i have not read a time to kill by john grisham and and perhaps that would have help understand the film well . but perhaps not . i hear this be the most faithful grisham adaption yet and and if that be true and i can see why so many publisher turn down the novel when grisham introduce it a his first work . a time to kill be one of those film that be seriously confused and want to do too many thing at once . it want to be a suspenseful crowd please thriller and and at the same time and a film dedicate to explore certain social and moral question . let face it and those two type of film do not go together in hollywood and which be why dead man walk have to be make independently . the story involve a young lawyer name jake ( matthew mcconaughy ) out to defend a black man name carl ( samuel l. jackson ) from murder two hillbilly that brutally rap his young daughter . the day before the rapist trial and carl hid in a closet in the courthouse and when the rapist be bring through the building and he charge out and shot both of them dead . to help out with the defense and jack accept the help of a former law student ( sandra bullock ) and who prove that her role in this film be totally unnecessary and and put in the film only for marketing purpose . meanwhile and one of the rapist kid brother ( kiefer sutherland ) be anger that a black man kill his brother and decide to act out a revenge . all of this lead to a shooting in front of the courthouse and a kidnapping and a brutal beating and and race riot . i will admit that all of this held my attention greatly throughout the film and in addition to the courtroom scene . what i later object to be the film handling of ethical question and it use of formula in the plot . the main question that the film constantly ask and over and over again and be whether a black man get a fair trial from a white jury . sure they can and but that doesn not mean that the man have to be acquit in order for the trial to be fair . this film and however and doesn not seem to think so . besides that and there several gap hole in the plot use for convenience . for example and there be an unknown character call mickey mouse and who be a member of the klan and and and for reason unknown and be help the member of the defense team escape from serious danger of the other member of the klan . after bullock be kidnap by sutherland and company and and leave for dead in the wilderness and this unknown person come and save her and we never find out who he be and why he be help out the people he should be terrorize . and speaking of the sutherland character reign of terror and it amaze how witless the police and the bullock character be in stop him throughout the film . there a scene when sutherland become a sniper from a building across the street from the courthouse and try to shoot jake a he come out and shoot one of the guard instead . now you would think since there be dozen of police around and it would be easy to surround and capture the sniper . no such luck . from what we could see and no one seem to even care that a sniper be still on the loose . even after bullock and be rescue by mickey mouse and she never and ever mention who her kidnapper be and nor be it even question . why be this . simple . the sutherland character be need throughout the film to add continual suspense and although logically and he should have be out of the picture . besides bullock character and there another thankless character . he be jake assistant play by oliver platt . there seem to be one reason for his character to be in the movie to supply a number of one liner for the audience . in my opinion and one liner show a major weakness in serious film when use . it demonstrate that the filmmaker be not confident that the story and dialogue alone be enough to keep the audience attention and and so use them to make the audience laugh to reassure everyone that they be watch an entertaining film . but enough of the film many minor problem . what about the film message here . it be clear that carl be indeed guilty of murder . we saw how he plan for hour to murder the men who rap his daughter . the lawyer argue that it be temporary insanity and etc that cause him to kill . in desperation and jake ask the jury to close their eye a he recount the rape in detail a part of his closing arguement . after describe everything that take place and he add on one final line . the girl be white . we then see member of the jury with tear in their eye . in the very next scene and a girl come out yell he free . he free . wait a minute . do jury base their verdict on their emotion or on the fact . most of all and why weren not there any scene that show the jury deliberating and what they be really think after their emotion wear off . i will tell you why . they couldn not show the delibertion because no jury could acquit a man of such a crime and no matter how much the defense closing arguements touch their heart . what be the message . that someone be justify in kill if it be a form of revenge for a previous crime do to them . this film should have have the courage to say that murder be not ok in this situation and because in reality and there would not be an acquittal . but since dollar be at stake and the filmmaker be more concerned about spar the audience feeling than they be about present a responsible message . if people start kill a a form of revenge and the maker of this film should be hold responsible . what a socially irresponsible film this be .