This is another of what seem to be an assembly line of John Grisham novels that have been translated to the screen. Where it’s different is that this was the first Grisham novel that was published, and yet it took ten years to reach the big (and now small) screen. This was a pity, because there are many people, including the majority of the Law in the Lounge crew, who believe that "A Time To Kill" is the best of the Grisham books. Unfortunately the same cannot be said for the film. Jack Brigance is a young inexperienced lawyer in the Deep South who finds himself caught up in a doozy of a case – there’s rape (an unfortunately particularly vicious crime against a child), murder, revenge, the Ku Klux Clan, and various other criminal activities. Brigance is not really a very sympathetic character – he takes on the case because it will give his practice some valuable publicity, and we were a little unconvinced when he suddenly becomes passionately committed to the cause. The real sympathy is for Carl Lee Hailey, the black father whose daughter has been maliciously attacked by a couple of rednecks – the parents at Law in the Lounge wouldn’t convict him for the revenge he takes, especially given the state of the justice system in the town that would probably have allowed the rapists to go free. This is where the movie could have taken off – the crime is committed in the plain sight of a large number of witnesses, and so the issue is whether it is justified or not (not whodunit). His lawyer, Jake, has no doubt – he’s got a little girl of his own. This brings him into opposition with Rufus Buckley, another of Grisham’s ambitious prosecutors who is only interested in his own career. It also brings him face to face with crank calls, bombs and other none too subtle forms of intimadations that drive his wife and child away to safety (and clears the way for Sandra Bullock to provide the sexual tension). We’re scratching a bit here. The cast is quite good, though a little wasted, and the sets are appropriately impressive. The story is okay, but it’s thin when stretched to well over two hours. Money has clearly been spent on this production, which at least makes it good to look at. What is Sandra Bullock’s part in this movie? And why does she get top billing? This is a cynical exercise in marketing, and it’s shameful. She appears some time into the movie, and then only as the token Northern liberal who wants to save the world. Kevin Spacey is a wonderful actor, but his part in this film is really lame – hope the money was good! Why do all these DA types have to be so cynically ambitious? Isn’t anyone actually interested in the cause of justice – does the client have anything to do with any of this, or is it all in the aid of the lawyers’ careers? Of course, the film addresses important issues, doesn’t it? Civil rights, justice for all, etc etc – enough already!! Did anyone give a thought to enertainement? At 145 minutes it is far too long. In this case there is a psychiatrist who becomes discredited, and this causes poor Jake a great deal of trouble. This expert is possibly the worst witness we have ever seen – if he had been our expert, we would have shipped him off to prison on charges of fraud! He doesn’t tell his own lawyer that he was once convicted for rape – oops, sorry guys, it just slipped my mind. He could have made it a lot better when it emerged, anyway, because it was not really "rape" – she was underage and he married her! What is an expert witness? This is a person who is able to express an opinion – which is something not allowed to everyday witnesses. For instance, we may think that someone is "crazy", but we cannot say it in court (well, you can say it, but it will not be admissible) because it is an opinion and you have no qualification on which to base that opinion. But an expert, for instance a psychiatrist, can make a judgement about a person’s mental state. But that doesn’t mean a psychiatrist has any more right than you and I to express an opinion that is outside their expertise. So the psychiatrist cannot venture an opinion that a car was not mechanically sound – that would require the opinion of a mechanical engineer. What is an opinion? This is evidence that tends to prove or disprove something. John Grisham was apparently concerned enough at the outcome of this movie to be one of its producers – maybe he should stick to writing. Joel Schumacher takes a break from his usual recent duties as the director of the last two Batman movies – perhaps he took it a little too leisurely, because there’s not much tension generated here. He seems to have decided that the story needed a flashy exterior, which is a pity, because the book tried to examine some serious justice issues without too much adornment. Joel Schumacher has now created quite a catalogue of movies – he wrote some forgettable screenplays before he directed "The Incredible Shrinking Woman", which starred Lily Tomlin of "Laugh-In" fame. He’s made some real hits – "St Elmo’s Fire", an ordinary brat pack drama; the ridiculous "Flatliners"; the last two Batman movies; and the interesting "Falling Down" with Michael Douglas, which was quite a departure from his usual fare. Matthew Mcconaughey is the Next Big Thing in the movies. He seems to have it all – the looks, talent, a few good films under his belt stud, and more front covers than fifteen minutes of fame would assure any of us mere mortals. Not bad for a 27 years old who hadn’t been heard of until a couple of years ago. He had a bit part in "Dazed and Confused" and a couple of other movies before "Lone Star", where his startling eyes shone beneath a cowboy hat. This is where he got tagged as a young Paul Newman – we wish him half that career!
Sandra Bullock, on the other hand, is well and truly on top already, and a runaway bus put her there. For those of you who haven’t seen "Speed" she was the one in charge of the careening bus that was not allowed to get below 50 miles per hour – she was good, although the bus was the real star. We first noticed her in "Demolition Man" (don’t bother) as the futuristic police officer. Everyone else on the planet got to know her in "While You Were Sleeping", a pleasant enough romantic comedy that made a lot of money. She next played the lead role in "The Net", where every paranoid fantasy you have about the internet comes true. We were meant to believe she was a dowdy, lonely computer programmer – yeah, sure! Now there’s the sequel to "Speed" – this time it’s a boat! We can’t leave this section without a word on the extraordinary Donald Sutherland. He came to fame in "MASH", the movie that preceded the television series, where he played Hawkeye as decidedly more cynical than Alan Alda. Then there was the truly thrilling (and scary) "Klute" with Jane Fonda – how he must yearn for roles with the substance of that detective when he’s in a film like "A Time To Kill". He continued to do great work ("Don’t Look Now"; Robert Redford’s masterful directorial debut "Ordinary People") and nowadays brings dignity to lesser efforts. Always a pleasure to see. Sandra Bullock is squeezed into tight jeans and a T-shirt, and this is about the extent of what she is expected to contribute in this small role. We’re not kidding – this actress is a superstar nowadays, but here she is nothing more than a fleeting presence with absolutely nothing to do. There’s nothing wrong with Matthew McConaughey’s performance in this film – it’s not his fault that the role is not well handled. He does the best he can with the overblown treatment, and he seems to be an honest enough actor with charm to spare. The jaw is squarer than John Howard, and he looks as though he might have played a few games of football in college. Thankfully there is more to Matthew McConaughey than a body destined for denim. He can actually act, and there are times that he almost rescues this movie from its complacency. It is a better effort than the dreadful "The Pelican Brief" – we just cannot believe Julia Roberts is a law student (and the plot is ridiculous). But it’s not nearly as good as "The Firm", which boasted a top cast and a first class director, or "The Client" which has the benefit of a better plot and the combination of the luminous Susan Sarandon and Tommy Lee Jones. There is a heavy hand here – the novel attempted to examine some serious issues with subtlety, but the movie lays it on thicker than a dozen coats of paint. For some reason the producers think that viewers are incapable of understanding the story for what it is, as though we need to have the dots connected as well. We’re not saying you shouldn’t see this film – if you like court room thrillers where you don’t have to do any of the thinking, and you don’t expect it to be anywhere near top notch, you could do worse. But there are other movies reviewed here that we would recommend first. Want us to tell you when we review another movie ? Read this: The legal information contained above is intended to be general information about the law. It is not a substitute for legal and other professional advice. Lawscape Communications P/L does not accept responsibility for loss to any person, who either acts or does not act because of this information. |