Steel Toes (2007)

Toes of Steel is a Canadian Pre-Courtroom Drama(if that genre exists) . The theme is pretty simple: a Skin-head kills an Indian man in the street, then a Jew lawyer is called to defend him. Sounds promising... however, the way which the conflict is build is totally nonsense.I'll begin talking about the technical aspects of the film: The edition is very lazy, you can already see that in the poorly made and acted first shots. Also, the plot is full of holes. A quick example could be the lawyer's family,which seems to be in conflict with him, but such theme is never explored deeply and suddenly it's poorly solved. Totally pointless. The clichés are equally annoying. The story is just predictable to the very beginning until the end. The characters reactions are also incomprehensible. To be honest, this film is more a poorly made rip-off of American Story X than anything else. However, it lacks everything which made the latter a great film. But okay... if you take in consideration it's length(only 87 minutes), it may be(may) a watchable film... if you don't have any idea beforehand of what it is about. So yeah, it's not worthy. 3.7/10

A bit difficult to rate, Steel Toes goes over some dark and unpleasant subject matter - namely violence, ignorance, racist-skinheadism. It delves into it's content unafraid of coarseness of dejectedly hateful thoughts and dialog. It pits a Jewish lawyer intentionally representing a super-punk skinhead. Some of the good aspects include the fireworks-laden dialog along with the banter and fear involved with each confrontation. The process supposedly consumes both characters, but unbelievably at the cost of the lawyer's marriage - I had a hard time buying that. Nonetheless, both the leads turn in very good identifiable performances. The climactic scenes are full of angst, pity, yelling, and realization - very well acted out. However I didn't care for the epilogue too much - I thought the movie could've ended with the perpetrators realization and impact of his crimes. Maybe worth a look if you can stand the unpleasant subject matter.

This film I expected to be an excellent indie flick, but what I got was complete disappointment. This movie could have been summed up in 10 minutes, but instead dragged on for an hour and a half. There is at most only 2 scenes worth watching, and even they are nothing new to cinema,have already been seen and done better in other films such as American History X and Romper Stomper. I think the acting may have been OK, but the storyline was weak, and there was nowhere near enough material to make this story last. Overall, I advise that you only recommend this to someone film if you wish to play a cruel practical joke on them, in which case you tell them its a great film and to watch it.

The movie was well done, I can not argue with that. The acting was superb by all persons. If its intent was to make an emotional impact, it succeeds. That said, that it was done well is not the end of the story. It looks good, but leaves an awful taste in your mouth. The movie has only solidified my beliefs that the Canadian justice system is not a system of justice. The main character in this movie deserved to die for his crime, a 90 second speech can not mitigate that. Neither 7 months nor 7 years can mitigate that. This was in most areas a murder of the first degree, a brutal, ruthless, act. The heinous, atrocious and cruel nature of the crime permeates the entire movie and it is imposable to not consider that as a factor in reviewing the movie. The writes wanted to show that the worst criminals in out society need a second chance that was the "moral of the story". The movie attempts to show that rehabilitation is always possible and it may be correct, but it is not just, and that can't be ignored. Because rehabilitation could occur does not mean it should be allowed to occur, the movie addresses that in an indirect way, but its overall message is everyone deserves a second chance. The entire point of the trial was an attempt to get him a lesser sentence that is the reason for the change of heart. A true, remorseful, contrite individual would not seek a reduced sentence; the movie misses the mark here also. Seeking leniency based only on the basis that he was thinking incorrectly is not a justification for anything; again the movie misses the point. Furthermore his "Coming to Jesus" was so predictable.This is not American history XI, in X move the sentence was harsher, and the provocation was present and the crime far less brutal. 99% of humans would feel remorse for committing an act such as was committed in this movie. If there is any crime worth death or life imprisonment, I shutter to think of one that is more appropriate. He can make his peace with god. As Judge Irving Kaufman said, "What I am about to say is not easy for me. I have deliberated for hours, days and nights. I have carefully weighed the evidence. Every nerve, every fiber of my body has been taxed. I am just as human as are the people who have given me the power to impose sentence. I am convinced beyond any doubt of your guilt. I have searched the records- - I have searched my conscience- - to find some reason for mercy- - for it is only human to be merciful and natural to try to spare lives. I am convinced however that I would violate the solemn and sacred trust that the people of this land have placed in my hands were I to show leniency to the defendants Rosenberg. It is not in my power, Julius and Ethel Rosenberg to forgive you. Only the Lord can find mercy for what you have done, the sentence of the court upon Julius and Ethel Rosenberg is, for the crime for which you have been convicted, you are hereby sentenced to the punishment of death".Also U.S. Supreme Court DRED SCOTT v. SANDFORD, 60 U.S. 393 (1856) 60 U.S. 393 (How.) DRED SCOTT, PLAINTIFF IN ERROR, v. JOHN F. A. SANDFORD. December Term, 1856 Mr. Justice CURTIS dissenting. Political reasons have not the requisite certainty to afford rules of juridical interpretation. They are different in different men. They are different in the same men at different times. And when a strict interpretation of the Constitution, according to the fixed rules which govern the interpretation of laws, is abandoned, and the theoretical opinions of individuals are allowed to control its meaning, we have no longer a Constitution; we are under the government of individual men, who for the time being have power to declare what the Constitution is, according to their own views of what it ought to mean. When such a method of interpretation of the Constitution obtains, in place of a republican Government, with limited and defined powers, we have a Government which is merely an exponent of the will of Congress; or what, in my opinion, would not be preferable, an exponent of the individual political opinions of the members of this court.