Instant Favorite.

It's easily one of the freshest, sharpest and most enjoyable films of this year.

It is a whirlwind of delight --- attractive actors, stunning couture, spectacular sets and outrageous parties.

Watching it is like watching the spectacle of a class clown at their best: you laugh at their jokes, instigate their defiance, and "ooooh" when they get in trouble.

Barbra Streisand plays a high-priced call girl, who is arrested for manslaughter. The crux of the plot is that her parents hire an expensive attorney to avoid a trial (and the accompanying public exposure of her profession) by having her declared mentally unfit to stand trial. Streisand's character doesn't help herself much by behaving oddly, and occasionally violently. The film is chock full of recognizable actors, who all turn in good performances. I'm not always a fan of Richard Dreyfuss, but he does shine in this one. Also, Leslie Nielsen, who was beginning his transformation into a comedic actor around this time, was very creepy and menacing as the "victim" of the homicide. It was, to me, reminiscent of his role in Creepshow. Overall, the film is pretty good, with good acting, good photography, and unobtrusive direction.

A weak film by the underrated Martin Ritt, "Nuts" stars Barbra Streisand as a prostitute who is arrested on a manslaughter charge. Richard Dreyfuss plays the lawyer appointed to defend her. The film trades in familiar courtroom clichés, until it climaxes with a series of "shocking revelations".Ritt would be responsible for a series of masterpieces, most notably "Hud", "The Spy Who Came In From the Cold", "The Molly Maguires" and "Sounder". Like most directors who did their best work in the early 1970s and 60s, his subsequent films would become increasingly tainted by the demands of New Hollywood. Of his later films, "Norma Rae", "Stanley and Iris" and "The Front" are generally agreed to be his best. Still, sugary and light, they're a far cry from his earlier, far more mature works. "Nuts" is emblematic of late-Ritt.6.9/10 – Worth one viewing.

Yes, the multi-talented Richard Dreyfuss makes a great lawyer.There's something about him that just kicks everything he does into high gear - even if it's a crappy movie in general.He's gone that sparkle that not many others have.He's got more sparkle than Al Pacino and De Niro.If I were to go on trial for a serious crime, I would want Richard Dreyfuss backing me up...The movie was OK, I don't think she was nuts from the very opening scene, not any of the rest of the movie made me think she was nuts - so why would anybody else think she was nuts? I guess because it needed a title and every other court room title was taken.Anyways, it's a decent movie - nothing too exuberant and nothing award winning, but the roles for most actors were pretty darn good and because of Richard's screen charisma, it get's a 7.

NUTS was a play that was turned into this film that has a first rate cast headed by Barbara Streisand, including Richard Dreyfus, Maureen Stapleton, Karl Malden, Eli Wallach, Robert Webber, James Whitmore, and Leslie Nielson and a top director (Martin Ritt). But it has not gotten the notice it's deserved among Streisand's top performances. I will get to that in a moment.Streisand is a hooker who has been arrested for the murder of a "John" she picked up. Nielson is the "John", and his performance here is a type of throwback to the usually villainous parts he played in the early half of his career, before he demonstrated his mastery of deadpan comedy. He tries to get rough with Streisand, and in the process of defending herself she causes him to get stabbed. Taken to court for arraignment she finds her mother and step-father (Stapleton and Malden) have arranged for her attorney (William Prince) to plead guilty on account of insanity. She gets quite upset about this, and manages to punch Prince in the mouth, breaking some teeth, and making him decide to drop this client. Dreyfus, a struggling defense attorney, is picked by the arraignment judge to handle the defense.Slowly Dreyfus and Streisand find a way of working together - and find it is an uphill battle. Streisand insists that she is sane, and that it was an accident not murder. Dreyfus believes her, but has to fight a top flight assistant district attorney (Webber) who has an accredited psychiatric expert (Wallach) ready to testify to Streisand's insanity. Fortunately the Judge (Whitmore) is pretty fair minded.I notice that parts of the resolution of the story appear on the other comments on this board, so I will refrain. Suffice to say that Streisand not only discredits Wallach quite well, but she also manages to trace her choice of profession to a damaged childhood.NUTS, as I said before, did not get the exposure of THE WAY WE WERE or WHAT'S UP DOC? or THE MIRROR HAS TWO FACES or YENTL as a key performance in the Streisand legend, and yet it bears comparison to them or her two appearances as Fanny Brice. Why was it ignored? I suspect it was that it came at the point where Streisand began making movies every couple of years instead of year after year, and that it was also made just before the change in Streisand film career when she turned director as well as actor. YENTL, THE PRINCE OF TIDES, and THE MIRROR HAS TWO FACES were far more personal films than NUTS was. Then again, it was not the first time Streisand handled the role of a hooker. She played a similar role in THE OWL AND THE PUSSYCAT opposite George Segal (although that was a comedy, not a drama). So it fell into a hole in the Streisand career - and was unfairly forgotten. It should not be, for it was well made, well acted, and thoughtful about the causes of the choices in lifestyles we make. I give it "10" out of "10".