Have you ever read a Grisham book, then watched the movie, and went "Huh???" Why did they change it so much???

Then, afterward, did you say "Ya know what? That movie was actually BETTER than the book! Or, perhaps you said "That stinks! They should have stayed with the book plot!"

Well, that's what this site is all about. I'll start with posting my opinion about whether a film was better or worse than the movie, then you either holler "rat own!" or you tell me why I'm full of baloney.

The rules are simple: this is a family-safe site. Please keep your comments pg-rated. Any violations will be promptly edited or removed, depending on what kind of mood I'm in.

After all, Grisham is a non-age-specific type of author. Odds are your twelve-year-old daughter has read him, as well as your sweet grandmother. Use language that won't offend either one, please.

Also, please note that spoilers are rampant here! If you have not yet read a book or seen a movie, do both before reading their entries here!

So have fun, and chime in with your thoughts!

As far as secrets go, such mob-caused ones are best left unkown.

But Mark knows, and it's just a matter of time before crooked cops get word to the mob that the kid was in the car with the lawyer. Thus begins the hunt.

The scared-you-know-whatless Mark stumbles into the office of Reggie Love, lawyer with issues of her own.

Well, the two strike positive chords with each other, and they manage to outwit the mob and their despicable lawyers and skate away happily into the sunset.

The differences:

The storylines pretty well coincided. Just more details in the book, as you would expect.

Why it was a tie:

The actors rocked. Susan Sarandon was the perfect choice as Reggie. And Tommy Lee Jones is always going to be the perfect character with slightly (or obviously) shady baggage. And Brad Renfro was very effective as the frightened yet courageous Mark. I wonder why his career seems to have fizzled.

So read the book for the detailed story, but watch the movie for the true fleshing out of the characters.

This book, released in February 1991, covers the tale of Mitch McDeere and his wooing by a prestigious Memphis firm. Soon after joining up, he sees things that look suspicious. Things escalate until he's involved in blatantly illegal practices with mob clients. Eventually, he ends up fighting for his life as The Firm attempts to deal with him like they do with other problem employees: by killing him.

The differences:

In the book, the ending is, well, muddled. It involves Mitch and his wife stealing money and secrets from the mob, then fleeing for their lives. Eventually, they make the Caribbean archipelago and sail from island to island, continuing to hide from the mob.

In the 1993 movie, Mitch finds a loophole guaranteeing the mob that he can not give up what he knows about them without violating attorney-client privilege. However, he is able to turn The Firm over to the feds for numerous postage violations which are actually strong enough to lock the partners away.

Why the flick is better:

What a great ending! You develop sympathy for Mitch, as he shows his human failings (greed, unfaithfulness), then struggles to overcome them. Then, you ride off into the sunset with him and his bride as he returns to a simpler way of life. That beats the heck out of seeing them looking over their shoulders as they attempt to dodge the bad guys for the rest of their lives!

Runaway Jury, written in 1996, is about a huge tobacco trial in Biloxi. A woman is suing on behalf of her late husband. The tobacco companies keep a "fund" for such lawsuits, and they hire Rankin Fitch (now is that a great name for a bad guy, or what!) to select a jury that will quickly deliver an acquittal. What Fitch doesn't count on is a jury member (Nicholas Easter) with his own plans to sway the jury. He boldly offers the jury for sale to both sides in the trial, but in fact he has already made up his mind how the trial will turn out. The rest of the story is a study of mind control by both sides, with Easter and his lovely accomplice winning out.

What's Different:

What huge differences! First of all, the movie presents a trial against gun manufacturers based in New Orleans! I guess that's considered more PC. Cusack's Easter admonishes his building super to stop smoking in a nod to the original premise.

Second, Hackman's Rankin Fitch is not nearly as obnoxious as his literary counterpart. I'm afraid Gene is just too stinkin' likeable!

Third, Nicholas and Marlee simply rip off Fitch in the end. In the book, they "borrow" his ten million dollars, invest it in tobacco stocks sold short, and take advantage of the trial's verdict to make millions (and even pay Fitch back).

Why the Book Is Better:

Grisham knew what he was doing when he wrote a novel critical of the tobacco companies. The very idea that such an industry is sanctioned by the government when it has been conclusively proven to harm and kill its users is hypocrisy at its greatest. The same entity that bans artificial sweeteners (cyclamates) that might possibly cause cancer in large doses has laws in place offering economic aid to those who produce this lethal product. And despite how one feels about gun control, the same argument simply can not be made concerning firearms, which can and do provide beneficial uses.

Not only that, but the book's ending is much more satisfying. Fitch is dethroned, the tobacco industry begins facing a litany of lawsuits, and the only ones who lose are the tobacco companies themselves, and those who invest their funds in them.