Rating: 
Summary: Entertaining
Review: I havent read the book in a while, but by what I remember, the movies doesnt really follow the book. The movie is fun, and a good way to spend 2 hours. The acting by everyone is great by everyone. If you never read the book, you'll like it better.
Rating:
Summary: Well Acted, But A Shaky Plot
Review: A disgruntled day trader who blames his broker house for his sudden reversal of fortune opens fire with an automatic weapon, killing 11 and injuring 5 before he commits suicide. A senseless tragedy where there is no one left to punish, nothing for the grieving families to go after - except the gun manufacturer. Convinced that the gun people were responsible, one of the widows sues the manufacturer and the case ends up in court over a year later.Enter Ranklin Fitch (Gene Hackman), jury expert. Ranklin is well known for fixing juries and getting his clients the verdict they are paying him very well for. In fact, he has never lost a case. For Ranklin, laws were made to be broken. As soon as the jury summons are mailed out to citizens in the local area, all of them are studied, scrutinized and evaluated. Some are definites, in that they support the right to bear arms, others are bleeding heart liberals who no one wants on the jury. Still others are wild cards - like Nicholas Easter... Nicholas Easter is your typical citizen who works, plays and sleeps, living his life in a normal fashion. He is upset when the jury summons comes, of course, but is willing to do his civic duty, albeit begrudgingly. At least that is the way he appears. When Nicholas is seated on the jury, it soon becomes apparent that there is something not quite right about him. And when the mysterious Marlee (Rachel Weisz) starts offering the jury to the highest bidder - Ranklin Fitch for the defense or Wendell Rohr (Dustin Hoffman) for the prosecution, Ranklin is stunned. He has never been bested at his own game and he isn't about to start now. Ranklin knows that Wendell is a straight arrow and will refuse to dabble in jury tampering, but Ranklin just wants to win - no matter what it takes... Runaway Jury sounds like an exciting, well-made film, but it just isn't. The cast is tremendously talented and they do their best to make their characters something about the norm, but they cannot elevate the holes in the plot. It is fairly obvious what is going on from the beginning, an issue that is forgivable if there are still little surprises along the way, which there were, but there are just big gaps in the storyline. First of all, I cannot get past the whole issue of the trial. There is no way that anyone would be able to sue the gun manufacturers for an incident like this and win. It would be difficult for the case to be won against big tobacco, as has been proved time and again, but impossible against guns. They are two completely different stories. Grisham wrote a book about the smoking issue, a book that I found so stultifying that I couldn't even finish it, but the movie would have been much stronger if they had stuck with this issue - who cares if it had been compared to The Insider! Doesn't Hollywood always make movies in 2s and 3s anyway? Regardless of the lack of plot, the movie is worth renting just to watch some wonderful acting going on. John Cusack, Gene Hackman, Dustin Hoffman, and Rachel Weisz all did a fabulous job in their roles, adding depth and dimension to a movie that so easily could have been bland and colorless. Give these guys an actual script to work off of and who knows what would have happened?
Rating:
Summary: Typical Grisham
Review: Typical Grisham stuff: A brilliant premise hastily cranked out through a fast-food, hamburger-grinder prose, and given a politically correct slant, and an absurdly naive ending.
The man knows how to make money and be politically correct; he'll never be a writer of anything deep or meaningful, but he is entertaining and he is PC, for all you commie libs out there...
Rating: 
Summary: Good and disappointing all at the same time.
Review: Good but a bit disappointing adaptation to the John Grisham thriller does not follow the book the way it should be, and lacks the momentum of the court proceedings that follow. The acting is first rate with Rachel Weisz and Gene Hackman being the standouts in a cast that includes Dustin Hoffman John Cusack, and Bruce Davidson. The setting is a little out of the way, and the pacing is a little off with scenes that go way to fast but the film is ultimately save by the acting by all involved, most of which is credited to Weisz and Hackman. 2 stars for Weisz and Hackman but don't expect anything close to the book.
Rating:
Summary: Runaway Jury (2003)
Review: Director: Gary Fleder
Cast: John Cusack, Gene Hackman, Dustin Hoffman, Rachel Weisz, Bruce Davison, Bruce McGill, Jeremy Piven.
Running Time: 126 minutes.
Rated PG-13 for some violence and language. An entertaining courtroom drama with a twist unfortunately doomed by a script with several blunders, "Runaway Jury" is still a worthwhile experience that promotes a great ensemble cast and a fair adaptation of the popular John Grisham novel. The film opens with a riveting murder scene, as a business is terrorized by an intruder with an automatic firearm, killing eleven people, injuring five more, and ends his own life. Fast-forward a year later, in which the wife of one of the deceased victims plans to take the firearm distributor to trial because of the easy accessibility the criminal had to guns. John Cusack plays the slick video-game expert Nicholas Easter, who happens to be one of the twelve jurors selected for the trial. Easter, like all of the other jurors, were hand-picked by the illustrious advisor Rankin Fitch, who uses otherworldly technology and tons of manpower in order to ensure a favorable verdict for the defense. Prosecutor Wendell Rohr (Dustin Hoffman) is a sincere and excellent attorney fighting for justice, but also embodies a tenacity that may cause him to win at Fitch's own game. What Fitch did not prepare for was the sneaky Easter, who with the help from girlfriend Rachel Weisz, attempts to sabotage the jury and use both the ruthless Fitch and the bold Rohr to get some fast cash. "Runaway Jury" is complex and intriguing, combining many of the excellent qualities of the Grisham novel and bringing them together in a fairly intelligent drama. The picture succeeds with its good performances, especially Hackman as the egotistical jury-tamperer with the win-at-all-costs attitude and Cusack as the likable, yet equally as intense Easter who has the manipulative power to single-handedly sway a jury. However, despite the great star power, the film fails to be believable in many instances and does not deliver that exciting of a finale. Not a bad attempt, but a film that certainly got away from director Gary Fleder. Worth taking a peak at, but nothing more.
Rating: 
Summary: Would not allow a lower rating
Review: It is too bad that Hollywood has to bastardize novels. The movie premise and the evidence does not make the level of baloney. Waste of time to watch. Boring.
Rating: 
Summary: Not memorable, but entertaining
Review: This movie in no way deserves a rating of '5 stars'. "Runaway Jury" is a conventional, however thrilling and entertaining camp caper movie with a first rate cast. Its banality, though, certainly does not overshadow its premise and its entertaining quality...in short, the film is a decent one: no more, no less. The movie certainly does shock and thrill, but, I imagine, for different reasons for different viewers. I was surprised not so much by the actual plot developments and twists, but rather by the wonderful scene during which the audience realizes the extent to which this (and perhaps other...) trials are "fixed". Gene Hackman does a beautiful job in portraying his macchiavellian, and controversial, character. Hoffman, also, has a fine turn toward the movie's conclusion in which we perhaps see a glimmer of earnest hope in this world of unprincipled, dishonest men. And that, I think, is the film's ultimate message. Yes, "Runaway Jury" is a fine adventure, but it stands for more than mere spectacle. It portrays the eternal battle of the conscious; between scruples and "unscruples", and it suggests that even in an era when we, apparently, can trust very few, our society will never be entirely vacant of a "few good men".
Rating:
Summary: Rachel Weisz and Gene Hackman are superb but the film is not
Review: Decent by very flawed movie that is made much better thanks in apart to the superb performances of Rachel Weisz and Gene Hackman. Their performances are the heart and soul of this film. Too bad the movie itself does not come close to their professionalism because I can safely say that film is a huge mess from beginning to end. Plot points go no where with no explanation what so ever, and the story itself does not hold a candle to the original plot of the book. If you decide to see it, See it for Weisz and Hackman's great performances but don't expect a movie of their caliber.
Rating:
Summary: Gene Hackman and Dustin Hoffman provided great acting
Review: Gene Hackman and Dustin Hoffman provided great acting and were excellent cast selection. The right to bear arms is a God given right. The facts surrounding the story focused on a real world media spectacular, where a "disgruntled day-trader" blames the broker house for severe trading losses and massacres eleven people. A law suite between the wife of a slain employee and the manufacturer of the automatic weapon used in the killing by the day trader becomes an issue of product liability. The question to the jury is whether the manufacturer of the weapon is responsible and therefore liable for the usage of the weapon in the killing. In the movie the jury concludes the manufacturer is responsible and liable and should pay 110 million dollars in punitive damages. Grisham twists the right to own guns issue, for the big screen: The flood-gate of deterrence is open; precedence established to sue for product liability in the usage of the weapon; the message: you build a weapon and it is used in a killing, the manufacturer must pay; and the constitutional right to own weapons, in question. Grisham may be advocating an underlying message that people should not own weapons because they are dangerous and people get hurt from these weapons. He does not seem to see the larger danger of forfeiting this constitutional right. Grisham makes fun of the jury system, as he should. The jury system was originally designed to bring in jurors who knew the defendant. These were not witnesses, who knew the defendant but jurors. Jurors that knew the defendant had insight into the day-to-day interactions with the defendant. The judgment of the juror was expected to weight out all the circumstances surrounding the criminal event. Grisham takes the high tech Hackman and use him too dissect upon the members of the juror and select them based on profile helpful too win him the case. Grisham further makes fun of the idea of punitive damages. The justice of fair reparations for damages is the focal point. The jurors argue about what is fair saying they never ask for a hand out and why should the surviving wife receive a handout from the juror. The argument goes to far and one member of the juror says its not about law and loses credibility with the other members. Fair reparation collapses to massively punitive weight of 110 million dollars. The buying of the Juror seemed a distraction. It more interestedly show how easy jurors could be manipulated. It had less too do with Justice.
Rating:
Summary: Only 1 reason for only 3 stars...
Review: And that's because it went from a tobacco lawsuit, to gun control. If the director would have stuck to the BOOK'S plot, instead of panty wasting in another direction, this would have been an easy, EASY 5 stars for me. Gene Hackman and Dustin Hoffman make awesome opponents against each other, and to think that it happens to be their first time acting with each other! I remember wondering about John Cusack as Nick Easter, but he hit it on the head! Rachel Weisz as Marlee was simply brilliant. Now, there's been a lot of retarded people voting 2 stars because they didn't like the movie. Get a life! And if you don't like what I just said, vote non-helpful! I dare ya! Whiners! Whoever loves this movie, and the book, hey, join the crowd! I thought this was awesome, and the people they picked as jurors, great! They even had the blind guy from in the book. But they did change the plot, and I don't like that. If the plot would have stayed with tobacco, it'd be a 5 star right now.
|
