The Runaway Jury
 

Anyone seen this or plan on seeing this over the weekend? I read the book, so I plan on seeing it. Ebert's 3-star review here.

I saw it and enjoyed it. Good fun, kind of like the firm Part III

Just got back... I'm not a big fan of Grisham's film, but this one was pretty good.

I'd give it 2.5 stars... The actors were great, amazing to see Hackman and Hoffman on the screen together... although, I thought the ending a little self-righteous.

As for buying the DVD, I'll pass... I won't even rent it. That's one of the things about his movies, after seeing it once, you can't watch it again... why would you want to?

By the way, here's a list of his movies that were made from his novels/stories.

Runaway Jury (2003)
The Gingerbread Man (1998)
The Rainmaker (1997)
A Time to Kill (1996)
The Chamber (1996)
The Client (1994)
The Pelican Brief (1993)
The Firm (1993)

Caught this tonight... it was okay. The acting was good... the plot was good... the pacing was allright too. In the end though, it's just another courtroom drama and they don't excite me all that much usually. It was kinda like Erin Brockovich meets Enemy of the State.

While not a legal thriller, another Grisham novel which was also translated to film is the coming-of-age story A Painted House. This made-for-TV film is being released on DVD this coming Tuesday.

Saw it last night.

As stated before the acting was very good and I actually didn't mind the ending.

For me though...the last 1/3 seemed a bit rushed. Probably to cut it down so it wasn't a 2.5 hour movie.

A directors cut would be interesting :)

I just got back, and I have to assume I saw a different movie than everyone else here. Sure, the acting was good, but the movie was the worst piece of propaganda I have ever seen.

Two hours of "guns bad" is just a bit more than I can stomach. They really should add a tagline to this movie:

"People don't kill people, guns kill people."

:rolleyes:

My friend's wife said that in the book it was a tobacco company case... but I guess they changed it for the film.... so I checked Amazon for a description of the book:

If you can accept the premise as plausible, the film is an okay couple of hours, and it's an ensemble piece with many actors I enjoy watching, though none of them really get to shine in the film, but it's not like that are sleepwalking through their roles, the script just doesn't make use of their talents to garner great performances.

I recommend it as a matinee, or rental down the road (with little replay value).

I give it 2.5 stars, or a grade of C+.

I saw it last Friday and liked it a lot. Great performances. Good slight twist ending. I'd give it a B+.

I agree with you about the stupid propaganda. However, I knew that was coming since I had read the book when it first came out (I knew the change in subject wouldn't change the way the movie was biased). I was able to enjoy the film for the acting and for its being technically well made. In a way, to me it's a fantasy (based on its stupid premise and making one side - the side in the right - look pretty much entirely evil) so it took some willing suspension of disbelief on my part to go along for the ride.

It was biased, and I'm not a fan of the "guns kill people" argument, but I didn't think it was that bad.

I would be opposed to gun manufacturers ignoring a larger number of guns being sold to one person, and rewarding the dealer rather than investigating if it happened in real life.

They should sell their product responsibly and investigate something obviously sketchy like that if it happened in the real world.

Wait wait wait wait wait...

Are you guys saying that they changed the subject of the lawsuit in the movie from tobacco to firearms?

What a crock.

The reason they did this is actually a valid reason (from the studio's perspective). The rights for this movie had been floating around for the past several years. Directors and actors came and went and the movie The Insider was made. The producers did not want to make another "big tobacco" movie on the footheels of that one, so they changed it to guns.

Also the big point in the film is that this verdict will set a major precedent. There have already been Tobacco lawsuits where they were found negligent. This wasn't the case when the book was written, but it is now.

I plan on seeing this tomorrow, but I am very nervous about how itll look on film. I really like Grisham's early work (his newer stuff is just looking to be made into a movie), but all this "his best work since The Firm."

I am sorry but the movie adaptation of The Firm sucked horribly. I mean I actually was pissed off watching it on how bad a job they did with the book.

I am glad that RJ finally was produced, but Im a little worried going in.

I liked the book, but I knew they changed it from tabacco to guns going in so I had even expectations. I'll say that they used a lot of things from the book, but they did change some of the characters a small bit to make the movie fit together in the time allotted.

I liked it overall, it was worth the price of matinee showing.

I totally agree. It was beyond blatant. All the typical stereotypes were there. It was downright nauseating.

Was that gun company president's name Snidely Whiplash?

If I remember correctly, I believe Grisham wasn't too happy about it either.

I liked it. ***1/2 stars out of *****. Much better than I thought it would be.

The acting was good. The cast was superb. Really enjoyed Cusack and Weisz. First good Cusack movie I can recall seeing in a few years.

Finally got around to go see this movie. Was nothing exceptional, but I liked it. Great cast that did a decent job with the material at hand (I didn't care for the book all that much). Although the story was switched from tobacco to gun control, I think it worked in the movie's favor - albeit even if it took an arrogant liberal stance. 2 1/2 out of 4 stars

So I just got this from the library and watched it. Decent movie, good acting, but wow - one of the preachiest movies I've seen in a long time. I haven't read the book, but in one of the featurettes on the DVD, the director said that Hoffman's character was originally as corrupt as Hackman's. He said they changed the character so that they could have that bathroom confrontation. Eh, I still think they could've brought the two actors into a scene together even if they were each on the same moral playing level.

And I really didn't feel sympathetic towards Cusack and Weisz's characters at all. They were hustlers, liars, and manipulaters of the legal system (Cusack's character did get Nora Dunn's alcoholic pro-defendant juror thrown off the jury). Of course, I like all the characters in Ocean's 11 and they're all criminals. :)

There's no way they could've used the tobacco industry as the Bad Guy. The courts have already eliminated personal responsibility in that area of real life.

I just watched this movie. The movie itself wasn't bad, but I agree, the "people don't kill people, heck guns don't kill people, it's the big bad gunmakers that kill people" was downright nausiating.

As stated above, every anti-gun stereotype was there, there is absolutely no doubt as to the filmmakers stance on gun control.

I was just suprised to see that Handgun Control, Inc. and the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence were not the producers of this movie.

John Cusack is a great actor and picks good movies. I liked it. I actually viewed this on my Cruise ship down in Jamaica. They had movies not yet released on dvd on tv repeating over and over (diff movie each day).