Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: wideawake

I avoid anything with Grisham's name on the credits so I didn't see it...what was the aspect you object to? Just curious.


54 posted on 12/21/2005 9:35:47 AM PST by Borges
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies ]


To: Borges
The film was about the widow of a man who was killed by a psychopath who shot up his office.

The bereaved widow is suing the firearm manufacturer in civil court.

An evil cabal of firearm manufacturers secretly meet and retain the services of Gene Hackman, a jury consultant who is willing to break dozens of federal laws for a price.

John Cusack plays a slacker who is secretly a brilliant jury manipulator. He dodges Hackman's vetting process, and therefore is risking his life as the two play cat and mouse.

It is revealed that he has done all this for a woman (Rachel Weisz) whose sister was killed in a school shooting years before, and his manipulation of the jury to force the firearm industry into bankruptcy is a social imperative reinforced by the passion of a man for the lady he loves.

Formulaic, treacly, two-dimensional, manipulative crap.

But it gave me some more ideas for my "inverse Grisham" screenplay.

69 posted on 12/21/2005 9:57:01 AM PST by wideawake
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson