Runaway Jury (2003)

Run Away from this Dismal Movie

This film squanders the considerable talents of several A-list actors with an unbelievable plot and a predictable and moralizing ending.

It's not that I disagree with the theme - I'm no fan of guns - but the concept of the film is simply ludicrous. I won't give away any details, but suffice it to say that this film thinks that conspiracy - no matter how silly, and twists - no matter how nonsensical, will somehow add up to an engaging court drama.

The original script must have been pretty good for these distinguished actors to sign on to the project. I guess someone ran away with that version, because the final product is terrible. November 18, 2008

Runaway Performances

I have no idea whether juries in the real world can be corrupted as this jury in the reel world is, but "Runaway Jury" is a riveting thriller that ought to capture the interest of the viewer from beginning to end, whether one buys into all the plot points or not.

Its success as a genre-film derives from the superlative cast, which is headed by Dustin Hoffman in the role of the honest but savvily down-to-earth attorney (with shabby suit and a carefully planted mustard dab on his tie) who is suing the big gun companies on behalf of the wife of a victim of a mass murder; and Gene Hackman as the ruthless (and expensively dressed) jury consultant, who does not give a fig for the victims, but merely wants to win big on behalf of his even bigger clients, no matter how low he has to stoop to do it. Hoffman and Hackman are supported ably by John Cusack and Rachel Weisz, both of whose characters have hidden agendas.

Although the film is worth watching for its suspense-factor alone, the performances of Hoffman and Hackman, who confront each other in the old-fashioned wood-paneled men's washroom of the court, lift "Runaway Jury" from the level of a conventional court-room thriller. This scene, which lasts several minutes, allows these two cinematic masters to pull out all the stops, as it were, of their craft. It is so rare nowadays to get a full-blown scene--more reminiscent of one in a stage play--between two actors of their calibre.

The settings of pre-Katrina New Orleans--the French Quarter and the Garden District--also contribute to the film's ambience.

Every once and a while, I sit down and watch the DVD of a film that I missed in the theatre the first time around. Many, I pass on to my friends; "Runaway Jury," I did not. September 22, 2008

Hackman is scum. Cusak and Weisz, the latent heroes.

Because of the fact that Dustin Hoffman plays the attorney for the Plaintiff in a wrongful death lawsuit (her husband, an attorney; Dylan McDermot - short cameo at beginning of movie) against a gun manufacturer; he does [mostly] everything by the book. So it's easy to somehow gloss over his character, since he comes across as the knight in shining armor for all the people who's loved ones have died due to handgun violence.

Gene Hackman on the other hand, is the scheming, conniving, cold and calculating Rankin Fitch; the jury consultant for the gun manufacturer attorneys. It's easy for his character to be more dominating in the film, as he weaves some pretty evil, unscrupulous, coercive manipulations and intimidation of jury-influencing and tampering. And he has at his command, a plethora of seemingly callous "technicians" (automatons) to assist him. With one of his techs, a real scumbag, "get-it-done no matter what" type (i.e. via physical violence, if need be). Oh, he gets his just desserts from Wiesz (so I spoiled some of it - so what).

All the while John Cusak as Juror #9; Nick Easter and his cohort in "jury-tampering" Rachel Wiesz; Marlee, worked their side in the manipulation (a.k.a Blackmail) of both the Plaintiff and Defendant attorneys to swing the verdict in one or the others favor (for money, of course). Cusak seemingly manipulates part of the jury, but in the end he knows that they'll decide on their on account. Nick, being on the inside, with the Jury. Marlee, on the outside working the attorneys.

A surprise ending (though not really unpredictable), in which Hackman really gets it "stuck to him". He never knew what hit him. The real surprise is how Nick (Cusak) and Marlee (Weisz) screw Hackman (Fitch) while they come out smelling like roses (a little richer, and a little worse for wear) for their efforts; although still legally immoral. But not to them. They've played this game before.
August 25, 2008

Bias here makes plot devoid of any basic logic

In full disclosure, I am adamantly pro-gun and believe that gun control kills far more people than gun legalization. Residents of high-gun crime, "gun-free" Washington DC, or students in the "gun free zones" of Virginia Tech, Columbine High School, etc. have experienced firsthand why a disarmed populace is at greater risk of gun violence. Banning guns will only make the black market for guns go through the ceiling, and the only people who will have guns who aren't police or military will be those who are willing to break the law to possess them, as banning drugs hasn't made them disappear either. If guns weren't manufactured domestically, there would still be millions of guns floating around, even ignoring international manufacturers - the black market and the criminal underworld would thrive off of guns being banned. That also means a criminal can rob your house, harm your family, etc. knowing that you won't have a convenient means of self-defense. My point is GUN CONTROL IS NOT LOGICAL.

This is not an editorial forum and I will no longer expound upon my political beliefs, but this movie "The Runaway Jury" is very much an editorial movie, and it uses fiction to go into realms of fantasy and fallacy where they don't even have to deal with real world facts and logic when making their point. They set up a convenient counter-balance where the noble gun control lawyer (Hoffman) refuses to compromise his principles and give into blackmail vs. the ruthless corporate bigwigs and their evil jury selecter (Hackman) who will win by hook or by crook, robbing and burning apartments, blackmailing jurors, etc. This is a huge strawman fallacy, which enables them to manipulate the movie audience because we are not remotely sympathetic to the evil gun lobby and especially to Hackman. It ignores the fact that Hoffman winning this case would make the sky rain money for gun control lawyers, and indicates that the gun control groups and their representatives are pure in their intentions while the gun lobby is motivated purely by greed.

Because of this manipulation, we easily miss many failures in elementary logic.

1.) The defense lawyer would have been the worst defense lawyer in the world from the little we see of him. There are many angles he could have taken - for instance, "had even one employee at the company had a concealed firearm made by the gun manufacturer, the killer could have been stopped dead in his tracks. The plaintiff's husband might still be alive today." Or what about "there is zero way for any company, regardless of industry, to control how their product is misused or resold by anyone other than the company themselves." The movie briefly mentioned that the gun company had no influence over the illegal resale of their weapon, but that was a minor bone thrown only to keep the tension of the plaintiff losing in the plot instead of something that was fleshed out as the core argument by the defense. We hardly even hear any logical arguments from the defense, maybe because the writers decided that they could hurt their point. Instead, in the trial, we see a.) the gun company has paid for a vacation for the guy who legally sold the gun to the guy who illegally sold the gun to the guy who killed the plaintiff's husband (that's the primary argument or the industry's "complicity" by the prosecution...really...) b.) the gun lobby has through probably devious means somehow managed to make the prosecution's witness not show up in court. c.) a hapless gun executive who can't make logical arguments to defend his product other then screaming about standing for the 2nd Amendment and d.) hardly any arguments from the defense, and when they were there, they were usually unconvincing.

2.) Why would a jury member be able to win over with niceness jurors who have been ruthlessly blackmailed by the "evil" gun lobby? Surely the adulteress under the threat of having her adultery revealed, the AIDS-diagnosed guy who had been threatened that his secret would become public, and the lady who was told to either side with the gun lobby or her husband will go to jail for life for bribery are going to suddenly side against the gun lobby because John Cusack was buddy-buddy with them? That was conveniently set up to make the gun lobby look evil, but was conveniently ignored in deliberations when they somehow forgot about the blackmail.

3.) If Hackman's character was an even remotely talented jury selecter, surely he would have picked more than two jurors who see the illogic in such a frivolous lawsuit. All he needed was five and the prosecution's case fails. But most of the jurors were already against the gun lobby before Cusack even opened his mouth. Once he did, they were able to deliberate with very little debate, despite the fact that they all knew the immense gravity of their decision, they called for a vote without a thorough fleshing out of the pros and cons. The niceness of Cusack's character to the other jurors isn't suddenly going to make the other jurors change their worldview on guns, basic logic, etc.

4.) And I guess the two masterminds aren't going to get ramrodded by the IRS when they donate $15 million from an account in the Cayman Islands to their poor town that went broke from engaging in a similar frivilous lawsuit against the gun industry?

These are just a few of the many bizarre leaps of faith and logical missteps that, in their ineptness, reveal the true agenda of the movie. The writers take a side, draw the audience to their side via careful manipulation, omit any real dissenting arguments, turn the opponents into the strawmen that they want them to be pigeonholed as, has the ideal outcome which is connotated as heroic and see sweet revenge against the "bad guys" (whom we have no sympathy to as viewers).

Luckily this is ineptly done and blatant to us gun control opponents, but I worry that some fencesitters on the issue would take the movie as-is and assume that this is really what the debate is all about - the evil, ruthless greed-driven gun lobby vs. the honest, decent gun control movement. Please see through the facade, or better yet, don't waste your time. The producers should have just stuck with the much better and more logical storyline in the book instead of trying to make it into a semi-thriller (by changing the subject from tobacco to guns) and going political in a biased way that will only anger at least half the audience. August 20, 2008

IT'S ONLY ME, BUT:

hACKMAN AND hOFFMAN WERE GREAT TOGETHER FOR THEIR FIRST TIME. FAST PACE AND RIVOTING . GREAT MOVIE. JENNIFER BEALS HAS A UNCREDDITED ROLE IN THE MOVIE. JOHN CUSAK IS EXCELLENT. JM May 31, 2008

More reviews at Amazon.com ...