Women falling victim of sex crimes? Happens all the time. What if your job profession was...prostitution? Should you still be protected under law, when you're doing something illegal? Here's something else the film tackles, and it adds a strong foundation to the mix: What if you could not think in a linear way? Meaning, your mind is just not wired like your usual Sam, Tam or Sally? Would you be able to stand trial, or would you be deemed incapable by the court because you are, as the movie puts it, "Nuts". Even if a woman is crazy, they should still not fall victim to a sex crime, which is what happens to our lead female ( played by Streisand). When she kills the man who viciously attacked her in self defense, she wants to be her own lawyer for the trial. The entire premise of the movie just revolves around her arguing with her lawyer and defense attourneys of the state weather she has the mental capacity to stand trial. And while the movie fails to deliver the goods on how the trial is all played out, we will never see the real court case, the movie just simply demands the "yes" or "no" question. Does it work? In a word, yes! This isn't a typical court room movie where we find out if she's guilty or innocent, Nuts just simply asks the question...can a woman deemed crazy be qualified to be her own lawyer at trial. While she does seem a bit off in her thinking, at times, she can be powerfully witty, which adds plenty of humor to the film. I also liked the realism of the use of the courtroom, its very believable, unlike some other cheesy attempts made in other films. ( What was it with those vibrant colors used in all those 80's movies, anyway?) All in all, Nuts is a winner, almost clocked in at two hours, but does not bore you, even for a minute. It's a movie that proves that sometimes, your sanity cannot be put on trial, even if you're trying to plead temporary insanity.

Ms Streisand got screwed again...should have won an Oscar. Yentl, Prince of Tides and The Way We Were.

This is the third of three great courtroom dramas from that time. "And Justice for All,"(1979) and "The Verdict," (1982) were the other two.Because of all the courtroom dramas on television in the 1990's and 2000's, many of the things in the movie now seem as clichés. It is important to remember that it was quite original when it came out. It is only cliché today because it has been copied so much since. Women were generally terrible victims of much psychiatry in the 20th century, this film, "Francis" (1982)and "Suddenly, Last Summer" (1959) are the only three movies that really demonstrate that.The cast is full of great actors and actresses in small rolls: Eli Wallach, James Whitmore, Maureen Stapleton, and Karl Malden know that less is more and underplay their roles smoothly. The only problem with the casting is Leslie Nielsen as a crazy client. Nielsen became so associated with spoofs like "Airplane" and "The Naked Gun" one almost laughs automatically when he's on the screen, no matter how serious the scene is. Stars Richard Dreyfus and Barbara Streisand are at the top of their form and work well off each other.The one criticism of this movie that is valid is Streisand's age. She is a bit too old at 45 for the character who is supposed to be in her late 20's. It is a minor irritation, and we should remember that male actors in their 40's also frequently play such roles. For example, Brad Pitt was 41 when he played Achilles, and Sylvester Stallone was 60 when he played in his last "Rocky" movie.This is Barbara Streisand's grittiest movie with rape, incest, and madness being key themes, yet it still has a lot of witty lines and funny moments. It is just well balanced and well done. The DVD contains some fascinating commentary by Ms. Streisand.

I think that this movie is excellent. Barbara Strissand and Richard Dreyfuss are the best acts. I'm going to get my own d.v.d. of it. I also liked the costumes, production, directing, script, photography, plot, storyline, and realisticness and fantasy.I think that Claudia was right to stand up for herself the way she did. She was not incompetent of standing trial or assisting in her own defense. She could have used some outpatient therapy, even she realized that, but she did not need to be in a mental hospital. If there is anybody here who does need to be it's her parents. Think about it, her mother let her stepfather abuse her for years and her stepfather bathed her until she was 16 years old. The only reason she killed her john was out of self-defense. If she had not tried to protect herself he would have killed her.This was a brilliant film to bring to the screen. This type of movie does not come around very often. Also the judge made the right decision by releasing Claudia on her own recognizes before and during her trial.