Perry Kate Very very predictable, including the post credit scene !!!

Redwarmin This movie is the proof that the world is becoming a sick and dumb place

Beystiman It's fun, it's light, [but] it has a hard time when its tries to get heavy.

Billy Ollie Through painfully honest and emotional moments, the movie becomes irresistibly relatable

jamesraeburn2003 A lawyer friend of Perry Mason, Frank Halloran (Mason Adams), persuades him to defend a reformed mobster - or is he? - called Johnny Sorrento (Michael Nader) who has been accused of killing his wife. The police believe he did it because just before she died she announced her intention to divorce him, which would have cost him millions of dollars. There is also a lot of circumstantial evidence pointing towards his guilt. Mason's list of suspects includes Johnny's 21-year-old son Jeff (Sean Kanan) who despises his father for his womanising and kicking him out of their home over his past drug addiction. Then there is the Calders (Pamela Bowen and Howard McGillin) who had done a business deal with Sorrento to open a fitness centre. Under the terms of the contract, they would stand to come into a fortune if Sorrento were to be convicted. Also, a heavy called Dave Barrett (Richard Portnow) took the rap for the murder of a drug baron who some believe was really murdered by Sorrento and it transpires that he was paid $250,000 whilst he was in jail. Did somebody pay him for confessing to a crime he didn't actually commit and does it relate to current events?A fun and largely successful attempt to vary the series formula by having Perry question his own professional ethics as he decides whether or not to defend a former gangster. He accepts the case after his colleagues, Ken Malansky (William R Moses) and Della Street (Barbara Hale), remind him about a speech he gave to a law seminar in which he said that everyone should have the right to a proper defence no matter how lowly or despised the client might be. While Della believes he should take the case, Malansky thinks he should reject it out of hand prompting Perry to ask "Well, who should we represent? Only college professors, presidential candidates or Nobel prize winners?" We are shown another side to Perry's character. Being a high powered attorney, he is entitled to ask for a lot of money for his services, but he always had a concern for the little guy and often agreed to defend people who didn't have a penny to their name. Here, to the astonishment of his friends and colleagues, he defends Sorrento, which shows that he does not simply jump to conclusions about people and is willing to give them the benefit of the doubt despite what their past might be.In addition, Perry attempts to reconcile Johnny with his young son Jeff, which doesn't really stir our emotions that much because the performances from Nader and Kanan are not really strong enough for it to do that. But, there is a moving moment at the climax where Sorrento may be facing another possible murder charge over the drug baron for which someone else did time for. "Do you want to handle it for me?", he asks. Perry calls his son Jeff over and asks "I don't know, do we trust him Jeff?" The son says that he does not and Perry replies "You see Johnny, that's the way it is, we don't trust you" as if refusing the case. But, Perry then urges Jeff to make it up with his father suggesting that he does believe in him - room for a sequel, do you think?It is, on the whole, a satisfying and gripping thriller, but it is a complex one and requires the audience to concentrate hard or risk losing track of what is going on. Even though one or two of the performances aren't sufficient to bring out the emotional element in the story, it is still a very good try at moving the series away from the routine formula and I would recommend anyone to see it.

bkoganbing Television has never seen a more ethical attorney than Perry Mason, as is well known he never takes on a really guilty client. But this particular Mason television film really plays it close to the edge in the realm of lawyer/client privilege.If I'm wrong some lawyers or law student will no doubt write and correct me, but in this particular film Raymond Burr is defending mobster Michael Nader who is charged with murdering his wife. Nader is one of the darker characters that Mason has ever defended either in the two hour films or the one hour television series from the Ffities and Sixties.Nader's wife Gwynyth Walsh is killed when someone fires a bullet into a speeding car Walsh is driving causing her to lose control and the car hurtle over a cliff. Of course there's no lack of suspects as usual.But in order to get at the truth, Burr actually let's it come out that his client actually did another murder some time earlier. The two crimes are indirectly linked. Maybe I'm wrong but the fact that he got his own client nailed for another murder to acquit him of the one he's defending him for seems to be stretching the lawyer/client privilege issue out of shape. I think the Bar Association might have had something to say on the issue. Still it ends as all Perry Mason stories do with the guilty part unmasked. Not someone you would have suspected given the kind of parts this individual normally plays.

bob the moo Ken Malansky has an old college acquaintance who has gone into business with reformed mobster Johnny Sorrento. When Sorrento's wife is killed all fingers point to Johnny and Mason is asked to take up the case – reasoning that everyone deserves the best defence, Mason takes the case. Mason finds the world of the mob is one of murder and threats, while Malansky investigates an old murder case that Johnny had been accused of until someone confessed.These Mason movies are all pretty much the same – innocent client who all the clues point to. Ken investigates the rough stuff while Mason questions each suspect. It all leads to courtroom questions and the twist at the end. As a result if you like one you generally like them all. However here the film tries to be a bit rougher and have a darker edge by having a mobster as a client. Mason naturally takes the case but we never see any conflict in his heart over doing this. Also the tougher edge is only added to the normal formula as a very thin top coat – for example Mason occasionally raises his voice a little, or a few people get shot or killed etc. Really it didn't work that well as it didn't add to the formula, only took a little away instead.Burr isn't as good as usual because he has this tough edge on a familiar character and it doesn't sit well – witness him in a sling as if nothing happened! Hale has less to do than usual but Moses is actually pretty good with the darker subject matter. The rest of the cast are really nothing more than mobster support roles from bad mobster films – they don't even reach the level of caricature! The usual `oh, look it's…..' face this time is Stephen Tobolowsky.The courtroom looks more like a TV set than usual and the actual courtroom finale is a bit of a letdown and doesn't even manage the usual average tension. The end result is a standard Mason setup that is spoil by little extras that the formula didn't need – the darker edge didn't work. Overall a sub-par outing in the series that plays slightly above par.

Mark-129 Probably the worst entry in this series. Perry Mason defends a reformed mobster framed for the murder of his wife. There's something unpleasant about Mason being involved with this type of defendant and his cronies. There has to be something wrong when Perry has harsh words for both Della Street and Ken Malansky. Even NBC chose not to screen the movie during sweeps.