Rating: 
Summary: Just plain awful
Review: The "plot" just doesn't work or make any sense. Never mind that the political overtones are just ridiculous preaching rather than an an attempt at anything logical. Cusack says the jury "voted with their hearts." The only thing obvious from this movie is that neither the actors, the writers, the directors, nor the jurors were using their brains.
Rating: 
Summary: Grisham Sells Himself Out
Review: The big name actors saved this movie - Hackman, Hoffman, Cusack & Weitz...however, this movie should've never hit the big screen with so much credit going to big name author John Grisham. This movie is hardly an adaptation of Grisham's novel of the same name. Grisham is an excellent writer, but if he wanted to make The Runaway Jury a movie he should've stood by his work and stuck with the original issue of the tobacco industry in Biloxi and not an entirely separate issue of gun control in New Orleans. Grisham lowered his standard by allowing moral issue politics to lure him away from what he orginally wrote about which reflects a lack of confidence in his own work and let the big screen producers pay him the big bucks just to sell himself out as a novelist. Clearly his choice to change the entire issue of his book for the "movie version" was to please whoever would show him the money. Shame on Mr. Grisham! His writing is fantastic - he should've stood up for it - for the real issue - for the book he wrote - despite what brings in the big bucks at the movies. Congratulations to the film industry for an OK suspense movie and the actors who were well suited for their characters. However, Grisham stands out in the cold...he's proven himself as a masterful writer...but regardless of his brillance apparently he hasn't discovered what is really important - is it pride or is it greed? Watch this movie and then read the real story John Grisham wrote...you'll see my point.
Rating: 
Summary: Fluffy piece of liberalism.
Review: Way too political take of the Grisham book tries too hard to be both a star-studded movie, and a voice for liberal views. I enjoyed the thriller aspect of it but the heavy political drivel it's a bit too much to take in all at once. I could get into the pros and cons of the gun issue right now but what can I say that has not been already said. I just want to point out that the issue needs a better forum than this movie, which bear in mind does not do ether side of the equation any justice. The only thing that I could give this movie any credit for is the acting which bear in mind is the best thing about it. Gene Hackman and Rachel Weisz do wonders with a movie that is more show than tell, and to both of their credit, they are the only redeeming factors this movie has. John Cusack and Dustin Hoffman are good as well, and the rest of the casts make due. The story is not based on anything that John Grisham has done with the book, and in my opinion lies the biggest problem with this movie. Why change the tobacco story for a moratorium on guns? Was it from pressure for the Tobacco Company or a hidden agenda to attack gun?
Rating:
Summary: Great acting - mediocre propaganda
Review: This movie is about as objective as one of those old Soviet era circa 1960's propaganda films only the performances are first rate.I always enjoy a good Hoffman or Hackman film. They are masters of the craft. But the script and story line is not even thinly veiled anti-gun propaganda. The "good" guys are Hoffman, Cusack and Weitz. Hoffman is suing a gun manufacturer for the actions of a deranged nutcase who shot up his old employers offices and killed 11 people ( if you consider stock brokers people that is - hahaha just kidding). The victim - Dylan McDermott did not even get cast billing - wonder why - possibly because he saw a pre-release cut and wanted his name off it? Anyway the "bad" guys are Hackman and his bunch who will use KGB, CIA and FBI (with more resources and manpower than any of those mentioned organizations) to manipulate or threaten the jury to get them to go their way. The poor old "good" guys eschew all of that in then name of honor and protecting innocent citizens from those murdering gun mongers. This was based on a John Grisham novel. In the novel the bad guys were tobacco executives. Now that Big tobacco and Government have become virtual partners they are no longer bad guys. Now those evil gun guys are responsible for all the murder and mayhem in the world. Handgun Control Inc could not have done better had the written and produced this movie instead of indirectly using nonsensical and false statistics about the carnage of guns on our society. If they numbers used in this movie were accurate, the country would be de-populated by 2010 The "bad" guys are all rabid screming maniacs with no credible arguments. The bad guys are all corrupt and even the pro-gun juror come off as uncaring idiots. I mean this is blatant propaganda, worse than blatant. Even at the end we are not given any insight as to the reasoning behind the verdict or the award, we are all just expected to believe that Easter convinced them all with them all to do the "right thing" to "stop this epidemic of gun violence". Whatever your views are on the gun control maybe especially if you support it, this movie does not present your case very well, the message is too sophomoric. I did enjoy the performances; there was a great cast of wondeful talent even Peter "my dear Mr Garibaldi" Jurasik and Jennifer "Flashdance" Beals and as always Rachel Weitz is wonderful. I am still curious about the total lack of any mention of Dylan McDermott ( formerly of The Practice) even in the closing credits. I gave this movie 3 stars. 5+ stars for the cast performances and 0 stars for the writing, plot and embarassing Soviet style propaganda message. Propaganda should be more subtle anyway.
Rating: 
Summary: Good legal thriller that has some issues to deal with
Review: The movie has a lot to say about the nature of guns and violence, but other than that, it's still a pretty good movie regardless of the issues raised. The acting is very good(I pretty much agree with everybody that Gene Hackman and Rachel Weisz stole the show) and the tension is fairly high for a movie of this nature. It's worth the rental if you are looking for a great night for movies at home, and does entertain for the two hours you spent with it. So regardless of your views of this subject, it does set out on what it's trying to do.
Rating:
Summary: A worthy effort by Hackman,Weisz, and Hoffman wasted.
Review: Wasted adaptation of the bestseller by John Grisham that throws away everything that made the book a good beach read and squandered the very good performances of Gene Hackman, Rachel Weisz and Dustin Hoffman for a anti gun rally of a movie that really does not represent itself well with it's point the finger views and politics. Which is when you think about it is pretty sad because the original book would have made a great film with the cast that is involved with this movie. Unfortunately for them and us, they are left with a reminder of what could have been a great movie because of their sheer talent, not a movie that throws away their efforts for a political view.
Rating:
Summary: 2 hours of thinly veiled lefty propaganda
Review: If you think you might enjoy 2 hours of anti-gun, leftist propaganda, then this is a great movie. How in the world this movie ever made it past the scripting is beyond me. Although I do have to say there is some great acting by actors I really enjoy, however the bias of this film is beyond what I could endure.
Rating:
Summary: Disappointing 2 hours of liberal indoctrination
Review: Watching this movie I was definately convinced that the Democratic National Committee played a role in this movie. Evil Capitalist businessmen, victimization, entitlement, and class warfare intertwined in this hollywood type libral movie. Gun dealers were portrayed as icompetant survivalist wackos. But my favorite was the private room meeting with all the overly done stereotypical "gun" business owners. I am sure the "gun" will be replace with fast food, oil, walmart, and tobacco for any sequel. Just change the setting and recast the same characters. What we are left with is great actors using their talents as a campaign spot. Hackman at least holds his own. Thank goodness (can't say God) for homeschooling.
Rating:
Summary: Gene Hackman and Rachel Weisz keeps the film alive and well
Review: John Grisham should be angry with what they did do his book, but I think that he should be honored as well for having Gene Hackman and Company keep the sprit of his novel alive. Hackman is great as a corrupt Jury consultant who is working for the defends, and Rachel Weisz is equality as good as the outsider who challenges him and the court for the fate of the verdict. The movie does not follow the book but at least the actors involve are game to give a good show regardless, and Gene Hackman And Rachel Weisz really do give one heck of a good show together. 4 Stars
Rating: 
Summary: all around great movie
Review: this movie has an effect on people and a possitive message and the ending rocks.
| 
