Rating: 
Summary: 4 stars for actors & 1 star for the plot change
Review: As is the case with most screen adaptations of novels there are always points left out or changed. The film Runaway Jury is no exception, changing the court case from a fight against the tobacco industry to gun manufacturers. It's unfortunate that the film studio, producer or whoever decided to take an already good story and politicize it by attacking gun manufacturers. Gene Hackman turns in his usual outstanding performance, as does John Cusack. Being an 80s Saturday Night Live fan, I enjoyed seeing Nora Dunn in the film.
Rating: 
Summary: A John Grisham classic ruined
Review: My goodness, who come this classic from John Grisham been so poorly and pathetically ruined!Let me say first that I have read ALL of JG's books so far (please check my reviews from his books here in Amazon as well) and this was one of his masterpieces in my humble opinion; so imagine how anxious I was to finally watch it on screen! But... so many differences appeared that it made me almost leave the theater 20 minutes after the movie started. First: the plot has changed. The book dwelled on a plot against a tobacco company (which sounded credible) and the movie on a gun company (a long boring debate regarding the bill of rights legitimity to bear weapons almost made me fall asleep because of it's inconsistency). Second: most of the subtle job the main character (N. Easter) performs with other jurors is practically unmentioned. In my opinion, this was perhaps the most "glueing" thing the book had to make you read it non-stop. Third: The film is focused basically in Dustin Hoffman (plaintiff lawyer) where in the book his character is practically a secondary one. The defense attorney is the real key in the book, where in the movie we barely know what they do. Of course there are things that are changed when you film a book, but this is totally different from the original source!
Rating: 
Summary: Stick with the book, and see the movie for the acting only.
Review: Slick and improbable adaptation of the John Grisham book not only burns the premise of the novel with an unnecessary bad story about gun responsibility but also lacks the real direction of a director who knows what he is doing. Scenes go by way too fast to comprehend what is going on from time to time and a lot of the movie itself does not even fit with the whole story. Characters come in and then disappear with out motive, and much of the back-story does not make sense in some parts of the film. Not to mention that the whole scam would have been exposed in a matter of minutes if the characters were to try what they did in the real world. Like everyone who has written here, I agree that the acting is the only major draw in this film. The only problem with that is the fact that you have good actors who are going against a bad script that really does not know what to do with itself. Gene Hackman and Rachel Weisz are the best things here because they are least make their characters a bit interesting with performances that are better than the whole script of the film. Gene Hackman. has done this character like a billion times over but he does it with a real sense of class and menace. Rachel Weisz not only outdoes Hackman in their scenes together but also gives her character a real reason to do what she is doing. The rest of the cast is great as well with John Cusack and Dustin Hoffman giving great support, and a good cast that is really not used too much because the script really does not know what to do with them. Stick with the book, and see the movie for Weisz, Hackman, and Hoffman, because they give great performances in this bad movie. Which is a shame because they could have used their talents in a much better film than this.
Rating: 
Summary: How I can increase my next jury duty pay
Review: Where are Henry Fonda and the other eleven angry men when you need them? A couple years after a disgruntled employee goes postal and guns down several workers in a high-rise office, the widow of one sues the weapons manufacturer for liability stemming from negligent selling practices. She's represented by Wendell Rohr (Dustin Hoffman), and the defendant is represented by Durwood Cable (Bruce Davison), the latter being nothing more than a pawn of his cynical, scheming, and brilliant jury consultant, Rankin Fitch (Gene Hackman). It's a Big Case; a win for the plaintiff would open the floodgates of lawsuits against all U.S. gun makers. Fitch will stop at nothing - bribery, intimidation, theft, violence - to ensure that the empanelled twelve vote for acquittal. And he's backed up by a high-tech team with enough computer power and snooping devices to makes the CIA look like amateurs. The viewer is left believing he could peer into the judge's private toilet stall if he so desired. But there's an unforeseen complication to Fitch's plan. Jury member Nicholas Easter (John Cusack) and his accomplice on the outside, Marlee (Rachel Weisz), set about demonstrating their ability to control the jury's actions and its environment. Easter and Marlee envision a bidding war between the two opposing sides; the winner gets the verdict. The producer of RUNAWAY JURY have taken the politically correct approach and put the angels on the side of Rohr and his client. The CEO of the arms company is, of course, a contemptible viper perfectly willing to hire Rankin to stack the deck. NRA members in the audience will grind their teeth and rend their hunting jackets. However, if you can get past the blatant political agenda of the script, buried in the film is a clever and absorbing tale of revenge that's revealed in a satisfying plot twist. It's hard to imagine Dustin Hoffman being upstaged, but here he takes a back seat to Hackman and Cusack. Dustin's best scene is perhaps in the courthouse gents' loo where Rohr debates the sanctity of justice born of the American jury system with a sarcastic and dismissive Fitch. Indeed, Hackman is the best reason to watch. (How many bad Hackman performances have there been? Earlier this year, he carried the show in the otherwise silly and meritless MOOSEPORT.) Cusack is effective as the imperturbable, charming, and cool manipulator of events. And Rachel Weisz is not only pretty to look at, but she has center stage in the film's best fight scene with one of Rankin's goons. Davison as Cable is eminently irrelevant. If you're expecting a taut courtroom drama, don't look here. The action and conflict of RUNAWAY JURY take place behind the jury box and judge's bench and, though they're sometimes implausible, they're well-crafted, well-photographed, and well-edited. I read John Grisham's book of the same title, but too long ago to make a meaningful comparison with the screen version. My gut feeling, though, is that it's an above-average adaptation.
Rating:
Summary: Not the greatest thing since sliced bread but a good flick!
Review: I just got done watching this movie on dvd a mere 20 minutes ago.I got it as a gift and im glad I did after watching it.I see that most of the reviews here were luke warm at best but I happened to have liked the film.it starts off a tad slow but picks up alot of speed and it was good entertianment.The scenes between Dustin Hoffman and Gene Hackman are worth owning the dvd alone.
Rating:
Summary: Rachel Weisz and Gene Hackman are the only redeeming factors
Review: Terrible and I do mean terrible take on such a great book lacks not only the story but also the mystery and the complexity that made it such a great read. The director of this mess seems like he does not know what he is doing, and it shows by the horrible editing, and tacked on slow motion effects that does not fit the certain parts of the movie. New Orleans was not the setting of this book, and it shows on the way the place just sticks out like a shore thumb, even distracting you from what you are trying to watch. The action scenes were not in the book, and the confrontation between the lawyers did not happened in the book. That was tacked on for the Hackman and Hoffman showdown that did disappoint in a major way because of the way the script handle the whole thing. Gene Hackman is such a fine actor, and it shows by the way that he just makes you watch him, even when you don't even want to watch the movie. Rachel Weisz is just as great as he is and she almost upstages him in their scenes together. Dustin Hoffman is enigma of sorts in this movie but he does give a fine performance, even though he is yelling most of the time he is in this film. I don't know what went throw the minds of the people who made this film but I think they should stop smoking what they were smoking, and make a good movie that has a good story as well as good acting because the actors in this mess should have gotten a raise from making something out of nothing.
Rating:
Summary: really good!!
Review: This is a type of movie that makes you have lots of questions in your head as the movie goes along and the acting is just fantastic! I most especially love Hoffman and Hackman's first ever scene together! They instantly drawn me into the picture. I also like all the triller action going on too. Although I was confused on spots...it was still a really good movie! I wouldn't mind if i see it again!! Watch it and you won't regret it!!
Rating:
Summary: efficient but bloodless courtroom drama
Review: Based on the John Grisham novel of the same name, "Runaway Jury" is a moderately entertaining tale of jury tampering run amok. The case - not one intended to please NRA members or firearms manufacturers - involves a lawsuit filed by an aggrieved widow to hold a gun company responsible for the death of her husband in a brokerage firm massacre. Although there really isn't a single believable moment anywhere to be found in the film, a cast of first-rate professionals manages to pull it off anyway. The roster includes such acting heavyweights as Dustin Hoffman, as a principled prosecutor; Gene Hackman, as an utterly unprincipled jury rigger; John Cusack, as a seemingly reluctant juror with a few surprises up his sleeve; and Rachel Weisz, as an "amateur" jury tamperer who is attempting to beat the big boys at their own corrupt game. The modus operandi of a movie like "Runaway Jury" is to manipulate the audience into believing that what it is seeing is even remotely plausible - a John Grisham specialty in fact - and "Runaway Jury" does its job reasonably, though not spectacularly, well. Still, as long as you are willing to suspend your disbelief and critical faculties for the duration of the flick, you may well fall under "Runaway Jury"'s spell. However, you'll have to swallow the rather dubious notion that it's okay to engage in jury tampering as long as you're doing it for the "right" reason. Even if you find yourself balking at this prospect, the film is worth seeing for the first-ever pairing of Hoffman and Hackman in the same movie - and, indeed, we are treated to one sizzling encounter between the two actors in a courthouse men's room. That alone is worth the price of admission.
Rating: 
Summary: Wow
Review: John Grisham's bestseller "Runaway Jury" becomes one of the best movies after A time to kill. This time we have the famous and charming John Cusack playing as Nick Easter, an ambitious guy who "despises" to attend at a court as a jury but who would do just about anything to be selected as a jury and remain there until the verdict gets reached.
In the meantime his girlfriend is in contact with attorneys from both sides. Requesting millions of dollars from them if they want to win their case. And this case is all in the hands of her and Nick Easter. So many movies that were made based upon novels - seemed so different from what we've read. This one is not. It was such a tremendous joy seeing the same story I've read and the characters coming to life. It all seemed that I was in that part of the world and that I am having a deja-vu feeling. Highly recommended
Rating:
Summary: Let's All Praise Frivolous Lawsuits !!
Review: OK... this movie praises and worships everything that's wrong in America today......... Frivolous lawsuits and misplaced responsibility all for the sake of making a free dollar. The old "Robin Hood Syndrome".... let's take from the hard working and the rich and give to other people !! Note... some SPOILERS below In this movie some punk takes a gun and commits murder.... so who does Hollywood think is at fault ?....... the punk ?
Of course not.... it's the gun makers fault.
Why not... the punk won't have lots of money, but the gun company will !!! Makes you almost wish one of your less liked relatives would choke to death on a chicken bone at KFC so you can become and instant multi-millionaire ........ Yeah !! Of course they make Gene Hackman the "evil" man trying to protect the "evil" gun company in this film.
Truth is... I was hoping Gene Hackman would win.
He was only doing what was neccessary to try and prevent our warped legal system from awarding more money in a frivolous lawsuit.... but alas no...... being Hollywood with it's warped view of right and wrong... the "EVIL" gun company is put in it's place and "justice" is done by awarding the plaintiffs wife $111,000,000 in judgement !! RUBBISH !!!!!!! If you really cared about justice you would be content seeing the murderer put away...... PERIOD The gun company was not to blame.... just like McDonalds is not the reason you are fat.... RJ Reynolds is not responsible if you choose to smoke..... Stanley Tools is not responsible if your next door neighbor stavs you to death with a screwdriver, etc...etc...etc.. It's all about a free fortune and mis-using our court system as a lottery game to take a stab at free money !!!!!! They try to portray this movie like the good guys won.... in reality the bad guys win in this movie..... Frivolous Lawsuits galore. Rubbish.... garbage... not worth renting or watching
| 
