Genres

Visitors Review

m1-lightning 2012-05-25 20:15:59

Courtroom version of "Enemy of the State"

This movie was too political. It used make believe procedures of gunmanufacturers in the courtroom as if to try and persuade the viewingaudience as if they were true. The movie portrayed the bad guy as the onedefending the gun manufacturer and the good guy as the one stealing themoney from them via the court system. It might have been portrayed betterpolitically had the lawsuit been against a deadly drug company, or an automanufacturer of a faulty vehicle that has killed many people. Firearms aretoo touchy of a subject for Americans to sit back and take in apoliticallycharged movie like this. It was a little unrealistic for an anti-gunadvocate to try and get on a jury and actually succeed. It was also alittleunrealistic for a jury to be bought. This movie should definitely fit thefantasy genre. Although the plot was horrible, I give Gene Hackman, DennisHoffman, and John Cusack all two thumbs up for an outstandingperformance.

Boba_Fett1138 2012-05-25 15:12:36

My personal favorite Grisham adaptation till date.

Problem with John Grisham adaptations is that the stories are allincredibly unbelievable. "Runaway Jury" also has a quite ridiculesstory but nevertheless I enjoyed this movie.Although "A Time to Kill" is the best Grisham adaptation, "RunawayJury" is the more enjoyable one. The story isn't brought as heavy asother Grisham adaptations such as: "The Firm, "The Client" and "ThePelican Brief". Compared to that movies this movie also has a far moresuperior style and atmosphere.The cast is impressive and filled with stars such as: John Cusack, GeneHackman, Dustin Hoffman and Rachel Weisz. For some reason I had thefeeling that the Dustin Hoffman character was pushed a bit too much tothe background at moments especially towards the end. The supportingcast is wonderful and is filled with some solid supporting actors suchas: Bruce Davison, Bruce McGill (which I love!), Nick Searcy, StanleyAnderson, Cliff Curtis, Nestor Serrano, Luis Guzmán, Dylan McDermottand Leland Orser, all big names in the business. The movie might verywell have the best supporting cast of the last couple of years.The Hackman/Hoffman scene is really good and one, if not THE highlightof the movie.The movie offers a few surprising plot twists especially towards theending, which I really loved! The movie is far from boring especiallyfor a court drama and has a good quick pace but still a bit too manyridicules and unbelievable moments.Not a great movie but still very enjoyable.7/10http://bobafett1138.blogspot.com/

Joseph Riesenbeck 2012-05-25 14:30:59

Any film with Dustin Hoffman, Gene Hackman, and John Cusack is off to a good start

Any person who has tuned into any high profile case on Court TV, would knowthat having a good jury consultant is a must. Having the rightpersonalities on the jury, is almost as important if not more important thanhaving enough evidence to win the proper verdict. In Runaway Jury, RankinFitch (Gene Hackman)is the highest priced jury consultant around. He leavesno stone unturned, gathering life histories of potential juries, personalitystudies, and even goes so far as to placing surveillance on them with hiddencameras and undercover spies. Fitch believes that a verdict can be won,lost, or even bought with the right jury makeup. Fitch is hired by a gunmanufacturer to aid in his defense when his company is sued by a woman whosehusband was slaughtered in a killing spree. On the complete opposite end ofthe spectrum we have high priced attorney, Wendell Rohr (DustinHoffman)acting as the attorney for the plaintiff, Celeste Wood (JoannaGoing). He is skeptical of jury consultants, and still fervently believesthat a jury will examine the evidence on it's merits and return a proper andjust decision. Before the trial begins, Nick Easter (John Cusack)manages tohave himself placed on the jury. Aided by his girlfriend, Marlee (RachelWeisz), he puts the jury up for bid between Rohr and Fitch. The first topay fifteen million dollars will have the verdict returned in theirfavor.Director Gary Fleder does something with Runaway Jury that I found lackingin film adaptations of John Grisham's other works such as The Firm, ThePelican Brief, and The Client. While I generally liked all those films,there were times in each when the plot and story would bog down under theirweight. Not so in Runaway Jury. For over two hours of it's running time Iwas completely engrossed in the storyline, so much so that it seems as ifyou are watching a ninety minute film. In the early set-up stages of thefilm, just watching as Fitch uses every device known to man to gather thegoods on his possible jurors, is fascinating. I don't know if any real lifejury consultant would go through the same extremes, and I didn't really carebecause even as a fictional work it's intriguing.Another thing Fleder and the writers do is keep us in suspense as to whatthe final outcome may be by hiding the motives of Nick and Marlee. We arenever sure if they are just greedy, or have some ulterior motive as to theirpurpose. It keeps us guessing until the last possiblemoments.There is no doubt that all of this is aided by the excellent cast,especially Hackman, Hoffman, and Cusack. Although they only have one trulyterrific scene together, when Hackman and Hoffman are on the screen theydemand our attention and they get it. Hackman has played this type ofcharacter before in many different guises, but he has perfected it and takenit to a higher level than any actor I can think of. Hoffman, always takeswhat could be a simple straight forward role and manages to add his ownspecial touches. He does the same as Wendell Rohr, making him much morethan just a high priced attorney out to win a monetary verdict. John Cusackis an actor that doesn't alway get the credit he deserves. He's like achameleon who can blend into any role he is asked to play, and seems to doit so effortlessly that it's a shame he hasn't ever been rewarded for hiscontinually outstanding performances. In Runaway Jury, he is up to hisusual high standards.Some may quibble that the film is trying to send a message about guns andgun control, but that's a silly notion. For most of the film, that part ofthe plot is nothing more than a device for everything else that takes place.This film is in the most simple terms, a glossy, well done suspensethriller, layered on top a courtroom drama, extremely well directed, wellwritten, and acted with top-notch perfection. And yes, the final scene ortwo may be a bit heavy handed but by then we don't care. The film held myattention from the beginning to the end, and when a film does that it getsmy grade which for Runaway Jury is an A-.

canuckteach 2012-05-24 23:17:01

Much better than many (seem to) think!

I must disagree with many of our colleagues here at IMDb. It'ssurprising that a film with so many so-called plot holes and flaws isalso credited as containing terrific performances by a stellar cast.Sorry - but even a great cast can't save a really poor script (whichyou'd know if you'd ever watched big-name actors trying to breath lifeinto a clunker (want examples? how much time do you have?).The correct conclusion must be that the story is compelling,interesting and suspenseful - and, yes, those are terrificperformances. No surprise that Rachel Weisz won an Oscar (for 'ConstantGardener') - this is a talented young British lady. The 'debate' scenein the washroom between Hackman, a shrewd but ruthless Jury Consultant,and Hoffman, his opponent and lawyer for the Plaintiff, is a standout,even after several viewings. Catch Hackman's parting words "heh, heh..that suit!". In other words, he's accusing Hoffman of playing a congame of his own using a folksy suit as a prop for the jury. Magic.I don't know that comparing screenplays to original novels is alwaysuseful. The Producer obviously felt that the 'smoking' thing has been'played'. Hence, he chose a different venue -- the gun companies.However, the story is really about a couple of Amateurs trying to beata clever scoundrel at his own game. Can they succeed? Rather thancontaining 'plot holes', maybe the story just doesn't try to explaineverything?.. a trap that sinks many Hollywood productions. By the way,no one commented on the fact that our leads, Nick and Marlee, arealways one step ahead of Hackman's character, Rankin Fitch. How do theydo that? How do they secure Fitch's private phone numbers? Theyobviously have someone on the inside, but who? It's not explained, butthat just adds to the 'mystique' of the story.Finally, if you own the DVD, but still think it only rates 2 stars, trywatching it with the Gary Fleder's (Director) Narration. To me, that isFilm-Making 101, the best explanation of the three stages ofCinematography I've ever heard. You'll see why those performances wereso outstanding.For first-time viewers: watch the DVD, watch the Features/Interviews,and then watch the flick again with Director's Narrative. Wait 2 weeks- watch it again. See if you agree with me. Post your review here, oryammer about it on the Message Boards (I hope I'm not becoming the"House M.D." of amateur film reviewers!). 8 out of 10

Tiny T 2012-05-24 12:53:19

Good movie, bad change of story line

First of all, there going to be SPOILERS here. I think the movie should beconsidered without taking the book in to account otherwise this is thebiggest miss a producer/director can make. The content of the lawsuit in thebook, being about the tobacco industry who deliberately misguided thegeneral public about the health hazard of smoking, is obviously way betterthan the stupid lawsuit were talking about in the movie. How can you be findguilty for selling a gun to people without checking the person out if thereis no law which says that you must check the buyer out? I really don't getthe basis for the lawsuit, but that's probably what's wrong with the legalsystem in America in the first place. If you want to be critical then youshould criticize the 2nd amendment but that is probably too risky for theproducers. If you overlook these stupid mistakes, the movie is pretty good.Great cast, good speed of the story and nice outcome of thecase.

2012-05-24 03:33:52

Gene Hackman & Dustin Hoffman finally Together

this is the first movie that Gene Hackman & Dustin Hoffman two most legendary movie stars out there have finally stared in a movie together & have an outstanding 7 Minute Scene Together. This is a very good movie. I liked the susspense and the shocking ending to the movie. I hope the book is just as good or better. This movie is real enjoyable. I recomend it.If you liked this movie check out the book and soundtrack.

2012-05-18 07:16:22

Well acted propaganda piece

I rented this DVD without knowing much about it except it had some of the best actors in movies in it. They came through with outstanding acting that made the movie have some "redeeming social value" as the saying goes. It tried hard to throw in some action to keep the audience from being bored by formula gun-control propaganda. Although these action scenes offer something by themselves, they can't prop up what is basically a politically motivated project. Rachel Weisz steals the show with her talent. She is becoming quite the action star besides being a great dramatic actress. As far as the characters, there is just too much going on that would never connect in reality to keep the movie believable. Everyone in the movie is breaking or bending the law. The ending with Cusak and Weisz' characters watching a playground of children as if what they have done in any way would serve those children leaves credulity completely behind! I am glad I rented instead of bought it. After you watch this movie for the fine acting, do some factual research on the main issue presented in the movie to find out how they got it wrong.

arthurclay 2012-05-17 17:59:40

A Good Movie Indeed

Hackman is terrific you can believe that as Rankin Fitch, a devilishlysmart and clever strategist who runs interference for rich politiciansand business magnates by controlling jury selection and thereforeinfluencing their decisions. But he meets his match in John Cusack andRachel Weisz when he attempts to steer a jury into a not guilty verdictin a lawsuit involving a shooting death of a woman's husband againstthe gun manufacturer who made the firearm that did the deed. The gunlobby hires Fitch to make sure they don't have to pay up. Hoffman isHackman's nemesis and the woman's attorney who strongly believes infair play and the ethics of trial by unbiased jury but finds himself tobe in a legal "gunfight" without a gun. Cusack plays a jury recruit whodoesn't want to serve yet can't get thrown off so he decides to stay.And Weisz is his girlfriend who appears to have a special interest inthe case he's on. And the plot thickens from there quicker than peasoup. One of the better Grisham movies released in the past ten years Ifeel they put forth a good effort. Hackman is the unquestioned star ofthe show and he has a lot of funny lines and witty remarks the scenewith Hoffman in the restroom is priceless and is the only scene thesetwo actors have ever shared despite the fact they are lifelong friendsand have been acting in big motion pictures for decades. This film iscertainly worth a view and I've seen it three times.

2012-05-15 03:14:39

Bias film that waste the good acting of Weisz and Hackman.

Low grade John Grisham drama does not practice what its preaches by skirting the issues its trying to convey and goes for the throat in its bias views about gun responsibility. Do we need some kind of moratorium for gun responsibility? In my opinion yes but we do not need a movie that skirts the issues raised by going on a self effacing crusade of judge and jury with out hearing all the facts from both sides of the case. Besides all of that, the actors in this movie do their jobs by giving very good performances despite the hack job of the script they had to work with. Gene Hackman and Rachel Weisz are the standouts in this film and they give the best performances in an all star cast that includes the great Dustin Hoffman, and the charming John Cusack. They are the reasons to sit thou this movie, even when you are moaning at the script self righteousness, and bias smug view.

imbd-15 2012-05-14 22:35:12

Anti-gun propaganda and no one has any honor to do right (except the judge)...lame

Anti-gun propaganda and no one has any honor to do right (except thejudge)...lameI'm not going to get long winded, but I'm surprised Hackman got involvedinthis. I feel I paid to be spun like the jury in the movie. I think thejokeis on the audience for a 1.5 hr infomercial on how the bad "big gunmakers"are responsible for the behavior of others. No matter what your views onguncontrol are most people don't want to be feed their opinions. I wish I hadread the reviews before going to this one.

2012-05-09 15:10:09

Lacks a lot of substance.

Runaway Jury is like a reading dime novel. Full of thrills but nothing of substance to keep you in tune with what is going on. Yea, the gun issue is a valid story but its really not giving any creditability here, and come off a bit shallow in certain points in the film. The much hype paring of Gene Hackman and Dustin Hoffman is well worth some interest but there are not enough of them to go around to make this movie a bit more interesting. Hoffman pales in comparison to the might Hackman, and comes off short in their scenes together, which is in fact more of a script problem than a talent one. The only actor in the movie that gives Hackman a worthy acting counterpart is Rachel Weisz, who not only gives Hackman a run for his money in the acting department, but almost outshines him as well. John Cusack does well in his part, and comes a cross as cool and collective. It's unfortunate that the actors did not have a script worthy of their talent because if they did, I would have more to praise about this film than I do.

TheOtherFool 2012-05-09 04:25:01

Decent legal thriller

The widow of a shot man seeks justice and sues a gun-factory. Both sidesdesperately want to win but find a member of the jury (John Cusack) in themiddle, apparently looking for some money... Or is he?We follow the steps from the three sides as the tension rises, as there's alot of money involved.Thriller is compelling at times, though a bit too long and with a couple oftwists too many. But the movie is helped by some great acting, in particularby Gene Hackman.The ending is a bit too moral but overall I pretty much liked it... go seeit if you're into the Grisham-like movies.6/10.

2012-05-06 02:33:38

The book was much, much better.

This review is from: Runaway Jury (Widescreen Edition) (DVD) Gary Fleder (Don't Say a Word, Kiss the Girls) is a lucky director: two of our finest actors, both Oscar winners, join together to show why they are considered in the top rank of American actors: Dustin Hoffman and Gene Hackman. They absorb their roles, they eat their scenery, they upstage and compliment the actors they work with. With their awesome power, they carry this otherwise mundane movie to higher heights. Based on John Grishams bestseller, the movie switches from the tobacco industry to the gun industry in this tale of revenge and greed. Dylan McDermott (in an uncredited performance) is killed by a demented former employee, and his wife (Joanna Goings, remember her in the failed Dark Shadows reworking?), sues the gun industry for negligence. Meanwhile, enter John Cusack and Rachel Weisz, who arrange to tamper with the jury and get the verdict for whoever will pay the most---10 million dollars to start! There's some crafty plot twists and for a while, you don't know who to root for. But as Cusack and Weisz' intentions become manifest, you'll find yourself involved in the surprising denouement.The movie is entertaining, slick and glossy, but well worth viewing.

2012-05-05 15:05:57

Gene Hackman and Rachel Weisz keeps the film alive and well

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

littlebrownmanfrommars 2012-05-04 23:51:56

Weisz, Hackman, and Hoffman are good, but the movie is not as good as they are.

Political driven take of the original John Grisham book that throws out theoriginal book's premise and gives a very one sided take of a sensitivesubject with out much conviction to their cause. Gene Hackman and RachelWeisz do wonders with a very bad script, and Dustin Hoffman falls back tohis Tootsie role in order to try to play a southern lawyer, who by the wayin not even in the book too much at all. The setting of the movie is muchdifferent than the book as well as the outcome and it does not even have theoriginal climax at all.I suggest you read the book instead of seeing the movie, because the book ismuch better, and would have made a much better movie.

Tony James 2012-05-04 16:26:27

Nice film, shame about the ending

CAUTION - this comment contains spoilers!!Until the last 30 minutes of the film, it manages to keep the audienceguessing with plot twists and turns. Unfortunately the last half hourdescends into sentimentalism, to the point where you can see the climaxcoming a mile off.John Cuskak's repeated reference to his pocket watch (he looks at it 3times, and discusses it with Gene Hackman) is never fully explained - whywas it significant? We can see a black-and-white photograph in the insideofthe case - who is it of? What's the significance of it being a 1910Longines(perhaps it belonged to his father, who was shot??)? Why would he havebeenso careless as to leave the i-Pod in his apartment, when everything elsewasover at his girlfriend's place? And why are we treated to a glurge-ificending about a school shooting 20 years ago, which pretty much holds up aneon sign reading "Anyone who can't guess how this will turn out, here's abig clue."To be honest, this could have been a great heist/caper movie, but perhapsasa result of audience testing the ending failed to live up to the fast-paceof the previous 80 minutes.Bottom line: if you want a film about how mean and evil gun-makers are,watch this film. If not, save your cash.

2012-05-02 02:00:39

The strong performance of Rachel Weisz is the only plus here

Derivative thriller that not only does not stay close to the book but also lacks the insight to give a better show. The script has too many problems and the pacing starts and stalls at will in the most starling of moments. The acting is fine with Rachel Weisz stealing the show and doing better than she should have consitering the script is flat and Gene Hackman doing his best work in years. The whole espionage aspect to the film just does not work, and in reality, the case would have been throng out of a real court. The acting is the only plus in this film and that is a miracle because the rest of the film just does not work. Thanks to Rachel Weisz and Gene Hackman, the movie is just ok but if it had a decent script, it could have been better.

2012-05-01 16:50:52

Rachel Weisz and Gene Hackman make lemonade out of lemons

Predicable and unfaithful adaptation of John Grisham bestseller takes out the core of the novel, which was about tobacco and replaces it with a silly outlook about the state of gun violence. The views express in this film is one sided, and bias because it only focus on the outcome, not the problem. I know that the real plot of the film is about jury tampering but that fit better in the original book than this movie because it showed how far the tobacco industry was willing to corrupt the system in order to save their product, a problem that is all too real in our society. The jury tampering done in this movie only makes the gun manufactures look like they are trying to hid their responsibility from the public, which if you really think about it makes no sense what so ever because they really have nothing to hid at all. That plot point only fit the structure of the book which deals with how the tobacco industry was trying to hide the damaging effects of smoking, and how they continue to denied there effects on the human body. If you think about it, everyone knows that guns kill, so why would a gun manufacture go through the trouble that it does in this movie to protect that fact from the public. In reality, the whole lawsuit would have been thrown out of court but we are talking about a Hollywood reality, not the real world.Judging the movie as a whole, the direction was decent but a bit over flashy for a movie of this nature. I did not get the slow motion effects during conversation scenes in this movie. Maybe the director did it to show the emotional effects it had on the characters, but a real scene of emotion would have done the trick, and they are few and far between in this film. The acting is great, and that should be commented because it showed that the actors were professional enough to care about what they were doing. Gene Hackman is like fine wine, he gets better when he ages, and he does give a great performance that has many layers to it, even though the script does not show it. Rachel Weisz is great as well, and gives her character a strong, and determine edged that makes you believe in her cause, and she even adds a level of emotional clarity that makes identify with her as well. John Cusack is good as her accomplice in the scam, and he gives his charming con man a sense of caring and determination to win the jury over. Dustin Hoffman is also good as Hackman's rival in the courtroom, and gives his character an emotional depth that any lesser actor could not have done. His performance is a great reminder of what a classy actor of his caliber can do with a small part that should have been bigger. The actors really work miracles with a script that has a depth of a shot glass, and for them (Hackman, Weisz, Hoffman, and Cusack) I do give Runaway Jury it credit but imagine how better this movie would have been if they had a script that reflected the original story, and a better direction.

dumb2ugly 2012-04-29 20:01:57

Average, not great.

Average court drama that is not truly original. The bad guys wear black hatsand the good guys wear white and the predicable plot goes to its predicableend. The only thing going for it is the acting, and that a major sin in away because the acting deserves to be in a better movie. Gene Hackman andRachel Weisz are with out a doubt the best things about this movie becausethey are able to make lemonade out of lemons with their great performances,no thanks to the script. John Cusack and Dustin Hoffman also give goodperformances but don't fair as well because of the limits of theircharacters. I have not read the novel which this film is based on, but Ihope its better than this.

2012-04-29 01:19:24

It's enjoyable until the final few minutes.

For some reason, unlike the other reviewers, I didn't see the ending of this one coming. But the final five minutes was so typical liberalism that the entire movie was ruined for me.If you don't have an opinion about gun control, then you may enjoy this movie. I read Grisham's novel, and although it was about tobacco, the premise is the same: when things go wrong, someone with money should have to pay, whether it be the tobacco companies or gun manufacturers.After you watch this movie, think about the entire picture that was painted by it: Gun manufacturers and people who support guns = BAD. People who are against guns = GOOD. Throughout the movie the people who were on the gun manufacturer's side would go to any length to win the trial. The people against the guns played straight,legal, and morally uncorrupted. Even the final scene, with our "heros" watching the children play, was straight out of the liberal bible: always bring in the kids for an emotional boost for your audience.Such blatant liberalism ruined this movie for me. Again, if you're liberal, or if you're against guns, or you just don't care either way, then this is a fine movie. John Cusack and Gene Hackman are two of my favorite actors and their performances were splendid.