Rating: 
Summary: Save by the acting.
Review: Dimwitted court room spectacle that hold no creditability in the passage of law but has a great cast that does wonders with almost nothing to back them up with. Gene Hackman and Dustin Hoffman are master actors, and master actors are great in anything, and throw in the great and versatile Rachel Weisz in the mixed, and we have a movie worth seeing. It's bad for them though because they are basically working without a net in terms of plot development, and structure but they are game. Maybe they can pull together in another movie someday that really gives them something to work with.
Rating: 
Summary: It's about principles and integrity, not gun control
Review: While I am sure this film will spark some heated debate on the whole gun control issue, I think that was secondary to the real message of the film which I feel has more to do with personal conviction and ethical choices than the gun case. What will we ultimately sacrifice to get the justice we feel is deserved? Where are the boundaries we will cross to ensure the greater good is done? Will our personal convictions outweigh our desires for the results?
Some great actors are involved here, including Dustin Hoffman, John Cusack, and Gene Hackman. On the surface it is a film about a jury trial where a widow is suing a gun manufacturing company for the wrongful death of her husband, who was killed at work by an ex-employee with an automatic weapon produced by the manufacturer. The trial itself is about whether the gun manufacturer has liability for the use of its products. An interesting question and one that looks deep into the heart of justice, and the 2nd Amendment. Is it an issue of "rights" or an issue of "responsibility"? A good question but one which is not answered here, despite the seeming intention to do so.As I said, despite the context of the gun control trial, the real essence of the film for me was the ethics of the lead characters. Gene Hackman plays a person who flies in under the radar of a trial and sways and influences juries through blackmail and other illegal threats and intimidation. He is paid millions to deliver verdicts for the gun companies. Dustin Hoffman is the defense lawyer, who has sound principles and even struggles with adding a jury expert on his own team. The scene between Dustin and Gene is a classic confrontation of principle versus results at any cost. John Cusack is a person who is seemingly reluctant to be a part of the jury process, yet ends up in a strategic role as "juror #9". Some choose to stretch their morals for good, some stand firm. The true value in this film is the interesting look at some difficult moral dilemmas. Recommended highly.
Rating:
Summary: Good acting can¿t hide all the flaws
Review: Bad translation of John Grisham bestseller lacks his surprise twist and charm because of the bad decision over changing the plot for a liberal stance against guns. The acting is good despite the bad tasted the movie leaves in your mouth and that is a major plus. Gene Hackman, Dustin Hoffman, and Rachel Weisz do their best work here but not even they can hide all the flaws this movie has. More over, the movie lacks a coherent narrative, and a certain sense of stability. I suggest watching the movie for the acting alone but you still would have do get through the movie as a whole.
Rating:
Summary: Weisz and Hackman are the best things here, unfortunately
Review: I did like the movie, but the whole anti gun preaching and the illogical plot points concerning Jury tampering were a bit much, and highly improbable to be real. The only saving grace here though is the acting, which deserves a much better movie. Gene Hackman and Rachel Weisz really made this film work with their performances. Gene's performance made his character more dimensional than it needed to be, and more though provoking, and Rachel Weisz gives a great performance with a character that really should have had more screen time than she did. Dustin Hoffman was fine but was really no more than scenery and John Cusack was decent but needed more work. To Be Honest, The movie would had not been as good with out the performances of Rachel Weisz and Gene Hackman, and if the movie would have had been in their level of acting, the movie would have been much better.
Rating:
Summary: Has the usual Grisham twists and turns
Review: This movie has some major departures from Grisham's book by the same name, but having said that, it is still an interesting movie judged on its own merits. The all-star cast features John Cusack as a young man who insinuates himself onto a jury in order to influence the verdict, Gene Hackman as the relentless lawyer who manipulates everything about the trial in order to win the case for his gun-manufacturing bosses, and Dustin Hoffman as the idealistic lawyer who is representing the widow of a murder victim. There are a few places where the viewer is required to suspend belief because of plot lapses, but generally this is a fast-moving, interesting film which gives a chilling look at the possibilities of influencing a jury in order to favor certain interest groups. Although Grisham has come in for a lot of criticism in recent years, he still produces entertainment which captures and keeps the viewer (or reader's) attention.
Rating:
Summary: Just did not cut it for me.
Review: Yes, Gene Hackman, Rachel Weisz, Dustin Hoffman and John Cusack are better than good in this movie, and they deserve much than this. The movie just does not work well in any way, and the whole debate about guns is way wasted in a bad story that does not even address the problem. The whole movie gives new meaning to lazy filmmaking, and hopefully the actors who did this would get some kind of award for bringing life to a meaningless movie.
Rating:
Summary: Runaway Jury (Widescreen Edition)
Review: Let's quit worrying about "poor" John Grisham and how Hollywood has done him wrong. IF Grisham was worried about his work being presented with integrity and staying within the plot , etc he has written, he's rich enough to buy his own studio and make movies of his own books. Bad old cigarette manufacturers are last years news. People (children) getting killed by guns is today's news.
Now to the movie - I truly enjoyed the little guy playing the game and winning out over the big guy. I'm also enthralled with American jurisprudence, jury selection , voir dire, etc. I'm becoming a John Cusack fan with every movie I've seen him in. And he gives a fine performance in The Runaway Jury. Gene Hackman - the ultimate arrogant, guy you love to hate - what a perfect pick for his role in this movie. The subtle manipulations in the jury room are just engrossing and ...well, fun to see.
There hasn't been a movie to compare to the classic "Twelve Angry Men". And Runaway Jury isn't even close, but still an entertaining movie. Forget about protecting poor little John Grisham from mean old Hollywood. Sit down and enjoy this movie!
John Row
Rating: 
Summary: Bad, Bad movie.
Review: Other than Rachel Weisz and Gene Hackman, who were in my opinion better than the movie deserved, the movies fails in all accounts. If you want to have a debate about guns watch the news or write to your congressman. Leave the preaching at home, and wait for a better movie with Gene Hackman and Rachel Weisz to star in. Not even they are strong enough to save this movie from itself.
Rating:
Summary: Weisz, Hackman, and Hoffman save an other wise bad movie.
Review: Good actors do there best when they are inspired, and they can save a real bad movie from totally destroying itself. Runaway Jury is a perfect example of this ideal, and you can look no further than the performances giving by all who participated in this film. Gene Hackman is no stranger to this notion, and gives a great sense of class, and humility to an other wise cookie cutter bad guy. Rachel Weisz not only holds her own with the big boys but literally makes them sweat in the acting department as well. Giving both Hackman and Hoffman a worthy adversary in and out of the courtroom, and making them know that they are not going to steal the movie by themselves. And Dustin Hoffman brings a sense of heart and humanity to his role, which sadly is not very big to begin with. All the supporting actors do well themselves with John Cusack, Luis Guzman, and Bruce Davison giving great support. Judging by the talent involved, you will guess that this might be a great movie but it's not. That's because the screenplay, the editing, and the director betrays them and their performances with a film that feels very unfinished, and amateurish to say the least. The story, which deals with guns, is really not about them but about the state of which one will go for messing with the legal system. It's a noble story to tell but when you are hammering the idea of gun responsibility, and accountability to the viewer with out equal say about the benefits, you are in trouble, and you can thank the screenplay for that. The editing feels way to raw to be a real final cut, and the direction feels too disjointed to be even considered professional. With all these problems going for it, it's the showmanship of Gene Hackman, Rachel Weisz, and Dustin Hoffman that moves the film forward, but they should not have had to work that hard to save this bad movie. The director and the people behind the scenes should carry the blunt of the responsibility as well, and judging by the way the acting literally saves this movie, they did nothing to help the actors involved.
Rating:
Summary: Split Decision
Review: Happened to be in New Orleans while this was filming, and was looking forward to seeing the city in the movie. Didn't see much. Never expected much real law, was not disappointed. Liked Cusak, Hoffman wasted, Hackman huffed and puffed. Good movie for a Saturday night at home, nothing special.
|
