This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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)
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)
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."
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)
"..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)
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)."
/info/en/?search=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)
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)
24.90.190.96 ( talk) 03:45, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)