Rating: 
Summary: I'm gonna be different.
Review: I know that everyone on Amazon has bad-mouthed this movie, but I'm going to be different and tell my real opinion:Wonderful suspense-thriller!!! This movie has a believable plot and an exciting storyline containing twists and turns. It deserves 6 stars in my book. So exciting! You probably won't believe me because of what everyone else said, but personally, I loved it.
Rating: 
Summary: This movie is a farce.
Review: One of the worst movies I've seen in years. The plot tenets were so ridiculous I couldn't believe it. I find it ludicrous to purport that major companies would be knowing consipirators in jury tampering. The backlash that would occur should they be found out would be far worse than losing just money. The movie tries to be a morality play against the "evil companies" but falls extremely short. It appears to be a movie bought and paid for by the anti-gun factions. And their arrogance about the mentality of the viewing audiences belies their narrowmindedness.
Rating: 
Summary: The so-called 'anti-gun' bias is the best thing in the movie
Review: Have you noticed how some people use the term 'politically correct' in an insulting way? They do this to excuse their own antisocial or reprehensible behaviour - mocking 'political correctness' gives you an excuse to be a racist, a sexist, a homophobe, or a gun-loving psychopath like some of the previous reviewers. You aren't fooling anyone, you know. As to the film... I enjoyed it; tense and absorbing story with what are, I'm sure, VERY ACCURATE portrayals of the evil Gun Company's staff. I haven't read the book - John Grisham writes turgid, one-dimensional novels, but some of them have been adapted into quite decent films. This is one of the good ones.
Rating:
Summary: They tried too hard, but it's still a turn down
Review: This wack movie tried too hard, John Cusack and Gene Hackman wasted their time in this noir thriller wannabe, they tried to make it confusing but switched it to the stupid level, my opinion is that this movie is really pointless, who the hell cares about a runaway jury, make another super hero movie or atleast a Tarzan remake, not this. Now public people's private lives are turning into movies, what next, a movie about a talking ant, oh wait that already happened. What has happened to movies, they'll make anything bad and the press will think it's some sort of a masterpiece. Can't wait till i direct and write my own movie.
Rating:
Summary: Important issues raised
Review: I give this movie 4 stars because of 2 standout performances by Dustin Hoffman as a public defender and by Gene Hackman as an evil jury stacker for corporate America, because of some slick photography of New Orleans, and because the issues it raises are important: can the little guy ever win out against corporate giants in America? Is it even worth the effort to try? The answer this film gives is a resounding yes, in this gun control case in which the gun manufacturers are found guilty of complicity in the murder of a father of 2 and his widow, as she receives a very large award. The movie begs comparison with the tobacco cases, and I might say, in defense of the tobacco companies, that I myself quit smoking after 20 years, so it's not easy, but it can be done. This is quite irrelevant to the present film,but I thought I'd mention it. The film carries itself along at a brisk pace, but not quite brisk enough for 5 stars.
Rating: 
Summary: Good, but not as good as the book.
Review: John Cusack stars as Nicolas Easter in the latest John Grisham film adapted from his excellent book. Easter is called in to serve on a jury in a case against the gun industry after a young family man lawyer (Dylan McDermott) is shot dead by a disgruntled ex-worker. Easter teams up with Marlee (Rachel Weisz) to extract money from either side of the case for the promise of a verdict. Gene Hackman (Rankin Fitch) and Duston Hoffman (Wendell Rohr) both star as the opposite sides in this court case based thriller. I semi-enjoyed this movie, but having already read the excellent book was a little disappointed by this adaptation. The main problem for me was the screenplay which was quite weak. Also Gene Hackman and Duston Hoffman were awful in this with Hoffman especially guilty of overacting. Changing the court case from suing the cigarette company to suing the gun manufacturers also seemed quite trite as if the makers of this film were trying to bask in Michael Moore's spotlight (Moore of course is responsible for the deceptive "Bowling for Columbine). Now I don't think people should have guns but it all seemed a bit phoney and preachy here. One pivotal scene involving Marlee's mother is laughably bad, why she invites a total stranger into her home and gets all emotional with him is beyond me and goes down as a typically bad and trite hollywood moment. Rachel Weisz and Cusack were good in this film, with a decent script and less showy editing this could have been much better. Thanks for reading.
Rating:
Summary: A fairly solid Grisham adaptation
Review: When it comes to John Grisham as an author, I'm usually real hit or miss with his books. The Last Juror, The Firm, and The Rainmaker I loved. The Chamber, The Brethern, and Bleachers, not so much. All that being said, Runaway Jury is probably my favorite Grisham book and when I saw that it was going to be made into a movie with John Cusack and Gene Hackman, I thought it would have to be a pretty awesome movie. Well, I don't know about awesome, but it is a pretty good movie. For those of you who've not read the book, I won't give away too much of the plot. The basics are that there's a case involving a gun company being sued in a wrongful death suit. Gene Hackman plays an unethical jury consultant for the defense team who goes about trying to pick a jury that will give him the win. What he doesn't count on is the fact that one of the jury members is influencing the other members and is looking for a payoff to deliver a verdict for either side. I won't go into much more detail because as you watch the movie, most of the twists and turns become very evident. A few things about the cast. John Cusack is great as usual and really seems to enjoy playing Nicholas Easter. If you're expecting to see a lot of Gene Hackman and Dustin Hoffman though, then you need to go rent Hoosiers or The Graduate because you won't see a lot of them in this movie. Not counting the courtroom scenes, both legendary actors only get about twenty, maybe thirty minutes of screentime and only have one scene together. Sure the plot has been changed from the book, but after "The Insider," I think the stuido probably didn't think the public would want another movie about cigarette companies on trial. Plus, the trial's kind of secondary to the plot anyway so it doesn't really disrupt anything. You definitely need to read the book, but this one isn't a bad movie to at least give a rental.
Rating:
Summary: Simply great movie - politics and adaptation aside ...
Review: People who don't like this movie are in 2 camps: the true gun lovers or the true John Grisham lovers. They dislike the movie either because they dislike the gun-control message conveyed in the movie or because they dislike the screen adaptation of the original novel (they think the book is better and the adaption ruined it). I didn't read the book before seeing this movie, and let me withhold my view on gun-control for now - just focus on the movie itself. Great cast, gripping plot, wonderful acting from every stars in the movie, inspiring dialogue, every elements of this movie worked, kept me on the edge of my seat from beginning to the end, a very satisfying movie-going experience. Put politics and the original novel aside, this movie by itself is simply a masterpiece! By the time I left the theatre I knew this movie will be trashed by a lot of reviewers (as right here in Amazon) because in this country there are just too many stubborn people believe gun ownership somehow represents some kind of freedom or self-defense right, therefore any anti-gun message equals to anti-freedom and anti-self-defense-right - hence it must be trashed. Laugh out loud. The amusing fact is, by the time you could fetch your own gun locked at home somewhere (otherwise it's illegal) to defend yourself, you've probably already been shot down by the offender. What good does owning a gun do to the victims in the movie (they were shot dead in their office)? On the other hand, if the offender in the movie doesn't have access to a gun, say he's using a knife, then he just couldn't kill so many innocent people. Obviously in most situations, guns won't defend you, guns only facilitate the offender! So let's complete the favorite rubbish into a full meaningful sentence - "Guns don't kill people, people kill people" - by guns! The gun manufacturer also differs from tobacoo company and McDonald's in a key term - choice. You can choose by your own will to ruin your lung (...) but you can't choose to live when a criminal shot you with a gun. Although you can choose to own a gun or not, you can't choose if someone else who owns a gun to shot you or not. It's gun manufacturer who violets your freedom and right, not gun-control advocate. So if you're anti-gun and pro-gun-control, then go to see this movie and you will love it. Otherwise, don't bother to see this movie, you could instead do the society a favor by shooting yourself with your beloved gun. LOL.
Rating: 
Summary: Formulaic and Forgettable
Review: I would write a review, but I've already forgotten it. It has already blended together with all the other recent Hollywood movies of this type. I do remember a terrible performance by Dustin Hoffman. Oh, and a completely predictable "twist" at the end. You know how important that twist is to the formula. How much more of this crap can that town pump out?
Rating:
Summary: Runaway Hit!!
Review: This was a great thriller, with just enough suspense, romance, violence, and plot-twisting. Interesting and easy to follow, but not boring. Great acting! (and, I love John Cusack's eyes!)
| 
