Talk:A Time to Kill (1996 film)

quotation
The quotation from Les Inrockuptibles should be in full sentences. It is bad practice to quote only single words, as they can easily give a misleading impression. Johncmullen1960 (talk) 04:58, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Timeline of events
I've seen the film many times and the chronological order in this article is all wrong, things which happened later are put earlier. Eg it states Bullock's character is beaten just after McConaughey goes home to find his house on fire. But Bullock is beaten much later.---Djkinsella 16:17, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree - I just saw the family sent away BEFORE the cross burning

Yeah, I caught it on cable last night and the timeline is messed up. I thought it was just aggressive editing for TV but I suppose not. Eleland 12:17, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I fixed the time line as best I based on watching the movie. There are a few holes in it, but I am reluctant to fill them in completely because I'm not sure how in depth the plot lines gets on Wikipedia movie pages. There could be more about the trial scenes and the prosecution's psychiatrists. Jasgrider 12:22, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
 * But when does this story happen? Neither the book article had the information. But in the movie some witness had done something in the year 1960. That's not much, now I know it was set after 1960. And probably before 1989, when the book was published. 85.217.37.129 (talk) 21:36, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Clanton vs. Canton: Which one is it?
Clanton, MS is fictional. There is a CANTON, MS.

The movie takes place in Canton Mississippi; the book takes places in Clanton, Mississippi —Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.83.98.178 (talk) 03:07, 9 September 2007 (UTC)  Right. But the entry still calls Canton "fictional."
 * This is incorrect. The movie takes place as the book does in Clanton, Mississippi. Jasgrider (talk) 20:11, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but the characters and the closed captioning clearly say "Canton." --Ddawn23 (talk) 01:41, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Under Plot "... the men may be acquitted due to deep-seated racism in the Mississippi Delta." If it is the real town of Canton, Canton is not in the Mississippi Delta. Canton is in Madison County and none of Madison County is in the Delta. I know this as a born and bred Mississippian, and it is also clear from the Wikipedia entries. Grisham got his inspiration for the book from a case in the city of Hernando in DeSoto County, Mississippi, which is in the Delta. There is definitely a problem here, if it is with the movie the Wikipedia article should say so; if it is with the Wikipedia entry, it should be corrected. --Jay Jor (talk) 01:02, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Cobb shooting Jake
"..Soon after, Freddie Lee Cobb shoots at Jake as he exits the courthouse, but misses and hits a national guardsman policing the demonstrations, killing him". I thing he was actually injured. Can anyone verify this? Thanks Kvsh5 (talk) 19:36, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

B.S. about Mississippi [removed]
I removed a rather lengthy discussion about the merits of the film's portrayal of the state of Mississippi from this page.

"Stay objective: Talk pages are not a forum for editors to argue their personal point of view about a controversial issue. They are a forum to discuss how the points of view of reliable sources should be included in the article, so that the end result is neutral. The best way to present a case is to find properly referenced material (for an alternative forum for personal opinions, see the Wikireason proposal)."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Talk_page_guidelines#How_to_use_article_talk_pages

The discussion had no place here so I removed it.--SentientParadox (talk) 02:32, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

This is called the "talk page," not the censors' page.24.90.190.96 (talk) 03:45, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

B.S. about Mississippi [restored]
I just saw this film on cable. Reasonably entertaining yet it surely promotes vigilantism and perpetuates nasty stereotypes about the South generally and the state of Mississippi. Mind you, I'm a Yankee and I'll agree that this country has unfinished racial business. Nevertheless after visiting Mississippi a couple times I'd have to say the state has little in common with what is presented in this film. I'm surprised and dismayed that the NAACP would endorse this kind of pandering instead of focusing on matters as they are. LADave (talk) 20:13, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure where you visited in MS, but many parts of the state aren't too far from that film. I say that as a white Southern male. The author of the book, who was also one of the producers, lived in MS from age 12. He attended both college and law school in MS also as well as served in their house of representatives. Now if that isn't enough to make you think that maybe the author had a good idea of what MS is like, the story was inspired by the actual testimony of a 12 year old rape victim. So maybe there's less BS than you think. Niteshift36 (talk) 22:18, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
 * In total I have spent a couple days in the Delta country, a week in Jackson, and a day or two in the hill country away from the Delta. I haven't been down along the Gulf.  On the whole there appeared to be about as much segregation as in Los Angeles, which is to say probably more than there should be yet not as extreme as in Chicago, Memphis or Cincinnati.  I didn't see any overt stuff like separate water fountains.  Staff was integrated in public accomodations and services.  Black people didn't seemed to be stuck in the worst jobs and they weren't particularly subservient. It actually seemed to be a well-ordered and comfortable society, not to say that it was perfect.  I have seen much worse poverty and squalor in Appalachia.  I just didn't see evidence of the kind of oppression and hopelessness that would justify the level of vigilantism that the film tries to justify.  If the KKK was actually still burning crosses and abducting civil rights attorneys as the film showed, that would be newsworthy and we would be hearing about it.  So I have to wonder if Mr. Grisham didn't write a potboiler evoking Mississippi's reputation among people who have never actually been there. LADave (talk) 23:24, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, I've spent more than "a week" in MS. Nobody said anything about seperate fountains etc. But there is an underlying racial division that was obvious to me. Of course that's OR and not applicable to anything but this discussion. More of my time was spent in the Meridian area than anywhere else, but I've been in most areas of the state. I actually use some of the things I saw there as examples when I teach cultural diversity classes. Cross burnings do still exist. Subscribe to the SPLC's newsletter. Of course there is a certain amount of dramatic license here, but it also depicts a volatile event, not just "business as usual" daily life. As I said, the author was essentially a lifetime resident of the state and has a fair list of connections to the state. I submit that he is in a better position to comment than either of us. Yes, there may be some dramatic license taken, but I can see the similarities. Niteshift36 (talk) 20:27, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
 * yes they deserved to die and i hope they burn in hell! -samuel L jackson —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.72.25.84 (talk) 17:35, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

24.90.190.96 (talk) 03:45, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Based on a True Case?
Is it true that this story was taken from a real case, in which the victim was white, and the perpetrator(s) was black?24.90.190.96 (talk) 03:47, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes. This is mentioned in the Wikipedia entry about the book, and there it links to this Mississippi Supreme Court decision: https://www.leagle.com/decision/19891862537so2d132511825 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.150.213.205 (talk) 09:14, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Missing information
It looks like there's some information missing from the beginning of this. Are readers automatically supposed to know who the characters are by seeing the names and from not having seen the movie or read the book before? It looks as though that's what the article's implying. It needs some more information in the beginning. 50.88.218.76 (talk) 19:19, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Motief
The killing was motivated not by an desire for vigilantism but by an shortcoming of the law systhem that made it highly unlikely that an "white" comitting an crime against an "black" will face consequences, I think that is glaringly obvious but instead people argue the movie displays "vigilantism as good", not that an "faulty" law systhem is the root of the killing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:16B8:2E3F:9600:3C08:F59:DF87:D838 (talk) 18:05, 27 April 2020 (UTC)