Rating: 
Summary: Unbeleivably unrealistic, hard to sit through...
Review: I couldn't watch this all the way thru straight. I had to stop it sever times and take a break from the boredom. 1st of all it is soooo farfetched. 2nd of all I think Hackman shows in this film that he's played one bad guy too many, by his lack of perfomrance, he needs to try some other role. Hackman's bad guy acting in this film would be more suitable in a James Bond film, petting a white can, while talking about taking over the world. In any case the lead guy is boring, and come on now hidden cameras set upo everywhere to select a jurer? And 20 people at evil Hackman's service night and day. This is so unbelievable, not even an artistic film. Don't waste your time. Only the 1st two minutes of the film is exciting, and it's downhill, the rest of the way. Omly for Hackman diehard fans who want to see him hige an uninspired performance, playing his millionth roll as an evil genious gone over the top.
Rating: 
Summary: Good acting; more Hollywood self-righteousness
Review: Hoffman is great (loved his line: "you disappeared my witness, fella!"). Hackman is always great. Cusack's average (for Cusack). All-in-all it was a little too pat of a plot in my humble opinion.My biggest problem was the hugely obvious pro gun-control stance (not as over-the-top as Michael Moore's mockumentary, Bowling for Columbine, sheesh). All of the characters that were associated with the firearms company, especially Hackman's, were archetypal evil, corporate, bluebloods who would do anything not to lose a nickel and were just plain mean. Even Cliff Curtis' former Marine character gets egged on by Cusack until we see his real motivation of finding against the plaintiff - he's another meanie! Of course, everyone on the plaintiff's side of the case believes in the American way and trusts people and has a good, moral conscience. By polarizing the two sides in the movie, it just turns it into a great, big liberal propagandize PSA (public service announcement). I haven't read the book, so I can't say how true to it they were or weren't. One other reviewer said it took four screenwriters to adapt it to the screenplay. Maybe because they had to rewrite the whole premise just to send out a message that people would see because of Grisham's association. Remember, we are all free moral agents. We each make choices and are ultimately responsible for them. It's not the gun, it's the shooter. It's not the SUV, it's the driver. It's not the hamburger, it's the eater (Could I get a diet Coke with that supersized Big Mac, please. I'm watching my weight!). Some day people will wake up and see that there is no such thing as utopia and we can't protect people from themselves. We can only try to educate them and show them why they should make better choices. Ahh, what do I know. Go see it for yourself, but don't turn off your brain.
Rating: 
Summary: Weisz, Hackman, and Hoffman are the only good things here...
Review: Very dumb excursion into the novel by John Grisham throws out everything in the book that made it a bestseller for a bad and lazy look into jury tampering that does not even ask the question its trying to answer. The script itself butchers the motives of the book characters to fit its bias views, and the story in question does not make sense once you start to put two and two together. The director does not even do justice with the script he is working on with cut scenes that cut right into dialog, and action scenes that were not in the original novel to begin with. Only the actors do justice for the viewer and the movie itself with great performances by Gene Hackman, Rachel Weisz, and Dustin Hoffman. They do their best with a very bad script that comes apart at the seams very early into the movie, and they carry it to the end like true pros. Something the screenwriters who wrote the script did not even try to do.
Rating:
Summary: READ THE BOOK!!!
Review: This movie was not up to par. I've heard that many people liked this movie, yet none of them have read the book. I read the book and loved it, and expected more of the same from the movie. Yet it did not live up to my expectations. I suggest that you buy the book and not the movie.
Rating: 
Summary: Grisham¿s Legal Vengeance Fantasies: Law Versus Justice
Review: Set in New Orleans, this John Grisham yarn, which required four screenwriters to make the transition to film, stretches credulity despite its wealth of legal detail. A young man, played by John Cusak, is called to jury duty and, with the aid of a witty and capable, seemingly new girlfriend he meets in a voodoo shop, proceeds to mastermind the jury, brought to court to adjudicate a case brought against gun companies in an office slaying that has left a devoted young husband and father dead. Gene Hackman plays the ruthless defense attorney and Dustin Hoffman the slightly less ruthless prosecution. Both contemplate paying off the Cusak girlfriend, who pulls the strings behind the scenes, to ensure victory. It is especially important to the gun company, as they advertise "fingerprint proof" exterior on their assault weapons that thus seem clearly marketed to criminals. The issues involved, constitutional right to bear arms versus evil economic feedback between corporate and criminal culture, are obviously important, and Grisham is not only the master but the originator of his sub-genre of morally loaded legal thriller. As with Greek heroes of ancient tragedy, whose strengths are their weakness, so Grisham's Runaway Journey seems to exemplify the double-edgedness of Grisham's formula. Although superficially, they seem, because of the breadth of legal knowledge and clever plotting, to be extremely realistic, in the end they are-or at least this one is-as I see it, fantasies of legal revenge. Even barring the incredible casting of an intrepid, strikingly good-looking young couple able to mastermind the decision making of an entire jury by an all-but-total knowledge of legal precedent and human psychology-let alone their ability to convince top-notch lawyers of their near-preternatural abilities-it is difficult to believe that the expensive defense legal firm could involve so many people in an underground high-tech stakeout that spies, hires criminals to break-and-enter, commit arson, intimidate witnesses, and accept bribes. Not to say that all these things don't happen, but the sheer density of the crimes committed by the defenders of the gun company, combined with the numbers of young accomplices, seems unlikely. On the other hand, a recent news story revealed the CEO of Wesson to have been involved in multiple armed robberies and a prison escape. Found out, he stepped down as chairman but stayed on the board. I can imagine Grisham being a relatively idealistic young lawyer who became completely disgusted with the money basis, and amorality, of the legal system. So I see the formula he has discovered less as legal thriller than legal vengeance fantasy, in which those wronged-those who so often do not receive justice in the "justice system"-finally get their comeuppance. Dramatically, he exaggerates for the sake of clarity and imagines criminals-primarily those in the legal system, corporate culture, and government-getting what they deserve. Unfortunately, it is wish fulfillment, not reality.
Rating: 
Summary: so underrated
Review: i cant believe how underrated this movie is! If any of you had a passion for law oriented movies you'd see how great of a movie this was!
Rating:
Summary: Rachel Weisz and Gene Hackman make lemonade out of lemons
Review: Predicable and unfaithful adaptation of John Grisham bestseller takes out the core of the novel, which was about tobacco and replaces it with a silly outlook about the state of gun violence. The views express in this film is one sided, and bias because it only focus on the outcome, not the problem. I know that the real plot of the film is about jury tampering but that fit better in the original book than this movie because it showed how far the tobacco industry was willing to corrupt the system in order to save their product, a problem that is all too real in our society. The jury tampering done in this movie only makes the gun manufactures look like they are trying to hid their responsibility from the public, which if you really think about it makes no sense what so ever because they really have nothing to hid at all. That plot point only fit the structure of the book which deals with how the tobacco industry was trying to hide the damaging effects of smoking, and how they continue to denied there effects on the human body. If you think about it, everyone knows that guns kill, so why would a gun manufacture go through the trouble that it does in this movie to protect that fact from the public. In reality, the whole lawsuit would have been thrown out of court but we are talking about a Hollywood reality, not the real world. Judging the movie as a whole, the direction was decent but a bit over flashy for a movie of this nature. I did not get the slow motion effects during conversation scenes in this movie. Maybe the director did it to show the emotional effects it had on the characters, but a real scene of emotion would have done the trick, and they are few and far between in this film. The acting is great, and that should be commented because it showed that the actors were professional enough to care about what they were doing. Gene Hackman is like fine wine, he gets better when he ages, and he does give a great performance that has many layers to it, even though the script does not show it. Rachel Weisz is great as well, and gives her character a strong, and determine edged that makes you believe in her cause, and she even adds a level of emotional clarity that makes identify with her as well. John Cusack is good as her accomplice in the scam, and he gives his charming con man a sense of caring and determination to win the jury over. Dustin Hoffman is also good as Hackman's rival in the courtroom, and gives his character an emotional depth that any lesser actor could not have done. His performance is a great reminder of what a classy actor of his caliber can do with a small part that should have been bigger. The actors really work miracles with a script that has a depth of a shot glass, and for them (Hackman, Weisz, Hoffman, and Cusack) I do give Runaway Jury it credit but imagine how better this movie would have been if they had a script that reflected the original story, and a better direction.
Rating:
Summary: It's enjoyable until the final few minutes.
Review: For some reason, unlike the other reviewers, I didn't see the ending of this one coming. But the final five minutes was so typical liberalism that the entire movie was ruined for me. If you don't have an opinion about gun control, then you may enjoy this movie. I read Grisham's novel, and although it was about tobacco, the premise is the same: when things go wrong, someone with money should have to pay, whether it be the tobacco companies or gun manufacturers. After you watch this movie, think about the entire picture that was painted by it: Gun manufacturers and people who support guns = BAD. People who are against guns = GOOD. Throughout the movie the people who were on the gun manufacturer's side would go to any length to win the trial. The people against the guns played straight,legal, and morally uncorrupted. Even the final scene, with our "heros" watching the children play, was straight out of the liberal bible: always bring in the kids for an emotional boost for your audience. Such blatant liberalism ruined this movie for me. Again, if you're liberal, or if you're against guns, or you just don't care either way, then this is a fine movie. John Cusack and Gene Hackman are two of my favorite actors and their performances were splendid.
Rating:
Summary: Fast Paced and Entertaining
Review: I have not read the book by the same title by Grisham, so I have no basis for comparison to determine if the movie is as good as the book or if the plot is exactly the same or has been tampered with. What I do know is that the movie is highly entertaining and has a first class cast. A firearms company is sued by a widow whose husband was murdered at his office, along with several other people, by a deranged ex-employee. The argument for the lawsuit is that the gun producer "pushes" its products in illegal ways, making it extremely easy for people to get assault weapons. The end result in some of these cases is a loose cannon that cannot be stopped. The defense hires Rankin Fitch (Gene Hackman) as a jury consultant, while the lawyer for the plaintiff, Wendell Rohr (Dustin Hoffman), is not interested in this kind of service at all and is skeptic to accept it when it is offered to him. From the onset of the trial the viewer can perceive the highly sophisticated methods that jury consultants use in selecting the twelve people which will finally decide the outcome of the trial. In this case, things will go a bit further, when controlling the jury becomes a game of power and the action heats up to considerable levels. The performances of Hackman, Hoffman, Rachel Weisz and John Cusack, who plays one of the jurors, are highly commendable. It is curious that Hackman and Hoffman never worked together in a movie before, and for this reason the director decided to create a "special" scene for them in which they could display their talent together. I recommend that after watching the movie you watch the special features about this scene ("The Washroom"). I understand that this movie may be annoying for people who are extremely in favor of the right to bear arms, but if you do not belong in this category, you will probably find it enjoyable.
Rating:
Summary: Good acting can¿t save this movie from its questionable view
Review: Questionable message about the effects of violence by guns gives a hollow argument to it's cause by not really explaining the effects in question, and by playing the school shooting angle to sell its point. While I do believe in some kind of gun control, I don't think that playing on the outrage of murdered children will give credence to the argument. If the filmmakers gave a fair voice to both sides of this issue, and gave real points to their arguments, then I would respect this movie viewpoint, but by sugar feeding the issue with outrage and misconceptions, it turns the film into a joke. I don't want sound like a broken record by agreeing with the majority that have express their options on this board, but it's really is the acting that is the films major draw point. Gene Hackman goes back in doing what he does best, and gives a great and somewhat somber performance to his role that could have been a stereotypical villain in a black hat role. Rachel Weisz not only proves again to be one of the most compelling and versatile actors we have today (I consider her the female Johnny Depp) but is the only actor in the entire movie (or to put it in perspective, in the last few years) that was able to stand her ground with Gene Hackman, and almost knocks him off the screen with a very strong and fierce performance. John Cusack is a fine and charismatic actor but I found his performance in this movie a bit forced, and unsparing. He does well in the role but he does not come a cross as likeable and that is a problem because you are suppose to root for him and his cause, not happy that he is off the screen. Dustin Hoffman is good as well but he does not have the same screen time as Hackman and the others, and his role is really not much of a glorified cameo. Which is a shame because he gives a lot of heart and compassion to his role and gives the movie a sense hope in the system. I do like the acting a lot in this film but with a questionable message that does not support what its trying to say, the movie can only go but so far before breaking down.
|
