Read the book, it's a lot more exciting and coherent. The film attempts to make a political point about gun control but falls completely flat because the arguments are never developed and so the reason for jury tampering is not believable. Anyone with half an understanding of "agency" would realize that there was no case against the gun manufacturer in the way it was setup. Therefore, the verdict at the end looked more like jury revolt, ala O.J. Simpson (a tired theme), than jury tampering (the point of the story).

The film maker should have stuck with the tobacco manufacturers, as in the book. But I suppose this would have dated the movie. I am surprised that Grisham, a lawyer, allowed the movie to be rewritten this way. I guess he was paid a lot of money to look the other way.

The hoopla about the right to bear arms is a bit off center and a bit bias but the movie is still a real winner.