Runaway Jury (2003) User Reviews (397)

His Own Hubris

[bkoganbing · 7/10 · 25 February 2008]

John Grisham's novel Runaway Jury is based on the simple proposition that hacking into the jury pool system is an easy matter. Nobody wants jury duty, people simply just do it because it's an obligation like paying taxes. Minimal safeguards are on that computer.

In New York State the rule is now ten years. I just got called in October, promptly and exactly ten years after I'd been called previously. You can't serve, in fact if you are called any time before 10 years prior to your last service, you have the clerks look it up and if you're correct, out you go. But if I said nothing, no one would be any the wiser. So maybe what happens in Runaway Jury might have some basis in fact.

Gene Hackman is more than just a jury consultant. Breaking all laws of privacy, he's on retainer from the gun manufacturer's lobby who are worried about a rash of lawsuits breaking out and somebody collecting on one. Whatever it takes to fix the jury, Hackman's up to it.

But there are a couple of people, one a juror played by John Cusack, one an outsider played by Rachel Weisz who seem to have a game plan all their own. It might just surprise you to find out just what it is.

All this revolves around a wrongful death suit filed by Joanna Going and her attorney Dustin Hoffman about the death of her husband, Dylan McDermott which is shown during a brief prologue. Never have the wheels of justice been so greased by so many different hands.

Nice performances all around in Runaway Jury. Like another author Edna Ferber, it's impossible to make a bad film out of a John Grisham work. Grisham writes so the average lay person can understand and his characters are flawed, but flawed in a way you care about them. See what drives Cusack and Weisz and you'll know what I mean.

Acting honors however go to Gene Hackman. Imagine the outlaw head in The Quick and the Dead running a jury consulting firm and you'll get the idea of what an amoral person Hackman is. It's his own hubris that takes him down though.

Good drama by a good cast, you can't go wrong with Runaway Jury.

One of the last Star Power films of a bygone era

[A_Different_Drummer · 8/10 · 28 July 2014]

Did you ever look at an old photograph that perfectly captures the spirit of people you know, for a fact, are long gone? Did you ever wonder if the people in the photo were self-aware, and knew their best was behind them? The film industry underwent a lot changes at the turn of the century. Changes that had to do with the massive stratification of the delivery channels for product; changes in video technology; the economics of where to make films as cheaply as possible (think Canada, heck, think Cambodia); and the incredible rise of specially-made for TV series as (suddenly) a viable threat the notion that threatre quality invariably beat home TV quality..? This review penned in late 2014 and I just revisited the film. I see it as a example of the best of the best of the old school style of film making and for that reason alone it deserves your special attention.

Novel by Grisham (from an era when people actually read books). A cast to die for. The other reviewers will tell you flat out that Rachel Weisz, Gene Hackman and John Cusack carry the film on their backs, and they do not lie.

Has Gene Hackman ever given a performance that was less than brilliant? His only competition was age. His. Rachel Weisz at the peak of her astonishing career, always mesmerizing, always eye-catching, always making you care. And Cusack when he was still an A-lister, long before he ended up in B movies and his agent started to promote him as the "hardest working man in Hollywood." The film ebbs here and lags there, but it remains a remarkable piece of pure entertainment.

clever, well acted and entertaining

[TheNorthernMonkee · 7/10 · 24 July 2005]

SPOILERS Hollywood loves adapting popular books. Whether it's classics, modern stories or the collective works of particular authors, films are forever being produced with adapted screenplays. One author who seems to be used a lot is intellectual writer John Grisham. Normally setting his stories in American courtrooms, his stories are often complex and twist based with strong resolutions. 'Runaway Jury' is no exception and in 2003, the film was turned into a feature film starring Gene Hackman and John Cusack. Well acted by everyone involved, it is an entertaining piece of work which leaves you thinking throughout before sticking on a conclusion you might well have predicted beforehand, but which you still enjoy seeing it reach.

In a landmark trial, a woman is taking the gun companies to court for compensation after a major family loss. Leading the defence for the gun companies is the constantly victorious Rankin Finch (Gene Hackman). A regular at fixing juries in his favour, Finch finds himself facing a challenge this time when a couple, one a jury member (John Cusack) and one working behind the scenes (Rachel Weisz) decide to make money out of the same skills Finch employs so successfully.

Whether Hackman, Cusack or Weisz, you don't see many moments in this film when the acting isn't superb. Regaining a form not seen for a fair few years, Hackman in particular is brilliant as a man who exploits the system for his own gain. He is closely challenged however by both Cusack and Weisz who give admirable performances in their respective roles.

The film as a whole is also incredibly clever. Leading you in multiple directions, the constant game of 'cat and mouse' is brilliantly played out with some noticeable surprises as well as some rather unexpected ones.

It's true that there are moments when the story drags slightly and you find yourself feeling a bit bored, but the majority of the time the story is fast flowing and incredibly entertaining.

Anyway, whatever your complaints about the script, the story is mostly entertaining and well acted. Led by a superb performance by Gene Hackman, when it's on a high the film is up there with the finest thrillers around in years. It's well worth watching, even if you normally can't stand this sort of film.

Interesting adaptation, quite different from Grisham's novel

[jeannie- · 18 September 2004]

This review is targeted at those who have read John Grisham's novel and might want to know how the movie compares to the book.

The largest and most controversial difference between the two is that while the trial in the book was about holding tobacco companies responsible for cigarette advertising, addiction, and lung cancer, the trial in the movie is a case of holding firearms companies responsible for encouraging guns to be sold to criminals. While the book centers around the law, as all Grisham novels do, the movie centers around gun control. Therefore, the movie can be quite political. Those who do not appreciate political statements in movies beware.

The movie spends a lot more time on Wendall Rohr and Rankin Fitch, the plantiff's lawyer and the defendant's jury consultant. While Rohr is a flat character hardly mentioned in the book, the movie characterizes him as a man who still possesses some sense of the ideal practice of law. Fitch, pitiable and even slightly likable in the book, is shown as an utterly malicious man in the movie. The members of the jury are definitely not shown much in the movie. We don't get to watch exactly how Nicholas Easter befriends each one individually, and we are told less about each jury member. The psychology that is in the book is largely absent from the movie and replaced with a few scenes of dramatic flair.

The casting of the movie was GREAT. When I heard there was a Runaway Jury movie, I immediately imagined John Cusack as Nicholas Easter. Rachel Weisz, Dustin Hoffman, Gene Hackman, and the actors who play members of the jury are almost as I pictured them as well! Because of this change in theme, the movie is much darker than the book. Extreme violence and arson make their way into jury manipulation. Fitch becomes a much more malevolent character. The ways in which members of the jury are bumped or released from jury duty are much darker than in the book. Little details that were altered to adapt to gun control instead of tobacco are interesting and appropriate. The movie is a different but well-done adaptation. Even if you don't enjoy the movie, it is interesting to compare it to the book.

An Entertaining Thriller

[mjw2305 · 7/10 · 30 January 2005]

Nicholas Easter (John Cusack) is desperate to get on this jury. With a high powered Gun Manufacturer, at risk of being held responsible for selling the guns that are used in crime, the question is why.

Gene Hackman is brought in for the defence as a jury consultant, who is at ease with digging up dirt and manipulating jurors, to get the results he wants.

And Rachel Weisz is an outsider, pulling Easters strings. As the stakes get higher, there is no doubt that this Jury is For Sale, but will the highest bidder win.

Hackman, Weisz and Cusack are all on top form for this one, but Hoffman's Character seemed to lack a little depth.

Basically a good thriller, that is worth watching, but don't expect too much, you might feel let down.

7/10

great cast

[SnoopyStyle · 7/10 · 5 September 2013]

Based on a John Grisham novel, Wendell Rohr (Dustin Hoffman) is a torts lawyer suing a gun manufacturer. Opposing his is lawyer Durwood Cable (Bruce Davison), but his real opposition may just be the jury consultant Rankin Fitch (Gene Hackman). Add to the mix, a mysterious juror Nicholas Easter (John Cusack) and his girlfriend Marlee (Rachel Weisz).

The gun case just doesn't fit anymore. It probably fit for the time of the novel. The case against the gun company needs to be much stronger. However, the jury tampering stuff is great. It has great insights that is now standard elements in every courtroom movie. And then there is the bathroom scene with Gene Hackman and Dustin Hoffman. One must always appreciate when legends collide.

Am I allowed to review this, having not read the novel?

[lee_eisenberg · 7/10 · 8 November 2005]

I've read many times about how John Grisham's novel was about the tobacco industry, not a gun manufacturer. Still, "Runaway Jury" does do a good job with its material. Nick Easter (John Cusack) is the squeaky clean member of a jury determining a gun-death trial in New Orleans. Some special interests are trying to manipulate the jury, but Nick isn't about to let that happen.

A major part of this movie is that Gene Hackman and Dustin Hoffman co-star at long last. Their conversation is sort of like the one between Al Pacino and Robert DeNiro in "Heat", although slightly more laid back. All in all, the movie comes out pretty well, with great performances from all cast members. Who ever would have imagined "Animal House"'s D-Day playing a judge?

Nice acting, smart screenplay make this sleek thriller quite enjoyable.

[shanfloyd · 8/10 · 24 September 2005]

I have read a few Grisham, but not this one. I must say, although the story is quite equipped with brilliant twists, it is basically a pretty idealistic story. But we do love this kind of idealism when it is used in such a smart fashion. I can't say about the quality of the book, but the film excels mainly because its brilliant screenplay and acting. Just look at the cast: Dustin Hoffman and John Cusack are awesome in their roles. And I just love to see Hackman playing the villain. The ravishingly beautiful Rachel Weisz only adds to the superiority of the whole cast's performances. The director, Fleder, proves that he is a stylish filmmaker when it comes to thrillers. And so we must also thank him for this film's perfection.

Be Entertained... But Disappointed

[ReelCheese · 6/10 · 30 September 2007]

John Grisham probably wasn't entirely happy with this adaptation of his intriguing novel, and chances are you won't, either. John Cusack stars as Nick Easter, a cunning young juror trying to bribe both the defense and the prosecution in a high-profile case against a gun manufacturer.

RUNAWAY JURY starts out quite strong, and those who haven't read the book are lured into the clever, original plot with all its turns. But some how, some way, the film gradually loses its footing. It's as if all the interesting twists are used up in the first hour, forcing the writers to pad the remainder with drawn-out scenes and contrived dialog (a scene where the simplistically pure Dustin Hoffman and the simplistically evil Gene Hackman meet in the men's room stands out in particular).

RUNAWAY JURY also commits a near unforgivable flaw for fictitious entertainment: it's too damn preachy. Once again, and in typical Hollywood fashion, guns and those who make them are portrayed as a type of grotesque venom stuck to the bottom of your shoe. Indeed viewers who believe criminals, not firearm makers, are responsible for gun crime, are treated as something of a parasite, best exemplified by a raving juror played a gruff Cliff Curtis.

In the end, RUNAWAY JURY is a film that is difficult to critique. It certainly has more right with it than wrong, but the negative aspects somehow disproportionately consume the final product. Some will absolutely love it, others may absolutely hate it, but most will probably be entertained yet disappointed at the same time.

One of the better Grisham-adaptations

[rbverhoef · 8/10 · 11 September 2004]

'Runaway Jury' is one of the best movies based on a John Grisham novel. The best is still 'The Rainmaker', probably because Francis Ford Coppola was the director who could work with a perfect ensemble of actors. Other Grisham adaptations have had terrific ensembles as well. 'The Firm' (1993) starred Tom Cruise, Gene Hackman, Ed Harris, Jeanne Tripplehorn and Holly Hunter, 'A Time to Kill' did it with Samuel L. Jackson, Matthhew McConaughey, Sandra Bullock, Kevin Spacey, Donald Dutherland, Kiefer Sutherland, Chris Cooper, Oliver Platt and Ashley Judd, and 'The Rainmaker' had to do it with only Matt Damon, Danny DeVito, Claire Danes, Jon Voight, Mickey Rourke, Mary Kay Place and Danny Glover.

Now here is 'Runaway Jury', starring John Cusack, Gene Hackman (in his third Grisham-movie), Dustin Hoffman and Rachel Weisz, a courtroom thriller that has suspense, keeps our attention and knows how to surprise. The good thing is that the movie seems to have no real good guy or girl. Hackman is Rankin Fitch, a guy who spies on possible jurors to make sure he chooses the right jury for his employers. The way he does this make his the real bad guy. John Cusack is Nick Easter. He becomes a juror in a case that deals with guns and how their manufacturers are responsible for people getting killed. Fitch is on the side of the manufacturers, on the other side we have lawyer Wendell Rohr (Dustin Hoffman). He represents a woman who wants to sue the gun-manufacturers because her husband was killed by one of their guns.

At first the movie seems to be a courtroom drama but then we learn that juror Nick Easter has his own agenda. He wanted to be in that jury for something and his girlfriend Marlee (Rachel Weisz) has a lot to do with that. Nick and Marlee want to give the verdict to the person, Fitch or Rohr, who is willing to give them the highest amount of money. Fitch is interested right away but tries to prevent this in a lot of ways, Rohr slowly realizes that he has to make an offer as well since Marlee and Nick are able to show that they really own the jury. To tell you too much could spoil things for you, so this is enough for the plot.

With real suspense this movie keeps our attention and makes us forget that at some times things are not very plausible. There were moments I could have asked questions but during the movie I was not thinking about them, only after it was finished I realized that certain events simply had to happen to keep the movie going. The way the movie just kept on going made sure we were not even able to think about possible flaws. It was interesting the entire time.

Director Gary Fleder ('Kiss the Girls', 'Don't Say a Word') has made his best thriller to date with the help of a nice story and some terrific performances. Cusack is able to do almost anything, Hoffman and Hackman are always reliable actors and sexy Weisz is perfect as the mysterious Marlee. Completely different from 'The Rainmaker', but almost as good as that one.

Runaway Jury

[CinemaSerf · 6/10 · 3 September 2023]

This offers quite an interesting look at just how seriously big business takes the selection of a jury, when large amounts of money are at stake. Gene Hackman is "Fitch", a man who makes a very good living acting on behalf of these organisations. His job is to probe into the private lives of prospective jurors, of their loves, peccadillos, politics - looking for weaknesses or reasons not to select them. This case involves one of the most contentious in the US pantheon of criminal law - the right to bear arms, and it falls to "Rohr" (Dustin Hoffman) to bring an action against a weapons manufacturer that is going to be tough. As the case proceeds, we are introduced to the less honourable nature of one of the jurors, and his girlfriend who have a plan of their own - and, as you'd expect, there is money and pressure being applied to ensure that the jury reach the "correct" verdict. Intriguing as the plot is, though, the film itself stutters along without much innovation. The courtroom scenes are a bit dreary and once we have established the premiss, Hackman's efforts are all rather repetitive and become less and less menacing and sophisticated as the story slips into a rather mediocre melodrama of private life shenanigans. Hoffman is adequate, no more, as are Rachel Weisz and John Cusack as the eagerly duplicitous but not awfully bright "Easter". Based on one of John Grisham's more inventive stories - nobody ever actually wants to be on a jury - this loses much in it's translation to film and by the mid-point I was really pretty turned off by the whole thing. It's watchable, but becomes more preposterous as it proceeds to a conclusion that, though not quite what you might expect, is still a bit flat.

A great ride

[tazteamrpg · 10/10 · 26 July 2004]

This was a movie that wasn't over-hyped, filled with talented actors and kept you watching all the way through. My rating is maybe a little generous but at the time just after watching it was one of most enjoyable movies I have watched for a long time, and I watch a lot (maybe too much ;) Hackman was flawless as usual as an actor and once again maintained his great screen presence. Hoffman really portrayed the idealistic lawyer character well. Weisz played the female lead with the right mix of the strong and vulnerable. And Cusack, well I consider him an intelligent actor. He looked once again intelligent, thoughtful in his acting. The plot twists were not overdone but did offer some slight surprises which were hinted at along the way if you payed attention. Overall I'd recommend this movie to anyone, especially those who take their movies seriously.

My personal favorite Grisham adaptation till date.

[Boba_Fett1138 · 7/10 · 25 September 2004]

Problem with John Grisham adaptations is that the stories are all incredibly unbelievable. "Runaway Jury" also has a quite ridicules story but nevertheless I enjoyed this movie.

Although "A Time to Kill" is the best Grisham adaptation, "Runaway Jury" is the more enjoyable one. The story isn't brought as heavy as other Grisham adaptations such as: "The Firm, "The Client" and "The Pelican Brief". Compared to that movies this movie also has a far more superior style and atmosphere.

The cast is impressive and filled with stars such as: John Cusack, Gene Hackman, Dustin Hoffman and Rachel Weisz. For some reason I had the feeling that the Dustin Hoffman character was pushed a bit too much to the background at moments especially towards the end. The supporting cast is wonderful and is filled with some solid supporting actors such as: Bruce Davison, Bruce McGill (which I love!), Nick Searcy, Stanley Anderson, Cliff Curtis, Nestor Serrano, Luis Guzmán, Dylan McDermott and Leland Orser, all big names in the business. The movie might very well have the best supporting cast of the last couple of years.

The Hackman/Hoffman scene is really good and one, if not THE highlight of the movie.

The movie offers a few surprising plot twists especially towards the ending, which I really loved! The movie is far from boring especially for a court drama and has a good quick pace but still a bit too many ridicules and unbelievable moments.

Not a great movie but still very enjoyable.

7/10

http://bobafett1138.blogspot.com/

The Fixers

[lavatch · 5/10 · 8 February 2023]

Despite the good performances from a star-studded cast, "Runaway Jury" was disappointing in the lack of credibility of its premise. From the beginning of the trial, it was apparent that there was jury tampering. For any attorney or judge with a conscience, this should have been declared a mistrial. Yet, they let it go forward.

Many of the scenes were preposterous, such as the judge inviting the jury for a meal at a swanky restaurant, or one of the jurors escaping sequestration. There were also criminal activities going on behind the scenes that were orchestrated by the shady fixer played by Gene Hackman.

Ultimately, the filmmakers wanted to make a statement about the importance of gun control. But the message turned out to be mushy and sentimental. Rachel Weisz was good in the role of the blackmailer. But the overall effect of the film was a muddled and inaccurate view of the judicial system. In this film, justice may have been depicted as blind, but the process was certainly disrupted along the way.

Awesome Performances by Hackman, Cusack, Hoffman & Weisz.

[BigHardcoreRed · 4 December 2004]

Not since Primal Fear have I seen a court room thriller that was really good. Given the actors, I suppose you can't really go wrong. Usually I can find some actor or actress that wasn't very good, bothered me in some way or was flat out horrible. This movie featured superb acting by all those involved. Even Jeremy Piven (who I can't help but picture as the Dean in Old School or his characters from PCU or Very Bad Things) delivered a respectable performance, and very different from the other movies mentioned.

Runaway Jury doesn't throw in a lot of needless plot twists and unexpected happenings just for the sake of throwing off or fooling the viewer. In fact, it pretty much goes in the direction you think it will, with only a couple of exceptions which are needed.

I'm usually the type that likes my movies to get it all done in around 90 minutes or so. Seems to me that most movies that go over 2 hours have a lot of needless "filler" material for no real reason, which, more often than not, results in slow, dragging scenes in the movie or just a boring movie altogether. This particular movie clocked in at just over 2 hours and used every minute wisely. Nothing boring and nothing seemed to drag on forever. I found the beginning with the jury selection particularly interesting. I thought the whole concept of knowing how to get exactly who you want on your jury, even before they actually show up to jury duty, was a little mind blowing. After seeing those scenes, I knew it was going to be a great movie. I highly recommend this movie, especially if you enjoyed movies like Primal Fear, although this is a completely different movie with different kinds of surprises.

Overall, Gene Hackman stole the show in this one and proves why he's been working in movies and television for over 40 years now. I give this 9 out of 10.

Slick Hollywood Twisty Entertainment

[noralee · 6/10 · 22 December 2005]

"Runaway Jury "is a serviceable piece of disposable Hollywood entertainment, accomplished efficiently by pro's doing their usual accomplished thing so we should get distracted from how disheartening it all is.

Gene Hackman has practically copyrighted his Mephistopheles impersonation, from "No Way Out" through "Unforgiven" on, and is so much fun at it here he just may really be the Devil. Probably playing against his old friend Dustin Hoffman as a much less showy knee-jerk liberal juiced him up even more than usual. (My son reports he and his girlfriend were the youngest people in the theater so I guess only old folks care about matching up these two actors.)

John Cusack recalls his "Grifter," as a nice guy con man. Rachel Weisz uses her feminine wiles even more manipulatively than she did in "Shape of Things."

David Baerwald was the music coordinator, so it's disappointing that there isn't more New Orleans music to set the wasted mis en scene, though that sure sounded like Sonny Landredth's distinctive slide guitar behind the Peter Malick and Norah Jones Dylan cover over the credits.

And I wasn't even biased by the fact that my cousin the actress's day job is working for jury consultants by coaching witnesses to speak convincingly!

(originally written 11/12/2003)

A Good Reason to View the Original "Twelve Angry Men"

[lawprof · 6/10 · 17 October 2003]

Times and values have changed. Movies seek more these days to entertain with gimmicks and plots that can't withstand even slight analysis. John Grisham, author of the novel on which "Runaway Jury" is based, is a bestselling and very smart lawyer who caters to a big crowd demanding swift-paced confrontations between Light and Darkness and this Gary Fleder directed part courtroom drama, part caper flick will satisfy many.

The film begins with a mass murder devoid of rational motivation, leaving grief stricken family members in the wake of a deranged gunman's foray through high rise offices. As the TV drama "Law & Order" promises, this too is "ripped from the headlines," the kind we see all too often.

Two years after eleven fell dead to a shooter's rage, a civil action is set to go to trial in New Orleans. The widow of a victim is seeking a recovery from the manufacturer of the gun used in the mass slayings. Of course she wants more than a big judgment - she wants justice in the form of crippling the gun manufacturers, arraigned in the script for launching a wave of deadly weapons aimed at a market of, primarily, evildoers and head cases.

Dustin Hoffman is plaintiff's counsel, Wendell Rohr, and he performs with a Big Easy accent inflected with years of living in Manhattan. He is committed, earnest, with no hint of a personal life. Gene Hackman inhabits the role of jury selection guru Rankin Fitch, a big time operator who will either stoop down to or rise up to any measure necessary to buy a verdict favoring the one-dimensional gun company executives who pay him to protect their industry. As expected, Hackman is powerful and effective, his trademark snarl punctuating his chronic impatience and frequent outbursts of inflated ego.

Rachel Weisz is the wild card threatening Hackman's success as she, playing Marlee (no last name), increasingly rankles Rankin with threats to bring the jury over to the plaintiff's side. How and why she does this is a developing story line I certainly won't reveal. She's a terrific actress who breathes life into her role. Doesn't hurt that's she beautiful. And you'd never know she's English.

I did enjoy Bruce Mc Gill, a veteran character actor, as the trial judge. That kind of jurist I know from my own life in court!

For Grisham, as for the movie's director and cast, the complexities of a major lawsuit are of no interest (think of "A Civil Action" for the cinematic opposite). Where "Twelve Angry Men" zoomed claustrophobically into the drama of a jury deliberation (virtually the entire film was shot in one room), here the interaction of jurors is superficial, almost cartoonish, while homage is placed at the altar of the filmmaker's need to show technology in the service of both good and evil. (I can imagine what real jury selection consultants, competent and ethical in the main, will think about the portrayals here.)

"Runaway Jury" won't tell you much about civil litigation or the very real and complex issues of guns in America. There's a fair amount of preachy but rather thin dialogue about guns with a perfunctory reference to the Second Amendment, a constitutional provision that many defend but few have actually studied.

In three decades of civil law practice I have never tried to buy a juror. But if Rachel Weisz asked me to do it...

6/10.

Missed Opportunity

[atlasmb · 6/10 · 5 April 2022]

This film deviates from the Grisham novel and, as a result, suffers slightly. A story about the manipulation of juries is a good idea, but the film is about the gun industry so it muddies the water, wavering between jury issues and product manufacturing issues and the politics of gun rights.

Still, there is a stellar cast. John Cusack and Rachel Weisz play interesting characters. Their motives are not revealed until late in the story. Gene Hackman and Dustin Hoffman, as opposing forces, are fun to watch, though Hoffman employs a southern accent that puts a little too much "Tootsie" in his role; I found it somewhat distracting.

For a look at how better to adapt a Grisham story, see "The Firm", also with Hackman.

Jury Tampering?

[Hitchcoc · 9/10 · 7 March 2017]

I really enjoyed this. If I see the name Gene Hackman on the list of actors, I'm all in. This is a wonderful film about the gyrations that will be gone through to sway the verdict of a case that has subterranean issues. It appears simple at first and then we get into the dirt. John Cusack, who is one of those everyman actors who We gravitate toward, provides our mirror into the goings on all around him. Because he is charming and flip, everyone seems to like him; of course, nothing is one-hundred percent and he does have an adversary in the jury room. What an interesting metaphor, also, for justice, than a blind man, whom Cusack pushes for jury foreman. One criticism often leveled at this kind of film is that there are twists and turns that are hard to follow. That is not the case here. Everything we see, we are let in on and allowed to see things unfold above the ground.

Well-acted and good suspense movie...

[dwpollar · 7/10 · 28 February 2004]

1st watched 2/22/2004 - 7 out of 10(Dir-Gary Fleder): Well-acted and good suspense movie with a plethora of stars and with a definite political view on gun control. This movie is about a trial between a wife of a innocently gunned-down victim and the gun industry. If this was all this was about it may not be very good, but it's also almost a how-to movie on swaying the jury selection process in a extremely profound way thru Gene Hackman's company's attempt to find every little piece of dirt possible of the jurors and bribing them for their vote. But it's also a movie about John Cusack's characters attempts at getting redemption for another case where the gun industry won against an entire town. All in all, despite the obvious political overtones, this movie was well-done and kept my interest from beginning to end. The acting and direction were first rate and the story-behind-the-story was revealed slowly enough to keep the suspense going.

Taut Thriller with Some Nice Twists

[adam-236 · 9/10 · 7 March 2005]

I must confess the main reason I adore this movie is because of Rachel Weisz, who is not only such a hottie in this film, but is absolutely perfect in her role as "Marlee". Oh, and John Cusack is very good as well. The plot is not straightforward and the twists keep this from degenerating into a formulaic trial movie. The tension builds steadily. Gene Hackman makes an excellent bad guy as the lawyer for the gun industry and there are several good supporting roles, especially that of Bruce Mc Gill, as the judge. The only black mark on the film is Dustin Hoffman, who is either badly miscast or else just can't act anymore. I have seen this movie at least 10 times and I enjoy it every time.

Jury Duty

[Prismark10 · 6/10 · 3 March 2015]

Runaway Jury based on a John Grisham novel is an entertaining but barking nuts movie.

Gene Hackman plays a jury fixer. He and his team analyse potential jurors and figure out whether they will be best for their clients by using various analytical and psychological techniques. If that does not work they will stoop to blackmail, breaking and entering and even arson as well as the old standards of bugging people, illegal wiretaps and taking hidden cameras to the courtroom.

Dustin Hoffman is an old fashioned, fight the good cause, liberal attorney. He lacks the box of tricks that his well funded opponents have and believes in things like justice and the law.

Hoffman represents a client that is taking on the gun lobby and Hackman has been hired by the gun lobby to control the jury. John Cusack is a juror with an agenda, he has tried very to get on the jury and is assisted by Rachel Weisz. Hackman distrusts him and he is right to do so as Wiesz and Cusack have hatched a plan to show that they control the jury and therefore the highest bidder will get the verdict they want, but we know that there is more to this than money.

The movie is less a courtroom thriller and more a suspense about jury rigging as we see Hackman and his team in action. How they have never been caught is beyond belief because it only takes one disgruntled person on his team to spill the beans and it would mean all the cases he was ever involved in would be reopened. Right at the beginning he decides someone who missed a flight is no longer needed. Way to go to keep your illegal activities a secret.

Hoffman also gets a jury selector on board but he is more legitimate and therefore less interesting and does very little in the film.

The film is enjoyably entertaining but has so many plot holes. Hoffman has no real case or evidence against the gun manufacturers and the film seems to think that just by making them look arrogant and slimy is enough. The jurors seem to be caricatures with one of them believing that just because life was unfair to him, it should be unfair to everyone and thats not how juries work. If it did they would had been abolished years ago.

The film has several writers credited so you can guess its been through many rewrites just to get the screenplay in shape. Credit to the director to make a decent film out of it and the actors for pulling it off.

Very well-acted and stylish film

[TheLittleSongbird · 8/10 · 14 April 2011]

I thoroughly enjoyed Runaway Jury on the whole. While the plot-despite having a great concept and above decent ending-is rather thin and has its fair share of inconsistencies and there are moments where the film drags, it is a very stylish and well-acted film that never tries to be the definitive courtroom drama. The direction is tight and assured, there is a fair amount of crisp dialogue and the whole film right down from the location work and editing look great and very slick and stylish. The main attraction though is the cast, and the performances are all-round solid. John Cusack is the weakest of the four leads, but he does have a lot of charm and charisma. Dustin Hoffmann is very good in his role, with his scene between Gene Hackman a contender for the highlight of the film, if rather underused. Rachel Weisz gives her best performance here, while the nearly-always-great Gene Hackman is just superb. All in all, intriguing film and well acted. 7.5/10 Bethany Cox

The gun debate rages on

[view_and_review · 7/10 · 23 March 2007]

Yet again, John Grisham makes law, lawyers, and the courtroom exciting. Part of the lure of this movie is that the intentions of the two main characters was kept hidden up until the very end. If I were to rate this movie on suspense and drama alone, I would give it top marks across the board. But, I am grading this movie on more than just its ability to pique interest or be suspenseful, I have to judge its content as well. The actual meat and issue that the movie revolved around was controversial on a national level, and one of which most Americans are on one side or the other.

"Runaway Jury" centered around a trial in which a woman was suing a gun manufacturing company because she lost a family member that was shot by a gun they make. The issue of guns and the "right to bear arms" has been argued over a lot in the last 10 to 15 years if not more. Upon this issue, unlike corruption, murder, stealing, or other crimes, people are divided. I'm not one to say which side is right or wrong, but the movie was obviously skewed in one direction. For that, the movie lost points in my mind.

Still, it was a good movie. Gene Hackman did an excellent job, and he usually does, especially as the antagonist. The other two main characters, John Cusack and Rachel Weisz, were decent as well. Overall, the movie was above average no matter what opinion you hold on guns.

No shot lasts longer than 2 seconds, a nausea-inducing MTV video that happens to feature some of the best actors working.

[brindstar · 1/10 · 21 October 2003]

"Runaway Jury" sadly springs directly from the Michael Bay school of film- making. Not one shot last longer than 5 seconds, a HUGE mistake in a film starring some of the best actors working: Dustin Hoffman, Gene Hackman, John Cusack, etc. The film is so slickly edited, it would appear that neither the director or the editor believes in the shots. The actors have almost nothing to do as a result as the director cuts from one angle to the next haphazardly, making it impossible to care or get involved in the story. The cast of jurors is thrown away, there is no clear thruline, and the one scene in which Hackman and Hoffman appear together comes too late and after too much nausea-inducing cutting to have impact of any kind. I'd love to see someone else take a crack at an edit of this one, and make it an actual story instead of a 2-hour preview.