Lors d'un procès impliquant un grand fabricant d'armes à feu, Un juré à l'intérieur et une femme à l'extérieur du procès manipulent les faits.Lors d'un procès impliquant un grand fabricant d'armes à feu, Un juré à l'intérieur et une femme à l'extérieur du procès manipulent les faits.Lors d'un procès impliquant un grand fabricant d'armes à feu, Un juré à l'intérieur et une femme à l'extérieur du procès manipulent les faits.
- Réalisation
- Scénario
- Casting principal
- Récompenses
- 1 victoire et 3 nominations au total
Résumé
Reviewers say 'Runaway Jury' is a courtroom thriller featuring a strong cast including Gene Hackman, Dustin Hoffman, John Cusack, and Rachel Weisz. Themes of jury tampering, corporate influence, and ethical dilemmas are prominent. Hackman and Weisz receive praise for their performances. However, the film faces criticism for deviating from John Grisham's novel, particularly the change from a tobacco to a gun control lawsuit. Some find the plot convoluted and unrealistic, though it is generally considered entertaining despite its flaws.
Avis à la une
Good but a bit disappointing adaptation to the John Grisham thriller does not follow the book the way it should be, and lacks the momentum of the court proceedings that follow. The acting is first rate with Rachel Weisz and Gene Hackman being the standouts in a cast that includes Dustin Hoffman John Cusack, and Bruce Davidson. Weisz and Hackman's performances are of Oscar quality, despite the fact that the movie is not up to their caliber of acting. The setting is a little out of the way, and the pacing is a little off with scenes that go way to fast but the film is ultimately save by the acting by all involved, most of which is credited to Weisz and Hackman.
2 stars for Weisz and Hackman but don't expect anything close to the book.
2 stars for Weisz and Hackman but don't expect anything close to the book.
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.
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.
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!
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!
Well acted yet flimsy adaptation of the John Grisham novel lacks a well rounded script to carry itself but has an amazing cast that lifts this mediocre film past its problems and into respectability. The script has way too many loop holes in logic to even take what you are seeing seriously and the directing lacks a sharp narrative to get across what it's trying to say. The acting is the only major thing that this film excels on and with out it, this would have been a cable movie of the week at best. Gene Hackman is great as a jury consultant who would stop at nothing to win a case and Rachel Weisz is amazing as his adversary in and out of the courtroom. Dustin Hoffman is great as well but he is not in the movie as much as advertise and John Cusack is decent for the role he has. The biggest fault the movie does have is the fact that certain plot points disappear during the course of the film as well as characters. It's a great way to spend two hours of your time, especially with the great performances of Gene Hackman and Rachel Weisz to keep you glued to what is happening but the movie has a lot of glaring problems that makes it hard to sit though in certain parts.
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
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
Le saviez-vous
- AnecdotesThe much-anticipated bathroom scene in this movie, where Rohr (Dustin Hoffman) confronts Fitch (Gene Hackman) is the first dialogue in a movie between Hoffman and Hackman. It was written while the rest of the movie was being filmed, after someone on the crew found out that the two, though they had been friends since 1956, had never starred in a movie together. It was finally shot on a single day at the end, several weeks after Hackman and Hoffman had finished their other work.
- GaffesThe American Flag is on the wrong side of Judge Harkin, as it is accorded the place of honor, always positioned to its own right, or the speaker's right and the audience's left, according to the United States Flag Code.
- Citations
Rankin Fitch: Gentlemen, trials are too important to be left up to juries.
- ConnexionsFeatured in HBO First Look: Runaway Jury (2003)
- Bandes originalesHappy Birthday to You
Written by Mildred J. Hill, Patty S. Hill
Meilleurs choix
Connectez-vous pour évaluer et suivre la liste de favoris afin de recevoir des recommandations personnalisées
- How long is Runaway Jury?Alimenté par Alexa
Détails
- Date de sortie
- Pays d’origine
- Langues
- Aussi connu sous le nom de
- Tribunal en fuga
- Lieux de tournage
- Sociétés de production
- Voir plus de crédits d'entreprise sur IMDbPro
Box-office
- Budget
- 60 000 000 $US (estimé)
- Montant brut aux États-Unis et au Canada
- 49 443 628 $US
- Week-end de sortie aux États-Unis et au Canada
- 11 836 705 $US
- 19 oct. 2003
- Montant brut mondial
- 80 154 140 $US
- Durée2 heures 7 minutes
- Couleur
- Mixage
- Rapport de forme
- 2.35 : 1
Contribuer à cette page
Suggérer une modification ou ajouter du contenu manquant