+++Warning, the review has spoilers in the third paragraph. If you have not seen the movie and care about being spoiled, skip that paragraph.+++
A Time to Kill is the 1996 movie adaptation of the John Grisham novel of the same name starring Matthew McConaughey, Sandra Bullock, Kevin Spacey, and Samuel L. Jackson. The wonderful supporting cast includes Ashley Judd, Donald and Kiefer Sutherland, Kurtwood Smith, Octavia Spencer, Chris Cooper, Charles S. Dutton, and Oliver Platt.
There are a couple things to keep in mind about this movie. One it was only a story. The movie clearly fictionalizes the very real lynchings and attacks of blacks that were common during the Civil Rights era in the South and the corrupt Southern justice system that allowed the people who were doing the lynchings to go free and make a more modern-day story from it. The twist in this movie is that the father of a child who was attacked takes justice into his own hands and subsequently ends up on trial in that same corrupt justice system.
Anyone who knows history (especially legal history) is aware of the fact that there was jury nullification many times in the South in favor of whites who had murdered blacks (and who had done so for far less compelling reasons than for which Samuel L. Jackson's character commits murder in this story). What is ultimately done in this story is having the jury nullification going the other way, after leading you to think that it could not possibly happen.
The second thing to keep in mind is that the movie is a courtroom drama, so (despite the story being written by a lawyer) the legal elements, especially the courtroom scenes are almost completely wrong. Anyone who has sat through more than one real trial knows that the vast majority of the time nothing dramatic happens. Lawyers are not allowed to ask 5 min long questions to a witness, and then present another 5 min long soliloquy after the witness answers the question. For the most part, trials are usually very dry and boring, with little to no excitement or things like breaking the witness. So pretty much every courtroom drama ever made has little to no authenticity to any of the legal aspects and this is no different.
If you can get past all that however and just focus on the acting and suspend your disbelief, the movie is very good. The suspension of disbelief will be hard for lawyers and law students. I remember when I watched this while in law school I was basically counting everything it got wrong. But now I can watch it without focusing on all that stuff. I think Samuel L. Jackson and Matthew McConaughey had great chemistry and played off each other very well. Sandra Bullock and McConaughey sold the tension between their characters well, and Donald Sutherland did a great job as the old, washed-up, alcoholic attorney who was advising the young upstart. I also thought Kevin Spacy (regardless of what you might think of him now) did a great job as the slimy district attorney.
The A/V transfer of the movie is very good, especially for a pre-DVD era movie that does not have a ton of special effects. The only extra is a trailer for the movie. There are no deleted scenes, behind-the-scenes material, or the like. Ultimately, if you cannot get past how unreal the story is, then do not get the movie because you probably will not like it. If you are good at suspension of disbelief and can just enjoy the story and good acting (both of which are top-notch), then it is well worth the time to watch.
The second thing to keep in mind is that the movie is a courtroom drama, so (despite the story being written by a lawyer) the legal elements, especially the courtroom scenes are almost completely wrong. Anyone who has sat through more than one real trial knows that the vast majority of the time nothing dramatic happens. Lawyers are not allowed to ask 5 min long questions to a witness, and then present another 5 min long soliloquy after the witness answers the question. For the most part, trials are usually very dry and boring, with little to no excitement or things like breaking the witness. So pretty much every courtroom drama ever made has little to no authenticity to any of the legal aspects and this is no different.
If you can get past all that however and just focus on the acting and suspend your disbelief, the movie is very good. The suspension of disbelief will be hard for lawyers and law students. I remember when I watched this while in law school I was basically counting everything it got wrong. But now I can watch it without focusing on all that stuff. I think Samuel L. Jackson and Matthew McConaughey had great chemistry and played off each other very well. Sandra Bullock and McConaughey sold the tension between their characters well, and Donald Sutherland did a great job as the old, washed-up, alcoholic attorney who was advising the young upstart. I also thought Kevin Spacy (regardless of what you might think of him now) did a great job as the slimy district attorney.
The A/V transfer of the movie is very good, especially for a pre-DVD era movie that does not have a ton of special effects. The only extra is a trailer for the movie. There are no deleted scenes, behind-the-scenes material, or the like. Ultimately, if you cannot get past how unreal the story is, then do not get the movie because you probably will not like it. If you are good at suspension of disbelief and can just enjoy the story and good acting (both of which are top-notch), then it is well worth the time to watch.
