defending a client they know is guilty? From the hip deals with this legal dilemma in a very amusing format. Judd Nelson is hilarious as an irreverent attorney who gets results. I thought this film was hilarious. Why people, thought this was a "mongrel of a film", makes me wonder, again, if they were actually awake when reviewing this film. Lighten up. I give this film three out of four stars.