But see https://www.classactionamerica.com/public/caseIndex.aspx?lngCaseID=406
Have not read the book but saw the movie this weekend and liked it. Seemed to have an O. Henry ending. But I agree that the flavor of the location is not real New Orleans despite the fact that many of the players are not originally from N. O. but from other states.
I trimmed your question and in answer
It’s to convince the eavesdropping Fitch that the jury was for sale to anyone - it’s all about the bucks. Remember when Fitch’s side already know the offer has been refused by Rohr and he asks for a discount on the $15mill
I don’t usually like Grisham so I haven’t read the book. I only saw the movie this weekend because the movie my friend and I planned to go to had already started.
I didn’t think it was all that great. Definitely a renter. It’s got a fabulous cast so it is worth seeing – just see it on DVD. But I very rarely like court room dramas anymore because they take such liberties with the reality of the practice of law, what is or isn’t allowing in a court room, what would or wouldn’t happen under given circumstances. I understand why they have to use dramatic license, but I can’t stop myself from sitting there thinking “Jeez, they’d never get away with that IRL.” So these types of movies are usually lost on my anyway.
That said, I also have more “movie-related” criticism. I was totally NOT surprised by the “twist” at the end. When you see Cusack’s character – MINOR SPOILER FOLLOWS – kneeling by the OD’ing woman and saying “I’m sorry; I’m sorry,” you know he’s a Good Guy – they sucked all the ambiguity out of his character right there. So there was really no chance he and the girl were just in it to bilk the system. And I agree that the scene between Hackman and Hoffman in the bathroom was pointless and contrived: “Watch us act! Aren’t we great??”
I guess I’d damn it with faint praise: It didn’t suck.
As I posted above, I really enjoyed the book. I just saw the movie recently and I actually liked it. Not great–but not bad and I rarely like movie adaptations of books I’ve read.
My biggest complaint is that I don’t think they got across in the movie the degree to which Nicholas manipulates the jury to get the final verdict he wanted. They did show him manipulating them through the movie to pick the foreman, sequester the jury, etc., but not so much in terms of the actual decision of the trial.
Also, one of the more clever details in the book that is completely left out of the movie is that
Nick and Marlee actually sell short on shares of stock in the tobacco company so that after the court decision is announced, the tobacco stock prices plummet and Nick and Marlee make a LOT of additional money from that–I can’t remember but maybe even more than they made from “selling” the jury.
I’m a little late to the game here since I just saw this on Monday, but did anyone else catch the joke of the goth looking girl in the jury being named “Lydia Deets?”
I chuckled all through the movie about that.
Someone up there mentioned ‘The Chamber’ as being one of Grisham’s best books? IMHO it is the worst and he has struck out at least three times barring that particular catastrophe (The client, Street Lawyer, The Testament)