In the world of modern blockbusters that we live in, it’s sometimes hard to believe just how popular the John Grisham legal thriller film adaptations of the 90’s truly were. These medium budgeted lawyer based films would rake in masses of box office money and often rightfully so. Grisham’s novels were some of the most popular of the time, with critical and audience appreciation alike, so when it came to the 90’s and time for these films to be adapted for the screen; some of the finest directors and many of the most celebrated actors of the current time and the past were more than ready to fill these films to the rafters with talent. Although sometimes the quality varied product to product, one thing was almost undeniable; they were always more than solid gripping dramatic thrillers. I’m going to talk about the seven films that made up this decade long trend today.
The Firm (Dir. Sydney Pollack, 1993)
 |
| Credit |
Without a doubt one of the most sensational thrillers of the decade was our first Grisham film adaptation, The Firm, directed by the legendary Sydney Pollack. Perhaps as I have said it is hard to contextualise now just how much anticipation was built up around this film at the time of its release, perhaps even more absurd when you reckon with what this film actually consists of; that being chiefly overbilling, taxes and an awful lot of faxing. The first two directors to work on Grisham films were Pollack and Alan J. Pakula, both famed for forming the very well established genre of the paranoid thriller, with Pollack films such as Three Days of Condor and Pakula of course with The Parallax View and All the President’s Men. In many ways the intrinsic formula for these 70s thrillers was exactly what was needed to make these pulpy brilliant Grisham best-sellers work as excellent films. Put on top of that in the case of The Firm, two of the greatest writers of the era with David Rabe and Robert Towne. The Firm certainly had an awful lot going for it. For a start the premise itself and the overall plot of the Grisham novel is an incredible thing to start with. Conspiracy and mystery make any thriller work and at the heart of the sinister titular law firm that takes on Tom Cruise’s Mitch McDeere, there is conspiracy and mystery aplenty. The project itself was originally conceived as a chance for Cruise to star and direct, however I do feel that the film works best in the capable hands of Pollack, and with Cruise in the lead. His sweaty anxiety as the film grows and grows its immense tension is the chief reason it works so well. As a matter of fact the entire ensemble is a piece of art, even in the absolute smallest roles we find a major calibre of talent and in many cases a sign of the film history that the film is trying to recreate. Whether it be in the case of the always terrific Gene Hackman, Hal Holbrook or Wilfred Brimley, or too in the case of the zanier Holly Hunter, Gary Busey or David Stratharian, or even still in the case of the more dramatic Jeanne Tripplehorn, Ed Harris or Tobin Bell. Either way when it’s all said and done, the amount of talent in the case is undisputed. However frankly the film is unwieldy, which in many ways is why we love it so much, with its 2 and a half hour run time and its multiple rather convoluted sub-plots. At the heart of the film the plot is great, but its does get in the way of itself multiple times. As stupid as it sounds however, perhaps the film’s best feature is that of the score by David Grusin, based soley around the piano, with some moments of percussion too being achieved by hitting the body of the instrument. The jaunty at times, but often pulsating, and melancholic score of Grusin gives the film a rhythm that would be pretty hard to achieve, and gives the film the cohesiveness that it so desperately needs.
The Pelican Brief (Dir. Alan J. Pakula, 1993)
 |
| Credit |
What starts as a great tension filled throwback to the good old days of the 70s paranoid thrillers that its director Alan J. Pakula had a major hand in creating, does unfortunately in the case of The Pelican Brief, eventually subside in its second half into a pretty average environmentally focussed piece. In watching the film for the first time I found myself with a DVD that had to be flipped half-way through, this divide came at the mid-point reveal in the film and bizarrely pinpointed almost exactly the moment that I completely lost interest in the film. As aforementioned the film does really create a great sense of the sort of thriller world that many films of a political nature would inhabit in the seventies, however here unfortunately whereas as those other films only grew more intriguing once the intrinsic mystery had been revealed, this only grew rather weary. The film places two inquisitive individuals on the run, a law student played by Julia Roberts and a journalist played by Denzel Washington. Grisham actually reportedly wrote the role of Darby Shaw with Roberts in mind, she is an ideal fit, although as I think have said before on this blog, I have never really been as love with Roberts as everybody else is. In this film she’s perfectly fine again, but does lack a bit of propellant energy, leading to Washington being the major pull in the film. I mean, of course, he’s Washington, that unbridled charisma and power underpins all his work, but it’s the intelligence that really makes his characters work and it’s what make this one work also. As with all of these Grisham features, the ensemble is numerous and filled with star after star. Including Anthony Heald in his first of multiple Grisham appearances on this very list. The ensemble here all work together very effectively to build up the conspiracy and show to what extent the mystery does indeed “go all the way to the top”. The film even boasts Stanley Tucci as an assassin, in a terrific early turn for him. What starts off as an intriguing, even if a little convoluted and far-fetched premise does built up its tension for a significant part of its running time, but does unfortunately not manage to succeed in fulfilling the promise of this premise, giving us a resolution to the mysterious titular Pelican Brief that is frankly nowhere near as an interesting as it needed to be.
The Client (Dir. Joel Schumacher, 1994)
 |
| Credit |
I have found that in may circles some see this as perhaps the best of all the Grisham films and in many ways I have to agree, for as much as it may not have the greatest of all the legal plot, it perhaps doesn’t need to, for at the heart of the film is a very effective and surprisingly touching friendship between an impoverished child who bares witness to the suicide of a mob lawyer and the small-time attorney who he hires to defend him, at the cost of a single dollar. Grisham’s sole stipulation with the film was that the role of Mark Sway, the southern child and titular client, would be played by an unknown. The eventual unknown found was that of Brad Renfro, who is pretty great to say it’s his first job, for not only does Renfro bring a certain grit to the role, but he also delivers a great entertaining smirking quality. His Mark Sway is a sly and cunning little child, who is still however exactly that; a child, with his natural vulnerability shining through at multiple exceptionally chosen moments. The films sole Oscar nomination was received however by Susan Sarandon, whose performance as Reggie Love, the ex-alcoholic attorney who takes Mark under her wing for protection and services, gives us one of her typically dynamic and furiously entertaining turns, whilst as always delivering multiple moments of immense strength and similar vulnerability. As a matter of fact of all the Grisham films this one has the most heart, with a tear-jerking climax that really does sneak up on you with just how effecting it is. This is also one of the more thrilling Grisham films, with this marking the first of two back-to-back Grisham adaptations directed by Joel Schumacher. Although in typical Grisham fashion the ending is slightly convoluted and truncated, it does still pack a certain dramatic punch, and certainly delivers an emotional one as already stated. As with all these features the ensemble is insanely stacked, however this time the greatest performance amongst them is seriously a field of one with Tommy Lee Jones so totally relishing the role of raucous, media whore district attorney Roy “The Reverand” Foltrigg, nicknamed as such for his over-zealous repeated usage of bible quotes in all of his court appearances. But in really it really is that emotional punch with the relationship between Reggie and Mark that makes this film the success that it very much is.
A Time to Kill (Dir. Joel Schumacher, 1996)
 |
| Credit |
Originally conceived as a project for Kevin Costner, but rejected by Grisham through the objection of Costner wanting more or less complete control over the project, 1996’s A Time to Kill was Grisham’s first novel and imbued elements of many of the more popular courtroom features of the previous years, primarily the racial aspects of To Kill a Mockingbird. The film collides many very heady themes ranging from justifiable murder through to vigilante violence, aswell as the pervading racist tension in the air that breeds much of its own violence. The film puts Samuel L. Jackson’s Carl Lee Hailey on trial for the murder of his daughter’s rapists who brutalised and tortured his young Tonya, prior to Hailey gunning the two of them down in the middle of the court, wounding an innocent police officer in the process. Jackson is just incredible as Hailey and although he isn’t exactly given as much as we might want him to be given on-screen, focussing instead more on our other lead, Jackson does in many ways give us one of the defining moments of his entire career with his courtroom outburst. A truly iconic cinematic moment, I have no issue in commenting on as such. That other lead is Matthew McConaughey in his first major lead role and a seriously star-making one at that. Originally cast as one of the redneck rapists, McConaughey went to Schumacher (directing his second and far grander in scope Grisham feature, with very similar success) and enquired about the lead. The decision to cast him as Jake Brigance was certainly the right one with him giving the role the charisma and depth that it needs for the film to work and not become some surface level ‘white saviour’ farce. Actually the film manages to stray away from that trope as frequently as possible, with Hailey even successfully pitching in in the trial with great success, let us not forget also that the film’s narrative begins with Hailey taking the power that he has been denied through years of systematic oppression into his own hands, even if it do be through means of intense violence. It was this very pro-vigilante stance that led to the film, and it’s book before it, to be one of Grisham’s most sensationalist and ultimately most controversial novels – with it more or less condoning murder if it be for the “right” reasons. Very much in line with the rest of the films we’re talking about, A Time to Kill also features an almost unnaturally stacked ensemble of actors, in many ways too many to mention. The best of the supporting roles is perhaps Kevin Spacey’s Rufus Buckley, whose wonderful southern sing-songy deliberations raise the roof off the courthouse, only for Brigance (and McConaughey) to try and top with his closing summation. A summation that solidifies in a short scene the power, quality and at points possibly mis-handled presentation of race politics that you get in the film. But all in all, as with the best of these, it really is a more than solid film.
The Chamber (Dir. James Foley, 1996)
 |
| Credit |
Reportedly Grisham’s least favourite of all his adaptations and it’s pretty understandable why. Now I wonder whether this is some self awareness from Grisham that the original source plot isn’t one of his best or whether he is solely putting the weight of the blame on the direction and performances, for this really is a film that kind of meanders until a somewhat effecting climax, with some big ideas along the way that just really do come to nothing in the grand scheme of things. Perhaps the issues can also be placed on the multiple re-drafts William Goldman’s original script received over the course of the film’s production, with the legendary author commenting later about his own lack of satisfaction of the re-writes, declaring also that he never actually saw the finished film. There is the germ of an intriguing idea here with Grisham disguising a rather sullen and touching family drama about legacy and previous generations, as one of his more typical legal thrillers, however the final product really is a very unsatisfying piece of work, especially for a film that opens with such a diabolical and frighteningly shocking opening. The films great strengths lie with the central Gene Hackman performance, but unfortunately do dissipate beyond him. Hackman is of course extremely good here giving us a nuanced and deliberate performance carving out the multiple dimensions of a man so clearly effected by guilt, shame and the destructive nature of his own racism and hatred. However across from him is Chris O’Donnell, giving a very sub-par performance absolutely getting blown out the water every scene by Hackman, it really is a matter of with a different actor the film could have some great scenes, but time after time here it’s the situation of Hackman acting against barley anything. The direction by James Foley kind of cements my overall opinion on the feature, with it being similarly bland and generic, with frequent (but nowhere near frequent enough) bursts of exciting concept and ideas. Worth an eventual watch for Hackman, but don’t rush by any means.
The Rainmaker (Dir. Francis Ford Coppola, 1997)
 |
| Credit |
“To me, it’s the best adaptation of any of my books. I love the movie. It’s just so well done”. So said Grisham himself of Francis Ford Coppola’s The Rainmaker, a film that falls into the oddly breadthful sub-genre of large insurance company gets taken down by small fry lawyer or unsuspecting student. Here our fresh faced lawyer is Matt Damon in one of his first major roles, positioned rather clearly to make the film not only a box office success, but also a bit of a starring vehicle for the then young ingénue. The opinion that this is the best Grisham film is indeed held by many, and although I may make moves to comment that other films on this list are more enjoyable, or more watchable, one cannot deny the rather taut and very effective craft that has gone into the scripting and direction of this film. In regards to plotting and characters it certainly is the best adaptation script-wise, and for whatever it loses in more outlandish elements, it certainly makes up for in a far more truthful and depthful presentation of courtroom politics and the big and little people that it effect’s daily. The screenplay has two credited writers, with Coppola credited for the main body of the screenplay and Michael Herr (also credited on arguably the two best Vietnam war films, Apocalypse Now and Full Metal Jacket) credited as writing the lengthy amounts of narration that accompany the film, which are plentiful but all feel very natural and fitting with Herr’s words and Damon’s wonderfully deliberate performance. As with all these films the amount of stars on screen is garngatuin, with Dean Stockwell and Roy Scheider even showing up for singular scenes, delivering as always. Damon and Calre Danes are the core centre of the film offering a realistic romance that repeatedly goes in ways that one couldn’t fathom, however it’s really Danny De Vito, Jon Voight and Danny Glover as a triefecta of different angles of the real-life law world that really make the film the murky, truthful feature that it works so well as.
-
I mean just look at the list of directors we’ve talked about today; Coppola, Pollack, Pakula, even Schumacher! Now I would hardly say that any of these are masterpieces, but it really is these sorts of films that I long for nowadays. The sort of adult drama that now is reserved for limited series where stories are stretched out for far too long and are filled with character after character whose goal is to seemingly take us away from the actual story at hand. As I say these are no masterpieces, but what I would give for a film like this to be released today. I feel any re-visiting of one of these films would lead to much the same response from many film lovers.
- - Thomas Carruthers
0 Comments