Rating: 
Summary: Gun politics only hides something more basic: a rotten movie
Review: Tepid half-baked legal mish-mash that's all dressed up with nowhere useful to go. John Grisham's source novel about jury manipulation in a tobacco industry litigation has been adapted to move the action to the issue of gun control (though the film makers needn't have bothered - there was never any danger of this ever being confused with Michael Mann's superior The Insider). Confronted with the gun death of her husband in an incident of work rage, a widow is persuaded to institute civil action against the gun industry - which has never lost a lawsuit of this type. That established, she then promptly disappears for the rest of the film as the viewer is asked to believe in the determinism of jury consutants (thank OJ for that!) and the worthiness of corrupt jurors. It's all totally forgettable nonsense - a courtroom movie for the hysterical tabloid set that distinguishes itself for having the most underwritten, unmoving courtroom summation ever put to screen (although everyone involved clearly thought this was a rousing moment). Many of the American reviewers on this page have taken issue with the film's soapbox politics on the issue of gun violence. Providing it with so much credit only distracts from a far more basic reflection - how incredibly bad this movie is. Director Gary Fleder (Don't Say a Word) is fast becoming synonymous with over-produced below average thrillers, an association he proudly continues with this latest sub-par outing. Unlike the best Grisham adaptations (The Firm; The Rainmaker) Fleder eschews character-driven tension and conflict for show-offy gadgetry and overly-dramatic presentation of fairly undramatic things. Grisham, as usual, has share of the blame for the incredulous proceedings - having frankly benefited over the years by the quality overcompensation that film-makers have brought to his work. Fleder however is no Sydney Pollack - and he's certainly no Francis Coppola (and, on this latest evidence, never will be). What we lose in quality mediation, we gain in stupidity - as the lawyers pale into caricatures of idiocy and irrelevance, the jury room rehashes and exploits your memory of infinitely better movies; the American legal system looks even more of a joke than it actually is and the lead characters behave in ways so dumb that you wonder how they could get their heads around the schemes you're asked to believe they're engaged in. John Cusack and Rachel Weiz give workmanlike performances, whilst Gene Hackman tries his characteristic best to deliver a nastier version of the Gene persona we know and love - only just about overcoming his own infectious charisma enough for us to dislike his character. The real acting news however is yet another nail in the coffin of the Dustin Hoffman legend. If ever there was any doubt about the steady decline (dating back to his overrated performance in Rain Man) of this once truly great master, Runaway Jury will dispose of it. Hoffman's performance is as hammy as it is portentous, with a Southern accent by way of Brooklyn amateur dramatics. Al Pacino has become louder and show-offy as he's aged - but still delivers the goods. Hoffman seems only to have become more self-involved, self conciously ticcing and twitching his way to delivering "a performance" worthy of the acting legend he uncontrovertably is - and (perhaps problematically) knows he is. (To be frank, the evidence of this tendency can be found early on in his peformance in his own directorial debut, Straight Time). Come back Benjamin, all is forgiven. Runaway Jury stutters and splutters along in underwelming execution from one clumsy plot point to the next, reaching its preposterous "twist" ending by way of sheer assault on your IQ. In the end, the only twelve angry men in this tortuous deal are in the audience - demanding a refund on their ticket money.
Rating: 
Summary: 1 star for special effects ONLY
Review: I liked the movie until it finally dawned on me how many lies are in it and how biased the story is against NRA members and gun owners and manufacturer's. It had excellent effects, but I don't appreciate the film makers, actors, and writers implying that I, as a NRA member and gun owner for 30 yrs, and Proud of it, am some sort of thug who condones selling guns to criminals. Hoffman and all the others who twisted this film (The book this movie is based on has nothing at all to do with guns) should keep their political agendas and bias out of the films, since some of the story plot is half-lies and some of the truth is (conveniently) left out. The effects a are good though and it has plenty of action. Still, I'll never rent it or watch it again.
Rating: 
Summary: Straight from the Grisham factory.
Review: The John Grisham novel and film factory continues to manufacture tales about lawyers and the institution of the law at an astounding rate. When you think he has finally spent every kind of plot imaginable about injustice, the little man or underdog against the powers of the establishment, etc, this prolific author pumps out a new one. (In the case of this film, a victim's family is going after the big gun manufactures, as the perpetrator committed suicide. Winning this case would set a legal precedent that the gun people cannot tolerate or afford.) When Grisham is asked if he writes a novel particularly for film, he denies it, however, the moviemakers in tinsel town can't seem to resist adapting his stories for the big screen. Some film adaptations are good, others not so good, but they have generally found their niche in the mainstream marketplace. All in all, though, this film runs at a good pace, is well acted, and keeps one's attention until its surprising end. This is not a great film, but it's certainly not a bad film either. Some critics have commented that Runaway Jury's content is merely a propaganda device to push an argument against the gun lobby. Perhaps, as the gun establishment are depicted as ruthless down-home gangster types, who will do anything to ensure that all-important legal precedent is not made against them. Guns are a contentious issue and this film addresses it squarely though clearly leans towards the anti-gun side of the argument. If you are looking for high art, action and explosions or originality in any way shape or form, look else where, because this film straight from the Grisham factory, and fans should not be disappointed. Three and a half stars.
Rating:
Summary: Runs right off the tracks.
Review: Well intended but not well executed look at the debate about guns and responsibility that lacks a center of reality in it. It paints the gun manufactures as evil villains who would work thou intimidation and violence in order to win a court case that would have been thrown out court in the real world. The acting is better than the film itself with Gene Hackman giving another fine, villainous performance that is lanced with a bit of humanity, and Rachel Weisz is his equal, giving a performance that is strong(...) and smart. Dustin Hoffman is great as Hackman's adversary but despite the advertising, his role is relatively small and the big showdown he has with Hackman in the bathroom looks like it was just tacked on for effect. John Cusack is smart and cleaver as a juror working for Weisz in order to gain control of the verdict. The acting is a major drawing point for this movie but its does not have any support in the script department because the story does not live in the real world. It rather live in an imaginary world other than to have a real and strong debate about the issues its dealing with and that takes this film a notch or two down in my recommendation meter.
Rating:
Summary: It¿s a Mixed Verdict for this movie.
Review: Lackluster adaptation to the John Grisham book lacks the whole issue of tobacco and puts in its place a silly plot about evil gun makers out to sabotage the legal system. The actors do well with what is giving with Rachel Weisz, and Gene Hackman being the standouts in an ensemble cast than includes John Cusack and Dustin Hoffman. The direction is decent but needed more of a kick to bring it to life, and the script itself needed more work. It's worth a rental because of the cast especially Gene Hackman and Rachel Weisz but the movie itself has too many problems to recommend it on the whole.
Rating:
Summary: An ok movie
Review: I think this was a good movie but I believed this movie would have been better developed with better script and better cinematography then this would have come out as a masterpiece. Also the facts and chatter between the characters hurt my eyes because camera angles were jerking too much. I saw this movie as symbolism almost. Easter and his girlfirend, Marlee as 2 angels from heaven to destroy the Devil (Gun Industries) and his demons. The movie did brought out a tear of my eye when Marlee's or Gabby's mother is explaining to one of Mr. Fitch's people about her daughter Margeret and the Gardner, Indiana High School shooting in 1989. I enjoyed watching Dusting Hoffman and Gene Hackman and John Cusack's performances. Cliff Curtis as a Jury was also good when he flips out when all juries are deliberating. I found it hilarious when Hoffman is arguing with Rachel Weisz and almost slapped her for not shutting up. lol. I think you should rent it first. It's not a bad movie. I did liked it. The only flaw is the camera movements were at times too jerky. That task should have been given to a better cinematographer or director. 3.5 out of 5 stars.
Rating:
Summary: To all of those who say the plot doesn't matter
Review: Imagine if Runaway Jury had been about a communist-leaning 'victim' who shoots her husband and sues Smith and Wesson in an attempt to bring down capitalism and the American way of life. Imagine Smith and Wesson hiring a poor country lawyer (Gene Hackman), while the 'victim' hires a corrupt and communist-leaning ex-ACLU attorney (Dustin Hoffman) backed by Greenpeace. Imagine a renegade juror (John Cusack), whose father was saved by a pistol-packing nun, ostensibly working on the inside to sell the jury to the highest bidder. In the end, Cusack does the Right thing by allowing the jurors to vote with their 'hearts' despite Dustin's 10 million Greenpeace dollars. Cut to Gene Hackman standing on a hillside watching a bunch of children playing cowboys and indians. A thug, who happens to look just like Hillary Clinton, approaches the children with a knife. Hackman shouts a warning to the kiddies, draws a .44 magnum from his belt and blows away the thug. Credits include a thank you to the NRA for helping keep America strong. Can any of you honestly say that you would have enjoyed the movie because of a couple of good actors or scenes? Plot (remember Disclosure anyone?) and fairness do matter. Fairness would've been trivial to add to Runaway Jury. The fact that the writers and director chose not to add it justifies the 3-star review this sorry film is getting. I encourage everyone on the 'right' side of the gun debate to buy and bronze Runaway Jury. The rest of us will just have to dream or rent old John Wayne movies.
Rating: 
Summary: Could have been better, but not bad
Review: Runaway Jury, based on the book by John Grisham, is not the most exciting movie I have ever seen, but it has enough to keep you interested in the movie. It was a great idea to change the focus from going after the tobacco industry, as it is in the book, to attacking gun manufacturers and gun control. This brings this film more in line with what is happening with the issues we see in the media. What the movie does lack in plot it makes up for in star power. You have two great veteran actors, Gene Hackman and Dustin Hoffman, squaring off for a major battle. Gene Hackman, the ruthless pawn of the gun companies, once again shows how well he can play the man you love to hate. Dustin Hoffman adds a nice contrast as a mild mannered idealist that just wants to do the right thing. You add John Cusack and Rachel Weisz to the mix, you just can't tell how it is going to turn out. Overall I'm glad I didn't spend the $20 bucks to see it in the theater but it was worth the price of the rental.
Rating:
Summary: A TIMELY FILM WITH SWELL ACTING
Review: See the news today, April 2, 2004? Yup, those 2 Tyco big-shots bought themselves a mistrial and walked, at least for now. Walked out just a-smilin' and a-wavin', the skunks. Yet here's Martha Stewart facing a jail term over WHAT now? Trying to snatch some phantom thousands from thin air by trading her ImClone shares early? Kozlowski and Swartz stole $600 MILLION, yet THEY are the ones who go free-for-now on some trumped-up "questionable juror" issue while small-fry Martha will soon be facing sentencing. As Mammy in "Gone With the Wind" might say: "It ain't fittin', Mr. Rhett. Is jez ain't fittin'." Feel like treating yourself this weekend? Rent "Runaway Jury" with Gene Hackman (the consummate professional, and he gets more handsome every year!), Dustin Hoffman (often too self-satisfied for my taste, but here he's quite watchable as the do-gooder attorney), John Cusack (a vastly underrated actor who works so quietly you hardly know he's there, but he's always totally classy), and Rachel Weisz (fast becoming a favorite of mine, gorgeous AND talented, a rare combination!) with a treasure trove of notable character actors (Bruce Davison, Jeremy Piven, Cliff Curtis, Jennifer Beals, Rusty Schwimmer, Luis Guzman, Dylan McDermott) in minor roles or cameos. If you can ignore the preposterous plot, it's total eye candy for the actors alone ... Waiiiit a minute. Did I say "preposterous plot"? Well, yeah, sure, it's "preposterous." The high-priced jury consultant (Hackman) advising the attorney for "the bad guys" has unlimited bucks at his disposal, a staff as big as the FBI to help him out with his dirty tricks, and a warehouse full of electronic gizmos to spy on the jurors in order choose the best ones for their side and then to blackmail them; that's "preposterous," isn't it? Yeah, and the prosecuting attorney is just a Nice Guy with a heart of gold, only wants what's best for his client, and can't be bought; now, THAT is DEFINITELY preposterous! Through a series of labyrinthine plot twists, the entire jury is tampered with by one juror with a secret agenda who has the power and the
brilliance to throw the verdict one way or the other at any moment ... pretty damned "preposterous" unless you look at the Tyco and Martha Stewart trials, and then you've GOTTA wonder. "Runaway Jury" is not a "great" movie by any stretch. It also has an unabashedly political bias (Left). That said, FORGET about all that; this movie is terrific SPECULATION from beginning to end, a "what-if" scenario featuring a tragicomedy of errors, oversights, sloppiness, precalculated malevolence, and questionable legal shenanigans that -- IF they were ever to happen precisely that way -- would produce the film's conclusion. "Runaway Jury" is almost like a "sci-fi" legal thriller that projects you into a "future" world where justice doesn't exist except as a game ... Unless we're already in that "future," which situations like this Tyco mistrial make me suspect. Despite all its "implausibility," I found this film immensely watchable (for the powerhouse actors) and thought-provoking (for the ideas) and didn't feel like picking it apart for every little way in which I could pronounce it preposterous. The contention, or supposition, of "Runaway Jury" is that one well-organized juror with a personal vendetta and the righteous zeal of a Carrie Nation reformer can run around throwing trials and getting away with it. The way it's done in this film is a little over-the-top, but it's not TOTALLY implausible, and that's the scary part. The film ends on a sloppy-sentimental-smarmy note as if we're supposed to think that "justice has been served anyway," but it hasn't been because it's been horrendously tampered with both by the so-called "good guys" and by the so-called "bad guys," with the jurors themselves treated like expendable pawns. Scariest line from the film is uttered by Gene Hackman: "Trials are too important to be left up to juries." He's supposed to be the "bad guy" for saying as much, but he's no worse than the so-called "good guys" who try to thwart him behind the scenes in the jury room. If you take this film "literally," you'll probably think it's lame, especially the feel-good ending. If, on the other hand, you think about those 2 goons who just walked away with $600 million of Tyco's money and a mistrial and imagine THEM hiring a sophisticated slime-bucket like Gene Hackman in "Runaway Jury" to help them target the jury ... or if you think about the "questionable juror" who's supposed to have screwed up the Tyco trial and imagine that juror to be a Wild Card with a personal crusade like John Cusack's in "Runaway Jury" ... well, you just might find this movie interesting after all. Prophetic, even. Just check out the news today.
Rating:
Summary: The Runaway Jury
Review: Based on the book by John Grisham, The Runaway Jury is a pretty good stab at a thriller. It isn't a "keep you on the edge of your seat" kind of movie, but it is exciting enough to keep you interested. By switching the legal assult against the Tobacco industry, as it is in the book, they have changed the focus to the gun manufacturers. With the boiling issues on gun control, this movie couldn't come at a better time. What it lacks in plot it makes up for in star power. You have Gene Hackman playing the notorious guy everyone wants to hate, and the mild mannered, idealistic counter-part played by Dustin Hoffman. These two charaters are a great contrast to each other and add enough to the movie to make you want to see it. Then you add John Cusack and Rachel Weisz, playing both sides, makes it more interesting.
|
