Q & A

Q&A is a major film by one of our finest mainstream directors. As both a portrait of modern-day corruption and an act of sheer storytelling bravura, it is not to be missed. Read full review

It is fascinating the way this movie works so well as a police thriller on one level, while on other levels it probes feelings we may keep secret even from ourselves. Read full review

Lumet has a reputation for speed, and when a film doesn’t engage him, as in Family Business, the result seems rushed, sloppy. But in Q&A, with all the actors perfectly cast and on his wavelength, he works wonders. Nolte is electrifying. Read full review

Q & A marks Lumet's return to stride after Family Business, Running on Empty and The Morning After. When he deals with New York, cops and corruption, he can't be surpassed. [27 Apr 1990, p.6]

It's Nolte's boldest, most spellbinding performance; his subtleties in playing this Irish-American monster who believes himself on the front line of "us against them" are profound. [27 Apr 1990, p.F1]

Key to film’s success is how the case gradually uncovers new layers of corruption and insidious racism, with escalating awareness (and danger) for Hutton. Nolte is outstanding, bringing utter conviction to the stream of racist and sexist epithets that pour from his good ole boy lips. Read full review

Q & A is testimony to the validity of the old adage: a good story, when well told, can never be told too many times. Read full review

On a visual level, Lumet states this case so well that he doesn't need to hammer it home verbally. [27 Apr 1990, p.3]

If Lumet is travelling familiar ground here, the journey is still worthy because the ground is still muddy. And, as always, he travels it bravely - his Q's are many and far-reaching, his A's few and unsparing. [27 Apr 1990]

Lumet's films are always well-acted. Q & A is no exception. And the story has more than enough rich, lively characters to go around. [27 Apr 1990, p.R13]

Q&A is about 20 minutes too long, and it sometimes gets confusing, but Lumet, who has been making powerful films since Twelve Angry Men in 1957, has not lost his strength. [27 Apr 1990, p.3F]

Watching the systemized corruption of Q&A is like watching a traffic accident in slow motion: You can't take your eyes away from the broken bodies and spirits.[27 Apr 1990, p.C]

Lumet's biggest mistake was probably in writing the screenplay himself. A filmmaker who trusts his impulses as much as Lumet does needs an objective presence to help clarify his thinking. But if Q&A raises more Q's than it can provide A's for, it's still pretty OK in my book. [02 May 1990, p.E1]

The film runs for 134 minutes, but Lumet keeps things moving with his sharp eye (and ear) for New York detail and his escalating sense of liberal outrage. Read full review

If you want glossy New York, see Woody Allen’s Manhattan. If you want the New York that makes people’s faces look the way they do in the subway, see Lumet. Read full review

Q & A is an uncommonly ambitious thriller, but it rarely goes solemn -- it's a raw, rude Cook's tour of the New York underworld, from transvestite bars to precinct offices to Mafia mansions -- with a violent side trip to San Juan thrown in. [07 May 1990, p.65]

As well-acted and well-directed as many of the individual scenes are, the movie itself is a mess. Lumet, who made the mistake of writing the script himself, apparently couldn't leave out anything that was in the book. It's a confusing jumble of characters and themes, with off-screen actions that crowd and diminish the movie's impact. [27 Apr 1990]

While Q & A derails, it's still marked by a love of language and a genuine civic passion that isn't afraid to face ugly facts, and of how many films can that be said? [27 Apr 1990, p.29p]

If you do decide to take in Q & A, prepare to leave it with many questions unanswered. [27 Apr 1990, p.G5]

Lumet remains a great director of actors, one of several reasons why this very iffy movie grabs you - up to a point. [27 Apr 1990, p.9D]

The dialogue is often brutally comic, and individual scenes cut deep. Yet the narrative finally becomes almost impenetrable. The focus that the director would have demanded of another writer is lacking here. Read full review

Although the performances are mostly solid (Assante particularly fine throughout), it never quite achieves the harsh, convincing tone it aims for. Read full review

More than an average thriller, but far from Lumet's finest hour. Read full review

Unfortunately, Lumet isn't the brawny social commentator he would like to be -- he's a Jimmy Breslin manque'. His script chronicles a complex, gargantuan evil, but his insights into urban life haven't progressed beyond those of his earlier films -- the chaos of conflicting interests and cultural hatred is one that by now we're more than familiar with -- and his storytelling style isn't compelling or tightly focused enough to keep our attention from flagging. Read full review

When a movie runs 134 minutes, it's best to keep something in reserve; Lumet does not, and Q&A expires long before it ends. [27 Apr 1990, p.C]

As a cop movie it's entertaining enough, but as a social commentary it comes up short, becoming self-conscious and preachy. [27 Apr 1990, p.E1]

Written and directed by Sidney Lumet, who pushes the material so hard it loses credibility and even entertainment value after a while. [27 Apr 1990, p.10]

Lumet wrote the script alone, and he's so busy laying on the rancorous, bantering atmosphere that he waits too long to get to the plot; the movie becomes torpid.

Q&A is a pungent, graphic drama sabotaged by a stupid romantic sub-plot, misjudged casting and a truly abysmal soundtrack. Read full review