Who Played in Legal Eagles

Who Played in Legal Eagles

Legal Eagles is a 1986 American drama film directed by Ivan Reitman. The screenplay was written by Jim Cash and Jack Epps, represented by the Creative Artists Agency (CAA), based on a story by Cash, Epps and Ivan Reitman based on an idea by Reitman, who was also represented by CAA. Reitman has long been interested in doing something in the art world, with lawyers as protagonists, “because they are our contemporary rental weapons involved in every aspect of modern life. I thought the interaction of the two worlds would make both a good comedy and a drama. [2] A desperate Chelsea arrives at Logan`s apartment and reveals that she went to Taft`s residence and threatened him at gunpoint. She claims Taft took the gun from her and hit her. Chelsea spend the night with Logan. The next morning, the police burst into the room and arrested Chelsea for Taft`s murder. The resulting scandal ends Logan`s career and he reluctantly teams up with Kelly.

On Rotten Tomatoes, the film has an approval rating of 44%, based on reviews from 16 critics. [8] Viewers surveyed by CinemaScore gave the film a B+ rating on an A-F scale.[9] Detective Cavanaugh is actually the former associate of Joe Brock, Taft and Forrester, whom they blamed for the fraudulent scheme, which led to Brock`s sentence in prison. At the Taft Gallery, Brock forces Kelly and Chelsea to smash a large hollow sculpture hiding Sebastian Deardon`s missing paintings, now valued at $20 million. Brock took the paintings and then set fire to the gallery to escape during the evacuation. Logan arrives and fights with Brock, who falls to death. Logan finds Kelly and Chelsea, grabs the paintings and the three leave the burning gallery. Outside, Chelsea tearfully reveals the inscription “To Chelsea” on the back of his father`s painting. After all charges against Chelsea were dropped, Logan`s former boss, who profited from Logan`s publicity, offered him his former job. Logan decides to continue working with Kelly, with whom he now has a romantic relationship. In October 1985, it was announced that Reitman would direct, starring Redford, Winger and Hannah. [5] “I love sophisticated comedies from the late `40s, and I see it as that kind of movie,” Reitman said.

[6] “For years, I felt like Parafin had been poured on me,” Redford said. “I wanted to do something lighter.” [2] Filming lasted six weeks with a two-week break. Redford`s fees were $4 million and the budget was over $30 million. [2] “Redford captures the screen better than anyone I`ve ever seen,” Reitman said during filming. “To compete with him on screen, you need someone with a lot of substance. You need another star. And movies where you don`t have anyone with the strength of women like Streisand and Fonda or men like Hoffman and Newman are erased from the screen. I think Debra Winger has stuff like that.

That is what I am counting on. It seems to be in the footage we`ve shot so far. [7] By choosing to verify your ticket for this film, you authorize us to match the email address associated with your Rotten Tomatoes account with an email address associated with the purchase of a Fandango ticket for the same film. A New York District Attorney works and flirts with her opponent and her insane artist client, who is on trial for a murder she did not commit. A New York District Attorney works and flirts with her opponent and her insane artist client, who is on trial for a murder she did not commit. A New York District Attorney works and flirts with her opponent and her insane artist client, who is on trial for a murder she did not commit. Robert Redford as Assistant District Attorney and Debra Winger as intrepid defense attorney representing Hannah. Winger believes that Redford will not sue his client if he knows all the facts, so she takes her client to a political banquet, interrupts Redford`s speech, holds a press conference and, what do you know, manages to interest Redford.

Tom Logan: Ladies and gentlemen, Chelsea Deardon didn`t kill Victor Taft. The prosecution has suggested a possible motive, but it is based on hearsay, hypotheses and circumstantial evidence. Evidence that appears to have some substance, but on closer inspection is irrelevant to this case.