The Pelican Brief
Monday, March 1st, 2010 at
5:03 pm
Description
A New Orleans law student finds herself embroiled in a terrifying web of intrigue extending to the highest levels of government after she writes a speculative legal brief exposing the activities of a powerful oil magnate.Amazon.com
Another John Grisham legal thriller comes to the screen, pairing Denzel Washington and Julia Roberts in a film directed by Alan J. Pakula, who is known for dark-hued suspense pictures such as Klute, The Parallax View, All the President’… More >>
Filed under: Conspiracy
Like this post? Subscribe to my RSS feed and get loads more!
I ordered the Pelican Brief for a friend. I can’t stand Julia Roberts. I love the Andrea Bocelli cd I ordered. I received it promptly and there isn’t a thing wrong with it. I enjoy being able to order used items through your site.
Rating: 5 / 5
AND I HAVE NOT RECEIVED A REPLACEMENT FOR THAT DISC NOR A RE-IMBURSEMENT. wHAT IS UP WITH THIS COMPANY THAT THEY CANNOT SEND YOU YOUR MONEY BACK. IN SEPTEMBER OF 2005 I ORDERED A BOOK WHICH WENT THRU A SUB-COMPANY. WELL, AMAZON CHARGED ME TWICE, $12.71, FOR A TOTAL OF $25.42. I NEVER RECEIVED THE BOOK BECAUSE THE COMPANY NO LONGER HAD IT IN STOCK AND AMAZON DID NOT SEND ME A REFUND. I DEAL WITH AMAZON ALL THE TIME BUT THERE IS NO COMMUNICATION THAT IS SATISFACTORY FOR WHEN THEY TAKE YOUR MONEY..
Rating: 1 / 5
I can’t really review this item because the disc was blank when I received it.
Rating: 1 / 5
Implausible story line: Supreme court judges are gunned down because some rich guy wants a right-of-way through government land and these justices might rule against him (because they were in favor of the environment, imagine that!). Rich guy figures the sitting prez (his good buddy) will nominate environment hating tools to replace them.
You can see how this storyline was ripped from today’s headlines. Hardly a day goes by that we don’t hear of somebody trying to kill a supreme court justice.
Enter Julia Roberts. A couple years back she watched a news program about a lawyer who supposedly committed suicide (the lawyer’s parents didn’t think he did, because he’d been taking medication for black depression for awhile now). This leads her to suspect someone close to the president killed the justices. Why, it’s so obvious, the connections should have been obvious to anybody, except the CIA, FBI, local police, and newsmedia heroes (like intrepid Denzel) didn’t watch that particular show, so out of millions of lawyers, it took a law student to figure it out.
(Reality, which struggled vainly to have some control over what happens in this movie, at this point in the story shrugged its shoulders and potted off to read a Nelson DeMille novel.)
Anyway, the usual hijinks ensue: exploding cars, parking lot chases, people dying everywhere.
As a bonus, add a horrible soundtrack that uses pounding pianos to keep you awake and you’ve got a guaranteed time waster on your hands. Aren’t there some windows that need washing in your house or a good book you could read instead of frittering away 140 minutes you’ll never get back?
Rating: 1 / 5
This movie comes from John Grisham’s novel of the same title. Most of the actions taking place in the novel were also presented in this movie. The spotlight reviews goodly summarize the movie, even when I don’t agree with their rankings.
The first movie’s problem is the character’s personalities, less credible many times. One reviewer well said the FBI’s personnel looks rather wimpy. The merciless Coal Fletcher looks like a simple clerk while he is the real president in the novel. On the other hand, the novel’s heroine (Darby Shaw) losses her strong personality but at the same time behaves in obnoxious ways. For example, in one scene, she asks her best female friend to spread a gossip in college but Darby does not care whatsoever for her friend’s safety as in the novel; Darby even tells her that “it’s not good for her (Darby) to stay there”. Darby does all the opposite in the novel. Next, her friend does all what she says, this not credible.
The second movie’s error is the way the show the events. For example, as I said Fletcher is not portrayed as a tough way, there’s even an scene where we see his seeing his family’s picture at his desk, really charming; however he is still punished in the movie. Any honest person who does not let to be impressed by the reputations of the actors and director should admit that the movie is not always understandable. I watched this movie right when released in 1992 and I didn’t understand it but the huge Julia Roberts’ success was on its highest so I didn’t think much, just considered it was sort of boring. Now, I read the novel, watched the movie again and understood the movie was flawed. In fact, all bad guys in the movie were only small fishes who chased Darby.
I also complain that the movie shows some misbehaviour as good ones. For example, in one scene the president asks the FBI chief (Voyles) to stop a crime investigation. Voyles offers to do it in exchange of favours. This is plain corruption yet the movie made it look like a cocktail party! In another scene one character (Callahan) is about to start driving while drunk and Darby only plays a little bit to stop him just to finally let him get on his car.
The movie added a few action scenes the novel doesn’t have, yet it is quite boring. The novel has less action, yet it is more exciting.
Rating: 1 / 5