Rating: 
Summary: This Jury should be sequestered.
Review: Cliché ridden movie that can't make up it's mind whether it's a court room thriller or a sappy lesson in gun control that fine tuns its message to an irritating noise that does not stop. The actors are good (I agree with every body that Rachel Weisz and Gene Hackman make the movie better than it should have been) and there are some suspenseful scenes that do make you jump but the movie does not handle them with any clarity, or any purpose other than to hind the fact that story has too many plot holes to drive anyone who is watching it batty. Maybe the actors should have waited for a better script before they committed to this movie because it even shows on the expression on their faces that they even think this movie makes no sense.
Rating: 
Summary: 4 stars for the great actors & 1 star for the plot change
Review: As is the case with most screen adaptations of novels there are always points left out. The film Runaway Jury is no exception, changing the court case from a fight against the Tobacco industry to the more current target, 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. In fact it had been quite some time since I had read the book and actually forgot that it was Tobacco and not Guns! Gene Hackman turns in his usual outstanding performance, as does John Cusack. Being an 80s SNL fan, I enjoyed seeing Nora Dunn in the film. So overall, I rate Runaway Jury a 3, almost
Rating: 
Summary: Wish I'd read the reviews before I bought it
Review: Had I read the reviews before I bought it, I would've realized this was an anti-gun infomercial on a Hollywood scale.I've not read the Grisham novel, but reading the reviews I can see that it was about tobacco instead of guns. Can guns be used in violent manners other than self-defense or sport? Sure. And kitchen knives can be used in violent manners other than to cut your steak. And cars can be used to run over people. In fact, there are very few things that CAN'T be used for a violent purpose, if someone is so inclined. Now, someone please name a beneficial use for tobacco. I'm not saying the tobacco companies should necessarily be liable. I'm not even saying gun manufacturers are without fault of any kind. I'm just saying that the substitution of guns for tobacco in this story is apples and tennis balls. In the case of tobacco, I believe the charges were that the tobacco companies hid the harmful effects from innocent customers purchasing their products and made their products more habit-forming to ensure the customer continued to purchase and use the products in ever-increasing quantities. In this anti-gun movie, however, the charge is that the gun companies knowingly manufactured, marketed and sold assault weapons to criminals expressly for use in violent crime. If you truly can't see a difference in that, this movie is probably one you'll enjoy. And I have to agree with the reviewer who noted that in the movie, everyone involved with the anti-gun forces in the movie might as well have had halos drawn in, while those with the gun companies practically sprouted horns on their heads. The stereotyping bordered on being cartoonish. Not only that, but I almost laughed to see the prosecution's arguments (that's the people against guns) fully explored, while the defense (that's the gun manufacturer) was basically limited to "It's the Second Amendment." Oh, and heaven forbid that a manufacturer should reward a top retailer with a trip to the Caribbean. Don't you know all the other companies in America are kicking themselves that they didn't think of doing something like that for their top sales people? What a shame. This film probably had as much or more on-screen talent in it than any flick I've seen in a while. But it was completely wasted. How can you bring a caricature to life? From this film, it appears that some of our most talented individuals found it beyond their ability. I look forward to seeing them in works more deserving of their talents in the future.
Rating:
Summary: Two Stars For the acting, One Star for the movie itself.
Review: Like many that have express their views, I also think that the acting is the best thing about this film. Gene Hackman and Rachel Weisz do give great performances in this movie, which we all agree the film did not deserve because of its badly written script and disjointed direction which steer away greatly from the book. Even though they may have already done the tobacco thing in the movie "The Insider", I feel the story in the original book by John Grisham was a much better depiction of the subject. Hollywood would rather sugar cover the issue but the real world is not that simple, and the movie would have been great if they stuck to the book's original story. They had great actors involved like Weisz, Hackman, Hoffman, and Cusack, so a great screenplay based on the original novel would not have been a tall order to give. My two stars goes to the efforts of Rachel Weisz, Gene Hackman, and the rest of the cast who mad a bad script look good by their performances. The movie as a whole does not warrant anything above a one star review.
Rating:
Summary: Variation on an Grisham theme...
Review: The John Grisham 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 against the establishment, etc, this prolific author pumps out a new one. When asked if he writes a novel particularly for the silver screen, he denies it, however, the moviemakers in tinsel town can't seem to resist adapting his stories for the big screen. Grisham novels and films have now become a single industry. Some films are good, others not so good, but they have generally found their niche in the mainstream marketplace. Admittedly, because his tales are more or less variations on a single theme, that is to say, 'formula driven', they're easy to criticise, but if one chooses to sit back and enjoy the ride, some of these film adaptations are quite entertaining. Personally I found The Firm to be first class entertainment. And because I essentially knew before sitting down to view Runaway Jury what I was getting into, it was easy to relax and see another variation of a Grisham theme. All in all, this film runs at a good pace, is well acted, and keeps one's attention until the end. This is not a great film, but it's certainly not a bad film either. If you are looking for high art, guns and explosions, sweaty sex scenes or originality in any way shape or form, look else where, because this film is pure Grisham, and fans should not be disappointed. Three and a half stars.
Rating:
Summary: What? No Sandinistas? Holy Gunplay, Batman!
Review: I've never written a movie review before, but, watching this adolescent effort, I was surprised to conclude that Hollywood has actually gotten much better about keeping its its high-school sophomore politics and preaching out of its commercial product. I suppose they must have discovered they make more money selling movies about things recognizably human, and so Hollywood Socialist Realism, a cinematic offshot of Soviet Socialist Realism, has sort of taken its well-earned rest on the ash heap of history with the Soviet Union itself. This one, though, is a throwback to Hollywood's Golden Era, where every happy American would--nearly unanimously--do the Good Left-Wing Thing, if each American weren't personally terrorized by an Evil White Man, the merciless, tireless, well-paid, sadistic minion of Many Rich Evil White Men, all of whom will stop at nothing to continue being Evil. In this movie, it is revealed that the Constitution is Evil. No surprise there--what else could it be, written, as it was, by Evil Rich White Men. In this wondrous sphere women beat up men, even--maybe especially--Evil White Men who are what might be described as Lesser Sadistic Minions of the main Sadistic Minion. (I estimate that in movie fistfights between the sexes in the last 20 years, women are 378-4, with several draws. Do they truly believe this? Wife-beating is alive and well in Hollywood. I know the leading men tend to be 5'3", but jeeze...) This one is really, REALLY bad. Gene Hackman is such an overwrought Evil White Man that he seems like a Batman villian except less plausible.
Rating:
Summary: Sorry but only Rachel Weisz and Gene Hackman do well here.
Review: Lazy movie that rips off a very good novel, and does not even stay true to it. The acting is the only major thing going for this film, and that is a god sent because I would have turn off the DVD player if it was not for the actors involved in this mess. Rachel Weisz and Gene Hackman do miracles with a bad script, and they alone make this movie respectable despite the fact that its does not respect its audience. They both create deep characters that you ether care for or despise, and that is a major thing to do considering the script is as one dimensional as tissue paper. See this film for them but don't bother with it after the first viewing.
Rating:
Summary: The actors carry this film alone with out a script to go by
Review: Dumb adaptation to the novel by John Grisham lacks his signature page turning nail-biting ways and instead makes a political statement about violence in our society. Rachel Weisz, Gene Hackman, and Dustin Hoffman do good work with what they are giving but the movie does not really give a fair view to what's its trying to put forth, and the movie lacks style and a certain thing called substance. 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 are 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. For that, I give my gratitude to Weisz, Hackman, and Hoffman for doing great work but they should have had a good script to go with their talent other than for them to carry this film by themselves with out one.
Rating:
Summary: Average movie, overhyped
Review: I guess I don't mind too much that the movie differed from the book a bit (or a whole lot as the case may be), however, it went a bit too far in presenting the tricks and underhanded dealing that lawyers use. I'm not saying I think that the modern member of the bar is a saint, however, I think Hollywood got a little too carried away here.
The movie itself was entertaining, if not a bit predictable and somewhat of a cliché in ways. I suppose I don't understand why a good book isn't just made into a good film, but then again, who am I?
I'd recommend watching this, but can't hardly give it a strong recommendation to own, once you've seen it and the outcome, there isn't that much to get excited about seeing it again.
Rating:
Summary: Absolutely Terrible!
Review: This movie was a stinker of epic proportions. The plot was completely transparent. I accurately predicted the movie's ending merely 20 minutes into it. It was nothing but a typical Hollywood anti-gun propoganda piece. The acting and the movie itself were completely over-the-top and never gave me the sense of "this could really be happening"(remember this is not Terminator, it's supposed to be plausible). Everything fell into place too perfectly for the anti-gun people. The people were also way too stereotypical, ie: every anti-gun person was of perfect moral character and brilliant, meanwhile, the gun supporters were all selfish and concerned only with money and they also happened to be so stupid that they were easily outwitted at every turn. The fact that the movie was completely implausible is a great disservice to John Grisham, who usually spins a tale that is very believable.
Maybe the most disappointing aspect of the movie was the acting. There were probably 10 actors/actresses that I recognized and I even knew most of their names, however, not one performance was even decent. Gene Hackman mailed his performance in as he looked detached the whole movie. Dustin Hoffman played the sympathetic hero so uninspired that I was rooting for him to lose the whole time. Rachel Weisz tried hard, but her character was written terribly. There's no way she could control everything that well, and her fight scene was less believable than anything I've ever seen in a Steven Seagal film. John Cusak wasn't half bad, but he certainly didn't do anything that stood out as good acting. As far as the rest of the cast; they did nothing, there's not a single memorable line or scene in the whole movie (what was Jeremy Piven doing, he wasn't funny, and in the end he did NOTHING to advance the outcome of the plot).
I don't even know where else I should go, basically, this movie was absolutely terrible. To make my point further, I watched The Rundown with the Rock immediately after this movie, and thought it should have won an academy award compared to this piece of garbage!
|
