Rating: 
Summary: This movies misses the point on guns
Review: This is a typical Hollywood story of guns in our culture. At the heart of the story is the notion that the gun companies are so evil that they are not willing to stand for independent jury verdicts. As a result, they must manipulate the process so it will benefit them. However, one interesting component of this story is missing: there is a murderer who used a gun to kill the widow's wife. That person is not shown--not at all! That person is absent! All you see is an anonymous figure, in the beginning of the movie, coming into kill a stock broker. No mention at all throught the film is made of the person who killed the widow's husband. Is he in prison? If not, why not? There is a specific reason for that, of course. Hollywood rarely likes to focus on murderers. When they do, they always play them as the victims. As a result, then, we have a movie that says the guns -- absent any individual initiative -- was able to kill a person with malicious intent. Therefore a jury verdict is the only avanue left available to attack the so-called evildoers. If this movie served as the basis for one's views on gun control, one would think that guns are only used for the purposes of attacking people, not defense, which is the primary purpose. I must say, however, that there have been some incredible performances in this movie. Gene Hackman plays an incredible performance as the "evil" fire arms attorney / supervisor of jury tampering. I felt that Hoffman's performance was terrible and was a signal of poor casting. Another problem I have with this movie is that it fails to understand that by attacking the gun companies it has a direct impact on individual's ability to bear arms. If trial lawyers are able to enact enough damages upon manufacturers of said weapons, it would raise costs to prohibitive levels that would ultimately passed down to consumers. If the price of gun is increased 400%, that decreases the opportunity for the average person to exercise their constitutional right to own such weapons. That appears to be the apparent point of the movie -- to make it as difficult for someone to exercise their right to own such weapons that the average person, while still holding the same right to bear arms, cannot actually afford to do so. Of course Hollywood writers and actors will always be heavily guarded in their mansions in Bel Air, Beverly Hills, and Upper-East Manhattan, but what about the rest of society? Don't they deserve protection?
Rating: 
Summary: Good Grisham
Review: I found this movie suspensful and thoroughly entertaining. My brother, a card-carrying member of the NRA, really enjoyed it too. Yes, in the book, the case is against a cigarette company. The movie makers changed it to guns not because it was more pc but because cigarettes had already been done (The Insider). Hackman is mesmerizing as the wicked Rankin Fitch, an evil, unethical jury consultant who wins at any cost. John Cusack and Rachel Weitz are a couple of amature cons out to beat Fitch at his own game. Yes, the morality is very black and white, not much grey, which makes the movie play more like a tale rather than a geniune story plucked from the headlines. But the cast is top notch, even bit parts are played by people like Orlando Jones, Nora Dunn and Jennifer Beals (I got a kick out the the momentary 80's hero intro, flashdance girl meets boombox boy). The ending has a mild twist that you may or may not see coming, but it's just fun to see these actors work with each other. Cusack impressively holds his own in an intense scene with Hackman. Entertaining, suspenseful, good Grisham.
Rating:
Summary: Good movies, despite the views express.
Review: I liked the film. Does it represent the gun manufactures in a fair light? No, but that is not the point, the point is about the way people can be brought, and how corrupt the legal system can be. All the actors involved do a great job, with Gene Hackman, Rachel Weisz, Dustin Hoffman and John Cusack leading an all star cast. The performances are great, and the concept is something to consider. Don't let the fear of the gun nuts drive you a way from this film, because it's really not about guns at all.
Rating:
Summary: Someone always loses in court...just not me...
Review: Based on the John Grisham book, Runaway Jury is a fine court thriller in the same vein as The Pelican Brief and The Firm. However, as oppossed to those films, it's much more predictable, and that takes a lot out of the movie - how much can you be thrilled if you *know* what's gonna happen? A big guns manufacturing firm is taken to court by the widow of a stock broker killed by a deranged co-worker using an automatic weapon built by said firm. As you would expect, it's the biggest trial to come along in some time as there are large interests in its results. The victims want some retribution for their loss, but if the gun companies lose it will set a precedent from which many future cases can also be lost. Both sides bring in the big guns (pun intended) not only hiring top lawyers to handle the case (Hoffman and Davison), but also hiring jury selection firms to watch over the pciking of who's gonna be one of the twelve jurors. Enter Rankin Fitch (Hackman), an expert in manipulating mury selection. He uses leading edge technology and a large team of people to figure out any and everything there is to know about the jurors, and if necessary, put enough pressure in them to guarantee a winning decision. One of the would-be jurors is Nick Easter (Cusack), a part owner of an electronics store, who seems to have his own reasons to be part of the jury. Once the selection starts and both sides do their best to include jurors who they think will favor them, or to exclude those who would vote against their clients. However, they don't realize at first that Nick is doing some manipulation himself. With the help of his girlfriend, Marlee (Weisz), Nick manages to be chosen as juror #9, and once he's in, him and Marlee start threatening both sides - they can make the decision swing to either side, whoever pays them more will be on the winning end. From then on, most of the movie reveals Nick's and Marlee's plan as well as how the lawyers react, trying to stop them. There is a somewhat decent twist ending, although as I said before, it's quite predictable and that's the real weakness of the film. I had already read the book, but by wife, who hasn't, also saw the ending coming a mile away. The big plus in this film is the acting. The four leading characters are portrayed by two Hollywood legends with four Oscars between them and two great actors of a younger generation. Cusack is argueably the lead, as he has the most screen time. His character drives the story - he's the one on the inside, moving and shaking things in order to control the outcome. He does a real good job. Weisz has probably the least screen time of the foursome, and she does very well with a limited character (she is, however, quite hot!). Hoffman does a fine job as Wendell Rohr, the plaintiff's lawyer, who wants to win this case to change gun control laws and to stick it to the large gun companies. But the movie belongs to Hackman. He is the villain of the film, he's the bad guy in the story, and as with most movies, he gets the best dialogues and the best scenes. He's a canniving, heartless man who knows that in order to control people you have to learn their deepest, darkest secrets and then use them against them. He doesn't care about the victims or the people involved in the trial, he only wants to win and he shows it when he says "someone always loses in court. Only not me". If you're a Grisham fan (either his books or the movies based on them) you shouldn't miss this film. If you like court room dramas, you'll enjoy this movie. Just don't expect to be blown away by it. On a final note, has anyone else noticed that this is Hackman's third Grisham-based movie? He was in The Firm, The Chamber and now this. Odd.
Rating:
Summary: runaway John Grisham
Review: If you loved "The Firm" and " The Pelican Brief" don't bother watching this adaptation of John Grisham's Runaway Jury. Runaway is appropriate. I have not read the book so I did not have any preconceived notions on the film. The story is plausible enough someone sueing a large company for damage the product caused. Thats about the only filament of truth in the movie. The lawyers "Hoffman" and the "other guy" Give both lack luster performances. Gene Hackman however (playing yet another one of his "I'm the pri*# in the film " roles. Actually gives the only real acting performance in the entire film. The movies premise is inplausible. The ending predictible. And the acting of the other characters just falls short, primarily do to a poor script. Except for Hackman. I give it a 3 only because i made it to the end without falling asleep or turning it off.
Rating: 
Summary: Leftist Hollywood tripe
Review: Can these guys get any more obvious? Oooh, the public is so stupid they need to be hit over the head with a very large club to get the message! This one is garbage, folks. The Evil Gun Companies, owned by Evil Rich Guys (with Evil Southern Accents) are selling Evil Guns (sold by Evil Greasy Guys with Southern Accents) to Evil Gangmembers so they can kill Innocent People. Enter the noble Dustin Hoffman to fix things. Well, not by himself. But I can't say anything else without giving away the plot, which actually is pretty good with all the double-crosses and double-double-crosses. However, the message is just nonsense. All the actors in this one should be ashamed of themselves. Watch it, if you want, but hold your nose.
Rating:
Summary: an enjoyable two hours, nothing more
Review: Runaway Jury is a well made film. Not a classic by any means, but it held my interest for more than two hours, and these days, that is something special. So many movies forget that the first job is to get us interested in the characters and their personalities before introducing us to the plot twists. This film solves a lot of potential problems by giving us an all star cast to watch. The film is another Grisham novel, involving a huge lawsuit against the gun manufacturers (in the book, it's a tobacco company) for marketing a product they know is harmful, nevermind that people have the choice not to use it. Dustin Hoffman plays the plaintiff attorney, Gene Hackman is a "jury expert" who is hired to put together a jury which will deliver a verdict in the defendent's favor. John Cusack and Rachel Weisz are lovers who work from the inside, once Cusack gets on the jury. Cusack is the real key to the whole plot, as both sides are really unsure what his motivations are. By the time everything is clear, one of the sides will have made a huge mistake. In the meantime, we have a great time watching these actors work through the details. Not a classic by any means, but lots of fun none the less.
Rating:
Summary: A bunch of baloney.
Review: Self-serving view of the gunfight lacks a compelling argument for what it's trying to say, and a real source for the balance view of things. Jury tampering is a real subject to deal with because it happens everyday but the gun issue at hand should have been a fair fight of views other than the blame game. Other than this major problem, all the actors do well in their roles with Gene Hackman, Rachel Weisz, John Cusack and Dustin Hoffman giving fine performances in this mishmash of conflicting views. See it for them only.
Rating:
Summary: Revolution #9
Review: As long as you don't get too het up over the whole second amendment thing, Runaway Jury is a slick and attractive thriller that won't require too much brainpower. While the anti-gun message is a tad heavy-handed and somewhat overplayed, I hardly think one can say that this film celebrates jury tampering. Either that or I've been corrupted by watching too many films from the "left-wing liberal media".
Anyway, Gene Hackman's character makes the movie - he's nasty, he's brutish, he's intelligent, he's invincible and then he gets his comeuppance - pure fairy tale stuff. Hoffmann never really tugs at the heartstrings too much - can one ever truly feel sympathy for a lawyer?- and Cusak and Weiss inhabit a moral grey area, where bad things happen too them but it's kind their fault for not being angels themselves and then at the end of the movie we realize they are angels and Santa Claus exists and that must be the tooth fairy knocking at my window.
What I mean to say is that the ending is trite, rushed, mawking, horribly sentimental and pretty much destroys a really elaborate set up.
The most intersting thing I found about this movie was when Hoffman and Hackman come face to face in the Men's room after Hackman has made Hoffman's key witness disappear. Normally in movies this leads to a big physical showdown, with the wronged party opening a can of righteous vengance flavored whup-ass on his nemesis. Here though, refreshingly (or perhaps because Hoffman looks a foot smaller than Hackman...) the two decide to argue it out, in an honest and frankly quite moving way. I have to say I was touched.
File this movie beside "Enemy of the State", "Identity" and "The Life of David Gale", and mourn the fact that John Cusack only gets wet once - and even then he's wearing a raincoat...
Rating:
Summary: An attack on the constitution and approval of illegal acts
Review: I don't read Grisham novels because I'm not into courtroom drama. I will occasionally rent a movie adaptation if I think the cast is good enough. Well I wasn't disappointed in the cast, but I was offended by the movie subject. The gist of the movie is that a man with wife and young son is killed when a wacko decides to seek revenge on anyone he can get in his gun sites in the office of the company that he feels wronged him. The widow decides to make a point, money, and her 15 minutes of fame by going after the gun manufacturer. Into the mix we add a couple of folks that for a mere 10 million will fix the jury for which ever side wants to pay. (or at least that's what we're led to believe.) I liked the cast, I love looking at New Orleans, but the politics and the lack or morality in the movie weren't my style. I happen to believe the right to bear arms, so this whole crusade turned me off. Reading some other reviews, it seems that in the book, the law suite was against a cigarette company. I guess that Hollywood felt that guns would be more politically correct. In addition, we're being told that it's OK for the lawyers to pay the 10 million to have the jury fixed. The lawyer for the widow considers paying the money and the lawyer for the gun company does. Even though the money is paid, we find that the folks trying to fix the jury had no intention of doing anything other than trying to get the gun manufacturer found guilty. It seems that several years ago they had lost someone to a random shooting, so they feel it's OK to break who knows how many laws to make those evil gun manufacturers pay. So, let's see, we have a tirade against our 2nd amendment rights, a message that jury tampering is OK if it's for the right cause, and that there is no honor among thieves.
|
