A Time to Kill (1996) User Reviews

"Now imagine she's white."

[Bored_Dragon · 8/10 · 1 November 2020]

When I first watched this film twenty years ago, I had to read a book as well. When I finished the book, I had to watch the movie again. "A Time to Kill" is one of the few examples where I can't decide whether it's a better novel or an adaptation, although I return to the film more often, simply because it requires less time and leaves an equally strong impression.

Somewhere in Mississippi, a ten-year-old black girl was raped and otherwise brutally abused to the brink of death. The perpetrators were immediately arrested, but the girl's father, fearing that they could be released, took matters into his own hands and killed them while they were entering the court. Both of these events are explicitly shown in the introductory part of the film, but the story concentrates on the trial of the father for double murder and the consequences that this case left on everyone involved. The public is divided into those who demand that the father be released and those who demand the death penalty. The KKK enters the scene and terrorizes the family and associates of the defense attorney, who, risking the lives of himself and his loved ones, still drives the case to the end.

This is basically a court drama, but as much as it deals with the events in the courtroom, so much does it dedicate itself to the psychological drama of everyone involved as well as the events that follow the whole situation, which give the film the features of a thriller. The excellent characterization is supported by a fantastic cast. Matthew McConaughey plays a young but capable lawyer who tries to save the avenging father (Samuel L. Jackson), and in the process resolve his inner turmoil, calm his conscience and find confirmation for his beliefs. He is assisted by a former top lawyer from whom he learned (Donald Sutherland) and a young, ambitious law student (Sandra Bullock). The relentless public prosecutor is played by the perfect Kevin Spacey, and the KKK's revenge is led by Kiefer Sutherland. There are also Oliver Platt, Charles S. Dutton, Ashley Judd, and other famous faces, and the cast itself is reason enough to give this film a chance.

When John Grisham tried to publish his first novel, he had a lot of trouble finding a publisher because of the controversial content of this story. The film didn't go much better either, so the reviews of the audience and the critics were extremely divided. People either praise it and highly rate it as a top drama, or spit on it as a propaganda film that supports revenge murder and one-sidedly portrays racism, presenting blacks as victims and whites from the American South as primitive racist villains. There's both, and I fully understand the angle from which people hate this movie. However, I think that the haters also look at it one-sidedly and do not fully understand it, and I join those who support the film. Will you perceive this film as a strong and incredibly emotional life drama or as propaganda garbage ... I think it comes down to whether you would send the avenging father to the gas chamber or you would do the same in his place.

The controversial last sentence of the defense closing speech, the sentence that is the biggest cause of resistance to this film, made me genuinely cry. If you find it disgusting at first glance, try to suppress that first reaction and look deeper and more sincerely into your heart, because we all have prejudices, even if we are not aware of them and no matter how painful it is for us to admit them.

8,5/10

I was surprised this movie was this good after reading the book.

[lspaiser · 8/10 · 30 August 2000]

I was very much drawn into the book, and thought that it would be hard to get the same feeling out in a movie.

At the beginning I thought I was right. From the beginning I was thinking "they left out a whole mess of details." I was irritated that they did not develop the characters better like in the book.

But by the 3rd quarter of the movie this was the last thought in my mind. And by the end I understood that the screenwriter had very skillfully budgeted his (limited) screen time for the most important parts of the movie, where it is well spent.

I think the acting of the principals was very good, and I found especially for Sandra Bullock as Ellen Roark - who was the most believable character. Although the rest of the acting was very good, I felt she was the most believable.

Which raises the main weakness of the movie, as good as it was, having read the book, I could not help being reminded that most of the characters were in fact, actors in a movie. Except for Ms. Bullock, there was a bit of woodeness to the "folk" in this small southern town. Also the plot is a bit contrived (but true to the novel). Most important is that (for me) it worked. I was moved. Its a very good movie.

Rare gem movie!

[r-fronimides · 8/10 · 31 December 2021]

From this film, I learned who Matthew McConaughey is.

This film was the first film I've watched him, and oh boy, I liked him so much.

Very emotional film, very hard, strike on the face.

Amazing performance from all the actors, but Matthew McConaughey was incredibly amazing!

His last speach in the court before the judge's decision, was... one of the best I ever watched and heard.

A must-see film!

Pretty Strong.

[tfrizzell · 6 July 2002]

A truly tense film that takes place in present-day Mississippi. A young African-American girl has been raped by two backwoods white men. Her father (Samuel L. Jackson) takes the law into his own hands and kills the two. Now the small town becomes a hot-bed of controversy as a murder trial starts that gets national attention. There is the defense attorney (Matthew McConaughey) and his bright-eyed assistant (Sandra Bullock) against prosecutor supreme Kevin Spacey. A really solid film that works because of a screenplay that pulls no punches and revolutionary direction by Joel Schumacher. A great ensemble cast all excel here and the film captures a place that has turned into a media circus very well. A film that you will watch with clenched fists. An intense experience. 4 stars out of 5.

..most people missed the point the movie is not present-day..

[fimimix · 10/10 · 1 May 2006]

I had to stop reading the commentaries, because some people thought they were attorneys and rambled-on about injustice. My Friends, in the era this film is about, none of the story would be unusual. There are prejudices much worse even now - I was amazed that one person actually compared this wonderful film to "Crash": give the world a break!! If "Crash"...Ugh!...proved anything, is was to reassure EVERYONE racism is still America's cancer.

I am from Biloxi, Mississippi - along the Gulf Coast. That city has always been a melting-pot, so many different races live together. In my youth, it was Czechs and other European races. Today, can you believe, it is Vietnamese ! The city has also always been a tourist-area, and always had some form of gambling before it became The Las Vegas of the South - perhaps that has tempered the people there from the state's interior's citizens. Canton - during the '60s - would have been just as it is portrayed in this film.

Because of the many TV-courtroom sitcoms, etc., today's population would wonder why there was no strongly-worded assurance the district attorney planned "to appeal". What? We are not talking about modern-day justice in this film - Shamefully, this is Mississippi at its worst, and I know about that. We didn't have this kind of racism in Biloxi then, perhaps because African-Americans "stayed in their place", a shameful statement if there ever were one. All the foreigners and citizens of other states who are not aware of those days - how can you comment on the film, except to give a critique ? Like many of the people who wrote commentaries, I can watch this film once-a-month. ALL of the cast gave a superb performance; the story did not drag; the places that were filmed were true-to-life; to some folk's surprise, there ARE people who live in the state who do not speak like idiots: people think I'm English!; Mathew Mc was astounding and Sandra Bullock's performance was exactly as it should have been, as an activist "little rich girl"; Southern gave a true performance of a alcoholic lawyer; Sam Jackson was masterful and expressed the difference in being "white" and "black"; Kevin Stacy's portrayal of a Southern lawyer with all the connections, right on; I can think of no one who wasn't brilliantly cast.

Missed by many people who made comments, this film is a statement that today we are brutally MEAN to one another: "Crash" re-states this fact, although it is not nearly as poetic. Do I own this film? You betcha!! I'll most likely have to buy another, and it will be money well-spent. Grishom knows how to get our attention, and "A Time to Kill" clearly demonstrates all who were involved in its making were determined to keep his story pure. Wake-up, People - many parts of our world are not pretty today......

The best movie I had seen in ten years! One of the ten best I've ever seen!

[Gwendylan · 10/10 · 8 October 2006]

This movie dealt with such a deplorable subject.. such a sickening act, without so much as one single gratuitously violent scene in the whole perfectly realised masterpiece.

It's a chilling, thought-provoking, hard-hitting piece that's taut, absorbing, and impeccably well-paced.

There are jaw-dropping performances by numerous top-flight actors here, not a-one letting the ball drop even once. Not one actor's time or talents were wasted in this extremely well thought-out project.. not one actor wasted a cent of the money we paid to see it.

Matthew McConaughey's "Jake Brigance" was an incredibly lucky shot of an acting debut that he took and ran with like the wind, turning in an amazing, heart-stopping, truly star-making performance, which may prove to be the crowning achievement of his entire career when all is said and done.. It will be a treacherous climb to try and top it, certainly.

Class act Donald Sutherland is superbly cast in a quiet, and profound role, as "Jake"'s, {now no longer practicing}, professor, a perfect fit, this role, for a man of such rare eloquence~ There is a sizzling sub-story going on between "Jake", a devoted family man, and Sandra Bullock's character that could not have been tighter, steamier, nor more well written and played out.

I recommend this movie to anyone who believes in justice, who has a child, or only knows one.

You want cheap, tawdry, sleazy, violent 'entertainment'? There's not one thing here for you~

Killing cannot be considered "right" by any means; but sometimes it's just not as simple as "THOU SHALT NOT KILL".

So many of us say, "I would kill for my children, {or other loved one's}!".. but would we? ..Would we be in the "right"?

A very taut racial thriller !

[tmpj · 7/10 · 13 August 2010]

This one had me sitting on the edge of my seat. The 90s weren't as polite as the late 50s/ early 60s when we were riveted by "To Kill a Mockingbird", a book and film that author John Grisham credits as an influence to this story. Two "Good Ol Boy" racists go on a red-neck spree, disrespecting all things Black...men, women, and children. Their beer guzzling binge culminates in the rape and near murder of a 10 year old black girl. Samuel L Jackson plays her father...and he goes out for revenge, killing the two miscreants and seriously wounding a deputy sheriff in the process. The film there-after revolves around the very basic points : A. Can a Black man receive a fair trial even in the so-called "New South" after killing two white men...even though their crime was and is considered reprehensible by every decent human being? And B: Will the Black man receive competent legal representation and receive justice irrespective of his "vigilante" action which appears to many to be justified? What will be the fallout? Matt McConaughey's performance as the lawyer is slightly reminiscent of Gregory Peck in "Mockingbird". He has a moralistic reverence for the law, and endures the taunts of the townsfolk and his other encumbrances with fortitude. Sandra Bullock is convincing as the law student who wants to chime in and lend a hand for the experience. Don and Keifer Sutherland deliver solid support...the elder being a dis-barred lawyer who is ready with advice, the younger playing a racist Klansman out to get revenge for the two dead rednecks. The atmosphere hinges on the explosive as the racial tension builds, and it is a movie that is worth watching with a message worth pondering and remembering. See the film.

A Powerful throwback!

[Topshelf_89 · 8/10 · 23 November 2021]

Thoroughly enjoyed this film from start to finish action packed powerful drama great story that impacts your emotions! All star cast and great acting must see!

Still Raising More Questions Than Answers...

[Xstal · 7/10 · 10 October 2020]

... and when you cascade politics, religion and justice into the cauldron and catalyse them with a culture that, like all cultures, struggles to shake off its generational prejudices, you're left with a hate that's as tough to eradicate as the common cold. Some fine performances all round and quite a spectacular list of actors milling around and in the courthouse. The saddest part for me is that watching it over 25 years after reading the book I've become too accepting that the world is incapable of recognising what the true cause of prejudice is because those we elect to authority really don't want to empower and uplift those who enter the world considerably less well off than the rest.

"Ain't nothing more dangerous than a fool with a cause."

[classicsoncall · 8/10 · 13 July 2018]

Another reviewer on this board made a comparison of the film with "To Kill a Mockingbird", and although the same thought came to me while watching it, the similarity is never fully realized. In the earlier movie, a black man was found guilty of raping a white woman, and the stereotype of redneck Southern justice is essentially carried out. The better comparison I think, can be made with another film I just recently viewed, that being "Sleepers", in which a pair of thugs murder a former reform school guard who physically abused them while they were in their teens. The whole idea of social justice is stood on it's head in both films, and if the thought behind each movie is to make viewers feel conflicted about their outcomes, then they both succeeded.

Just like Gregory Peck's character in 'Mockingbird', Jake Brigance approached his job via a one on one relationship with the accused, a man who's ability to reason is shattered when his ten year old daughter is assaulted and raped by the side of the road, and left to die when a couple of degenerates decide to partake in some demented version of what they consider fun. However the character who perhaps straddles the line best between blacks and whites in the story is Sheriff Ozzie Walls (Charles S. Dutton), a black man who has the same keen sense of justice as does Brigance. He's unafraid to arrest the guilty perpetrators of the horrible rape of the ten year old Tonya Hailey (RaéVen Kelly), nor is he troubled about taking her father (Samuel L. Jackson) into custody for the shooting at the courthouse. I had the sense that he was a well respected man of Canton who saw his job as color blind in the eyes of the law.

In a way, the picture's most defining moment might have been saved for the very final scene. Following Carl Lee Hailey's (Jackson) impassioned dialog with his lawyer, one which inspired Jake Brigance to revamp his closing argument, we see Brigance and his family arrive at the Hailey home, as jubilant neighbors celebrate the acquittal. Taking to heart what it means to be truly accepting of others different from themselves, Jake confidently comes to terms with Carl Lee's persuasive suggestion by stating, "Just thought our kids could play together".

An entertaining spectacle with a nice comment on justice

[The_Void · 6/10 · 22 May 2005]

Courtroom dramas are well known for providing thrilling films, and that is exactly what 'A Time to Kill' thrives on; entertainment value. It is clear that the film, in spite of having some very potent themes, puts most of it's focus on being entertaining and it's actually not a bad film for it. Sometimes, films that want to be entertaining and have themes fall down because they're too entertaining and the themes get left by the wayside; but A Time to Kill puts its cards on the table from the start, and it's always clear what this film wants to do with itself. The plot follows a man who, after his daughter is raped and almost murdered, decides to take the law into his own hands. However, this man is also a black man living in a white supremacy state, and so the film injects a racism theme into it's plot, which is always going to mean that it will have some sort of social commentary within it. However, that isn't the most interesting comment that the film wants to make; as that plaudit falls to the idea of justice, and exactly what justice is.

The film, based on a novel by crime writer John Grisham, presents an impossible situation to the viewer and central characters; what do you do when justice will prevail whatever the verdict? The viewer and the characters must then make a choice between the law and general morality, and it is there where the film draws it's most interesting plot point from. While, as mentioned, it's always clear that this movie is meant to entertain you; it's always nice to be given something to think about as well. A Time to Kill benefits immensely from an absolutely fabulous cast, which includes the likes of Samuel L. Jackson, Sandra Bullock, Kevin Spacey, Kiefer Sutherland, his father Donald Sutherland, Ashley Judd, Chris Cooper and more, all of which are lead by Matthew McConaughey. It is the lead that most lets the film down, as although McConaughey can definitely act, he's not quite charismatic enough to deliver a lead performance in front of that cast. Still, the movie is definitely very decent and although you probably wont hurt your brain watching it, it will entertain you.

Verdict - (in)sane

[kosmasp · 9/10 · 31 January 2021]

Accused of ... actually if there is one thing that is obvious is what someone is accused of here ... not just anyone. But while this is fast paced and has a lot of things happening from the get go, I will not go into too much of the story. But boy does this movie have an all star cast or what? The answer is yes, in case you are wondering.

And while some may feel a bit .. let's say weird about the way justice is being served here (pun intended), the movie is gripping from start to finish. It also is not something the faint of hearted should watch! Especially the beginning (and first inciting incident) really packs a punch .. and it is something that unfortunately still exist in our world! I don't think certain things will go away ... at least not as long as I'm alive (racism being one of them).

Could have been much better.....

[[e-mail] · 6/10 · 6 November 2007]

The storyline is compelling, the acting; very good, the direction; impressive, the only problem I have with this film is in the character of Sandra Bullock's, Ellen Roark. Her part was pathetically overwritten. If this was intentional to secure the interests of Ms. Bullock, then this is the movie's failing. I have nothing against Ms. Bullock as an actor, I have enjoyed her performances in numerous roles, however this happens to not be one of them. She is almost a comic book caricature of herself and it detracts from the impact of the story immensely. She professes to be a student of law, yet at many twists and turns she appears to be more knowledgeable of the law than her counterpart, the lead counselor for the defense (Matthew McConaughey), a bona fide licensed, practicing attorney. She also appears to possess a degree in medicine based on a scene where a simple "band aid" would seem counter-indicative considering the nature, source and force of the injury she simply 'dresses'.

The closing argument (summation scene) is very emotional and should win this movie critical acclaim based on that merit alone, although this is somewhat jaded by some of the unrealistic, outlandish events which precede it and therefore merely lend toward relegating this film to cinematic mediocrity. It appears to be a bit melodramatic in some places and Donald Sutherland's role is weak, underdeveloped and unimpressive (pity because I really like Mr. Sutherland as an actor). All in all, it's definitely worth the watch for the compelling storyline, if nothing else, about racial injustice, but if you happen to miss it, you won't regret too much. Matthew McConaughey is excellent in his role as the inexperienced, though passionate, lead defense attorney and deserves all due praise.

Contrived and heavy-handed

[segacs · 4/10 · 26 August 2007]

A Time To Kill is based on John Grisham's first novel, the one he wrote before he was famous, and the one that didn't skyrocket him to fame. (That would be accomplished by "The Firm"). That's why this movie didn't get made until much later, after Grisham was off churning out meaningless books with the movie dollar signs fresh in his head. Unlike most of those, this book was actually about something. It had meat, it had weight, and it had heart.

But it also had a fatal flaw, and this fatal flaw gets translated into the movie. Namely, "A Time To Kill" sets you up.

Here we have a black man (Jackson), on trial for the murder of two white men who brutally raped and tortured his 10-year-old daughter. We have an underdog lawyer (McConaughey) battling the big bad system to save his client. And oh, by the way, the whole thing is set against the backdrop of racism in Mississippi, complete with hooded KKK men burning crosses.

In other words, we're supposed to sympathize with Carl Lee Hailey. We're supposed to believe that a father who loves his daughter is justified in killing the men who raped her. We're supposed to feel the injustice of a system where a racist all-white jury could judge a black man who was just trying to avenge a brutal crime. We're supposed feel like we're standing alongside the people chanting "Free Carl Lee".

But the racism issue is a smokescreen, and the whole thing is contrived. Carl Lee Hailey was a vigilante. Yes, there were mitigating circumstances for what he did, but the fact remains that he wasn't innocent. This would have been true no matter what his skin colour, or the skin colour of the assailants of his daughter, the judge, the jury, or anyone else.

And what's so heavy-handed about this film is that it paints anyone who believes Carl Lee should have been convicted is a racist. The message seems to be that if you believe that the law shouldn't be taken into people's own hands, then you might as well be burning crosses on a lawn somewhere wearing a hood.

This isn't the first time a heavy dose of sentimentalism is inserted into a story like this, and it won't be the last. As a movie, A Time To Kill stays pretty faithful to the book, and the acting isn't half bad. But it played the hand it had been dealt, really. Even a good cast can't elevate bad source material.

Very well done

[Clever Jones · 17 April 2001]

I'm not sure why I didn't see this film when it came out, but I watched it for the first time last week and was blown away. "A time to kill" is not only very well done, but it shows the way racism is dealt with in an intertesting way. Every character is not only well developed, but the actors playing them make it totally believable.

Kevin Spacey and Samuel L. Jackson, who remain two of the finest American actors are definetly one of the best parts of the film. I'm not really sure how this film was received when it was released, but I consider it to be one of the most well done films I've seen recently.

Here's a tough revenge film that tells it like it is.

[FISHCAKE · 9/10 · 16 October 1999]

This tough filming of Grisham's novel about a black man's revenge for the brutal rape of his daughter by whites might lead one to some maxims for guidance of anyone in such a situation. Don't wait for the law to help when you know it won't. But, if you act on your own, be prepared for the worst. Don't always assume that someone different is automatically your enemy. That's racist mentality no matter from which end of the color spectrum you are observing. There are probably others one might deduce. This is a powerful and thought provoking film, well acted and produced. It puts the KKK in a true perspective as a bunch of neo-nazi thugs, and, mirabile dictu, there are no "obligatory sex scenes", at least not in the version I saw. My only cavil is the "happy" ending. It seems unlikely in the given environment, but then again maybe not.

Take A TIME TO WATCH this movie !!

[bibi-3 · 10/10 · 1 January 1999]

One of the best dramas I've seen.

Great performances from Samuel Jackson, Sandra Bullock and Matthew McConaughey.

I've seen this movie four times and each time I see it, his closing speech has made me cry loudly.

I highly recommend it. You won't regret it.

Big problem

[marchettotodescato · 7/10 · 11 September 2023]

I never write reviews, but after watching this film I feel obliged to.

The plot and the skill of the actors in playing their parts is unquestionable, and of a high standard.

The underlying problem lies with what Carl Lee did, and the (non-existent) connection of his actions to racial discourse.

The main problem of the film is the idea of the complete connection and equality between "not being guilty" and "I would have done it too if I were in his place". It seems that there is equality between the two things, but no! A family man, with 3 children and a wife who doesn't work, decides to take justice into his own hands? Good (many would have done it too, After what happened). But you cannot EXPECT to be considered innocent. Have you decided that prison time for your daughter's molesters isn't enough and you have to kill them? Fine, but you accept as a consequence that you too will go to prison too, and not be able to look after your family.

For me personally, I do not place the molestation of a child and premeditated murder at the same level of severity (because Carl Lee's murder is, in fact, a premeditated murder), but this does not mean that I think it is appropriate for someone who kills somebody else to be excused.

Moreovee, the film, obviously, puts it in the context of racism, when in fact it is not. The question, at the end of the film, "what if she had been white"? The director leaves the answer pending. Well, I'll give it to you. The correct answer would have been: the white father of a white girl would probably have done the same as the black Carl Lee did, and would have rightfully gone to jail for what he did, regardless of the skin color.

The absurd thing seems to be the inversion of racism, which the film instead wants: that is, that he, since he and his family are black and unjustly victims of racial acts by some sick white animal, is justified for the acts he carried out. Just no.

Lots of reviews, but it needs one word: beautiful.

[MikeWindgren · 9/10 · 7 October 2021]

I know the title on a review is not enough.

But it still is today a beautiful and chilling story. When I first saw this movie, when it got out, my eyes filled with tears. I just rewatched after all those years and it happened again.

Great actors of course, and great acting.

A must see for sure.

Tense

[nachoberggren · 7/10 · 15 June 2022]

Tense watch. It really had me on the edge of the seat the whole time.

It did feel they had to cram in a lot of setpieces for a 150 min watch. The editing sometimes felt very fast paced as it cut from moments you'd expect to hold on. I wonder if leaving some stuff out would've helped that.

Regardless it's a fantastic film that makes you feel a lot. It's tragic and frustrating, with some moments making you feel incredibly uncomfortable. It made you just feel disgust in a way I've never felt before.

The cast is so good. So many A-listers that did a brilliant job. I enjoyed the chemistry the actors had with eachother.

I think the film portrayed the divide of America during the 1980s, even continuing until today. The cancer of racism is so apparent in this film, but it also brings up the subconscious side of it. How we're raised, what we're taught, how our eyes can't see past things that's been embedded within us, projecting that as prejudices and hatred. The ending sequence was the nail on the head.

MISSISSIPPI, RACE, KKK, TRIAL, RAPE, MURDER...

[nogodnomasters · 8/10 · 9 April 2019]

MISSISSIPPI, RACE, KKK, TRIAL, RAPE, MURDER...did I miss anything? Two rednecks rape and beat the 10 year old daughter of Samuel L. Jackson, who fears they might get off. In open and broad daylight Jackson guns down the rapists. He is on trial for murder. Matthew McConaughey plays a sympathetic attorney who leads a rag-tag group (including Bullock and Donald Sutherland) to defend Jackson against the prosecuting attorney, Kevin Spacey (with a southern accent) who wants to make a name for himself in his bid for governor. The NAACP attempts to take over the case while an overly represented KKK terrorizes the town. Criticism: The temporary insanity plea is clearly a plea for jury nullification, although the movie never uses that phrase. The town appeared split on the case over racial lines with seemingly no middle ground.

The acting was good and the movie generated emotion. Kiefer Sutherland plays a "bad guy." What flashes through the movie is the genius of of the killer (Samuel L.Jackson) on his ability to manipulate the attorney and others in order to achieve his goal. He is clearly a calculating individual.

A Movie With Passion & Soul!

[pegasus-67050 · 7/10 · 28 November 2023]

Great story, great acting and full of PASSION! THIS is what great film making is! NOT new modern 'cash grabs' form the likes of corrupt companies such as modern Disney! Great performances all around in this film that made the audience FEEL and relate to CHARACTERS unlike actors who are FORCED to be in films or shows that they do NOT wish to be IN due to contractual obligations. Disney is one such example of a company with too much greed and power and has thus become one of the most corrupt businesses of ALL TIME! The movie industry is in jeopardy due to this behemoth. I fully supported the Hollywood strikes. This goes beyond just money. JUSTICE SHOULD BE SERVED JUST LIKE IT WAS IN THIS MASTERFUL and PASSION FILLED MOVIE!! 👏 💪

Outstanding actors, timeless story, a must-see!

[madricci · 9/10 · 30 October 2006]

For me this is actually one of the best movies I've ever seen, not only 'cause of the great performances of all main- and supporting actors, but most of it all because of the message and the feelings it gave me while I was watching it and even still gives me. People are watching movies for the same reason they listen to music or look at paintings, they wanna feel. We all have to come along with people of different colors, nationalities and whatever. The best and most peaceful way to do that, like it's mentioned in the movie, is to listen to our hearts, which for me is the message that the director and screenplay-writer wanted to bring along. I hope I got the message, on any account it made me cry several times which is a thing not many movies have achieved yet. For me as a German who dealt a lot with the history of his own country and also a little with the history of the Ku-Klux-Clan, it was good to see that those people are shown as just what they are: A bunch of mind-sick, dumb and dangerous Nazis. The whole situation in the movie in my opinion stands at the appropriate rate to reality of that time in the south of the United States,what makes it very authentic and traceable. The reason I call it a timeless story although it's certainly set in a special time is that everyone is almost forced to think, at least subconsciously, about the way he or she is dealing with those problems of difference that are always gonna exist. I highly recommend this movie but I will not say enjoy or have fun 'cause you won't find these things in "A time to kill". I also love the title 'cause when you think about it, everyone can become a murderer in the right circumstances. But what you're gonna find is a captivating story, acting on its highest level and strong emotions.

Decent Grisham adaptation, all star cast

[CrazyArty · 7/10 · 28 October 2021]

A John Grisham movie adaptation. A black man revenge kills 2 men who brutally assaulted his young daughter in the Deep South. The film follows his trial in court.

The film has a stellar cast of Mathew McConaughey as the lead with Kevin Spacey (in his heyday), Samuel L Jackson and Sandra Bullock in supporting roles, not to mention Kiefer and Donald Sutherland too. Really good performances all round.

It's a decent movie, about racial prejudice and the law. A very touching ending.

It's a difficult subject matter but it's an engaging movie and worth a watch.

Good premise, strong performances, but a flawed writing in the form, and worse, in the content...

[ElMaruecan82 · 5/10 · 9 November 2016]

For all the good things Joel Schumacher's "A Time to Kill" provides, above all, an Oscar-worthy performance of Samuel L. Jackson, too many flaws in the writing altered what could have been a gripping and emotionally engaging experience.

First, could the bad guys be any badder? I know these things happen but talk about 'overkill', in one minute, you get all the racist redneck cliche's, the Confederate flag, the pick-up truck, the booze, and the two villains going all 'buahahaha' on the screen. The rape was shocking enough to provoke an immediate reaction; did it really need all that 'dressing'? And didn't we have enough with the two rapists so we also had to have a KKK booster shoot to tell us that there's no one of redeeming value in the 'victims' side, who could condemn the rape, while still mourning the human losses.

I know subtlety isn't Schumacher's strongest suit but he had the perfect set-up, a father murdering the men who raped his daughter was enough, and all the film needed was to build on this, not to add extra elements reminding how racism still prevails in the South, we got the idea. So, instead of dealing with the pain that could prevail in both sides, instead of having scenes in the courtroom reminding us that 'an eye for an eye' doesn't stand for justice, and make that the core of the debate, the film was just about racism. Writer Akiva Goldman was so blinded by his own 'personal' crusade that he didn't think the story could have been tackled from a more challenging and, say, neutral perspective, asking legitimate questions about 'vigilante' justice.

I read many comments saying "if I was the father, I would have blown their heads off or made them suffer first", but the father didn't kill them as soon as he got a chance, which could have been an 'immediate' reaction, he anticipated a verdict and executed them. We only assume he was right if we take for granted that these men wouldn't have had the right sentence, and this is a certitude the script desperately tries to deliver. But had a prosecutor delivered a similar speech as the climactic one, mentioning all the graphic and disgusting details about the little girl's rape, are we to assume that the jury would have acquitted these two men or given them a suspended sentence? If that's the case, then it's hopeless.

But I resisted and resented that idea. I refuse to believe that there would have been parents in the jury room who'd have felt any sympathy for the rapists. In fact, it's pretty much a MacGuffin, we're supposed to believe that's how the Law works in order to understand the father's action. Movies like "In Cold Blood", "Inherit the Wind" or "Judgment at Nuremeberg" raised thought- provoking questions. "A Time to Kill" provides the good question, but, as if it didn't trust our intelligence enough, it also gives the answer and the arguments, too. And instead of being a confrontation between two disturbing realities, a horrendous crime and a questionable act of vengeance, it becomes your routinely battle between good and evil, and the journey of the young lawyer Brigance, facing burning crosses and houses while his entourage is harassed and threatened.

We have to get through these cliché scenes where he contemplates failure, the moment where his wife (Ashley Judd) reproaches him to spend too much time on this case (boy, did I cringe on this one), where his secretary (Brenda Ficker) tells him he's gone too far, and the "case is lost" moment because the attorney unveiled the past of a key witness. Such a story deserved better than this stuff we've seen over and over again. Basically, apart from Jackson and McConaughey, there's no single three-dimensional character in the film, Sandra Bullock is the wannabe assistant who miraculously provides all the needed information (especially to the audience) and when she's the victim of the most brutal assault, what does she say when Brigance visits her in the hospital? "I had to do this, so you could call me Ellen", how cute!

The one character who could have added some nuance was the cop played by Chris Cooper, who lost his leg in the fusillade. "I would have done the same" he says, I could buy that, but did he have to add "he's a hero, turn him loose", would you call a hero someone who cut your leg off? But this is only a critic on the form; the writing undermines the message more than anything. I thought "Shaft" had a sort of pro-vigilante message and I hated the way everyone cheered when the mother killed Christian Bale's character but retrospectively, I realize that, at least in that case, she trusted Justice first, and it proved her wrong. Here, Jackson did his own justice with racial injustices as a pre-crime alibi.

Even the climactic summation is all wrong, it invites people to imagine the crime on a white girl, not on their daughter, but a WHITE girl. Well, if that's the way to earn the jury's empathy, then even an acquittal is meaningless. And the film didn't even play fair with the plot to give us a proper verdict: so, the father is "innocent"? Of what? He killed them, didn't he? He pleaded insanity, so was he or not? If he had been given a short sentence of jail or a suspended one that would have been a realistic ending and a victory, but no, the Justice system admits that he was right to act on his own terms, out of insanity, grief, pain whatever you call it.

The more I dig in the plot, the less reasons to admire it, I see. It is really not a good script, and could easily have been one of the best trials movies, had it tried a little more, or maybe a little less.