|Page 4 of 23:||             |
|Index||223 reviews in total|
*** This review may contain spoilers ***
I am not completely interested in all parts to the story, I think it is just the court case I like. Basically, the young daughter of Carl Lee Hailey (Golden Globe nominated Samuel L. Jackson) is horrifically beaten, raped and hanged to die (which she didn't), and he kills the men responsible for this crime. But this is what creates the court case. Carl Lee Hailey wants justice for the crime that the men committed, and lawyer Jake Tyler Brigance (Matthew McConaughey, the film that launched his career, three years before Edtv) is determined to help him. The opposition, D.A. Rufus Buckley (Kevin Spacey) is determined to show everyone that he did still carry out an unlawful act against two men who were going to have justice brought to them. Also starring Sandra Bullock as practising lawyer Ellen Roark, Oliver Platt as Harry Rex Vonner, Charles S. Dutton as Sheriff Ozzie Walls, My Left Foot's Brenda Fricker as Ethel Twitty, Donald Sutherland as Lucien Wilbanks, Kiefer Sutherland as Freddie Lee Cobb, Braveheart's Patrick McGoohan as Judge Omar Noose and Ashley Judd as Carla Brigance. It has got some good twists as a thriller, the KKK are involved, and the two Sutherlands are good in their roles, although they should have been related. Very good!
Didn't like how they kept using the "n" word, and the plot structure
wasn't perfect, but these types of social comment movies need to be
made. To Kill a Mockingbird is a near perfect book and Movie on the
same subject, buy both today and broaden your mind.
These movies all seem to be made in the south of the 60's, a sweaty cesspool of blind hatred and inherited racism, as depicted on film. Maybe there were bright spots in the south then, and maybe intolerance was practiced elsewhere in America, but movies set in other North American locales in this type of movie don't come to mind. The ensemble cast attracts viewers to the movie, but distracts by busying the plot to accommodate them all.
*** This review may contain spoilers ***
There is a great quote at the end of the movie which wasn't included
here but I took it from the movie and decided to put it up here for
"What is the truth? That he's a disgraced liar? But what if I told you that the woman he was accused of raping was 17, he was 23, that she later became his wife, bore his child, and is still married to the man today. Does that make his testimony more or less true? What is it in us that seeks the truth? Is it our minds or is it our hearts? I set out to prove a black man could receive a fair trial in the South. That we are all equal in the eyes of the law. That's not the truth because the eyes of the law are human eyes. Yours and mine and until we can see each other as equals, justice is never going to be even-handed. It will remain nothing more than a reflection of our own prejudices. So until that day, we have a duty under God to seek the truth. Not with our eyes, not with your minds where fear and hate turn commonality into prejudice...but with our hearts. Where we don't know better." - Jake Tyler Brigance This is a great movie and I definitely suggest that you see it.
This movie is a great movie, it has everything: a great cast, a terrific story with twists, turns and yes conflicts, and a point (which some movies don't have). The cast is awesome, McConaughey is THE BEST! I think I first saw him in EdTv and I loved that movie too, but I saw him in this and I'm like OMG, that's Ed. He is brilliant, amazing, and so was Samuel L. Jackson who i've loved since the day I was born. Sandra Bullock is amazing, Kevin Spacey, wow! The story is one a kind, words can't even express, you have to see it, it's got twists, turns, conflicts, great characters, and the best part about the movie is it has a point. It has a great message that was carried throughout the whole movie. Watch for Donald and Keifer Sutherland too, great spot for the father and son team. I gave this movie 9 out of 10 stars, now the only reason why it didn't make 10, is because it was a bit tooo gruesome. It's based on a John Grisham novel, which I read after watching the movie, and loved the book too. All in all it's a great movie!
TO: the creative "team" behind A TIME TO KILL (1996)
This film I recently viewed on VHS doesn't do much for your reputations except for the "Hollywood"-ization of ethics in the era of "shout-out" conflict management. The Grisham "premiere" novel had its shock value as far as how Americans view the different victims (your raped daughter, my raped daughter) but some of the "teeth" have been pulled from the book's climactic finish by telegraphing its "race-card" so, so, so many times throughout. Was this meant to be a retort to Oliver Stone's flair for film making (NATURAL BORN KILLERS) in that justice wins, wins, wins in A TIME TO KILL contra the hedonistic, cynical style of Mr. Stone (director/screenplay/producer)?
If you're working together to "package" SKIPPING CHRISTMAS (Grisham's 2001 bestseller). . . DON'T focus so much on "message" -- go with strengths in character development and more genuine dialogue, dare to use actors whose accents are not faked and inconsistent !!! Use the same social/racial milieu throughout and DON'T jump around as if that is just something extrinsic and trivial! Provide Americans with something that will further the dialogue about Capital Punishment (THE CHAMBER), Finders/Keepers ethical dilemmas (THE SUMMONS) and other germane Equal Treatment under the Law issues rather than such a shallow treatment of modern Mississippi community life as this 1996 film exemplifies!
*** This review may contain spoilers ***
A Time to Kill was one of the better films released in 1996, it achieved
both critical and commercial success as it became one of the top ten
grossing movies for the year.
The film is based on the John Grisham novel of the same name. It tells the story of a black man, Carl Lee Hailey, who is put on trial for murder after killing the two red necks who were responsible for the rape of his 11 year-old daughter. Coming to Hailey's aid is the arrogant young atourney Jake Brigance, who with the help of a rather useless female appendage named Ellen Roark decides to try the case.
That is pretty much the same telling of events that you will get if you read the review by the somewhat intellectually challenged Daniel. R. Baker. Where our points of view deviate is on the films ending. I think that it has quite a powerful and worthwhile ending, whereas Daniel seemed to miss the point.
For those of you who haven't seen the film it ends with Brigance graphically describing the rape of Hailey's daughter to the predominantly white jury and then adding at the end of it 'Imagine that she's white.' In Mr. Baker's review he states that any decent human being wouldn't care what colour she is anyway. And that this is therefore a flaw in the story.
Not only is this a shocking generalisation, but it misses the entire point of the film. It's BECAUSE he and his daughter are black that he is on trial at all. What Brigance is saying is that if a white man had shot up two black bums who had raped is daughter this trial wouldn't even had made it to court. One of the main stories in the film was the KKKs involvement with the case, so therefore the colour of the girl's skin was in fact right at the heart of the issue. I don't think that it should take a rocket scientist to point that out.
Therefore the problem here is that Mr. Baker has obviously watched this film with both of his eyes shut in order to draw such a ridiculous and naive conclusion from a very complex and powerful film.
This is the best courtroom drama I have ever seen! Even though I did not see A TIME TO KILL theatrically, one night, it was October 30, 1999, it happened to be on ABC, so, I decided to watch it. After watching it then, I decided I liked it and wanted to own it. This smashing courtroom drama really made me feel good, and, the more I watch it, the more I like it. If you ask me, Carl Lee (Samuel L. Jackson) gave Billy Ray (Nicky Katt) and Pete (Doug Hutchison) what they deserved. In my opinion, Jake (Matthew McConaughey) was the perfect choice for Carl Lee's attorney. This was because he was a young and experienced attorney. I thought that Ellen (Sandra Bullock) looked especially beautiful in the black dress coat and skirt, white blouse, and black high heels. I have quite a bit of the dialogue memorized. Having said all that, I give A TIME TO KILL three out of four stars.
This is the best courtroom drama I have ever seen! Even though I did not see A TIME TO KILL theatrically, one night, it was October 30, 1999, it happened to be on ABC, so, I decided to watch it. After watching it then, I decided I liked it and wanted to own it. This smashing courtroom drama REALLY made me feel good, and the more I watch it, the more I like it. If you ask me, Carl Lee (Samuel L. Jackson) gave Billy Ray (Nicky Katt) and Pete (Doug Hutchison) what they deserved. In my opinion, Jake (Matthew McConaughey) was the perfect choice for Carl Lee's attorney. This was because he was a VERY young and experienced attorney. I thought that Ellen (Sandra Bullock) looked especially beautiful in the black dress coat and skirt, white blouse, and black high heels. I have quite a bit of the dialogue memorized. Having said all that, I give A TIME TO KILL three out of four stars.
A time to kill is certainly an interesting movie. It has very fine actors who have given their best. However, a discerning viewer can sense the pretentiousness of emotional clap trap masquerading as civility and human intelligence. The summation speech for all its emotional power (pretty well delivered Matthew McConaughey), is based on the extremely flawed premise that moral decisions should be made from the heart until the time that civilisation has progressed to make man perfect. In fact, it is for the very reason that human emotion can quell justice, that justice must be delivered from the mind and based on sound rational thought. The story line must be credited for confronting the audience with such profound dilemma. I wish the ending was one in which the defendant would be punished to some extent. Leaving the audience with the "sweet justice" of a not guilty verdict is absolutely condescending.
I'm not going to bother wasting any good time on the problems within the
film's directorial or productional techniques, but am going to focus a
moment on the film's message - the film's roots.
It seems, (esp. in the end during McConnehay's speech,) that it wants us to believe that if you're a Black American, and you feel victimized by some hillbilly honkey, then you are justified in killing, injuring, or harming them in any way you feel necessary... Who cares about the law? Who cares about social order? Who cares about the latter consequences of our actions? Who cares about the other 5/6 family members we may have other than the one victimized one? And if you are white American, even if you're victimized by the reverse, you are never justified in avenging yourself or enforcing the law properly, because blacks (esp. among the criminal community) are still righteous and it's immoral for you to do anything about it.
This film is absolute trash. It stresses more on gimmick and hype than it does on talent or anything else; including logic or realism. Don't waste your time.
|Page 4 of 23:||             |
|Plot summary||Plot synopsis||Ratings|
|Awards||Newsgroup reviews||External reviews|
|Parents Guide||Plot keywords||Main details|
|Your user reviews||Your vote history|