Face/Off

http://www.apple.com/trailers/fox/runaway_jury/

When a movie is based on a smash hit bestseller, don't they try to capitalize on it by pointing that out in the trailer?

Also, I think it gives one too many things away, namely with the top billed actor's character. But at least it's nowhere as bad as the trailers for Arlington Road, Cast Away, Office Space, The Italian Job or What Lies Beneath.

Goldberg74

Looks like a Grisham book/movie... I was right...

Groucho

The book was okay, but I imagine the movie to be a total borefest.

Flay

The book was great, but they raped the movie script and paid off Grisham to let it happen. They changed the defendent from Big Tobacco to a major Gun manufacturer.

Nick Easter's motives that were revealed in the ending will have to be changed. If it isn't, it's going to be pretty stupid.

Groucho

Good grief!

I can see why they made the change:

1. The book was written before the big tobacco settlements started rolling in. In the book, the case is a huge novelty, whereas in today's world its no longer news.

2. More opportunity for gunplay and other exciting scenes.

Decker

Flay, that book was written almost 10 years ago; long before the massive tobacco settlements and huge payouts awarded against big tobacco. To make that story now wouldn't make any sense and it's asking too much of an audience to put the story in the proper perspective. I think they had no choice but to change the defendants to gun manufacturers, as that is still a hotly contended area of product liability.

BTW: I can't download the trailer. Who's in the movie (I remember Sean Connery was tied to the project many years ago).

Supreme Sean

Overlong trailer, but this movie has two very important things going for it.

1) Gene

and

2) Hackman

Flay

The point is Big Tobacco is well known for its deceit, greed, and corrupt behavior. They were and still are the perfect villian regardless of the news worthiness of tobacco cases.

The mean ole gun makers better murder Nick Easter's parents, otherwise where will they go with this story? Nick's mom bought a gun and shot herself, therefore the gun makers are to blame?

All I want is a different motivation and I'll be happy.

Anyway, Nick Easter will be played by John Cusak, although Ed Norton would have been better IMO. Fitch is played by Gene Hackman. Marle is played by Rachel Weisz. And the Rohr is played by Dustin Hoffman.

Decker

So is there like a rule in Hollywood that you can't make a Grisham film without Gene Hackman in it?
Looked it up on IMDB and seems like a promising cast. I'm a big Cusack fan (as my sig indicates) and I like Rachel Weisz as well. I'm interested now.

BTW: Have Hackman and Hoffman ever done a film together before? I know they were roommates together in Pasadena as acting students and have worked with many of the same people (Tom Cruise, Warren Beatty), but I can't think of them ever doing a project together before

LBPound

I liked the book, and its twists were nice. I'm less-than-thrilled by the major change, but judging from the trailer maybe it's not going to be emphasized so much. (Then again, it was really only a point from time-to-time in the book, until the closing.)

Cast looks promising, trailer looks so-so. In any event, it's good to see another Grisham film, it's been like six years without one and I have enjoyed all of the previous ones except for The Chamber. (Excluding the Gingerbread Man, which I didn't see.)

Dustin Hoffman was great as the lawyer in Sleepers. And Gene Hackman was very good in The Firm. Hopefully, it will be good.

movielib

You're right, they haven't:

http://us.imdb.com/JointVentures

Edit: Oops, when you click on the link, the info doesn't come up. The only other "project" they're credited together in is "65th Annual Academy Awards, The (1993) (TV)."

Face/Off

The trailer looks like they're downplaying the trial and making it more of a chess match.

What if they make the motivation personal against the Rankin Fitch team?

Dr. DVD

Why couldn't they have the company be a major corporation that specializes in something more or less business like? Of course it would be difficult to find a way to for his parents to die because of working for one. Maybe they got laid off and drank themselves to death because of it? No, then the baddies would be an alocohol company!

clemente

I haven't been keen on Grisham adaptations in the past, they've all left me wanting.

But then, none (IMO) has had a cast this promising.

DGibFen

Eh, I'm not too thrilled. The book (to me) seemed more terse and tense from a suspense point, not having the confrontations as depicted in the trailer (all the "action" sequences).

Tarantino

I thought it looked alright, but as a huge Cusack fan, I'll see it.

lesterlong

Movie looks AWFUL.

PalmerJoss

Based solely on the trailer alone I would not see the movie. The trailer was terrible. I enjoyed the book a lot and based on that I would probably see the movie. Now if I hadn't read the book I probably would be saying that there's no way I would see the movie.

uteotw

I loved the book and I really like Hackman/Cusak, but I think the change SUCKS.

Contrary to the post above, guns are not really a "hotly contended area of product liability." Every such attempt to hold a gun manufacturer liable for some criminal's use of a gun has been "shot" down (sorry) quickly and there has been no liability found. Why not change the movie to focus on McDonald's and their great conspiracy to "make" us all fat? That is just about as "hotly contested" as the gun manufacturers.

True, cigarette companies are not big targets anymore since they've been found liable for so many billions, so maybe they had to change it to keep it interesting. But if they change the ending to where the gun company gets found liable because his parents were shot by guns, I'll puke (unless it was little guns come to life without a criminal firing them).

jfoobar

I suspect they are downplaying the gun angle in the trailer so they can lure some sheep in for a preachfest.

I'll reserve actual judgment until it comes out, but that is just my suspicion.

DonnachaOne

Changing the villain from the book didn't hurt The Sum Of All Fears, and besides, Big Tobacco has already been done in The Insider. I can see why they changed it.

Hoffman's accent sounds awful.

uteotw

Did you read the SOAF book? I did and thought the movie massacred it, changing the villian not the least of the offenses. But then, the ruined the ending of Patriot Games as well (as compared to the book) and changed The Firms in some very significant ways just to "Hollywood-ize" it. Just gets on my nerves.

I don't know, just because one movie 4 years ago dealt with "Big Tobacco" to me does not justify changing The Runaway Jury to such an extent. The actors are top-notch so I'm not giving up all hope, but I agree that it could easily turn into a preach-fest instead of just being a really good suspense flick. We shall see...

Face/Off

The Sum of All Fears was butchered because of this oversensitivity PC era where every little group gets offended when the villians AREN'T wasps. Neo Nazis as the villian is an absolute joke.

And just because The Insider (a factual event) used big tobacco doesn't mean they monopolize the concept. That's like saying cop movies shouldn't use murderers or thieves as the bad guy because it's been done before.

DonnachaOne

Yes I did, and while I was initially sad to hear they had changed it, I thought the film was pretty solid.

No, it isn't. If it was the SAME murderer or the SAME thief, then you'd be correct. The simple fact is that Big Tobacco has been capably handled as a villain already - a newer film wouldn't live up to The Insider's take. It'd seem like a cheap-shot.

Face/Off

If The Runaway Jury were based on a real story and not a work of fiction, would it still be a "chaep-shot," as you put it, if it were made into a movie?

The Insider is about an INSIDER fighting the fight against big tobacco. It's not "what" that makes a movie good or bad -- it's "how" the story is told.

Should Erin Brokovich have changed their villians since it came out after A Civil Action?

Do you hate the James Bond movies?