Compared with the aforementioned films, this 1996 "City Hall" by John Cusack and Al Pacino is quite ordinary in terms of fame and quality. Feel a little regretful. The reason, the more important point is that the two characters are not easy to set up. Although there are changes before and after, they are difficult to be liked. Perhaps the politician has never been very popular. Probably this is also the "White House". What makes "Feng Yun" different.
Here are spoilers
--------------------------------------------
pull away Well, having said that, the storyline of this film has a bit of a reversal at the end, but it is not very unexpected. The audience may be able to figure it out with clues before Cusack understands it, but Cusack said in the judge’s office The phrase "what about the mayor" still gave people a sense of awakening. I revisited this film six years later, and even before Cusack spoke it, I remembered the lines of the play. It can be seen that the arrangement here and Cusack’s performance left a very deep impression on me, and it is near the end. The dialogue between Pacino and Cusack became the two highlights of the film. In contrast, Pacino’s passionate speech at the church seemed very abrupt from the plot arrangement, far less than his roars in "Scent of a Woman", "Blowing Inside Story" or "Devil's Spokesperson" Brilliant.
The nephew of the black boss is going to be sentenced, he intercedes with the mayor through the local consortium, the mayor makes a phone call, and the judge subtracts some prison terms-this seems to us to be an unusual thing. But in the United States, obstruction of justice is a felony, not to mention a small New York mayor, even President Nixon is also planted on it. In the same era and the same society under the rule of law, the two countries’ understanding of the law is so different: either we are abnormal, or they are abnormal.
View more about City Hall reviews