Runaway Jury (Widescreen Edition)

Rating:
Summary: Flat.....
Review: Other than the good acting of Rachel Weisz and Gene Hackman (which both deserve a lot of credit for making the movie bearable) The movie is just a mess from beginning to end. The plot which is an taken of the John Grisham novel of the same name lacks the story of that novel and the showmanship and puts in a story about guns that does not even fit the structure of the court proceeding that follow. Dustin Hoffman is fine for the time he's on but after a while he disappears and the direction that follows the other actors don't even do them any sense of justice because the camera work flashes way too fast from one scene to the next. The story is called Runaway Jury but we don't really have time to really know the jury at all because we are stuck with what happing outside the courtroom other than what is happing in the courtroom. The movie excels because of the acting of Rachel Weisz, Gene Hackman and Dustin Hoffman but I suggest you rent other movies from them instead.

Rating:
Summary: "Trials are too important to be left up to juries."
Review: From its stunning opening scene of a workplace shooting, director Gary Fleder manipulates the viewer's perceptions and keeps the suspense high. When attorney Wendell Rohr (Dustin Hoffman) represents the wife of the victim in a suit against the gun manufacturer two years later, he comes up against Rankin Fitch (Gene Hackman), a jury consultant hired by Vicksburg Firearms Company to give them a sympathetic jury. One member of the jury pool, Nicholas Easter (John Cusack) may hold the key to the outcome, but whether he is acting honorably or is himself a tool of special interests is not clear at the outset.

Based on John Grisham's novel of the same name, the screenplay by Brian Koppelman, David Levein, Rick Cleveland, and Matthew Chapman focuses on the issue of jury consultants, including their secret rooms to process photographs and information about jury members, detectives and hired thugs who gather incriminating information for them ("Everyone has a secret they don't want you to find"), surreptitious break-ins, and blackmail used against jurors. Hackman is unscrupulous as the pawn of the gun manufacturer, Hoffman is earnest but far less forceful as plaintiff's attorney, and Cusack is a mystery man whose goal on the jury is not quite clear until late in the film. A supporting cast including Rachel Weisz as Cusack's girl friend/co-conspirator Marlee is effective in maintaining the suspense and keeping the motivation of Easter and herself a mystery.

Though the film is unrealistic regarding jury procedure and regulations, the fact that the viewer still maintains high interest in it attests to the strength of the acting and the effectiveness of the writing in getting the viewer to "suspend disbelief." The many scenes filmed in half-light by cinematographer Robert Elswit help increase the tension and promote suspense. Somewhat cynical in its depiction of the jury system and the ability of jury consultants to manipulate outcomes, the film features crosses and doublecrosses, evil men working to subvert justice (on commission), and blatant attempts to buy the jury. Sensational, exciting, and filled with action scenes, this is a film with little subtlety but good entertainment value. Mary Whipple


Rating:
Summary: Weisz,Hackman and Hoffman do great work but the film sucks
Review: Lousy adaptation of the John Grisham novel lacks the bite of the book and puts forth a mixed message about gun control that lacks logic and common sense. The acting is great with Rachel Weisz, Gene Hackman and Dustin Hoffman bringing there A game to a C level project but not even they can make this script work. Weisz and Hackman are great as adversaries outside the court room and Dustin Hoffman is great as the moral center of the film, but he does not have much screen time at all compared to the other actors in the film. John Cusack is decent but lacks a certain flare to pull off his role right, and a better actor I think would have done a better job in his role. His work pales in comparison to the other actors in the film and you can see that in the scenes he shares with them. I also did not believe in the way he was able to hold the jury in his hands when he seem more creepy than charming to them. We don't really see the jury much at all and certain plot points concerning them disappear after a short time. The direction is not very coherent and it flashes back and forth a little too much and certain scenes are cut way too short and certain scenes are way too long for their own good. I am giving high marks to the acting of Weisz, Hackman, and Hoffman for at the very least keeping me from changing the channel but with a movie that has a script that is made out of Swiss, it's very hard to not change it