Customer Reviews

Runaway Jury (D-VHS)

5 star:		(52)
4 star:		(83)
3 star:		(73)
2 star:		(72)
1 star:		(57)

 

 

While I'm still new to the whole John Grisham experience, Runaway Jury was a real good theater experience. The acting is fantastic, and the issue raised about gun control is a very touchy subject to tackle. Rachel Weisz is sunning as the woman with a price to offer, and Gene Hackman is fantastic as the bad guy of the show who wants to secure a verdict , and John Cusack is great as well as a juror who is more than meets the eye.

The hoopla about the right to bear arms is a bit off center and a bit bias but the movie is still a real winner.

The plot goes round and round in "Runaway Jury" and the camera is in lockstep, swirling around its actors as if they stood at the pivot of a merry-go-round, dizzying the audience into a headache of chaos, the better to distract them from a movie that makes no sense at all. That said, the story is so thorough in its cynic fantasy it is (like, say, "Cruel Intentions") pretty entertaining.

Gene Hackman, who at 73 never slows down, is sternly malevolent as Rankin Fitch, a high-priced jury consultant whose arsenal of espionage tools and recon foot soldiers rivals the KGB. The "war room" scene where he breaks down his potential pawns is informative; though nobody is going to spend $15 million to select 12 people - as movie contends - there is an art to it, and the technique is laid out far better here than it was in "Devil's Advocate."

Fitch assists a New Orleans gun manufacturer caught in a class action lawsuit only plausible in movies, and one of the jurors, Nick Easter (John Cusack), and his girlfriend, Marlee (Rachel Weisz), are blackmailing both the defendant and the plaintiff, represented by Wendall Rohr (Dustin Hoffman). Nick and Marlee claim they can sway the jury and sell the verdict to the highest bidder. As the plot unfurls it becomes possible that they aren't trying to buy anything, but play a con, backed by a Moral. That's a sweet proletariat consideration, but in terms of doing justice, it's robbing Peter to pay Paul.

Director Gary Fleder ("Don't Say A Word") is far more devoted to winding us up than meditating on the legal system; with cinematographer Robert Elswit, Fleder jerks and spins and speeds and slows and generally makes a drama soup out of things; New Orleans, one of the truly original cities, is merely background.

Stuffed to the brim with action, "Runaway Jury" is economical and workmanlike, like Grisham's thrillers, and a strong vehicle for performers. Hackman, borrowing from his magnificent work in "The Royal Tanenbaums" is a fine rascal, and Cusack hasn't been this shifty since "The Grifters."

The surprise? It's Weisz, as the feisty brains of the operation. She holds her own with Hackman, which is more than can be said for a broken-down, weathered Hoffman.

Director Gary Fleder has previously made several mediocre Hollywood thrillers that incidentally glamorize violence. Now he turns one of John Grisham's best novels--an intricately-plotted thriller about jury-tampering in a tobacco trial--into a mediocre Hollywood thriller that shamelessly propagandizes for the gun control lobby. Has he suddenly grown some sort of conscience? Or tumbled into the sack with Sarah Brady, or Ed Asner, or ...?

It's too bad this production got carried away with preaching to the converted, for it sabotages Grisham's splendid story and a first-rate cast for the sake of it's ham-fisted anti-gun political agenda. Gene Hackman is excellent (as usual) as the professional jury-rigger. John Cusak and Rachel Weisz are nearly as good as his amateur nemeses. Unfortunately, Dustin Hoffman demonstrates again that his best days are far behind him with another competent but uninspired performance. (What's with that accent?) And a strong supporting cast (including Bruce Davison, Nora Dunn, Bruce McGill, & Jeremy Piven) is mostly wasted in this misguided adaptation. Even so, their good performances and first-rate production values make this movie moderately entertaining, as long as you don't expect fidelity to Grisham's story--or unless the absurdly one-sided propagandizing strains your credulity beyond the breaking point.

While I do understand the fact that books that becomes movies usually do not follow the same pattern of the book, I can't forgive the fact that this film does not even follow the book's theme. While that does bother me, I can't deny the fact that the movie was entertaining. Mostly because of the performances of the actors involve. The Best of these performances goes to Gene Hackman, who is always a delight to watch and is always capable of taking a mediocre film and making it better. The other goes to Rachel Weisz, who not only holds her own with the Great Gene Hackman but also matches his intensity with lethal charm. Don't go in with the notion that this will be just like the book, but go in knowing that you will be entertain by two great actors at there game.

Good actors do there best when they are inspired, and they can save a real bad movie from totally destroying itself. Runaway Jury is a perfect example of this ideal, and you can look no further than the performances giving by all who participated in this film. Gene Hackman is no stranger to this notion, and gives a great sense of class, and humility to an other wise cookie cutter bad guy. Rachel Weisz not only holds her own with the big boys but literally makes them sweat in the acting department as well. Giving both Hackman and Hoffman a worthy adversary in and out of the courtroom, and making them know that they are not going to steal the movie by themselves. And Dustin Hoffman brings a sense of heart and humanity to his role, which sadly is not very big to begin with. All the supporting actors do well themselves with John Cusack, Luis Guzman, and Bruce Davison giving great support. Judging by the talent involved, you will guess that this might be a great movie but it's not. That's because the screenplay, the editing, and the director betrays them and their performances with a film that feels very unfinished, and amateurish to say the least. The story, which deals with guns, is really not about them but about the state of which one will go for messing with the legal system. It's a noble story to tell but when you are hammering the idea of gun responsibility, and accountability to the viewer with out equal say about the benefits, you are in trouble, and you can thank the screenplay for that. The editing feels way to raw to be a real final cut, and the direction feels too disjointed to be even considered professional.

With all these problems going for it, it's the showmanship of Gene Hackman, Rachel Weisz, and Dustin Hoffman that moves the film forward, but they should not have had to work that hard to save this bad movie. The director and the people behind the scenes should carry the blunt of the responsibility as well, and judging by the way the acting literally saves this movie, they did nothing to help the actors involved.

I really have to hand it to Rachel Weisz and Gene Hackman, they make a tire and by the numbers court thriller into some thing real special. If the movie were as professional and precise as their performances were, we would have a much better movie. Gene Hackman never disappoints as Rankin Fitch; a jury consultant who is hired by a gun manufacturer to suave the jury to their camp. Even though he can really do this role in his sleep, he does it so well and very to the point. Rachel Weisz is equally as compelling as Marlee, a mysterious woman who not only has a trump card in her hands about the jury but also has a score to settle with Fitch and company. John Cusack is very good an unwilling juror with a secret of his own and Dustin Hoffman is just as good as a southern lawyer who is trying to get the gun manufacture to pay up for a office rampage.

The setting of New Orleans is beautiful, and the characters are compelling enough to care for but the plot is run of the mill. We all know that secrets will be exposed and the good guys will win, which is fine by me but I hope it wasn't as profound as it was. Thanks to Weisz and Hackman for at least keeping me interested with what was going on.

Hackman and Hoffman were typecasted. Cusack, forgettable. Keep your eye out for Weisz (Marlee), she's got potential. 3 stars because she carried the movie.

Read the book, it's a lot more exciting and coherent. The film attempts to make a political point about gun control but falls completely flat because the arguments are never developed and so the reason for jury tampering is not believable. Anyone with half an understanding of "agency" would realize that there was no case against the gun manufacturer in the way it was setup. Therefore, the verdict at the end looked more like jury revolt, ala O.J. Simpson (a tired theme), than jury tampering (the point of the story).

The film maker should have stuck with the tobacco manufacturers, as in the book. But I suppose this would have dated the movie. I am surprised that Grisham, a lawyer, allowed the movie to be rewritten this way. I guess he was paid a lot of money to look the other way.

Im a John Grisham fan, and while I dont think that Runaway Jury is his best book, its still a damn good one none the less. The whole plot of the original book is thrown out for an over preaching fight for gun control, and some of the characters of the novel are ether gone or diminish in a certain capacity. Dustin Hoffmans character is only a small supporting player in the book, but is a major player in the movie. Maybe because the filmmakers wanted to highlight the confrontation between him and Gene Hackman, which was good but not in the original book ether. I also think that it was irresponsible for the filmmakers to have such a strong stance for gun control, considering the fact that the country is split down the middle on this touchy subject.

I will give the movie one big credit, the performance of Rachel Weisz was the best thing in this over preaching mess. She was in my opinion, the only actor who really captured the essence of her character, and made the character her own with her fine performance. See the movie for her fine performance alone, and if not, rent Confidence or The Shape of Things; both have great performances by Rachel Weisz, and are much better movies to boot.

Runaway Jury is a suspenseful behind-the-scenes drama about high stakes jury tampering. Set in New Orleans, the story deals with a multi-million dollar lawsuit against gun manufacturers, brought by a widow whose husband was shot to death. The gun cartel hires jury consultant Rankin Fitch (Gene Hackman) to guarantee they don't lose the case. Fitch knows what he's doing: He has a crack team of researchers, spies, and techies analyzing the jurors' lives for potential black-mailing. Enter reluctant Juror #9 (John Cusack) and his mysterious girlfriend (Rachel Weiss) and the action really takes off.

Gene Hackman is superb as the ruthless and unscrupulous Fitch. He is utterly convincing as a powerful and sophisticated villain we love to hate. On the other hand, Dustin Hoffman's performance as the prosecuting attorney is weak and forgettable. John Cusack has a chronically sleepy-eyed expression and, while satisfactory, could have been replaced by a number of other actors, such as Dylan McDermott (who, unccredited, opens the story with a thrilling murder scene.) Rachel Weiss was excellent as Cusack's tough co-conspirator. The outstanding direction by Gary Fleder pulls all the action together and makes it a winning film.

What I like most about the film was the constant level of suspense and the way the script gives just enough information to keep you on the edge of your seat, waiting for all the pieces to fit together. A movie about jury manipulation didn't sound interesting to me until I saw it, and found it to be an action-packed suspense drama.

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.