Author Topic: The John Grisham Project  (Read 7981 times)

Junior

  • Bert Macklin, FBI
  • Global Moderator
  • Objectively Awesome
  • ******
  • Posts: 28709
  • What's the rumpus?
    • Benefits of a Classical Education
Re: The John Grisham Project
« Reply #40 on: February 25, 2020, 08:22:43 AM »
I'm on the cusp of graduating from law school

No associate of the forum has EVER failed the Bar exam. ;)

Lol, I just rewatched this one and I think you'd make a great southern lawyer, 'noff.
Check out my blog of many topics

“I’m not a quitter, Kimmy! I watched Interstellar all the way to the end!”

Corndog

  • Objectively Awesome
  • ******
  • Posts: 17025
  • Oo-da-lolly, Oo-da-lolly, golly what a day!
    • Corndog Chats
Re: The John Grisham Project
« Reply #41 on: February 25, 2020, 02:07:37 PM »
The Rainmaker (Francis Ford Coppola, 1997)

I would say that the up and down nature of this John Grisham journey is getting maddening, but since we are in the uptick of that swing with The Rainmaker, I will hold my grievances until another bad film comes across the marathon list. The imbalance of good and bad movies in this marathon is definitely frustrating though, with the quality of each movie seemingly dependent on the directorial choices and perhaps partially due to the variation of source material. Having abandoned the literary portion of this marathon, that’s pure conjecture, but the cinematic values of the scenarios certainly feels varied. So perhaps Hollywood would have been better to vett which of Grisham’s best sellers stood the best chance of translating to celluloid.

Rudy Baylor (Matt Damon) is a young lawyer fresh out of law school looking for a job. He lands at J. Lyman Stone (Mickey Rourke), who is a slimey, ambulance chasing lawyer, but it’s a start for Rudy. There, he meets Deck Shifflet (Danny DeVito) an associate who has failed the Bar exam six times, but takes Rudy under his wing. When Stone gets into hot water, Rudy and Deck form their own practice, where Baylor’s first major case is against an insurance giant. While defending a dying man and his family (Mary Kay Place, Red West) against a corporate attorney machine (Jon Voigt), he begins to fall for a young woman (Claire Danes) in an abusive relationship. Rudy is young and inexperienced, but his passion and moral compass guide him in a profession rife with morally bankrupt actors.

What first immediately stands out with The Rainmaker is both the experienced and talented direction of Francis Ford Coppola, which is sure handed and more confident, if less flashy than you would think from an auteur type, as well as the performance from a young Matt Damon. The Rainmaker is right in the center of the Matt Damon moment of the late 90s which included Good Will Hunting, Rounders and Saving Private Ryan, all of which vaulted him to stardom. Coppola’s direction is like a warm blanket on a chilly night compared to the outputs of Pakula and Foley, whose John Grisham Cinematic Universe entries represent the subpar films. He handles this interwoven tale with adept precision, which pairs extremely well with Damon’s performance.

And in fact, this cast is riddled with great actors and performances. Danny DeVito in the supporting role is particularly strong, as are Red West and Mary Kay Place in much smaller roles. I think the narrative here borders with films like Erin Brockovich and Dark Waters in the “corporations are bad and out to get you” lane, which perhaps makes it more convention that you’d like, but its extremely well done and what sets it apart are the personal touches sprinkled throughout, which is led by the human performance from Matt Damon and paired with the side narrative of his relationship with the Danes character. I can see some call this section superfluous, but to me it is central to understanding Rudy Baylor, his motivations, and what makes him the hero in this story. He’s the anti-lawyer, looking to take on the rotten establishment and fight for what’s right, not just what makes him and everyone else the most money.

I would be much more interested in more Grisham movies if I knew the “series” would get directors like Coppola to sign on. Grisham and Marvel are not equal comparisons, but what has made the Marvel Cinematic Universe so successful in recent years is the ability to recruit great directors like Ryan Coogler and Taika Waititi and get them to tell the stories in their own way. Schumacher, Foley, and eventually Fleder feel very much like directors for hire, and perhaps the Grisham machine’s penchant for star-studded casts is where all the money was spent, but give me great director plus young, cheaper, promising actor with a few notable vets any day of the week. I think that is the formula that might have worked best. But maybe I’m wrong. Maybe the quality of the material is entirely dependent upon the source material’s inability to consistently be cinematically exciting. All that said, The Rainmaker is an easy recommendation in this series.

★★★☆☆ - Liked It
"Time is the speed at which the past decays."

colonel_mexico

  • Elite Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1416
Re: The John Grisham Project
« Reply #42 on: February 25, 2020, 06:02:08 PM »
I'm on the cusp of graduating from law school

No associate of the forum has EVER failed the Bar exam. ;)

No pressure  ;)


LOL thanks guys, that lurking fear for the past 3 years is getting realer every day that passes....a giant iceberg off the port bow that somehow I hoped would miss...I'm sitting on the deck listening to the violin players as I go down
"What do you want me to do draw you a picture?! Spell it out?! Don't ever ask me, as long as you live don't ever ask me more!"

colonel_mexico

  • Elite Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1416
Re: The John Grisham Project
« Reply #43 on: February 25, 2020, 06:05:25 PM »
The Rainmaker (Francis Ford Coppola, 1997)

I would be much more interested in more Grisham movies if I knew the “series” would get directors like Coppola to sign on. Grisham and Marvel are not equal comparisons, but what has made the Marvel Cinematic Universe so successful in recent years is the ability to recruit great directors like Ryan Coogler and Taika Waititi and get them to tell the stories in their own way. Schumacher, Foley, and eventually Fleder feel very much like directors for hire, and perhaps the Grisham machine’s penchant for star-studded casts is where all the money was spent, but give me great director plus young, cheaper, promising actor with a few notable vets any day of the week. I think that is the formula that might have worked best. But maybe I’m wrong. Maybe the quality of the material is entirely dependent upon the source material’s inability to consistently be cinematically exciting. All that said, The Rainmaker is an easy recommendation in this series.

★★★☆☆ - Liked It

AGREE....maybe even action it up a bit like with John McTiernan lol jk, but not really
"What do you want me to do draw you a picture?! Spell it out?! Don't ever ask me, as long as you live don't ever ask me more!"

smirnoff

  • Objectively Awesome
  • ******
  • Posts: 26251
    • smirnoff's Top 100
Re: The John Grisham Project
« Reply #44 on: February 25, 2020, 09:06:12 PM »
I'm on the cusp of graduating from law school

No associate of the forum has EVER failed the Bar exam. ;)

Lol, I just rewatched this one and I think you'd make a great southern lawyer, 'noff.


Corndog

  • Objectively Awesome
  • ******
  • Posts: 17025
  • Oo-da-lolly, Oo-da-lolly, golly what a day!
    • Corndog Chats
Re: The John Grisham Project
« Reply #45 on: February 28, 2020, 12:33:34 PM »
Runaway Jury (Gary Fleder, 2003)

While the John Grisham light shone bright in the mid-90s, after the release of The Rainmaker in 1997, there was quite the drought all the way until this release, Runaway Jury in 2003. So after 6 films released in the span of just 4 years, we go 6 years? I wish I would have researched why that might have been before writing this review, but it’s fascinating to me. As my wife is a huge fan of Grisham’s novels, I know there were plenty of other titles that should have presented themselves as options to adapt. So why this one? Why after so long? And perhaps more interestingly, why no more after? I guess with anything, the “fad” passed and audiences were on to the next big thing in the theater, which is what makes Runaway Jury such an interesting “comeback”, as it very clearly tries to adapt to the cinematic stylistic changes of the late 90s/early 00s.

After a man, along with his many co-workers, are brutally murdered in an office shooting, his wife decides to sue the gun manufacturer, making this New Orleans court case a huge media frenzy with tremendous judicial implications. That means jury selection is paramount to getting the desired verdict. Defense brings in jury specialist Rankin Fitch (Gene Hackman), who has made a career of reading people. Meanwhile, the plaintiff attorney (Dustin Hoffman) takes on a young, ambitious lawyer (Jeremy Piven) to help. But both are left scrambling after jury selection finds Nick Easter (John Cusack) on the 12 person panel. Easter and his partner “Marlee” (Rachel Weisz) are prepared to blackmail either side of the case, promising to deliver whichever forks over a huge sum of money the verdict they desire.

What was immediately apparent to me was that this was not your traditional Grisham movie. And without having read the novel, I can’t say whether this was a case from pen to paper or from paper to celluloid. This is less a courtroom drama and more a spy thriller, which was strange to me until I started to consider the type of movies popular at the time. Especially with Gene Hackman, I got strong Enemy of the State (1998) vibes, and even could see the editing influence of The Bourne Identity (2002). Given this shift in style from the more traditional narratives previously in this series, it was actually quite refreshing. That’s how I would describe the whole film even after seeing six rather similar stories. Runaway Jury is just different. We haven’t really seen the jury process yet in a Grisham film, and I am very glad they concentrated on that. While the narrative may go off in different, more exciting directions, it was still cool to see the importance of jury selection highlighted in this series of courtroom dramas.

Now the question is, while the film goes in a new, exciting direction, telling a story we haven’t seen in a Grisham film before, does it do it well? Mostly, I suppose? I was quite surprised really at how effective this was, but maybe I was just hankering for something new. There are certainly some rather cartoonish depictions, especially of Gene Hackman’s character. The chopped up sequence of potential juror research is at once hilarious in how series Fitch is and also impressive in how committed Hackman is to the character. And generally, all the performances work, even if Hoffman and Piven seem strangely sidelined. Hoffman especially shines brightly when given the opportunity. It’s a good ensemble performance from the cast, with no one asked to carry the film.

There were moments during this marathon where I thought I just wanted it to end, as it felt like the good movie was the exception and bad one was the norm. Now we go out on two pretty good, entertaining films and I find myself wanting more, not understanding how such a popular author’s work could run so dry all of a sudden cinematically. I’m sure there’s a good answer, and ultimately, if the series continued I’m sure there would be plenty more poor films on the horizon. But I am very thankful to have gone on this journey and discovered what the Grisham fuss was all about, and catch up with a few very good movies along the way. I have no regrets consuming these interesting, largely entertaining films, and would welcome a renaissance if Hollywood ever decided to return to the well.

★★★☆☆ - Liked It

After I wrote this, I did a quick google search and found this article/interview. It seems Grisham doesn't know why they stopped adapting his books either.
"Time is the speed at which the past decays."

Corndog

  • Objectively Awesome
  • ******
  • Posts: 17025
  • Oo-da-lolly, Oo-da-lolly, golly what a day!
    • Corndog Chats
Re: The John Grisham Project
« Reply #46 on: February 28, 2020, 12:37:52 PM »
Final Rankings
1. A Time to Kill
2. The Firm
3. The Rainmaker
4. Runaway Jury
5. The Client
6. The Pelican Brief
7. The Chamber

It feels good to complete a marathon! It's been a while.
"Time is the speed at which the past decays."

1SO

  • FAB
  • Objectively Awesome
  • ******
  • Posts: 36129
  • Marathon Man
Re: The John Grisham Project
« Reply #47 on: February 28, 2020, 01:53:31 PM »
I would put Firm above Time to Kill, but my other rankings are the same.

I’ve also read all the books, and what struck me about The Runaway Jury is that it’s more of a comedy than the other Grisham books. It was like he found a new gear where he could play into the more cartoonish aspects of his plot while still delivering a lot of neat insider information about how the system is rigged despite all efforts.

Corndog

  • Objectively Awesome
  • ******
  • Posts: 17025
  • Oo-da-lolly, Oo-da-lolly, golly what a day!
    • Corndog Chats
Re: The John Grisham Project
« Reply #48 on: February 28, 2020, 02:37:34 PM »
I’ve also read all the books, and what struck me about The Runaway Jury is that it’s more of a comedy than the other Grisham books.

You could definitely sense that this was not the same Grisham and that something had changed either narratively or stylistically.
"Time is the speed at which the past decays."

 

love