Review: A Time to Kill

Set in the very, very Southern part of the US, a 10 year-old black girl is raped and brutalised by a couple of sicko yahoos (Nicky Katt and Doug Hutchison). The girl’s father, Carl Lee Hailey (Samuel L. Jackson) is beyond furious and shoots the white creeps dead right there at the courthouse. Unfortunately, a good-hearted local white cop (Chris Cooper) is wounded in the shooting. Carl Lee seeks legal representation from local attorney Jake Brigance (Matthew McConaughey) who is white, but a decent family man who previously helped out Carl Lee’s brother. His colleagues, family (wife Ashley Judd, concerned for the family’s safety), and even his loyal secretary (played by Brenda Fricker) advise him against taking the case, as it’s incredibly dangerous around these parts. Brigance has courage and a conscience however, and agrees to represent Carl Lee. It’s a massive uphill battle going up against a most likely prejudiced (white) jury, a slick prosecutor (Kevin Spacey), and a seemingly pretty impartial ‘hanging’ judge named Noose (Patrick McGoohan). Carl Lee’s penchant for emotional outbursts don’t help his cause, either. Then there’s the matter of Katt’s mean, racist brother who sees fit to contact the local branch of the Klan for help with this ‘problem’. Talk about a pressure cooker situation. Helping Brigand on the case are his boozy partner (Oliver Platt) and a young legal researcher visiting from out of town (Sandra Bullock). On the other side we have…pretty much the entire state of Mississippi, certainly the majority of its white folk. Donald Sutherland turns up as Brigand’s alcoholic mentor, M. Emmet Walsh and Anthony Heald play opposing medical experts, Kurtwood Smith is a Klansman, Charles S. Dutton plays a local black sheriff, and Joe Seneca plays a local reverend who is contacted by the NAACP, who want to appoint their own black attorney to represent Carl Lee.

It’s not on the level of “The Rainmaker”, but this 1996 John Grisham thriller from director Joel Schumacher (“Flatliners”, “8MM”, “Blood Creek”) is engrossing, if unnecessarily long. It’s a well-made, well-shot film and even if I disagree with vigilante justice it doesn’t affect my judgement of the film’s merits in the slightest. In fact, it’s every scene involving Sandra Bullock’s character and mediocre performance that I regretted more than anything. It’s a far too ‘Hollywood’ element, it’d be like “Mississippi Burning” climaxing with Gene Hackman and Willem Dafoe blasting away at the entire town of racist creeps with machine guns blazing or something. It’s an inappropriately cheesy element in an otherwise pretty serious, dour film. Bullock being miscast doesn’t help either, and ain’t no way anyone’s gonna spend time with Sandy B when they’ve got Ashley Judd at home waiting for them. I’m not suggesting Bullock isn’t charming as hell in the role, I’m simply arguing that a) Ashley Judd trumps Sandra Bullock always and forever, and b) I’m arguing that it’s just not right for the film/story to have this hokey and predictable element. So even if you did cast someone more appropriately in that role, you’ve still got the manufactured love triangle (that ultimately isn’t even a love triangle) and predictable climax weighing the film down a bit. Do you know why it’s so bothersome? Because it makes a long film even longer when it really doesn’t have to be, nor should be. Remove Bullock altogether and simply remove the cliché from the Matthew McConaughey-Ashley Judd relationship and not only would the film be better, it’d be mercifully shorter as well.

As for the political element to the film, the only thing that I feel detracts from the overall quality of it, is the racial politics brought about by the NAACP characters in the film. The depiction of those characters and the black elders in the film is a bit unfair if you ask me. Whether Grisham or notorious screenwriter Akiva Goldsman (“The Client”, “Silent Fall”, “Batman Forever”) is at fault, I cannot rightly say. I just know that (despite the good work done by veteran character actor Joe Seneca), it’s a story element that throws things a little off balance. Hell, it borders on the dreaded ‘white saviour’ trope, though given the story’s location it might be a bit unfair of me to think of it like that. I mean, if the defendant is gonna be ‘saved’, it’s gonna have to be by a white guy, right? Same thing with “To Kill a Mockingbird”. So while I think the film’s detractors overstate the complaints (about the politics primarily) a bit, it’s certainly a flawed film. It is however, also still a good film.

Whilst I may take issue with Sandra Bullock (whose character serves only one, predictable purpose), I have to say that Schumacher has amassed one helluva terrific cast by and large here. It’s the acting and characters that will resonate most here. This was the role and film that made Matthew McConaughey a pretty big star, after emerging in Steven Spielberg’s dour “Amistad”. Getting comparisons to Paul Newman early on his career, I don’t suppose his career has panned out that way. However, he is an Oscar winner now and looks quite a bit like Newman here if you ask me. It’s one of his best, most persuasive and charismatic performances to date. Oliver Platt (although he has tended to be typecast as drunken losers) steals his every scene here as McConaughey’s buddy/partner. Samuel L. Jackson is pitch-perfect as the vengeful family patriarch. Everyone knows his big line, but he also does some real acting here and gets in this man’s skin utterly convincingly. Kevin Spacey is a great actor perfectly cast and easily one of the highlights of the film. I have nothing else to say about him here for obvious and deplorable off-screen reasons. The always underrated Donald Sutherland has a great character part here, and the great character actor ought to have amassed several Oscars in his career if you ask me (Especially for “Don’t Look Now”, “Ordinary People”, and “Backdraft”). His son Kiefer is perhaps even better here as a mean, sour and unrepentant racist who calls upon the KKK to assist him in his deeds here. Veteran British actor Patrick McGoohan has one of the juicier parts as a wily, no-nonsense judge who appears to be just a little too close to one side of the equation than the other. That said, someone has over-egged the character just a tad here. Palling around with Spacey is one thing, but the judge having black servants really wasn’t necessary (nor is calling the character Judge Noose!). Still, McGoohan is excellent. Kurtwood Smith is a one-note actor for the most part, but cold, mean, and hateful happen to be well within that note. A good bit of minor part casting there. Less effective minor casting comes from a goofy and miscast Nicky Katt as one of the racist redneck rapists. Doug Hutchison couldn’t be more perfectly cast as the other, but mullet-sporting Nicky Katt looks and sounds ridiculous. Thankfully he’s gone early. On the upside we get a brilliant small turn by durable character actor M. Emmet Walsh as a boozy doctor associate of Donald Sutherland’s. He very nearly takes the film in just a couple of scenes. How Sutherland has never won an Oscar and Walsh never even nominated for one is a true travesty in my book. They’re two of the best and most long-serving character actors still-living as of early 2019. It’s not a big role, but this film might be one of the best uses of Chris Cooper on screen as far as I’m concerned. Anthony Heald, like Platt, is typecast and perfectly so as the prosecution’s doctor. He’s the only sane casting choice for the part, appearing almost as smug as the chief prosecutor.

Schumacher, far from the most subtle of filmmakers (“8MM”, anyone?) does go a little over-the-top here at times. The last 25 minutes in particular is a bit overblown, even the idiot jury foreman. However, it’s to the credit of he and Goldsman (or at least Grisham, I haven’t read the book) that the racist characters and KKK here aren’t glamorised in the slightest. These are ugly, goofy-looking morons in their dopey, cheap-arse white hoods. I’m not sure any officer of the court would express the feelings McConaughey does here, but at least they’ve made it clear that McConaughey knows he shouldn’t have those feelings professionally and that he feels somewhat responsible for what happens as well. ***** POSSIBLE SPOILER ***** Although I don’t think the ploy would work as well as this movie seems to think it would, McConaughey’s big speech will have no trouble disgusting, horrifying, saddening, and moving any audience member with a pulse and a conscience. It’s truly one helluva speech. Is the right verdict found at the end of the film? Why should that even be a question a viewer/critic need ask or answer? My only issue with it is that based on the jury it seems to rely way too much on one specific speech given. However, the film is already too long so I’m not gonna gripe about that. ***** END POSSIBLE SPOILER *****

Probably third in line behind “The Rainmaker” and “The Client” in John Grisham adaptations, this is lumpy but ultimately effective thriller-making by Schumacher. Sandra Bullock is unwanted, but everyone else comes up trumps in the cast here. It wants to be “To Kill a Mockingbird” and doesn’t quite make that grade, but it’s good stuff if you can stomach the vigilante politics (On that front it’s a helluva lot more restrained than Schumacher’s ghastly “Falling Down” at least).

Rating: B-