I just saw runaway jury.

 

Before I type my typically pretentious thoughts, can we just get two things out of the way:

 

1) I AM prententious, and

2) Rachel Weisz is all that an a bag of donuts.

 

So let's move on. I'll try to type with the prespective viewer and those who have already seen it in mind.

 

I thought the movie was good ... like on a scale of 1 to 9 (I use 1 to 9 so 5 will be an accurate median and I don't have to use two digits; drawback: I need to explain it each time) I would give it a 6. If this movie comes on television I'll probably put it on in the background as I do other things. But the movie had some issues.

 

First, it's a typical Holloywood premise movie. What's a premise movie? If you can sum up most of a movie plot with a derivation of the following formulaic statement then the movie is a "premise movie": "This movie asks the questions 'What happens when [X interesting twist] happens to [Y otherwise mundane situation]'?" Runaway Jury is taking the recent escalation in jury consultants' use and effect and seeing what happens when those people move from being "jury consultants" to "jury managers." The guise this scenario in a trial where the widow of a man murdered in a workplace shooting sues firearms manufacturers for neglegence.

 

That's about as far as I'll go with the plot aside from saying, as in any premise movie, this film tries to cram as many small, interesting facets of this scenario into the film. What you get can be looked at as a collection of tightly wound 2 minute vignettes. This comes as the expense of real character development. It's just part of the formula, and it's probably why a premise move can never be a truly great movie.

 

So there are four major players in this movie: Gene Hackman as the defense's overzealous jury consultant; Dustin Hoffman as the attorney for the plaintiff; Rachel Weisz as Gene Hackman's counterpart in jury manipulation; John Cusack as the jury pulling the strings on the panel.

 

Cusack is good, and a good deal of the action revolves around him. With John Cusack you know what you are not and are going to get. You are not going to get an Oscar caliber performance, but you are going to get a compotent performance that isn't lacking in any aspect. The same is true here. In fact, given a small range within which his performance will fall, this performance is toward the high end of the range.

 

Gene Hackman is good, but he's Gene Hackman. He plays a "veteran of the game" who while "always one step ahead of his competition" is "in for a surprise" as he relies too much on his experience. I don't blame him because the director didn't want to deviate from this mold.

 

Dustin Hoffman, shockingly, takes a more understated role. He is really a complimentary player in the process. There is one particular scene where he has to turn it up a knotch and "go Hoffman" on Weisz, but it doesn't steal or distract. Thinking back on it, it was a real refreshing way to see a Hoffman performance. It would be interesting to know if this was the intended role or if scenes more centered around his character ended up on the cutting room floor.

 

Finally, Weisz. She be hot. I'm sorry: It must be said. Beyond that 70% of her performance involves her and a cell phone without sharing the frame with any other actors. It's hard to say what she contributed or took away fromt he film. She was good, though. Yay eye candy.

 

OK, that's enough. I hope other people post their thoughts (if the movie is there yet).

Ok, my post will definitely not be as analytical as yours..

 

i read the book about two years ago, but i haven't seen the movie.

i had always heard that grisham books are really good. i started reading this one and of what i can remember, it was decent, but towards the end i thought they kept on repeating some of the same concepts and it got reaaally boring. i was like when is this thing going to end? usually i'm not like that with books.

i wondered, though, how the movie would end up.. maybe they would make it better?

i'm still not sure whether or not i want to see it, the previews did not seem very interesting

hopefully someone else will give their opinions about the movie ...

we'll see..

LOL! I love your avatar!

 

this movie is on my list of movies to see :D

Ok, my post will definitely not be as analytical as yours..

 

i read the book about two years ago, but i haven't seen the movie.

i had always heard that grisham books are really good. i started reading this one and of what i can remember, it was decent, but towards the end i thought they kept on repeating some of the same concepts and it got reaaally boring. i was like when is this thing going to end? usually i'm not like that with books.

i wondered, though, how the movie would end up.. maybe they would make it better?

i'm still not sure whether or not i want to see it, the previews did not seem very interesting

hopefully someone else will give their opinions about the movie ...

we'll see..

 

I didn't know this was a book before buying my ticket. if I had known before hand that this was a Grisham book I probaly would have avoided the movie. The only adaptation of a Grisham book which I found to be an above average movie was <u>The Firm</u>. However, it was pretty clear early in the movie that this was a Grisham story:

 

Courtroom? Check.

New Orleans/the U.S. south? Check.

Political cause underlying? Check.

 

I didn't like the movie as much as I liked <u>The Firm</u>, but it was still good. Thinking about it, it seems liek a 5 to me, which is an average movie on my scale. Of the movies I've seen lately, I think <u>Intolerable Cruelty</u>, <u>Kill Bill</u>, and <u>Mystic River</u> (in that order) were clearly better.