Category: Review

A TIME TO KILL MOVIE REVIEW

   

MOVIE REVIEW

Filmmaker Joel Schumacher’s over-the-top courtroom drama, A Time to Kill, probably won’t be remembered as the most subtle courtroom drama of the 1990s — and there were a lot of them — but it remains one of the more riveting, thanks to a powerful performance from the man himself, Samuel L. Jackson. Adapted from John Grisham’s debut novel, the film digs into race, justice, and vengeance in a Mississippi town simmering with prejudice. And while the storytelling sometimes leans toward Hollywood drama cheese, the courtroom foundation feels impressively grounded.

The “plot” or in this case — um…the uh, “case” is simple and devastating: SLJ (Pulp Fiction) plays Carl Lee Hailey, a black father who guns down the two white men who brutally assaulted his 10-year-old daughter. When he’s arrested and charged with murder, the trial becomes a lightning rod for racial tensions, media frenzy, and political grandstanding. Grisham fans may find themselves in familiar narrative territory, drawing in corruption, small-town juries, and a sense of law struggling to keep pace with morality. What makes it work on screen is how convincingly the legal mechanics are staged. The cross-examination and closing arguments aren’t played as theatrics alone; they track with real procedure, giving the film’s drama an extra punch of authenticity.

And then there’s Samuel L. freaking Jackson. Long before he became Marvel’s one-eyed super-spymaster, Nick Fury, or the purple lightsaber wielding Jedi Master, Mace Windu, Jackson delivered one of his most searing performances here. His character isn’t a symbol, he’s a father, haunted by what happened to his daughter but unrepentant in his choice. Jackson brings fury (no pun intended)  and dignity in equal measure, and when he finally delivers his gut-wrenching testimony, it’s a reminder of just how much raw power he had already mastered by the mid-’90s.

His jawdropping delivery of the line, “Yes, they deserved to die, and I hope they burn in hell!” lives on as one of the all-time great movie trailer mic drop lines.

Matthew McConaughey was the surprise of the flick. Up to this point, McConaughey was better known as a dopey but charming scene-stealer (Dazed and Confused made him a cult figure), but A Time to Kill put him in the driver’s seat of a serious drama. As young defense attorney Jake Brigance, McConaughey balances idealism with desperation, and his climactic closing argument — a plea for the jury to imagine the victim as white — is delivered with a conviction that instantly rebranded him as more than just a laid-back Texan drawl.

The film isn’t perfect…its villains are cartoonish, its tone occasionally overheated but as a courtroom showcase, it hits hard. The law is messy, the stakes are personal, and the performances elevate the story into something more than a paperback thriller.

Verdict: A Time to Kill thrives on its courtroom reality and the powerhouse pairing of Jackson and McConaughey. One gave the film its fire; the other proved he had the chops to carry serious drama.

www.scene-stealers.com

JUROR #2 — MOVIE REVIEW

   

MOVIE REVIEW

Let’s be honest, Clint Eastwood deserved better. Juror #2, his swan song at the staggering age of 94, should have been treated like an event, a legacy capstone for one of Hollywood’s last true icons. Instead, Warner Bros. and HBO quietly slipped it onto HBOMAX or MAX or whatever it was called when it was released, like they were embarrassed to admit it even existed.

So, no red carpet farewell, no theatrical gravitas, just a big slide screen on the app. Sadly, it is befitting of the movie itself, a preposterous yet engaging courtroom drama that gets the procedure right but buries it under so many clichés you can almost hear the gavel sighing.

The plot of Juror #2 is pure potboiler. Nicholas Hoult (Warm Bodies, The Menu) plays Justin Kemp, a family man called in for jury duty who realizes, mid-trial, that he may have been involved in the very crime he’s being asked to deliberate on. It’s the kind of setup that could fuel a taut Hitchcock thriller or at least an above-average courtroom nail-biter. Instead, Juror #2 plays its hand with all the subtlety of a TV movie, leaning on predictable clichés..

The courtroom scenes are, admittedly, handled with surprising care. Eastwood (and screenwriter Jonathan Abrams) clearly did their homework: the voir dire process, the objections, the judge’s rulings all track with real-world procedure more than your average legal drama. The accuracy gives the film a certain groundedness, and for stretches you can almost forget how predictable the story beats are. It’s refreshing to watch a jury room that doesn’t look like a soap opera set, and to hear dialogue that occasionally sounds like actual lawyers could have written it.

But accuracy only gets you so far. The characters surrounding Hoult’s conflicted juror are stock archetypes: the sympathetic mother, the tough prosecutor, the morally unbending defense attorney. Eastwood’s direction, usually so good at wringing honesty from minimalism, feels workmanlike here, like he’s content to just point the camera, let the actors hit their marks, and move on. There are flashes of his old skill, especially in the smaller, quieter exchanges, but nothing that elevates the film above “solid but uninspired.”

Then there’s the elephant in the courtroom: the handling of this movie’s release. For Clint Eastwood’s final film, a man who gave Warner Brothers decades of hits and Oscar prestige, the decision to shuffle Juror #2 straight to streaming feels almost insulting. Just dropped into the digital void, another tile in the endless HBO carousel. For a filmmaker of Eastwood’s stature, that’s a disservice not just to him, but to the audience.

In the end, Juror #2 isn’t a disaster. It’s competently made, occasionally engaging, and Hoult does what he can with the material. But it’s also weighed down by predictability, a lack of urgency, and a sense that everyone involved is just going through the motions. Eastwood deserved a final bow worthy of his legacy. Instead, he got a muted gavel strike that most viewers will scroll past without even noticing.

Verdict: Juror #2 is a courtroom drama with procedural accuracy but little spark, a cliché-ridden final entry in Eastwood’s legendary career. That it was quietly shuffled onto streaming says as much about the state of the industry as it does about the film itself and neither verdict feels like justice.

More movie reviews:

www.scene-stealers.com

ERIN BROCKOVICH MOVIE REVIEW — TIM ENGLISH

  

MOVIE REVIEW

Erin Brockovich (2000) is still a gripping and inspiring legal drama after 25 years. And bonus points: it’s based on true events, showcasing the power of perseverance, justice, and the law as a tool for positive change. And also, lawyers are good dudes and have good people working for them and most of them want to help. This is one of director Steven Soderbergh‘s best flicks and Julia Roberts even won an Academy Award for her amazing performance. So let’s dig in.

Erin Brockovich tells the story of an unemployed single mother who convinces attorney Ed Masry (Albert Finney) to give her a job at his law firm. At first, Ed wants nothing to do with her because she lacks “formal legal training”. But Erin’s tenacity not only earns her a spot at the firm but then she discovers a massive cover up involving medical records, real estate files and a gas  company she dedicates herself to exposing the conspiracy exposing toxic substances linked to serious health issues.

The legal aspects of Erin Brockovich are one of its strongest elements. The film provides a rare and interesting look into environmental law. Unlike typical courtroom dramas, Erin Brockovich focuses on the painstaking investigative work that goes into building a case. Based on a true story, Erin’s relentless pursuit of justice eventually leads to a landmark $333 million settlement, one of the largest in U.S. history at the time.

What makes the film particularly compelling and relatable is its portrayal of legal ethics and the power dynamics between corporate giants and ordinary people like you and me. The accused company’s attempts to mislead the community and downplay the contamination highlight the need for experienced and dedicated attorneys to challenge corporate misconduct.

The film also emphasizes the importance of legal expertise. While Erin is the heart and driving force of the case, her partnership with her boss, attorney Ed Masry, puts a huge stamp on the necessity of legal knowledge and courtroom strategy during the pursuit of justice.

While I’m not always a huge Julia Roberts fan, she knows the assignment here, and delivers a career-defining performance, bringing charm, humor, and real emotion to the role. Her portrayal of Erin is refreshingly raw and unconventional for a legal drama. She says what we’re all thinking. Of course, I can’t not mention the late, great Albert Finney and his masterful portrayal of Ed Masry provides a grounded and heartfelt counterbalance to Roberts.

Erin Brockovich is a story about resilience, integrity, and the power of one determined individual to make a difference. Its blend of legal drama, social commentary, and character-driven storytelling makes it one of the most compelling films in its genre.

Whether you’re interested in law, inspiring true stories, or simply a well-crafted drama, Erin Brockovich is a must-watch, still, 25 years after its release.

www.terrorontheplains.com

www.scene-stealers.com