Customer Reviews

Runaway Jury [Blu-ray] [Import]

5 star:		(14)
4 star:		(48)
3 star:		(57)
2 star:		(58)
1 star:		(40)

 

 

Not sure what movie the other reviewers watched, but both my SO and I enjoyed this movie immenensely. Well acted, well directed, and well executed.

The fact it goes "morally conscious" at the end of the movie, didn't detract from the experience at all, no matter what I think about gun control. It wasn't ABOUT that, it was about the story, which was great to watch unfold.

Runaway Jury seemed from the trailers to be a nail-biting thriller with huge caliber acting talent. Although John Cusack, Gene Hackman, and Dustin Hoffman turn in great performances, the movie falls on its face. Any soundtrack seems non-existent. There is not much suspense. Cusack's girlfriend, the main female character, is completely cold and unsympathetic. She does not have an ounce of warmth in her body. And she is supposed to be someone you root for through the whole film. I wanted her to get her comeuppance, but unfortunately she did not. The movie ended up being a preachy film about gun control.

The opening sequence is one of the best I have ever seen. If only the rest of the movie was as good as the first five minutes.

Minds numbing adaptation to the John Grisham novel lacks his artistic punch and flare for justice and replaces it with a typical Hollywood movie that caters to speculation other than fact. The script has too many holes to be considered a passable story, and while the direction is decent, it lacks a real sense of depth. The acting on the other hand is good with Rachel Weisz and Gene Hackman making this film much better than it deserved to be with their very good performances, and Dustin Hoffman is fine as well but he's not in the movie as much. John Cusack is decent and the rest of the cast makes due but the movie does not do them or the viewer any justice in terms of storytelling.

Thanks to Weisz, Hackman, and Hoffman, the movie makes a fine rental, but its only good for a few good moments.

Having read the book, I can say that the book was much better than the movie. The movie changed the premise from Big Tobacco to Gun Control - which in my opinion completely changed the look and feel of the story.

If you are interested in the story then I suggest the book or audio book - but in my opinion the movie is worthless. Both the story and acting within the movie are marginal at best. Hackman delivers a decent perfomance, but John Cusack delivers a subpar performance and is unbelievable in portraying his role as the maverick juror #9.

Weak adaptation to the book of the same name forgoes the legal jargon and just dumb down the plot for a simpletons version of the law. Only Gene Hackman and Rachel Weisz do well with the weak material given because they at least look like they are trying to make an effort to give more than the film want to give but not even their great acting talents can save this movie from itself.

Avoid.

I thought the movie was pretty good. I didn't expect too much from it because of the "typical revenge movie" tag that seemed to be hanging over it. However, Cusack continues to do an outstanding job as of late. I like the movie just because I'm not a 100% supporter of the gun industry anyway. We all can dream a little of one day someone holding the actual gun companies personally responsible for their guns, what they can do, and who uses them. Honestly, who the hell needs an automatic machine gun to shoot a rabbit? Good movie.

Although this movie is by no means a masterpiece (3+ stars, rounded up to 4), you'll find yourself engaged almost from the onset and this feeling lasts almost all the way through the movie. In a nutshell, this movie is an adaptation of a book written by the prolific John Grisham. In this case, the story centers how far several stakeholders in a tragedy caused by a gun will go to secure a verdict. The main focus is on jury consultants and makes a compelling case that the presentation of the facts and even the facts themselves may be MUCH less important than securing a jury which may be predisposed to vote in a particular fashion no matter what.

Grisham's book used to tobacco industry as a backdrop and serves the story quite well. For some reason, some say because of the movie "The Insider," the movie's focus was changed to the gun industry and in my opinion does not service the movie as well but it's not a deal breaker for me. The direction by Gary Fleder keeps the action moving along at a fast pace and although the script has several holes/coincidences, the non-stop camera movement and strong performances will keep you interested in the outcome.

Gene Hackman steals the show playing the sleaziest and most capable jury consultant in the field. The resources this guy has at his disposal to me make the movie. The lawyers on both sides are almost secondary characters in the film as the focus is on how these consultants may ultimately be more important than the best lawyer. Although the marketing of this film went out of its way to highlight that this was the very first time that legends (and prior real-life roommates) Gene Hackman and Dustin Hoffman were sharing the screen for the very first time, with the exception of one scene, they don't get have a real act-off. As usual Hoffman is good, but here the role is too small and there is very little to dig into. He does the best he can and thankfully does not overplay a character that needs to appear to be quite ordinary. Other highlights include John Cusack, who is one of the best and most naturalistic actors in an industry focused on abs and marketability. Rachel Weisz, previously unknown to me does a convincing job and gets to play some great action scenes usually not given to women. She's no one's sidekick.

You may find yourself having a hard time believing how Gene Hackman gets his information, but I chose to suspend judgment and give in to it because it was fun to watch. What I could not give into is the alleged "surprise ending." Although I've already revealed much more than I usually like to in movie reviews, I won't give away the alleged "real" motivation of one or more of the characters for doing what he/she/them do as it almost sinks what had until this "revelation" been a story of paranoia that managed for once not to be too biased one way or another. Maybe we are all evil. The grey area and skepticism give in to a sentimentality that feels all wrong in this movie. Notwithstanding, I can certainly say that if you are the in the mood for something that won't strain your brain too much and will kept you entertained, you could do much worse than "Runaway Jury." This release easily earns 3+ stars and I am upping it to 4, just because of Gene Hackman's performance and change of pace of most Hollywood blockbusters.

Implausible court thriller that rips off its much better novel and puts fourth a movie that lacks all the suspends and wit of its book origin. Only (like every one has been saying) the acting is worth anything with Rachel Weisz and Gene Hackman doing extraordinary jobs with their two-dimensional characters, and Dustin Hoffman, and John Cusack doing ok with what they have. For their efforts (Mostly the acting of Rachel Weisz and Gene Hackman) the movie gets three stars but judging the move as a whole, it's only worth two. Blame the script for that.

I would love to see Gene Hackman and Rachel Weisz work together again, but hopefully in a better movie with a better script.

This film is another legal thriller based on A Grisham novel. It is full of plot twists and turns, related to the premise of Jury manipulation that is carried out in a highly unrealistic manner. That is the most significant flaw in this movie - that the whole scenario just couldn't happen, as anyone who has ever been called for jury duty would recognize. That said, the story is captivating and you can't tell where the plot is leading until the end unless you've read the novel. John Cusack, Gene Hackman, Dustin Hoffman, and Rachel Weisz lead a stellar cast in a story that plays on empathy for victims of gun violence. In my opinion, that is another flaw in the movie: that it caters to anti-gun interests by portraying a gun manufacturer as greedy, irresponsible, and callous. It seems a bit sad that someone would become so obsessed with seeking "justice" after the shooting of someone close to them that they would plot for years to hijack a jury to punish a gun manufacturer. In the context of the Runaway Jury story the manufacturer deserves consequences for their business practices, while in real life guns are often a focus of misplaced blame for social violence. Regardless of its flaws, this movie is well-executed and suspenseful, another solid cinematic presentation of a Grishman legal thriller.

Gene Hackman and Dustin Hoffman appear together for the first time, and their big scene together is terrific. Rachel Weisz and John Cusack are also quite good. It would be wonderful if the chief creative mind behind this project had been named "Scorcese" or "Coppola" instead of "Grisham". That is NOT to imply that Grisham is not a talented writer of courtroom dramas. It is meant to say that this story is a little weak and the climax is not particularly compelling.

We are asked to believe that for enough money expert jury-riggers can be hired to guarantee the outcome of a particular trial. Is there a lot of call for such people?

Gene Hackman plays this expert jury-tamperer, and he makes a character who is difficult for me to imagine in real life pretty believable. Dustin Hoffman portrays the honest attorney for the other side, and although Mr. Hoffman is one of our greatest living actors, his believability as a Louisiana Lawyer isn't complete.

John Cusack takes another step towards eventually attaining the stature of Hoffman and Hackman in the role of the jury member who has his OWN agenda on this trial, and Rachel Weisz is his accomplice. Some of the more entertaining scenes are the ones where Cusack demonstrates to those who are *watching* that he has his own ability to manipulate the jury.

The movie is like cinematic cotton candy - it tastes good while it's in your mouth, but it disappears quickly.