Rating: 
Summary: Another political message disguised as entertainment
Review: If you're a supporter of the anti-gun lobby, you'll love this. Personally, I don't like being preached at when all I'm supposedly promised is a good movie! I think it insightful that they don't bother to mention the actual subject matter of the script in the trailer, even though it turns out to be the founding theme of the entire movie; almost as if they're afraid the truth will stop you from going in the first place - they're right; I wouldn't have! As a movie about a court case, it's just fine, but all that is drowned in a sea of idealogical presentation where the case against gun ownership is clearly and even eloquently, at times, spelt out by the applicable legable representative. Neither surprisingly nor unpredictably (sad to say) however, the other side's case never really gets aired except with continual distractions and cut-aways; all one ends up with is some vague references of defending the 2nd amendment simply because it's part of the constitution, rather than the self-defence reasons that are more important to most people. The usual tug-on-the-heartstrings hopes to turn off your brain so that you'll just allow yourself to be spoon fed their version of this issue.
I don't like being taken for a fool, and I'm left having to wonder - if they think their case is so strong then why are they so afraid to give the same amount of 'air time' for the 'rest of the story'? Oh, and, of course, the only real bad guy on the jury is an ex-marine.
So, if you like political messages, this is for you; if you just want to actually go and see a good movie and be entertained, keep looking!
Rating:
Summary: Ho hum
Review: John Grisham wrote a book where he bashed the tobacco industry, which we have all been dutifully informed is Evil. Before any of the usual actors could line up for a paycheck, reality ruined the tobacco plot: the book depends on no major lawsuit having been won against its target industry. No problem, though: the moviemakers just substitute the firearm business for big tobacco and go to against this Designated Evil. Cusack, Hoffman, and Hackman renew their best C+ performances. Luis Guzman-- left out of the credits, the lucky stiff-- shows off his brow ridge. Jeremy Piven appears in more hair than one recalls him sporting in recent work. Rachel Weisz appears to be auditioning for the next "tragically doomed nurse" position on television's ER. What ever happened to whatshername, that actress who played the curly-haired nurse, anyway?I wish the director, writers, and producers considered using Hollywood as the industry under the scope. There would have been some interesting ambiguity in a movie about whether the movie industry is to blame for murders apparently inspired by "Natural Born Killers", for example. Too bad they didn't try that angle. I want my $3.75 bargain matinee investment back!
Rating: 
Summary: Bad interpretation of the book
Review: Hackman and Hoffman were typecasted. Cusack, forgettable. Keep your eye out for Weisz (Marlee), she's got potential. 3 stars because she carried the movie. Read the book, it's a lot more exciting and coherent. The film attempts to make a political point about gun control but falls completely flat because the arguments are never developed and so the reason for jury tampering is not believable. Anyone with half an understanding of "agency" would realize that there was no case against the gun manufacturer in the way it was setup. Therefore, the verdict at the end looked more like jury revolt, ala O.J. Simpson (a tired theme), than jury tampering (the point of the story). The film maker should have stuck with the tobacco manufacturers, as in the book. But I suppose this would have dated the movie. I am surprised that Grisham, a lawyer, allowed the movie to be rewritten this way. I guess he was paid a lot of money to look the other way.
Rating: 
Summary: Great movie with substance and a twist........
Review: I recently saw the movie and can honestly say it is one of the few good movies in a while. I found this movie quite entertaining and enjoyable. It is one of Grisham's legal thrillers about a particular case involving murder and the political strategam on both sides, the defense and the prosecution, in trying to reach a most favorable, against great odds, outcome. The two contesting parties, gun manufacturers and the injured parties, and their joining and opposing parties, do an outstanding job. I would most definitley recommend this movie to Grisham fans and to viewers interested in legal thrillers.
Rating:
Summary: Jury Rigged
Review: While I wouldn't exactaly call myself a huge fan of author John Grisham's legal thrillers, (I have only read A Time To Kill and The Chamber) I have seen a majority of the filmed adaptations that have been released over the years. For the most part, though, some of them are put together better than others, have been pretty entertaining nonetheless. Runnaway Jury is among the better of the Grisham potboilers. It's a game of cat and mouse. When the widow of shooting victim sues a gun manufacturer for damages, defense attorney Wendell Rohr (Dustin Hoffman) and his jury consultant(Jeremy Piven), face an uphill climb. It seems the gun manufacturer has hired the best in the business, Rankin Fitch (Gene Hackman) for their jury consultant. Fitch uses all of the means at his disposal to find the perfect jury, even if, it's not on the up and up. Both the prosecution and defense get more than they bargained for though, when juror Nicholas Easter (John Cusack), and his girlfriend (Rachel Weisz) have an agenda of their own. Directed by Gary Fleder, the film wouldn't have been as good, with a different cast. The stars elevate the movie to a whole nother level. Hackman, in his third Grisham film, turns in a first rate performance. His scene with Hoffman in the mens room is worth the price of admission ala De Niro/Pacino in Heat. Cusack and Weisz are good too. The actors makes an otherwise maudlin script, at times, so much better. Fleder redeems himself as a director, after the mixed effort, that was Don't Say A Word. Some solid stuff. Runnaway Jury is a **** star effort that is well worth a look. Recommended
Rating:
Summary: Grisham book made into a political movement for Gun Control
Review: I read Runaway Jury a few years back at college and I enjoyed it. Unfortunately the movie does not follow the book, and it seems like it was made more to bash gun manufactures than to tell a real story. The acting is pretty good here and that's the only plus. Gene Hackman never disappoints in his role, and Rachel Weisz is just as good as his adversary in and out of the courtroom. Dustin Hoffman is fine, but not as promenade as Hackman, and John Cusack is fine as a juror who is in league with Weisz. The book was so much better than the movie, and that could have been a better movie than this.
Rating:
Summary: Best of the New Release
Review: Of all of the new movies release in the fall. This is the best. Outstanding performances were Hackman,Cusack,and the character Marlee. Even upcoming newcomer Lori Heuring who was in the movie In Crowd was good. The ending was predictable but so much that couldn't enjoyed it.
Rating:
Summary: Hackman and Weisz makes this film as good as it is.
Review: It's a good night in the movies but the story is a little too far fetch to have any truth to it, and the story does not give a fair voice to the gun manufactures. I do agree with the majority that Gene Hackman and Rachel Weisz were the best things here, and they are the real reason to see it.
Rating:
Summary: Compelling drama made by Rachel Weisz and Gene Hackman
Review: While I'm still new to the whole John Grisham experience, Runaway Jury was a real good theater experience. The acting is fantastic, and the issue raised about gun control is a very touchy subject to tackle. Rachel Weisz is sunning as the woman with a price to offer, and Gene Hackman is fantastic as the bad guy of the show who wants to secure a verdict , and John Cusack is great as well as a juror who is more than meets the eye. The hoopla about the right to bear arms is a bit off center and a bit bias but the movie is still a real winner.
Rating:
Summary: Other than The fine performance of Rachel Weisz, skip it.
Review: I'm a John Grisham fan, and while I don't think that Runaway Jury is his best book, its still a damn good one none the less. The whole plot of the original book is thrown out for an over preaching fight for gun control, and some of the characters of the novel are ether gone or diminish in a certain capacity. Dustin Hoffman's character is only a small supporting player in the book, but is a major player in the movie. Maybe because the filmmakers wanted to highlight the confrontation between him and Gene Hackman, which was good but not in the original book ether. I also think that it was irresponsible for the filmmakers to have such a strong stance for gun control, considering the fact that the country is split down the middle on this touchy subject. I will give the movie one big credit, the performance of Rachel Weisz was the best thing in this over preaching mess. She was in my opinion, the only actor who really captured the essence of her character, and made the character her own with her fine performance. See the movie for her fine performance alone, and if not, rent Confidence or The Shape of Things; both have great performances by Rachel Weisz, and are much better movies to boot.
|
