Rating: 
Summary: Hollywood.... Keep your Political Bias at home !!!
Review: If you ever doubted Hollywood was filled with naive, idealistic, socialist liberals who believe big business, gun manufacturers and large corporations and Republicans are EVIL forces terrorizing the world, then see this movie.....
Geeezzzz what a pathetic and shallow excuse for a movie that does nothing more than make villians of the entities I list above.When the anti-gun crusaders finally win their way and guns are banned, people will start using other weapons to carry out their evil intentions.
Maybe even tools like screwdrivers.
The what will happen ???
Just because a select few decide to misuse a product, will that be outlawed too ?
Bye Bye Stanley tools.... we can't let you own a screwdriver or hammer because somebody COULD use it to commit murder. Regardless of the weapon used... it is the HUMAN in control of it that is at fault.
That is where strict punishment SHOULD be applied in our ever-softening and weak society. This movie does do a good job though of demonstrating how we should probably consider the concept of "Professionally Trained Jurors" who are randomly selected by computer to hear cases and pass verdicts instead of they way we do it today.
The current jury system is a sad excuse for justice. With professional jurors you would have people that actually understand law, are trained to think logically and could lose their business licence and livelyhood if they are found to be in cahoots with either of the legal teams !
Rating: 
Summary: Not a hint of Grisham anywhere to be found in this movie.
Review: Adaptation to the John Grisham book leaves a bad taste in your mouth because of its bias views towards gun control and its disregard of the book which it come from. The director over produces this film in ways that are really not necessary, and cuts a way from key dramatic scenes a little too early in its wake in order to make the film seem hip. The acting is (like every one has been saying) the only redeeming thing in the movie because it least it shows actors who still care for the craft. Gene Hackman has done this role so many times before but it still as fresh as it was yesterday. Rachel Weisz is compelling as Hackman's thorn on his side, matching his acting chops mano to mano on the screen. She is the only actor in the entire movie that is as strong as he is in her performance. Dustin Hoffman is good as well and he does show that he is still a great actor but his character does not have as much prominence as Hackman and Weisz, and he role is diminish as the movie goes on. The movie would have been a better one if they just stick to the books premise but they did not. What we have here before us a lap sided movie that has great acting but a lousy story that lacks all of the intelligence and the wit of the John Grisham novel.
Rating: 
Summary: HOFF AND HACKMAN WHAT A TEAM
Review: Gary Fleder (Don't Say a Word, Kiss the Girls) is a lucky director: two of our finest actors, both Oscar winners, join together to show why they are considered in the top rank of American actors: Dustin Hoffman and Gene Hackman. They absorb their roles, they eat their scenery, they upstage and compliment the actors they work with. With their awesome power, they carry this otherwise mundane movie to higher heights. Based on John Grishams bestseller, the movie switches from the tobacco industry to the gun industry in this tale of revenge and greed. Dylan McDermott (in an uncredited performance) is killed by a demented former employee, and his wife (Joanna Goings, remember her in the failed Dark Shadows reworking?), sues the gun industry for negligence. Meanwhile, enter John Cusack and Rachel Weisz, who arrange to tamper with the jury and get the verdict for whoever will pay the most---10 million dollars to start! There's some crafty plot twists and for a while, you don't know who to root for. But as Cusack and Weisz' intentions become manifest, you'll find yourself involved in the surprising denouement.
The movie is entertaining, slick and glossy, but well worth viewing.
Rating:
Summary: It would have been laughed right out of a real courtroom.
Review: John Grisham should be livid over what they have done to his novel, because they did not even try to attempt to keep any of what he put into it. The story is a mockery of everything the book stands for, and the script is a flat out joke in terms of characterization. The acting is good, with Rachel Weisz and Gene Hackman making the most of what is presented to them, and that is a great thing considering that there is not much of a story for them to work with. The original book by John Grisham had a tight story that made sense in terms of why the tobacco company would go throw the lengths it does to try to keep their problems quiet, but the movie forgets that the gun manufactures really don't need to buy a jury because the law suit filled in the movie would have been thrown out of court in the real world. When you do a movie about law, at the very least keep the process real, but a lot of what happens in courtroom in this movie does not even make sense and it really would have been laughed right out of court. If it weren't for the acting from Rachel Weisz, Gene Hackman and the rest of the cast, I would have laughed this Dvd back to the rental store.
Rating: 
Summary: The book was much, much better.
Review: I have been a fan of this book for many years, and was THRILLED when I heard it was going to be made into a movie. With Hackman and Hoffman, I had high hopes. But it seems the movie fell flat, but the one thing that was consistant was the excellent acting. I didn't care for the way they carried the story onto script. But what kept me from turning this review into a 1 or 0 star was the acting. Hackman can do no wrong, it seems. I was the few who adored his acting in The Heist, so I have not seen him fall flat. Hoffman was, as always, excellent. Watching these two Hollywood stars act together was exciting. I was shocked that these two haven't acted together on camera, but it was worth the wait. The 'bathroom' scene was shot terrificly and they kept my interest for the entire movie. Hackman will always be the best Villian of all time. It's hard to really HATE his character, because he finds the emotional blend that makes it perfect. 3 stars..............For the acting only.
Rating:
Summary: Throws curve balls than face reality head on.
Review: Small-minded movie that rather throw curve balls at the issues raise than face them head on. The gun argument is more than a few people pointing fingers at each other, and those who made this film knew this but they rather make bad guys out of the gun companies to sensationalize the story other than to examine the reason on why people use them for senseless acts of violence in the first place. Other for the major flaws in the story, I liked the performances of its actors who made this viewing experience a joy despite the stupidity of the story. Rachel Weisz is great as a mysterious woman out to sell the jury to the highest bitter, and Gene Hackman is good as a lawyer who will stop at nothing to secure the verdict for his client. Dustin Hoffman is well placed as his adversary in the courtroom and John Cusack is good as Weisz's partner in crime who is on the jury. Their performance is worth the viewing alone but they should have been a good story to go with the great acting, and this movie does not have one.
Rating:
Summary: Despite Rachel Weisz and Gene Hackman, its still a cop out.
Review: Give or take rendition of the book lacks the cautious commentary of tobacco and put a spin on the question of guns in our country. The setting is quite different as well and the reason of some of the characters don't go with the new story that was added. The acting is worth taking notice with Gene Hackman and Rachel Weisz giving this movie some credibility with their performances which bear in mind is better than the film itself, and Dustin Hoffman giving some weight to a character that was not in the book too much at all, which is fine because Hoffman is not in the movie too much as well. The script, which was reportedly rewritten several times, comes up short in the dramatic department, and the pace of the film lacks a steady tempo when it cuts from scene to scene. It's a well made movie but it just does not hold up as a very good one.
Rating:
Summary: Runaway Propaganda
Review: This movie is a 2 hour anti-gun propaganda piece. It imparts messages such as, Republicans are evil and greedy (the gun manufacturers), Democrats are good and seek "justice" (the gun grabbers). If you are someone who believes in the Second Amendment of the US Constitution and that people kill, not guns, then pass on this film. In the end, the "heros" of the film really belong behind bars as well as every other party to the legal case (of course there has to be ample protrayals of "greedy" Republican business executives and lawyers involved in criminal conduct and everyone involved with the NRA or military as irrational sociopaths). The gun grabbers illegal conduct is portrayed as rightious (while making mockery of the legal system) in order to combat a greater atrocity (guns). It is evident that the filmmakers in their naivette envision a world where nobody has guns except government and that somehow criminals would abide by a law not to own firearms and that law abiding citizens shouldn't own guns to defend themselves. Add 2 stars if you are a hardcore radical leftist or a criminal (who would love a world of unarmed victims). Maybe they can make a sequal where the defendant is an SUV manufacturer where one of their vehicles was used to run someone down...and it would be the SUV's fault of course, not the person driving it. The way Hollywood is going these days I could half expect "Runaway SUV", coming soon to a theater near you.
Rating:
Summary: Jury Duty WIll Never Be The Same!!
Review: "Runaway Jury," based on John Grisham's thriller, is terrific light entertainment that had me riveted to the screen. How can one go wrong with Gene Hackman, Dustin Hoffman and John Cuzack as lead actors? The four screenwriters, Brain Koppelman, David Levien, Rick Cleveland and Matthew Chapman skillfully created an intriguing, suspenseful drama from the book. Film director Gary Fleder manages the tension which focuses on juror number 13. And the suspense keeps building to a bang-up climax with an unusual twist. Now this is not a great film that will be viewed as a classic in 10 years. The movie has its hackneyed moments and when they came - I didn't mind at all. This is a 'fun' thriller where one wants to root for the good guys and hiss at the villains.
A disgruntled employee, recently fired from his New Orleans brokerage firm, returned to the office with a semi-automatic weapon and brutally murdered more than a score of his fellow employees. One of the dead victims' wives sues the gun manufacturer and hires progressive attorney Wendell Rohr (Dustin Hoffman), to represent her. The gun lobby, fearful of a precedent-setting verdict hires the ruthless, brilliant Jury Consultant Rankin Fitch (Gene Hackman) to investigate the potential jury pool and handpick the jury. Fitch, a masterful manipulator, wires-up the defense attorney, hides a camera in a briefcase set on the defense table and directs the defense case from a war room where a cast of hit men, investigators and computer technicians assist him. Counselor Rohr has one Jury Consultant, hired at the last moment, and he doesn't seem to have computer access. But Rohr, who believes in his client, his case and the integrity of the jury system is not the slightest bit intimidated by his opponents.
Nick Easter, (John Cusack), wangles his way past Fitch's radar and gets on the jury. And this is where the action really begins. Easter, assisted by his lovely cohort Marlee, (Rachel Weisz), play both the defense and the prosecution, offering, (and threatening) to manipulate the jury for the highest bidder. Exciting stuff...but I won't spoil the plot!
Gene Hackman is such a marvelous villain. He barks orders and orchestrates operations as a general would wage a war. And he's a mean man to cross. Hoffman is a much older "Graduate" figure - still idealistic and fighting the 'establishment.' And Cusack plays his role to perfection. One just doesn't know where, how or when he will make his move. I think this is Grisham's best screen adaptation yet. Not deep - just fun!
JANA
Rating:
Summary: Two hours of my life I'll never get back...
Review: A motion picture following in the not-so-illustrious filmmaking footsteps of such feature-length propaganda films as "John Q" and "The Life of David Gale", "Runaway Jury" was doomed to well-deserved obscurity by its awful script before the first scene was shot.
I went into this movie with rather high expectations. Though I have no love for John Grisham, I am very fond of John Cusack's work. Unfortunately, not even his solid perfomance could save this movie.
"Runaway Jury" suffers from a complete lack of originality (even after the producers changed the legal target of this film from big tobacco to gun control; presumably to avoid having to be compared with "The Insider"). Most average moviegoers will see the predictable plot "twists" a mile away.
The plot and most of the characters (especially Gene Hackman's) become so farfetched that this movie might as well take place on the Starship Enterprise. Still, even with the fantastic, the movie manages to drag on... and on... and on during its considerable middle stages. I started to wonder if it would ever end.
Mercifully it did, and came to a "climax" so predictable and so (there's no other way to say this): Hollywood, that I was left with the intense feeling that I would have been better intellectually served by watching Pokemon.
The agenda of the producers is so painfully clear throughout the movie that the characters might as well have been wearing sandwich boards spouting anti-gun slogans. Even supporters of gun-control will be turned off by the constant self-serving nature of this picture, and offended by the lack of subtlety in which the writers have chosen to deliver the message. They really do think we're stupid.
Oh, and John Cusack, homey, this is strike two after "Identity". Maybe you can get back with Steven Frears and JB and do a sequel to "High Fidelity" for redemption. I just hope you got paid an awful lot to do this movie and didn't sign on because you liked the script.
|
