blanche-2 I've reviewed 3700+ films on this site, and I have seen a good many more than that.There are some movies that just don't hold my interest. If I rent them or tune in to watch them, I find myself doing something else while they're on. What do these films have in common? They're lousy."Find Me Guilty," a 2006 film directed by Sidney Lumet, is a long movie that is beautifully cast, has a strong script, and a great director. It's a triple threat. Is it the greatest film ever made? No. Did it hold my interest? Yes, definitely.Surprisingly, the star is Vin Diesel, an action star who turns in the performance of his career, guided by a director who helped him hone his performance. As Jackie DiNorscio, a gangster on trial along with about 20 of his confederates on 76 RICO violations, he is simply fantastic.This is the true story of the longest Mafia trial in history, lasting 1-3/4 years after a ten-year investigation and with 850 exhibits shown. DiNorscio was already serving a sentence; he fired his attorney and served as his own lawyer.It's Diesel's performance that carries the film, and in real life, it carried the trial, too, as he charms the pants off of the jury with his jokes, his charm, and his sincerity, to the disgust of the prosecutor (Linus Roache) who is desperate to get his case separated from the rest of the trial.The standout besides Diesel was the passionate performance of Linus Roache, a wonderful actor, familiar to me from "Law and Order," who brought intensity and power to his role as prosecutor.The other actors in the film, all very good, were Alex Rocco, Ron Silver, Peter Dinklage, Richard Portnow, Annabella Sciorra, and Raul Esparza.A director who can keep one's interest during a long film is one thing; but a director who knows how to cast, who sees the potential in actors who are not obvious choices -- that's quite another. Lumet could do both and mine both the humor and drama in what must have been a real circus of a trial.

MBunge A great story and a greatish performance are largely for naught in Find Me Guilty. Director Sidney Lumet's rambling approach to his narrative and disconnected feel for his main character stop this movie from ever rising above the level of "eh". There are individual scenes and moments that are a great deal better than that. Lumet never manages to assemble them into anything of value and it often seems as though he doesn't want to. I could be wrong, but this whole motion picture felt like Lumet had no inkling of who Jackie DiNorscio was and why he was that way. He also appears to have been uncomfortable with portraying this mob story either too irreverently or with too much grit and grime. Find Me Guilty comes out weirdly tepid and uneven. It's not awful. It's just not very good.Jackie DiNorscio (Vin Diesel) was a New Jersey gangster who got swept up in the biggest and longest criminal trial in American history when the feds tried to take out an entire mob family in one fell swoop. Prosecutor Sean Kierney (Linus Roche) assembled a mountain of evidence that took almost two years to get through. Lead defense attorney Ben Klandis (Peter Dinklage) tried to get around that by painting it all as anti-Italian stereotypes. Mob boss Nick Calabrese (Alex Rocco) became a seething cauldron of anger under the pressure and Judge Finestein (Ron Silver) tried to keep the proceedings from falling apart. Complicating it all was Jackie's efforts at defending himself, which relied more on humor than the law and more on Jackie's absolute loyalty to his friends and his chosen life than anything like the truth.Vin Diesel is almost great as Jackie. I'm not sure why anyone should be surprised at that. You can tell the difference between a guy who can act and one who gets by on attitude and personality. Diesel can act. He's no Dustin Hoffman. He's not even Val Kilmer. But he can act. The only thing holding Diesel back here is that Lumet and company have given him an extremely binary character. There's joking, sentimental Jackie and then there's street thug Jackie who's never more than an inch away from violence. He switches back and forth between them like a blinking neon sign and Diesel is given no chance to play anything in the middle or find a whole that encompasses both. If, at the end of this movie, you can explain why Jackie is so different from every other mobster we see, you're much more observant than I am.Lumet is just as ineffectual when it comes to the trial. He uses actual court transcripts for some of the dialog, but it's almost as though he trapped himself by doing so. Lumet obviously decided that his story would be about Jackie and this triangle of people who orbited around him in court. The prosecutor, the lead defense attorney and the judge, however, are an uneasy fit. Only Linus Roche is given anything like an independent character to play but Lumet can't decide on what kind it should be. Sometimes he's the overweening heavy opposite Jackie. Sometimes he's the man fighting the good fight. Sometimes he's the tragic victim of the absurdities of the legal system. Dinklage and Silver don't have enough to do to vacillate like that. They're just props that stand there opposite Jackie and do what needs to be done to facilitate his scene.And while Lumet was obviously aware of the comedic ridiculousness of the trial, Jackie's behavior and how it all worked out, it sure appears as though he was hesitant to embrace it for fear of portraying violent criminals in too light a fashion. In a post-Goodfellas world, showing gangsters to be buffoonish scamps was a bridge too far.My ultimate impression is that Lumet, and the audience, would have been better served if he had tried to make a darkly sarcastic film about the trial itself with Jackie merely comic relief in the overall drama. Imagine making a movie about Watergate where the main character was G. Gordon Liddy. That's what Find Me Guilty is like, though probably a bit funnier. It's still not something I can recommend.

moviesleuth2 Early on in his career, Vin Diesel has been cast as the Arnold Schwartznegger for the iPod generation. The range required for these types of roles is strictly limited; all these guys need to do is act tough in the face of a lot of violence and spit off a few good one-liners. However, actors who have made their mark on Hollywood in one type of role get the urge to stretch their talents in new directions. Sometimes this fails, but sometimes it succeeds. This is one of the latter.This is the story of the longest criminal trial in US history. Dozens of members from all ranks of the Lucchese crime family are on trial for a number of crimes. The prosecution, led by Sean Kierney (Linus Roache) thinks its totally prepared. But then one of the charged, Jackie DiNorscio (Vin Diesel) throws them all a fast one: he decides to defend himself (at this point it should be known that those who defend themselves rarely win). And let's just say that his style is completely at odds with normal courtroom behavior.Vin Diesel is a revelation. Even in his action roles there was always a hint of something more than an Arnold Schwartzenegger type. This is the first chance Diesel has gotten a chance to show it, and I'm surprised that he didn't earn at least a Golden Globe nomination. He's funny, yet there is a lot of depth to the character as well, and Diesel nails it. There are of course co-stars, but this is Diesel's show. Linus Roache is solid as the prosecutor, but he just doesn't have the screen presence that the other actors, especially Diesel, have in order to take his share of the spotlight. Peter Dinklage is terrific as the short Ben Klandis, who's on hand to give advice to Jackie. Dinklage has become one of the most reliable character actors in Hollywood, and this is another great performance. The late great Ron Silver has some funny moments as the judge, but he also has a heart.Director Sidney Lumet has a spotty career. He's directed a number of classics, such as "12 Angry Men," but he's had his share of duds (like his most recent film, "Befor the Devil Knows You're Dead"). Lumet's approach is standard and character based. The problem with that is the only times the film (and Diesel) really come alive is in the courtroom. Diesel holds his own in the non-courtroom scenes, but there's just no energy in them and they become a little dull.The film flopped, and while unfair, it's understandable (this is not exactly typical fare for Diesel's usual fans, and it's not good enough for the "film lovers" who only venture outside the norm when films are endorsed by the almighty Oscar). It's a good film, but not a classic.My rating: Rated R for Pervasive Strong Language and Some Violence.

merylmatt I was not surprised that Vin Diseal was so good in this movie. His role really is not a stretch from who he is in real life - a tough guy who grew up in New York City.That this is based on a real court room trial makes it all the funnier. The script writers used much of the transcripts from the trial of Mobster Jack DiNorscio. Crime may not pay, but it can be hilarious.Critics of this movie get wrapped around the axle that it is sympathetic to criminals. Forget the moral outrage, this particular criminal was funny, he was human, he did terrible things which the movie does portray.Maybe I'm more forgiving than some because I've known people like this in real life - not criminals, but real life everyday people who walk, talk and think like "Fat Jack" DiNorscio. You don't need a formal education to be smart, and you can rise to being a Prosecutor or Judge without smarts.I say watch, relax and enjoy.