 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
Runaway Jury - 10/17/03 - PG-13 - 127m
John
Cusack - Nick Easter
Gene Hackman - Rankin Fitch
Dustin Hoffman - Wendell Rohr
Director: Gary Fleder
Screenplay by: Brian Koppelman (Novel by John Grisham)
Studio: 20th Century Fox
Official
Website
JEF
I may have stated this before, but John Cusack is one of my favorite
actors. In looking at his long list of movie credits, I have not seen
many of his films, but of the one’s I have seen, I remember them
and his character. This movie got off to a bit of a rocky start with me,
but I was pulled in, and after it was over, really enjoyed the film.
Storyline: It’s hard to describe this one without
giving away too much, so I’ll try to be brief. Nick Easter (John
Cusack) receives a notice in the mail, informing him that he has been
selected for Jury duty - and then the roller coaster ride begins…
Rankin Fitch (Gene Hackman) is a well-dressed lawyer type. He’s
in the business of “stealing juries” or influencing a jury’s
vote on a trial. He resorts to many high tech, and immoral (not to mention
probably illegal) methods to dig up any sort of “dirt” on
a jury member. Then he (or his team of people) somehow threatens the jury
member into voting a certain way “or else” the dirt will be
released to the public.
Now to balance out Hackman’s character, we’re introduced to
Wendell Rohr (Dustin Hoffman) who is a lawyer, and although he may not
seem to have the highest of moral standards, he seems to at least want
to play fair, and let the justice system “work”.
Finally there’s Marlee (Rachel Weisz) who lets just say “stirs
things up in this film” and really makes the film interesting.
I’ll start with one of the negative aspects of the film right from
the start, which I had to struggle with… The way the scenes were
filmed, and the dialogue were very difficult for me to keep up with. I’ve
only seen the TV show “The West Wing” one time… and
the main reason was the dialogue of the show… It was super fast,
with not a single break in the fast moving conversation between characters.
I know this was done on purpose, to lend a sort of urgency or importance
to such important conversations, but it makes it difficult to keep up
with at times. For the TV show, I just didn’t have the energy to
keep up. This film started off in much the same way. Dustin Hoffman’s
character reminded me of a mix between his two other characters, “Tootsie”
and the speed demon “King” in the film “Confidence”.
Hoffman was racing through his lines, and was making me feel like I had
just drunk a 24oz cup of Starbucks coffee*. I was beginning to feel lost
with the fast dialogue, and quick visual cuts between scenes, but I was
drawn into the movie. I can’t really say if I noticed that the dialogue
and cuts slowed down, or if I just found myself engrossed in the story
that I was able to keep up.
That is probably my strongest compliment about this film is the storyline.
Although it dealt with a touchy subject like gun control, and how possibly
to deal with the legal aspects of gun control, I really found the basic
plot the most interesting. Which of course is the subject of jury tampering,
and what “really” goes on in today’s legal system. I’m
afraid I’m not the most well versed person regarding the law, and
I can’t tell you what the difference is between a defense attorney
and an attorney general, but lets just say that I don’t hold the
legal system in too high of regards. Yes, it does work most of the time,
and it probably is the best system out there at this time, but I also
know that there are huge problems and loopholes, and just some things
that need to be fixed or looked at again, for a possible better solution.
But… if some of the events that happened in this film truly happen
in the real world of the legal system, then it’s another example
of why the legal system needs to be looked at again and possibly fixed
or updated.
The acting was very well done, and with big names like Cusack, and Hoffman
and Hackman, I was not disappointed. I also enjoyed Rachel Weisz’s
performance as well. I remembered her also from the movie “Confidence”
and “The Mummy”. Hackman was great as usual.
Also a quick mention, that being a bit of a techy person or a gadget freak
myself, I enjoyed the techy side to this movie as well.
A few minor things bothered me about the film… One VERY minor item…
John, you need to cut back on the eyeliner make-up. *The next item was
the blatant product placement of Starbucks coffee. A quick search on yahoo,
and I found 11 Starbucks Coffee houses, in the area of New Orleans, LA
(where the movie was set), but still, we didn’t need to see them
always walking around with a Starbucks cup of coffee. Another product
placement but one that I didn’t mind too much was for Apple Computers.
Apple needs all the advertising help it can get 
So to wrap things up here, If you can get past the controversial topic
matter of “gun control” and put the politics aside for a moment,
this film is very interesting, very well acted, and a good story. Go check
it out while it’s still in theatres.
Jef
Here’s what Lyn thought…
