A Time to Kill
It's the middle of the night. I can't sleep. This movie is on TNT. It's an outstanding film, the To Kill a Mockingbird of this generation.
John Grisham's books are barely eighth grade level. They're fast-food literature. He tells essentially the same story every single time, he just changes a few of the names. I read his books and it's never taken me less than a day to chew through any of them.
Of all his books, A Time to Kill was easily the best. After its success, it seems to me that Grisham got lazy. It happens to the best. Stephen King has also fallen prey to the lazy gene. Instead of breaking new ground like he did with Salem's Lot and The Stand (a fantastic book) he churns out formulaic potboilers with little to no imagination.
Where many of King's novels have not translated well to the screen (curiously his short stories -- Green Mile, Stand By Me, Shawshank -- have been much more successful), Grisham's books do adapt well.
The film version of A Time to Kill is even better than the book. Far better, in fact. It's exceedingly well done. So many outstanding performances: Matthew McBongo, Samuel L, Donald Sutherland, Kevin Spacey, Sandra Bullock, Keifer, Ashley Judd and more.
Ridiculous that this movie wasn't nominated for an Academy Award and the shitty pile of gnu excrement The English Patient won that year.
Bullock was so much more amazingly hotter 15 years ago. So was sweaty Judd.
Hate the characterization of Mississippi as a Klan haven. I haven't seen that many klansmen in one place since I witnessed a march in the early 70s.
Still a very good movie and a story well told.
Side note: A girl I knew in high school was an extra during the riot scene.
I watched it last night also, for about the elevententh time. As I am want to do with movies I like and have seen many times, I start watching for the literary meanings and commentary.
I agree, good flick. Like so many other movies, one can, if they're not paying close attention, get the wrong impression, and think it's a liberal commentary on the death penalty or race. However, the death penalty issue is merely, and I don't think Grisham is good enough to give any real credible political commentary on either, and I'm not sure he'd care enough to anyway. However, it was a great snapshot, (as opposed to commentary) that included the yin and the yang, of race, and race relations as a southern writer like Grisham could do, and not terribly fucked up by Hollywooed; a snapshot that just happened to take place within the context of a good story like that set in the south. A strong commentary would have fucked it up.
McConaughey...I like him, and most things he's done that I've seen. Just saw "The Lincoln Lawyer" and I recommend it. He's not a great actor, and brings pretty much the same things to every character, but he's likable and believable. Thankfully this TX born actor doesn't have to manufacture a bad southern accent and can get by on a generic accent of his own.
I don't think I've ever seen Samuel L. Jackson when I didn't love him and his role.
Can't add more than you did on either Judd or Bullock. Both, I think, could have factored in more to the story than they did.
I like Kevin Spacey, but in all movies set in the south, I get irritated and distracted at the inability to do a believable southern accent. And his character didn't get developed, and was incidental.
Actually, there wasn't enough time to properly develop all the characters you mentioned that had much potential in this flick, yet, it worked well.
The jail scene at the end while not Oscar worthy, was a great scene. The closing argument was perfect, and yet, "Now, imagine she's white" was the boom goes the dynamite moment that, at least for me, was a completely unexpected twist that was done completely with dialogue, or rather monologue in this case.
Note to Hollywood, we have air conditioners in the south, we don't all sweat all the time, though Judd does look nice sweaty.
3588 Replies
802227 Views