Opiniones de usuarios

I watched this movie in feb-march 2025, after Gene Hackman's death. Such a good actor, simply wow!

The simplicity, but still. The actors, the times.

2003 was such a good year for this kind of a movie. Only 22 years, but it's like forever.

I've never seen a movie like this before. Very interesting, well done, a real classic in our days.

Netflix suggested me this movie in memoriam Gene Hackman and it was so nice. I watched thinking about how life is so fragile. Today you are big star, tommorow you are found dead in your house, after a coupe of weeks. I'm really sorry about his death, but 95 yo?! Good man.

Rest in peace, Gene!

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.

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.

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.

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

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

I thought this movie was a complete waste of time. About 20 minutes into the movie or sooner, any viewer who is awake will plainly see that this is a movie with a clear pro gun control political agenda. Regardless of which side of the fence the viewer is on, who wants to pay 4 bucks to rent a preachy farfetched message masquerading as a serious film. I mean the message that the hollywood film makers are sending is so in-your-face, that it ends up becoming totally unbelievable. Basically this movie is about a lawsuit in which a widow is suing a gun manufacturer for recklessly distributing guns. Who would believe that the plaintiff's lawyer, played by Dustin Hoffman, is just some sweet innocent southern boy out to fight the big mean gun manufacturers. He comes off more like Tootsie than anything. And Gene Hackman plays the gun manufacturer's evil lawyer with all his high tech spy toys and such. And the poor defendant is just a widow who's husband was shot in some office shooting, all she wants is justice - yeah right! I'm sorry, but this movie is so contrived and silly that it in no way parallels reality and ends up becoming an obvious attempt by hollywood to influence viewers' opinions regarding gun control.

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.

"Runaway Jury" is a John Grisham story which was changed due to another film with a similar plot. In other words, in the book, the plaintiff in the case is battling the evil tobacco industry...but ANOTHER film addressed the same subject matter. So, instead, the evil defendant is the gun industry.

Now part of whether or not you'll enjoy the film or watch it to begin with probably will depend on your views of the gun industry. If you hate guns and think gun companies should be effectively put out of business, the film will appeal much more to you. If you love guns or at least consider them to be a constitutional right, then you'll likely not enjoy the film as much. For much of the film, it didn't seem to matter what you think about guns. But the ending is clearly an attack on gun companies.

The film is about the machinations behind an eventual verdict. At first, you think the gun lobby is going to manipulate this. But partway through the film you learn that there is another group working to exploit BOTH the defense and plaintiff in order to make millions...promising them a victory if they pay them...a loss if they don't.

To me, it's not whether you love or hate guns. To me it's whether or not you can believe all the twists and turns. For a while, I could believe it but after a while it seemed as if the plot was trying to be too clever...with too many twists. After a while, it just seemed less and less believable as a result.

Overall, a slick looking movie with a plot which engages you BUT which loses pace and coherence towards the end.

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.

Have you ever seen a movie that you find entertaining, but also ridiculous at the same time? People usually refer to those movies as guilty pleasures. Well with its very accomplished cast, good production quality, beautiful setting & perfectly fine acting performances, this movie is not a typical guilty pleasure, like say Road House or Iron Eagle. No I put The Runaway Jury in that category despite all the positive qualities listed. For it was all nevertheless centered around a court case that's just mindless and insulting.

Aside from the details of the court case, I did like all of the other elements of the movie. Gene Hackman made for an awesome villain. John Cusack was well cast, with the actor's oddly likable persona being a key element of the character. I also love how John Grisham always sets his novels in the south, in places like Memphis and Savannah. The movie versions always do a great job of establishing the beautiful look and feel of these places, and it really does add something. It is a nice break from the big, urban settings of most legal dramas. The few action scenes in the movie were well done and pretty intense. I even found myself pretty choked up at the end, as we heard stories of awful gun violence, and the families that they affected. But that just brings me back to the conclusion that I am supposed to draw, that the gun companies are liable. And I just don't go along with that. The original John Grisham novel "The Runaway Jury" was all about a civil case against some big tobacco company. But before they could turn that bestseller into a box office hit, the amazing, unprecedented, groundbreaking scenario of the book actually happened. The screenwriters then had to change the villains to keep it original, and they settled on gun manufacturers. But guns are not chemically addictive like cigarettes are, and that is the crux of the whole case against big tobacco. What on earth were they thinking making gun manufacturers the bad guys? Look I'm all for gun laws that order background checks on buyers, to keep guns from people with a history of criminal records or mental illness (like Cho Seung-Hui). But at the same time, I don't see how gun makers should pay millions of dollars to victims of gun crimes. I also don't believe that companies producing forks should be sued when people die of obesity-related illnesses.

So hey, at least we can all agree that we hate cynical, well-funded bad guys who try and control the judicial process by manipulating the formulation of juries. Those people deserve to go to jail. People who pick up guns and fire them at innocent people deserve to go to jail. The people who made the gun involved in such a crime didn't do anything wrong. The Runaway Jury had a lot going for it, but its central message was just off the wall. What ever happened to personal responsibility, huh?

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.

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/

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.

"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)

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

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.

This movie was neither an exciting thriller, nor a compelling legal drama - the way the director and writers chose to frame the situation makes it the equivalent of a USA Today op-ed column. I thought black and white depictions of morality, especially in the courtroom, were a thing of the past, but "Runaway Jury" has, disappointingly, proven me wrong; the "gun industry", with Gene Hackman as its frontman, is a two-dimensional cardboard cut-out of a villain out for nothing more than money, indifferent to the harm their products may be put to. The prosecutor, Dustin Hoffman, is a valiant crusader who would never think of representing his client, a woman widowed by a day trader's killing spree, for something as shallow as money. The message is that guns are evil, and that gun manufacturers are responsible for the actions of murderers. Take the premise or not (and I can hardly believe that such a serious issue was treated so lightly), the fact that this drum was beat incessantly throughout the whole movie detracted from the artistic value inherent in the work, which otherwise represents a decent effort on the parts of some very well-known actors and actresses. The slow pace of the film nearly put me to sleep, and I don't think I would have missed very much. If I want a political diatribe, I'll tune in to the news media.