Rating: 
Summary: Saggy Grisham drama that is saved by the acting.
Review: Unfaithful, but greatly acted rendition of the bestseller forgoes the legal jargon, and the style of the book for a weak, and simple-minded tale of gun control. The tobacco subject is completely gone, and that is a major fault considering the fact that it made more sense for the tobacco industry to go as far as to rig a jury than a gun manufacture simply for the sake of protecting a product that they know is dangerous to the customer but rather not make it public. The movie feels too awkward in some scenes, and the way the movie is cut together is not very good because it cuts way too fast from scene to scene. The only thing here that is worth commenting is the acting, which I agree with the rest of the reviews have said, deserved a much better movie. Gene Hackman has played this character before but he does it well with a touch of human frailty. Rachel Weisz is great as his adversary, and she is so good in fact that she does almost walk away with the movie herself, even with Hackman, and Dustin Hoffman sharing the screen together. Hoffman meanwhile does a good job as Hackman's rival in court, and while he does not have the same screen time as Gene, his performance is special and touching, and gives the movie a real moral center. John Cusack is good as well, and gives a heroic feel to his character. Despite the acting here, the movie has a lot of problems. Maybe if it stood by the book, it could have been a much better movie.
Rating:
Summary: A renter, but nothing else.
Review: I really didn't expect too much from this film. I heard things and right from the beggining those things were acknowledged. I don't see why they call the ending a "twist". It wasn't that much of a twist and you won't be surprised at all. You will probably be like, "Big deal, who cares!" The actors are good, but the material is weak. It is also kind of boring. In a boring kind of way. That's boring. I'm not being funny, this is a really boring movie at times.
Rating:
Summary: Runaway...from this movie!
Review: WARNING! I give away some plot details... Read all the other one and two star reviews to understand why this movie was such a stinker. Notice the people giving it four and five stars all mostly these "Amazon Super Reviewer" types? I give them negative one stars for being so delusional and so freaken full of themselves--but I digress... The only reason I gave this stinky movie two stars is because the idea of the two junior jury rigors being so obsessed with the death of their classmates that they'd devote a huge chunk of their lives to avenge them. There's something so bizarre about that that I found it appealing. Of course the movie didn't take it anywear interesting; I imagine folks like this would be a little unkempt and haunted looking and they might have at least ONE other obsessive/compulsive trait like chain smoking but that would be too untidy for Hollywood. Plus I guess the second amendment must also cover weapons that shoot blanks as it seems gun loathing hollywood must own ten billion of those babies--and they must have their own eleven-yearold gun designers too who obviously concocted the "assault weapon" used in this film which looks like it fires miniature marshmellows as fast as you can pull the trigger. Note to Hollywood: do we ever again need another opening scene where the handsome/ beautiful business man strides into and office full of people who he/she wise-cracks with till he/she gets to their corner office?--that one's played out-- Like pretty much everything else in your played out town.
Rating: 
Summary: Good plot and twists
Review: I do not usually read John Grisham's legal thrillers but wanted to see this movie because of its cast, especially the incredibly talented John Cusack. Much to my surprise, I found this movie to have a great plot and so many twists and turns that I was kept on the edge of my seat. Cusack, Dustin Hoffman, and Gene Hackman played their respective parts to perfection. Rachel Weisz's Marlee was a great foil to Cusack's character While the depiction of corporate greed and legal machinations may have been unnecessarily over the top, I really liked this movie and the way it kept me guessing. The twist at the end really threw me for a loop, something I love to have happen. (...) My husband was a lawyer for a gun manufacturer and we still managed to enjoy the movie!
Rating: 
Summary: Good performances save an other wise lackluster movie.
Review: I don't stand on ether side of the gun subject but I rather judge the movie on its own merits rather than to be blinded by propaganda on both sides of the issue. Judging the movie on its own, I found it rather lackluster in substance and in style. The whole jury tampering was a bit out of control, and a bit comical considering the fact that it could have been expose in a heart beat if it was based in the real world. The whole high tech side to the movie just did not cut it for me, and the whole evil of capitalism was way out of place. On the plus side, the acting is very good considering the unfocused script in this film. Dustin Hoffman and John Cusack were very good but the real stars here are Gene Hackman and Rachel Weisz who are the heart and soul of this movie. They alone make this movie better than its many faults, and the movie has many. I was more riveted by Hackman and Weisz confrontation than the confrontation between Hackman and Hoffman because there were more tension between him and Weisz, and it was better executed than the tacked on bathroom scene with him and Hoffman which seem forced and unnecessary. To put it all in perspective, see it for the performances but don't expect the movie to be as good.
Rating: 
Summary: An engrossing intellectual AND suspenseful action movie
Review: RUNAWAY JURY is one of the more satisfying of John Grisham novels to be brought to the screen. The screenplay is intelligent and has sufficient bite to maintain attention right up to the surprising end. Much credit goes to Director Gary Felder for his approach to this trial tale set in smarmy New Orleans, a trial based on an individual's lawsuit against a gun manufacturing empire for the death of her husband who was an innocent victim of a workplace shooting spree (sound familiar?). The lawyers are Dustin Hoffman for the plaintiff giving a performance of great dignity and understated power and Bruce Davison (likewise excellent) as the mouthpiece defense lawyer for the corrupt gun manufacturers who have enlisted Gene Hackman (in a superlatively malevolent role) to rig the jury. Sitting on the jury is John Cusack (in his finest performance yet) with an agenda of his own. The remainder of the jury includes such fine actors as Luis Guzman, Nora Dunn, Jennifer Beals etc and Bruce McGill as the Judge all, once again, tuned to low key, very pungent acting. Rachel Weisz and Dylan McDermott flesh out this homogenously excellent cast. An exceptionally well written, well directed, well acted film that rates with the finest courtroom dramas of the past. This is a pwerful case for Gun Control. Worth seeing again!
Rating:
Summary: Great movie, if you can get past the politics
Review: I couldn't understand why this movie got so many bad reviews, but after reading a couple I realized it's because of the movie's political slant. True, if you're a gun enthusiast (or a gung-ho conservative), you will probably NOT like this film. However, if you can get past the movie's anti-gun bias, there is much to like here. Great performances by the lead actors (although I have to say this was not Dustin Hoffman's strongest performance), and a taut, suspensful story line that keeps you guessing. The pace and style reminded me vaguely of Enemy of the State, another great film. Finally, this DVD is loaded with some great extras. Highly recommended!
Rating:
Summary: A renter, but nothing else.
Review: I really didn't expect too much from this film. I heard things and right from the beggining those things were acknowledged. I don't see why they call the ending a "twist". It wasn't that much of a twist and you won't be surprised at all. You will probably be like, "Big deal, who cares!" The actors are good, but the material is weak. It is also kind of boring. In a boring kind of way. That's boring. I'm not being funny, this is a really boring movie at times.
Rating:
Summary: so bad
Review: Why does Hollywood still make bad movies? Don't they owe us, the paying public some quality films? This movie is such a bad film. Call me at 156-38-3461.
Rating:
Summary: Well acted propaganda piece
Review: I rented this DVD without knowing much about it except it had some of the best actors in movies in it. They came through with outstanding acting that made the movie have some "redeeming social value" as the saying goes. It tried hard to throw in some action to keep the audience from being bored by formula gun-control propaganda. Although these action scenes offer something by themselves, they can't prop up what is basically a politically motivated project. Rachel Weisz steals the show with her talent. She is becoming quite the action star besides being a great dramatic actress. As far as the characters, there is just too much going on that would never connect in reality to keep the movie believable. Everyone in the movie is breaking or bending the law. The ending with Cusak and Weisz' characters watching a playground of children as if what they have done in any way would serve those children leaves credulity completely behind! I am glad I rented instead of bought it. After you watch this movie for the fine acting, do some factual research on the main issue presented in the movie to find out how they got it wrong.
| 
