moonspinner55
Gene Hackman does everything but shout "I want to live!' in this indictment of the death penalty, of the gas chamber, of hatred and bigotry, of loyalty to disreputable people, of grandstanding politicians and judges, of family shame and secrets...the list goes on and on. Film begins with a 1967 hate-crime down south attributed to a Klansman, charged with the bomb blast that killed two Jewish boys and maimed their father. Fast-forward 30 years: that Klansman, now aged and set to be executed in the Mississippi State Penitentiary in 28 days, is represented on appeal by the grandson he's never met, a young but not incompetent attorney who figures he's his grandfather's only hope. (Family loyalty gets the green light here, though the reasoning behind the kid's pursuit of this case is tenuous at best. Fans of novelist John Grisham may say "the young man's motivation is clear, to heal family wounds and to mitigate his secret shame," but that only works for a book jacket; on the screen, with N-words exploding and hate-speech spewing out of the one lively character, it's another matter.) When Chris O'Donnell is at the jail, being led down hallways and through locked doors to meet racist, grizzled old Gene Hackman--sharper and saltier than the other Death Row inmates we see--one is apt to get "Silence of the Lambs" déjà vu. Indeed, Hackman is a vile cuss who distrusts everybody, but as the drama unfolds--wherein the attorney and his grandfather learn to work together--one has to wonder if this is meant to be the heart of the material or is there something else lying in wait to surprise us. Are we supposed to be sympathetic towards Hackman's poisonous, hate-filled Sam Cayhall just because he's revealed to have a conscience deep down? Or that he didn't work alone? William Goldman and Chris Reese (a pseudonym for Phil Alden Robinson) adapted Grisham's book, and I'm guessing they weren't clear on how much redemption Sam Cayhall should be shown. It's a movie full of muddled logic, nondescript performances (save for Hackman and an overacting Faye Dunaway as Hackman's daughter) and credibility issues right from the get-go. *1/2 from ****
blanche-2
Chris O'Donnell and Gene Hackman star in "The Chamber," a 1996 film featuring Faye Dunaway, Robert Prosky, and Lela Rochon.O'Donnell plays Adam Hall, a young man just out of law school who takes on the case of a KKK member about to be executed for a bombing years earlier that took the life of two boys. Their father, who lost his leg, later committed suicide. The man in question, Sam Cayhall (Hackman), is due to die in the gas chamber, as he was convicted before 1984 and therefore isn't eligible for the chair. He's also Adam's grandfather.The bombing and the Klan history in the Cayhall line has wrecked Adam's family. They changed their name after the incident, and his father committed suicide and left his son a note with instructions to clean everything up before his mother got home. His aunt (Faye Dunaway) is a socialite who still lives in the south and has never told anyone who she is but has suppressed her pain with alcohol. Adam has no use for his grandfather, but he believes someone else made the bomb and wants to find out what really happened.The movie is based on a John Grisham novel and, despite the reviews, I thought it was good and powerful, mostly thanks to the performance of Gene Hackman. Somehow, he manages to create a real human being - a bigot, a Klan member, a killer, but somehow human. His monologue at the end of the film made me cry, which is ridiculous because he was a terrible man.Faye Dunaway was great; Chris O'Donnell is pleasant enough but he never seemed to me movie star material. I would have preferred to see someone like Matthew McConaughey, someone with a little fire, in this role.This is a story of a history of hate, the ghosts of the dead, politics, and a search for closure. Compelling.
Enchorde
If you like thrillers set inside the legal systems, the stories by Grisham is one of the best. He is a master of including both small and big twists and turns, writing in layers of secrets that can be revealed along the way. Although, according to the trivia, Grisham says this is one of the adaptations he likes least, I think it still is a very good movie that incorporates these layers and most of the essence in a Grisham story. Of course, the book is much more complex, much more intense, so if you like the movie I can really recommend reading the book.The Chamber is about the young lawyer, Adam Hall, that returns to his family's roots in Mississippi, where one of the family's dark secrets is hidden. His grandfather, Sam Cayhall, is on death row for a fatal bombing carried out by the Klu Klux Klan, scheduled to be executed in just a few days. Adam is his last chance. But Sam is not really cooperative, and even though the bombing was in the sixties, secrets are very much still in play, powerful and dangerous.I think the movie do capture enough of the book to be an intense and suspenseful movie, very much thanks to Gene Hackman's acting. Even though I have seen the movie a couple of times, read the book, I still find it intense. The movie is both durable and stands the test of time. That is the mark of a real good thriller.7/10
eric262003
A few years ago, I read the novel "The Chamber" by John Grisham and I thought it was a spectacular reading experience. Then, in 1996, they released it in the theatres and I was hoping that the outcome would turn out on a positive note, just like the novel. Also I was hoping that very talented performers like Chris O'Donnell, Gene Hackman and Faye Dunaway would grace the screen like they've done before. However, the high expectations were sadly shattered. Nothing exciting happens as opposed to what's in the book, there's very little happening here, the acting is very wooden and the actors were woefully miscast. On a positive note, some stuff from the novel were brought into the movie. So for those who never read the novel or seen the movie, I won't give too much away. But those who expected an equally riveting novel to movie adaptation, you will be disappointed. One thing that upset me most here is the different characteristics between Adam Hall in the novel and Adam Hall (Chris O'Donnell) in the movie. In the novel, Hall is a typical attorney who's a bit green and does not know what to expect. In the movie, he's made like a big-shot who can get by in this case like a piece of cake. Okay, I understand we can't cram everything from the novel, because then it would take too long, and we're not all patient for a three hour movie; so I respect that. I think the movie had it's mind on cutting to the chase rather than unravelling the events that led to the scenes. In the end it's just better that you all should just read the book and forget about the film.
AD
