Rating: 
Summary: Fantastic Film.
Review: I read the Runaway Jury a few mouths ago in my book cub, and I liked it. I think that the movie is much better than the book, and better focus too. I think that guns are a much more pressing conversation than the dangers of Tobacco, and a much more interesting plot to go though. All the actors do their job nicely, with Gene Hackman and Rachel Weisz being the standouts, and the scenery was a great compliment to the great city of New Orleans(My Home Town). If you want to have a nice time out from the world and see a good movie, this is one of them.
Rating: 
Summary: Another great Grisham Courtroom Drama
Review: First of all, I did not read the book so I'm not reviewing it from the perspective of the book.I love a good courtroom drama. One thing I liked about this movie was that it showed the courtroom from the perspectives of the jurors, even though not from a "Ten Angry Men" type of way. The story is fantastic. It is nice to have a good movie with a decent plot (Hollywood, take notice!!!). There just aren't enough of these. The acting is WONDERFUL with this all star cast. The characters are very real and believable. Cusack and Weisz are perfect in their roles. Hackman nails his part perfectly as the cold-hearted goffer for the gun-manufacturers. Hoffman also does a magnificent job by playing the exact opposite as Hackman's role. I've always loved Cusack as he always plays the ultimate Nice Guy type of role. He nails his part quite wonderfully. Everybody did a great job, I really enjoyed the acting. I would recommend this film without question. I really enjoyed watching it. However, many may not agree with the verdict of the trial...
Rating: 
Summary: GOOFY OVERALL ADAPTATION, BUT AN ACTING POWERHOUSE
Review: The somewhat stretch-of-imagination screen adaptation of the Grisham novel is a mixed bag. Without giving anything away it can be said there is an elaborate plot which could never occur in real-world jurisprudence under most ordinarily conceivable circumstances. The story (of this adaptation, NOT of the original novel) is weak in that regard and makes the film a hard-sell due to the expected and anticlimatic resolution. Midway through the movie, the director seemed to have gotten carried away in a semi-doozy theme regarding the right to bear arms which overshadows all common sense. At one point, an idealistic man is even willing to bend the law to achieve his "right" goals. Regardless, the tense Hackman versus Hoffman showdown is by far a reason enough to watch this thriller, there are enough moments between the two veterans to make the ride worthwhile. Living proof a film can be spared, and even succeed, with the likes of Gene Hackman, John Cusack and Dustin Hoffman despite a weak, if not goofy, storyline.
Rating:
Summary: By The Numbers Court Drama made by Weisz and Company.
Review: I really have to hand it to Rachel Weisz and Gene Hackman, they make a tire and by the numbers court thriller into some thing real special. If the movie were as professional and precise as their performances were, we would have a much better movie. Gene Hackman never disappoints as Rankin Fitch; a jury consultant who is hired by a gun manufacturer to suave the jury to their camp. Even though he can really do this role in his sleep, he does it so well and very to the point. Rachel Weisz is equally as compelling as Marlee, a mysterious woman who not only has a trump card in her hands about the jury but also has a score to settle with Fitch and company. John Cusack is very good an unwilling juror with a secret of his own and Dustin Hoffman is just as good as a southern lawyer who is trying to get the gun manufacture to pay up for a office rampage. The setting of New Orleans is beautiful, and the characters are compelling enough to care for but the plot is run of the mill. We all know that secrets will be exposed and the good guys will win, which is fine by me but I hope it wasn't as profound as it was. Thanks to Weisz and Hackman for at least keeping me interested with what was going on.
Rating:
Summary: Weisz and Hackman shine with a unfaithful script.
Review: While I do understand the fact that books that becomes movies usually do not follow the same pattern of the book, I can't forgive the fact that this film does not even follow the book's theme. While that does bother me, I can't deny the fact that the movie was entertaining. Mostly because of the performances of the actors involve. The Best of these performances goes to Gene Hackman, who is always a delight to watch and is always capable of taking a mediocre film and making it better. The other goes to Rachel Weisz, who not only holds her own with the Great Gene Hackman but also matches his intensity with lethal charm. Don't go in with the notion that this will be just like the book, but go in knowing that you will be entertain by two great actors at there game.
Rating: 
Summary: Gene Hackman and Rachel Weisz make a bad movie look good.
Review: John Grisham should be livid over the way they butchered his book for an advertisement for gun safety. The original story of the tobacco industry is thrown right out in favor for a democratic approach to gun control that is bias to say the least. The only plus here is the performances, and I really do mean plus because if the performances were as bad as the film, I would have definitely walk out of the theater. Gene Hackman is very good as a man trying to secure a verdict for the gun manufactures, and Rachel Weisz is also very good as a woman trying to secure the verdict for her own gain. John Cusack is good as a juror with a motive, and Dustin Hoffman is fine as a layer with a passion for the truth. With a better director and a better screenplay, the movie would have been Oscar worthy, too bad it's not. What a shame.
Rating:
Summary: Excellent Movie - Just Saw it Last Night
Review: This was a great film. Although the movie did change the subject matter, it didn't affect the force of the movie or story. The point is not that people who use the guns are not responsible. That's obvious. But the gun industry makes and markets their product for those who are criminal. They know that people who are more likly to use these guns inappropriatley, and yet do nothing to keep their supppliers from doing this. Major point. If you know one of the distrubutors are conducting illegal buisness, refuse to do buisness. That was the point of the movie. Not that a gun company couldn't make guns, but they need to act responibly.
Rating:
Summary: Almost as good as the book.
Review: I do agree that the filmmakers should have done the book justice, but this film is actually pretty good in its own right. It does have scenes and things that did not happen in the book like Gene Hackman and Dustin Hoffman's showdown in the court house bath room, and of course the whole gun issue but the performances more than make up for its problems is spades. Rachel Weisz is really the high light here giving a sharp edged to the Character of Marlee, and Gene Hackman proves once again that he is a master with a tight and scary performance as Rankin Fitch. Dustin Hoffman is decent as Wendell Rohr, and John Cusack makes a good Nicholas Easter. If you want to see a tight and suspenseful film with good acting for a change, you can't go wrong with this.
Rating:
Summary: A disappointed adaptation and non-product placement...
Review: I was already unhappy when I discovered that the film version of John Grisham's "Runaway Jury" would be about handguns rather than cigarettes. It seems that Hollywood can have two movies about talking pigs in the same year, one of which gets nominated for a Best Picture Oscar, can have two movies about large objects hurtling towards the earth that can make hundreds of millions dollars in the same summer, and can do dozens of movies in which an old person and a young person switch bodies, but heaven forbid that anybody make another movie suggesting tobacco companies are evil since "The Insider" proved that. There is an in-joke early in the film "Runaway Jury" about the change, but all it made me do was wonder how much money Big Tobacco would have paid not to have Hollywood take them to task in a big budget film with Dustin Hoffman and Gene Hackman. Now that I have actually seen the film I am unhappy for another reason. Having significantly altered the subject matter of the film, director Gary Fleder substantially changes the style as well. In addition to being an indictment of the tobacco industry and their lawyers, the novel "Runaway Jury" was pretty much a serio-comic version of "12 Angry Men," where the fun was in watching Nicholas Easter put the pieces of the jury together to get the verdict that he wanted. However, the film version is more about the machinations of jury consultant supreme, Rankin Fitch (Hackman), with his legion of flunkies and technological toys. Fitch deserves to be taken down, and taken down hard, which is an important part of this film because the legal case against his client is pretty unrealistic and given the problems with the star witness of Wendell Rohr (Hoffman), the plaintiff's attorney, it is a good thing the scriptwriters (all four of them) are around to help set things to right. The film version goes for suspense instead of manipulation, with Mr. Inside Easter (John Cusak) and Ms. Outside Marlee (Rachel Weisz) lacking the confidence that gave the novel quite a different tone, and their lives, not to mention their plan, in considerably more peril. Besides, Marlee and Nick are playing both sides against each other, so for most of the film there is no sense of the moral high ground and we are led to believe this is just another way of playing the game of law. So Cusak, who should have several choice scenes in which he proves his mettle, is given more physical action than dialogue, Hoffman sounds a lot like Dorothy Michael's brother, and it is Hackman who repeatedly steals virtually every scene that he has in the film. To say that "Runaway Jury" is a disappointment to those who read the book is a rather insignificant point given that most of the people who see it will not have done so, and they should find this 2003 film to be pretty engaging since they do not know the inherent flaws. However, I would urge you to go read Grisham's novel, which is not as funny as "The Rainmaker," but in a similar comic vein. I do not know if Grisham is as upset with what happened with his novel as Tom Clancy was when Hollywood played with the ending of "Patriot Games," but if he is not I am still rather ticked off about the whole thing.
Rating:
Summary: Is this a John Grisham story?
Review: Tacky adaptation of John Grisham's book lacks not only the original story but also a real plot to go with it. Not only are the motives of some of the characters not even explained but also some of the tactics used in this movie makes no sense what so ever, and the whole gun issue is so out of place here that its ridiculous. I agree with everyone that the acting is the only thing that makes this film bearable with the great acting turns by Rachel Weisz, Gene Hackman, John Cusack and Dustin Hoffman. See it for their performances, other than that, don't bother.
| 
