Jed Ward (Gene Hackman) is a hard-nosed lawyer taking down corporations. He gets a class action lawsuit against an automaker after some cars explode. On the opposite side is his estranged daughter Maggie Ward (Mary Elizabeth Mastrantonio). She is ambitious eager to push for partnership in her firm. They don't get along since she discovered his cheating. She also claims that he abandons his clients after winning his cases. He had maintained his marriage. His wife Estelle tries to bridge the gap between father and daughter but she dies suddenly. Nick Holbrook (Larry Fishburne) is Jed's longtime assistant.

These are two top class actors. Director Michael Apted asks them for family dysfunction and they deliver. The movie lays out the situation but it doesn't have much movement after the mother's death. The court case is basic and has limited drama. The personal drama also doesn't make much movement. This is a movie with a world of potential but does little more than expected.

Mary Elizabeth Mastrantonio is a striking beauty, high cheekboned, wide mouthed, and with eyes so far apart that if they were any farther apart she'd lose binocular vision. Her features are so chiseled and her performance here so inanimate that with little trouble a ribbon could be draped across her frame and "Buonarroti" carved into it. Gene Hackman turns in his usual sturdy performance. Colin Friels as Mastrantonio's boss projects a certain oiliness and gives the impression that he's giving it everything he's got.

There is a long-standing conflict between ex-radical Hackman and his 1980s materialistic yuppie daughter. He represents a number of people injured or killed in collisions involving a defective car. She represents the auto makers. One side is humanistic and aggrieved. The other side is evil, underhanded, unethical, mean, exploitative, and generally smarmy. I leave you to guess which side is represented by Hackman and which by the auto industry in this courtroom flick.

Two questions. First, if you're an attorney, right, and your client gives you some damaging information and you squeal on your client and tell the other side, isn't that illegal? I understand that in some states the prosecution must disclose its evidence and witness list, but is it the case the other way around? Is it ethical for the plaintiff to secretly transmit information to the defendant? Question one and a half: Do I have those terms right?

Second question, when did "versus" become abbreviated as simply "v" instead of "vs"? Is this a conspiracy designed to make me feel out of date and foolish? (I'm going to call my lawyer; they've been doing this to me all my life. I hardly had time to get used to "estate tax" and now they're trying to change it to "death tax.")

There's an interesting trick pulled on the defense at the end of this trial, but man the film takes a long time getting there. I'd like to recommend this film if only because of Hackman's presence in it, but I really can't. That would surely be perjury or misfeasance or first-degree mopery or something. Want to see a good flick about a similar subject? It's inaccurate, so everyone says, but "The Verdict" is as good as they come.

The first half of "Class Action" is chiefly concerned with family dynamics -- the conflict between the ambitious corporate daughter and the ex-radical idealist father, with the sensible and loving mother acting as mediator. It's really manipulative.

The second half actually deals with the class action suit against the auto makers who produced something like the Ford Pinto that blows up if you look at it cross-eyed. It's informative. The bean counters at the corporation figure it's cheaper to pay off some chump money to complainants than it is to retool the production line and fix the problem. So there are a couple of hundred deaths? What can you say -- it's a human tragedy. But, wow, is it preachy. And the sermons come in rechauffe homilies -- "How much does a man's dignity cost? You take away his wife, his children, his body. I guess a few dollars more for a couple of eight by ten glossies doesn't cost much." The lines could have been written by a Magic 8 Ball.

Well, any viewer not given to intense introspection or careful attention to manipulativeness will finish the movie feeling mighty good about himself or herself for having been on the side of the angels all along. If that's the kind of mellow glow you're looking for, you'll find it here. Perversely, sometimes that's EXACTLY what I need, so I enjoy watching it once in a while.

Thanks to the recent legal decision against Toyota and memories of the ill-fated Ford Pinto, it's difficult not to think of "Class Action". Many reviewers like to think that court room dramas can always be better, but if you've ever witnessed real court proceedings then you'll discover they can be immensely boring and why film makers avoid it. What makes "Class Action" so refreshing is the context of the case, which is a bona fide problem considering numerous cars with dangerous design problems, the devious corporate view of profit over loss (including life),which gives the film an underplay of David vs. Goliath, the spicy exchanges in court, the conflict between father and daughter, which is essentially a clash of Right vs. Wrong, and of course first rate performances by the actors. There are a few predictable story lines, but that's to be expected. "Class Action" is altogether a very entertaining and insightful film.