Q & A (1990)

User Rating:

6.4/10   

Director:

Sidney Lumet

Writers (WGA):

Edwin Torres (book)
Sidney Lumet (screenplay)

Release Date:

27 April 1990 (USA)

Genre:

Crime | Drama

Tagline:

When the questions are dangerous, the answers can be deadly.

Plot:

A young district attorney seeking to prove a case against a corrupt police detective encounters a former lover and her new protector...

Plot Keywords:

Racial Slur | Gay Slur | Vulgarity | Neo Noir | Racism

Awards:

Nominated for Golden Globe.

Cast

Nick Nolte	...	Captain Michael Brennan
Timothy Hutton	...	Asst. Dist. Atty. Aloysius 'Al' Francis Reilly
Armand Assante	...	Roberto 'Bobby Tex' Texador
Patrick O'Neal	...	Kevin Quinn (Chief of Homicide)
Lee Richardson	...	Leo Bloomenfeld
Luis Guzmán	...	Det. Luis Valentin (as Luis Guzman)
Charles S. Dutton	...	Det. Sam 'Chappie' Chapman (Homicide) (as Charles Dutton)
Jenny Lumet	...	Nancy Bosch / Mrs. Bobby Texador
Paul Calderon	...	Roger Montalvo
International Chrysis	...	José Malpica
Dominic Chianese	...	Larry Pesch / Vito / Lorenzo Franconi (as Dominick Chianese)
Leonardo Cimino	...	Nick Petrone (mob boss)
Fyvush Finkel	...	Preston Pearlstein
Gustavo Brens	...	Alfonse Segal
Martin E. Brens	...	Armand Segal

Runtime:

132 min

Country:

USA

Language:

English

Color:

Color (Technicolor)

Aspect Ratio:

1.85 : 1

Sound Mix:

Dolby

Certification:

Iceland:16 | South Korea:18 | Brazil:16 | Argentina:13 | Australia:M | Finland:K-16 | Norway:15 | Sweden:15 | UK:18 | USA:R | West Germany:16

Filming Locations:

New York, USA

Company:

Odyssey Distributors

Trivia:

In the gay club dressing room where Bobby Texador, his wife and bodyguards are meeting Roger Montalvo, "I Love Paul C." is written and circled on the message board directly behind Montalvo, played by 'Paul Calderon'.

Goofs:

Factual errors: Chief Quinn asks ADA Reilly why he did not attend St. John's Law School. Hutton says his father didn't like the Jesuits. St. John's University is not a Jesuit institution. It is conducted by the Vincentians.

Quotes:

Preston Pearlstein: [getting introduced with Bloomenfeld's friend] How do you do? I'm delighted!
Leo Bloomenfeld: That's it Perlstein! Don't spoil my appetite, we haven't eaten yet.
Preston Pearlstein: [laughing] what a character!
[laughing again, louder]
Leo Bloomenfeld: Look at that son of a bitch.

Movie Connections:

Featured in Finding Forrester (2000)

Soundtrack:

QUE SERA SERA (WHATEVER WILL BE, WILL BE)

New York Confidential

Guess the film from the following description of its characters. A young man investigating misdeeds in the police force, motivated by the memory of his father (a legendary policeman) but also by the pain of having lost the affections of a woman he loves to another player in the drama. A renegade cop, rampaging violently through the city, but revered on the force for standing up to the scum on the streets. And the renegade's boss, who protects him, partly because he himself is on old-school Irish policeman; but partly because he appreciates having his own private bag-man, especially in his dealings with organised crime. Throw in some prostitutes for a little background colour, and it sounds like a perfect description of 'L.A. Confidential'. But it also describes this tough and underrated movie made by Sidney Lumet some years before Curtis Hanson's film.

Whereas Hanson's film was stylised, and glamorised violence (provided the cause was just), Lumet has gone for a more realist approach, and his bad cop (played mesmerisingly by Nick Nolte) is completely rotten, in fact resembling Harvey Kietel's 'Bad Liutennant' in Abel Fererra's movie. The film is dated by its ghastly electronic soundtrack, and more interestingly by its portrait of New York at a time when the city was at its lowest ebb. But it's a very well assembled thriller, exploring issues of race, mixed loyalties and the meaning of good policing without flinching from a grim picture of life on the margins of law abiding society. Lumet has had a long career, but this is one of his better films, and ultimately more truthful than Hanson's stylish charade. Each are good, in their own way: why is only one so appreciated?