How sad is this?

The film makes a home in your brain and the only cure is to see it again.

This is one of the best movies I’ve seen in a very long time. You have to go and see this on the big screen.

The story, direction, characters, and writing/dialogue is akin to taking a tranquilizer shot to the neck, but everything else was so well done.

You can read the plot synopsis but the point is missed on people from NYC and LA. This goes to the heartland and explains how discreet government corruption can hurt us badly. Its also illustrates why "obstruction of justice" is such an important law and why (now) Donald Trump should be deposed and thrown out. Just remember the truism, "if one lies about small things, they will like about big things too"

Let me start to say that i never read the John Grisham's book this movie is based on, so i'm judging only the motion picture.When "The Pelican Brief" came out in '93 it was a major box office hit everywhere, partly due to the casting of Julia Roberts as Darby Shaw (still riding on the "Pretty Woman" success which made her being cast in almost every greenlighted project around that time, from the average potboiler, "Sleeping with the Enemy" to the trite / corny, "Dying Young" and Spielberg's misstep, "Hook", all undeserved blockbusters...) and for being the second Grisham's work adapted to the big screen, after the vastly superior "The Firm" directed by Sidney Pollack and starring Tom Cruise, which opened earlier in that year with good reviews and millions earned at the box office.The veteran Alan J. Pakula was a great director during the 70's, his political thrillers such as "The Parallax View" ('74) and "All the President's Men" ('76) or the crime / thriller "Klute" ('71) are among the best made in that decade, but in the 80's besides "Sophie's Choice" ('82) his career kind of tanked, only saved by the critical and box office success of "Presumed Innocent" ('90), starring Harrison Ford, that made Pakula a relevant name again and based on his skill directing those political thriller films, Warner Bros. offered him the chance to helm "The Pelican Brief", which he also produce and provided the screenplay.The story itself, even if it was standard, became confusing since the start due to badly edited sequences and the lack of information that was given to the viewer about what is happening on screen and who are those people involved in that situations, with Pakula assuming that every moviegoer read the book. Scenes were randomly happening, characters appear and disappear without proper development or explanation and the way Darby uncovers the truth, surpassing the F.B.I., it's too far-fetched.It didn't help that the pace is sluggish and the movie didn't involve, amaze or even dare, it's in fact dull and boring mostly of its length and feels like Pakula condensed half the book in some key scenes to get the storyline moving and the rest was just for showing the imposed by the Studio, Julia Roberts in every scene and camera angle possible and imaginary (and always with the same irritating expression). A bored looking Denzel was cast in a role that asked for a rich white man, playing here second fiddle to a troubled protagonist (like he did in "Philadelphia" the very same year, but he was much better in that) and refused the interracial love affair with Roberts like the characters in the book, which was a good decision not because of the skin color, but for the lack of on-screen chemistry between the two.The brilliant supporting cast are wasted here: the late great Sam Shepard was given almost nothing to do; John Heard & Stanley Tucci failed to leave an impression; Robert Culp played his part too goofy to be the President of United States and only Tony Goldwin (still in "Ghost" mode) showed some signs of being awake.In short, "The Pelican Brief" is a lifeless film directed by an once big name director, far away from his glory days, that feels more like a Julia Roberts' vehicle than an exciting political thriller. It may be one of the worst Grisham's adaptations to the big screen, if you like the genre you rather watch "The Firm", "The Client" ('94) or even "A Time to Kill" ('96), because this one is a near waste of time...

This movie shows how capitalism deals with environment in the US. The story is similar to what the international oil companies (IOCs) does worldwide. This is particularly true for developing countries where the inefficient government and chaotic situation allows them to go far more than they go in US. The movie also successfully demonstrates the interrelations among corrupt politicians, government officials and the big corporations. However, it depicted an ideal role for the media which is rarely the case. What I believe that, mostly because of the benefits from commercials of IOCs, the media mostly favors the powerful corporations. The most important point is that, while it tells the story, the movie does not bore the viewer. I strongly recommend wide viewing of this movie and then think about the case when the OICs operate in a freer environment. I would also wait for similar movies which speaks about Middle Eastern or Nigerian version of such stories. Happy viewing.

The Pelican Brief begins with 2 judges being killed in suspicious circumstances. Aspiring law student Darby Shaw (Julia Roberts) has her own theory of why these particular judges were killed and she believes that the killings are politically motivated. Darby decides to write down her theory of what she believes has happened in a document that she calls 'The Pelican Brief' . This is initially done as a sort of 'assignment'. However, when news of the existence of the Pelican Brief gets out, those that are responsible for the killings do everything in their power to get their hands on this document putting Darby and everyone else around her in danger.I wasn't quite sure what to expect from this film as I hadn't read the John Grisham novel upon which this film is based on prior to seeing it. One thing I did, at least expect, was an exciting and fast paced legal and political thriller. The problem with this film is that it moved at a snail's pace and for me was just far too 'talky'. There were good moments in the film and at times it was quite exciting, but it was uneven and felt far longer and far more drawn out than was necessary.As well as being somewhat dull at times, the screenplay didn't make sense at times - I'm still not sure how Julia Roberts knew that the guy in the lift was going to try and kill her (it's possible I might have missed something there as I'll admit that my mind was wandering from time to time due to how bored I was getting with the film). There is also a scene where Darby makes a phone call to Gavin Vereek (John Heard) and asks him to meet her - she's never met him before so she asks him to wear a long sleeve shirt and red cap and asks him how tall he was (this was to make sure that she ends up speaking to the right person). Vereek ends up getting killed and the killer had bugged his phone and recorded the conversation. As a result, he assumes the identity of Vereek in order to kill Darby. I was OK with all of this, but what made me laugh was when he started to put all the clothes on in Vereek's hotel room. OK fair enough, a long sleeve shirt is a fairly generic item of clothing, but a red cap? What the odds of someone having one of those? It just felt a little contrived and a little bit too convenient.The performances from the actors do save the film somewhat; Julia Roberts was particularly good in her respective role. Denzel Washington stars as newspaper reporter Gray Grantham and he helps Darby with her investigations and it is he that ultimately publishes the article which exposes the 'truth' behind the conspiracy. Washington is good in his respective role and his charisma alone is enough in this film.What really let the Pelican Brief down was its dull screenplay; it wasn't particularly exciting or suspenseful and there weren't really any great plot twists. Even the ending felt a little bit anti-climatic. I was expecting a tension fuelled final court scene like we've seen in previous legal thrillers such as A Few Good Men or more recently in The Lincoln Lawyer. The final 30 minutes were pretty good and it's a shame that the rest of the film wasn't as enjoyable. Perhaps part of the problem is that I went in with high expectations - I usually enjoy legal thrillers as they are generally exciting and interesting, but I didn't get that feeling when watching this film. I found large parts of the film to be dull and I also felt that it was far too long. It's not an awful film, but there are far better legal thrillers out there.