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 film suffers from over length. Also the ending feels like it was added on. It seems like a post production re-shoot. In this film Julia Roberts plays a legal student. The murder of two supreme court justices have prompt her into seeing if she can figure out the reasons and motives for their murders. She then writes about her finding called "The Pelican Brief". After she presents this to 2 people they are murdered. She then decides to take off and contacts a reporter hoping she can find a way to save her own life. Now many scenes in this film should of been edited down or the film should of had a re-write before production began. There is several scenes in the first 1/2 that could have been edited down or been presented with a little more suspense. Julia Roberts and Denzel are fine but the movie is too long!

Interestingly, about 13 years after the release of the original novel "The Pelican Brief" by John Grisham which centers around the investigations and theories involving the assassinations of two Supreme Court Justices, two Supreme Court Justices' careers also ended close to the same time. Justice Sandra Day O'Connor announced her plans to retire in the summer of 2005 which was followed by the unexpected death of William Rehnquist in the Fall of the same year. It's always a bit spooky when real life follows fiction, although as far as is known, the departure of Rehnquist and O'Connor had nothing to do with "foul play" or political currents, or did it?In "The Pelican Brief", two diametrically opposed Supreme Court Justices, Rosenberg and Jensen, are assassinated by unknown assailants for unknown reasons. Rosenberg was an aging liberal whose days on the court were probably numbered. Jensen was a conservative in the prime of his judicial career. While the first assassination is advantageous to the current sitting US President who we learn is a Republican, the second assassination makes no sense in terms of the first. At a law school near New Orleans, an ambitious young law student, Darby Shaw (played with unending believability by Julia Roberts) is dating one of her law professors, Thomas Callahan (Sam Shepherd). After both professor and student learn of the assassinations, Darby decides she can crack the case. (Callahan had interned with Rosenberg when he was a law student.) While law enforcement believes the assassinations were probably enacted as revenge by a disillusioned losing party in a former case, Shaw decides to research deeper to unearth something political which Rosenberg and Jensen might have had in common. She engages in her own investigation of sorts and writes an essay on her findings, a "brief".She passes her brief to Callahan who doesn't take it too seriously. He takes a trip to Washington D.C. to attend the funeral of Rosenberg where he meets a former classmate, Gavin Verheek (John Heard), who now works in the legal department of the FBI. Callahan offers the brief to Verheek who in turn passes into the FBI. The FBI begins believing the brief is a much more serious theory of the assassinations than either Callahan or Verheek had realized, and the brief ends up in the hands of the president.Back in New Orleans, Darby is fearing for her life when tragedy suddenly strikes. She believes the brief has opened up a kind of Pandora's Box and doesn't know who's after her nor whose after some of the people around her. Is it the CIA or another secret organization which has decided to kill her because of the brief? She contacts Washington D.C. political reporter Gray Grantham (Denzel Washington) to help her. The plot then becomes about whether Darby and Gray can confirm the theory of the brief before they are assassinated themselves, like the Supreme Court Justices.A very well-done and spot-on political thriller, all from the mind of John Grisham. Julia Roberts is 100% convincing as Darby Shaw, the-opinionated-law-student-turned-political-target whose brief is shaking the foundations of the political hierarchy at the highest levels. Washington is equally as intense as Gray Grantham, a "Woodstein"-type reporter trying to get to the bottom of political corruption wherever it festers. A few name talents appear in smaller roles, notably Hume Cronyn as Justice Rosenberg and John Lithgow as Smith Keen, editor of Grantham's newspaper the Washington Herald. A compelling film from start to finish with an outstanding cast.

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.