IMDb user comments for
Runaway Jury (2003) More at IMDbPro »

Filter:

Best Chronological Prolific Authors Loved It Hated It Hide Spoilers:

Page 1 of 34:

[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11]

Index

339 comments in total

---

52 out of 67 people found the following comment useful :-
Flimsy yet well acted., 10 October 2004
Author: bluewavetraveler from Boone IA

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.

---

46 out of 62 people found the following comment useful :-
Awesome Performances by Hackman, Cusack, Hoffman & Weisz., 4 December 2004
Author: BigHardcoreRed from Calimesa, California

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.

---

51 out of 79 people found the following comment useful :-
Good and disappointing all at the same time., 2 June 2004
Author: mooreover2000 from United States

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.

---

65 out of 108 people found the following comment useful :-
The good, the bad, and the ugly., 21 September 2004
Author: swellguynextdoor from New York

Decent but very flawed film that has so many points to it that it can't be categorize in simply good or bad.

The Good: Some of the performances are spectacular and deserving of a much better movie than this. Gene Hackman hasn't been this good in ages, and he's one of the few reasons that this movie is watchable. The next reason is Rachel Weisz, who is the only actor Hackman has had in quite some time that is his equal in performance and in acting prowess. She is so good in fact that she does almost steal the film from him and then some. The city of New Orleans is a fascinating setting for this film but wrong because it's not the original setting of the book.

The Bad: Dustin Hoffman is not really in the movie and is really a minor character in the whole story. Which is too bad because he's such a charismatic actor and deserves a much bigger role than what he had. The next problem is the whole spy versus spy angle that makes the whole film into a joke because no one would go that far to rig a jury, especially in a case that would have been thrown out of a real court with the facts that was presented in the film. Which leads to….

The Ugly: The script is really bad. How bad you say? It took almost four writers to outline the story, which bare in mind does not follow the book at all. The dialog is great in places and bad in others, and the whole structure of the film is paper-thin which is easily to blow holes thru. The story runs out of gas in the half way point of the film and the ideas express seems more like a bias view of what the law should be than a realistic view of what the law really is. I think the biggest offence the movie makes is changing the text of the original novel and making about guns other than big tobacco. John Grisham's original novel was hugely entertaining and down right poignant in its views about justice. This film seems like it has not idea where it's at from time to time and lacks a coherent narrative to even try to explain the stuff that is going on right in front of you.

Even with the good points, the bad does out weight the good here. It's a decent film because of the acting of Rachel Weisz and Gene Hackman but they like the viewer are let down with a script that lacks conviction for the subject it covers and a real point of view that expresses the feelings of the reality of the gun issue.

---

25 out of 30 people found the following comment useful :-
An Entertaining Thriller, 30 January 2005

Author: mjw2305 from England

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

---

15 out of 20 people found the following comment useful :-
A great ride, 26 July 2004

Author: Taz M (tazteamrpg@hotmail.com) from Cambs, England

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.

---

9 out of 9 people found the following comment useful :-
clever, well acted and entertaining, 24 July 2005

Author: Tob147258 from Manchester

*** This comment may contain spoilers ***

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.

---

26 out of 43 people found the following comment useful :-
The acting is great( Thanks mostly to Rachel Weisz and Gene Hackman) But the film is not that good., 30 July 2004
Author: tictkkynom from Norm, USA

Tepid reworking of the John Grisham book misses the inner workings of the subject matter at hand and delivers a week adaptation that lacks the conviction and the substance of the novel. The script is a mess from start to finish, and some sub plots involving certain characters don't really go anywhere in terms of furthering the plot along. The acting is very good with great performances by Rachel Weisz, who really makes this film a better one than it really is with her great performance and Gene Hackman, who kept the pace up with his great performance with a villainous, and yet sympathetic role. Dustin Hoffman is great as well but is not really in the film as much as advertise, and John Cusack does fine with his role. I just wish that the movie could have been as professional and as graceful as the actors involved, instead of the clunker that is presented to us now.

---

19 out of 30 people found the following comment useful :-
Taut Thriller with Some Nice Twists, 7 March 2005

Author: adam-236 from United States

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.

---

31 out of 55 people found the following comment useful :-
A legal bind of creative proportion, 14 October 2004
Author: leaveittochances

Flat legal Thriller that has a great cast but does not have a great script to go with them. Rachel Weisz, Gene Hackman and Dustin Hoffman all do well with what is on the script but you can tell that they are giving it more heart and substance than what was on the written page. The direction is fine but lacks coherency and the setting of New Orleans is not fully represented to it's full potential. I have not read the original book that inspired this movie but judging by the word of mouth, the book is considered much better. I give thanks to Rachel Weisz, Gene Hackman and Dustin Hoffman for making this film a much better experience than the script wanted it to be but I also feel bad for then for not having a script that helps them move this picture along to a much better end.

---

---

Page 1 of 34:

[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11]

Add another comment

---

Related Links

Plot summary	Plot synopsis	Ratings
Awards	Newsgroup reviews	External reviews
Parents Guide	Plot keywords	Main details
Your user comments	Your vote history