Rating: 
Summary: Rachel Weisz and Gene Hackman do wonders with a bad script
Review: I only thing that i like about this film is the performances which are wasted in this void of a movie that really does not know how to have a fair debate about a very sensitive issue. The script does not give you a hint about is really going on, and the victims of the crime really don't get say in this over preaching moratorium on violence. Only the performances are worthy of some praise, and the actors themselves should be commented for giving their all to this movie, even when the movie does not giver them a fair chance to work with something with substance. Rachel Weisz is simply fantastic as Marlee, a woman who would stop at nothing to control the jury and Gene Hackman gives another great performances as Rankin Fitch, a sleaze bag Jury Consultant who would do anything to win the case he is working on. Hackman and Weisz make you care about what is happing to them, even when you stop caring about what is happing in the movie. They are supported by a fine cast of supporting actors including John Cusack, Dustin Hoffman, Bruce Davison, and many others. It's sad that Gene Hackman and Rachel Weisz did not have a script to support their talent because I would like to see them pared up again, and they do work great together because their scene on the trolley is amazing, and it shows that good actors can save a bad movie with a couple of good scenes. Lets hope they would work together again in a much better movie.
Rating: 
Summary: Don't Bother
Review: The only thing this movie was missing was a Simon LeGree mustache and top hat for Gene Hackman. It was a thinly veiled attempt to promote somebody's political agenda. It's a shame the story wasn't worthy of the cast. Don't blame me if you waste your time on this one.
Rating:
Summary: Spoon Fed Anti-Gun Propaganda (for Your Pleasure)
Review: #1 Why did the author allow for this bastardization of his work?? ..must be $! Fantastic acting - that's why I bared with it. But, man, what an intense pounding of anti-gun propaganda. And the ending just made me want to heave. Important: these people knew what they were doing; they knew the acting would keep you there while they steadily fed you mounds of crap. This is a propaganda movie from start to finish (move over Joseph Groebbels). I am very amazed, though, at the incredibly weak force-fed logic they used - I expected much better. The propaganda methods used were a "5 star" rating (some of the best I have seen by the radical left), but the intellectual level of the arguments were "2 star" at most. It's unbelievable and doesn't work (the message) - but the propaganda side of it got me to watch the whole movie, so go figure !!! You know, I love how the leftist liberals want to ban all weapons from law-abiding citizens .... knowing fully those criminals will always have their own way of getting guns (like Sat. night specials). No, the main issue here is to have the government keep all the guns. Then the situation of the common people can't handle responsibility issue BUT THE GOVERMENT CAN???? Check out recent Albanian history. In short ... 1) liberal democratic-republic (a bit more liberal than ours)
2) banned guns
3) gov't squandered citizen's social security - acct=0
4) citizen's revolted (all ages & both gender)
5) gov't declared martial law
6) military gunned down citizen's (all ages & both gender)
7) citizen's dead in streets with bats and pitchforks Now, Is our government squandering our social security money? Is there a HARD push to ban guns lately? Didn't A. Greenspan just announce the other day that it looks like the S.S. acct will be at approximately "0" if nothing is done about it? Will people be mad if they have to live off road-kill and have absolutely no money in a gov't account that they have put into for all their working life, from all the dead end jobs that they have had to endure (and conquer)? You do the math!!!
Rating:
Summary: Anti-Gun Propaganda is bombarded at you relentlessly
Review: #1 Why didn't the author allow this bastardization of his work?
.... must be $! Fantastic acting - that's why I bared with it. But, man, what an intense pounding of anti-gun propaganda. And the ending just made me want to heave. Important: these people knew what they were doing; they knew the acting would keep you there while they steadily fed you mounds of crap. This is a propaganda movie from start to finish (move over Joseph Groebbels). I am very amazed, though, at the incredibly weak force-fed logic they used - I expected much better. The propaganda methods used were a "5 star" rating (some of the best I have seen by the radical left), but the intellectual level of the arguments were "2 star" at most. It's unbelievable and doesn't work (the message) - but the propaganda side of it got me to watch the whole movie, so go figure !!! You know, I love how the leftist liberals want to ban all weapons from law-abiding citizens .... knowing fully those criminals will always have their own way of getting guns (like Sat. night specials). No, the main issue here is to have the government keep all the guns. Then the situation of the common people can't handle responsibility issue BUT THE GOVERMENT CAN???? Check out recent Albanian history. In short ... 1) liberal democratic-republic (a bit more liberal than ours)
2) banned guns
3) gov't squandered citizen's social security - acct=0
4) citizen's revolted (all ages & both gender)
5) gov't declared martial law
6) military gunned down citizen's (all ages & both gender)
7) citizen's dead in streets with bats and pitchforks Now, Is our government squandering our social security money? Is there a HARD push to ban guns lately? Didn't A. Greenspan just announce the other day that it looks like the S.S. acct will be at approximately "0" if nothing is done about it? Will people be mad if they have to live off road-kill and have absolutely no money in a gov't account that they have put into for all their working life, from all the dead end jobs that they have had to endure (and conquer)? You do the math!!!
Rating:
Summary: Respectable because of Hackman, Hoffman, and Weisz.
Review: Strange courtroom drama that does not give a strong argument for its views about guns but gives compelling performances by all the actors involved. Gene Hackman never disappoints, and does make the movie better because of his performance, even though he has played this character before in much better movies. Dustin Hoffman is good as well, even though he is not in the movie too much, and Rachel Weisz gives an amazing performance that lifts this movie pass it's strange and bias views points to something with some dignity to it. It's the actors performances that makes me give this movie three stars, even though the view points express were not really thought out.
Rating: 
Summary: Excellent Acting Wasted
Review: Many people have commented on how the focus of the movie was changed from Grisham's novel. Quite possibly Hollywood thought it was more PC to be anti-gun this week. It isn't that Agenda, though, that makes this movie such a waste. It's that the director/producers beat you over the head with their superiority and self righteousness (notice the very last scene in the movie). Gene Hackman and his employers (the gun manufacturers) are irredeemably E-Vil. You are constantly having it shoved at you that these are the Tools of the Devil. All the violence and dirty tricks are performed by them or at their behest. Even their attorney is noting more than a puppet who dances to Hackman's tune. Dustin Hoffman's side (anti-gun) is total Purity, Nobility and Truth. At one point he is tempted by the Dark Side, but heroically rises above it because he is in the service of Right. No unfair or questionable tactics for them! In fact, there is even a confrontation between the Forces of Light and Darkness in a courtroom men's room where, just in case you still haven't figured out yet who are the Good and who are the Bad, Dustin Hoffman practically qualifies for Sainthood in his impassioned defense of all things Bright and Beautiful to which Gene Hackman despicably dismisses with his deprecating I don't care rejoinders. He rejoices in his nefarious ways. I mean, c'mon! I was expecting at some point for Hackman or his cronies to hunch over, roll their eyes and rub their hands while going "Bwa-hah-hah-hah". After which they'd fold their black capes over their faces and skulk off to foreclose on some widow's mortgage. Espousing a message in a movie is ok. But being so black and white and pompus, while constantly directing the audience how they should feel if they are decent human beings, destoys the movie. Gene Hackman makes this move, ably assisted by his mega-talented costars, but they can't save it. The entertainment and interest gets lost in The Agenda.
Rating: 
Summary: The acting is the only thing going here.
Review: This film is a real enigma of sorts. It tries to be a movie about people with hidden agendas while having an agenda of its own concerning the issue of gun control. While I liked the human aspect of it, the whole gun control angle is a bit wasted in its own muddled mixed message that not only contradicts itself in certain aspects but also takes away from the story at hand. The human side of the story though did move me, and I give credit to the actors for at least giving there all for this movie to work. Gene Hackman gives a sense of loss and humanity to an other wise villain role, and even though he does get his comeuppance in the end, you just feel sorry for him anyway. Rachel Weisz gives a strong and human performance to her role, and literally carries the movie on her shoulders. I agree with the majority that she and Hackman are the heart and soul of this film. Dustin Hoffman is great as well but does not have as much promenade as expected and John Cusack is very good, and he hold himself well with the other actors in the movie. The movie as a whole feels a little too rough to be considered a complete movie, and the way it cuts from scene to scene feels too frantic to take with any clarity. Don't expect a clear cut message but expect Gene Hackman, Rachel Weisz, and the rest of the cast to give a very interesting show about human nature.
Rating:
Summary: Hackman and Weisz saves an other wise tasteless exercise.
Review: Stuff, condescending legal blunder takes all the fun out of the original novel and makes a mockery of it by trying to blame the gun industry for most of the violence done in our country. The acting is noteworthy, with Gene Hackman, and Rachel Weisz giving class to an other wise tasteless exercise in liberal morality. Avoid at all cost.
Rating:
Summary: good book and movie
Review: this book was amazing. even though i am only in 6th grade i am a very advanced reader and loved the book. the movie was just as good. it seems that although the plot was about the same the movie did a better job of making it overly dramatic. it's hollywood though so what should we expect?
Rating:
Summary: Not a realistic movie.
Review: The acting was pretty good, but the story was totally unrealistic. They ruined what I thought was a good book. There are jury consultants who help lawyers pick juries, but they do not operate like in this movie. A person CANNOT get on a jury like Cusack did, just to try and arrange a verdict. All of these people were guilty of jury tampering, which is a felony, but no no one ever acts the least bit concerned that they might go to jail. What was the point of all this as the gun company could have easily gotten a new trail because Cusack lied duing his jury exam and apparently gave a phony name, ID, etc. Also, what was Jenifer Beals doing in this movie? She was on the jury, but never spoke a word (that I remember) and really had no part at all. Was her part cut from the movie?
| 
