|
Nearly six years have elapsed since the last film based on a
John Grisham novel. His first four -- "The Firm",
"The Client", "The Pelican Brief", "A
Time to Kill" -- were enormous at the box office, each
grossing over one hundred million. His next two -- "The
Chamber", "The Rainmaker" -- barely grossed fifty
million combined. "Runaway Jury" has been touted
as Grisham's 'comeback film', a return to box office success for
the author. And, that maybe, but his newest film, though
entertaining, is hardly perfect, and not even close to as powerful
as "A Time to Kill" or "The Rainmaker".
This
film is about a widow suing a gun manufacturer for her husband's
murder. John Cusack is Nicholas Easter, one of the potential
jurors on the case. Gene Hackman is Rankin Fitch, the man
hired by the defense to make the verdict swing their way.
Dustin Hoffman is the prosecuting attorney, and Rachel Weisz is a
privately operating jury consultant who is trying to score
millions in exchange for a verdict. Throughout the film, we
learn that Cusack and Weisz are in it together and that Cusack
pretty much holds the fate of the verdict in his hands. We
also realize that Hackman will do anything to win his verdict.
This all boils down to a pretty typical ending, and an outcome
that we expected before the film even began.
The
performances are what make this film shine. Gene Hackman has
the tendency to play these same kind of roles, but he seems to
make each one special and memorable. Here, he is as nasty
and mean as ever. Hoffman is emotional and believable in his
role as the prosecuting attorney torn between setting precedent
and furthering his career. The scene between Hoffman and
Hackman in the court house mens room is one of the most memorable
in recent memory, right up there with the Alec Baldwin/James Woods
bathroom scene in "Ghosts of Mississippi". And,
never has Rachel Weisz looked more lovely, or delivered such a
beautiful performance -- she shines here. But, what in the
hell happened to Jeremy Piven's character -- he is in a couple of
scenes, looks like he might be a key character, and then just
disappears and we barely ever see him again?
What
director Gary Felder tries to do here is make us believe that all
of the things that go on in this film could actually happen during
a real trial when, in actuality, we know they could not.
John Grisham is not known for his realism in the courtroom,
opposed to his 'what if' scenarios. Thanks largely to the
performances, we do believe in the events of this film. They
seem plausible and everything fits together in a neat little
package. But, something is lacking from "Runaway
Jury", and that 'something' is the extras that we expect to
find in films of today. What extras?
Well, for starters, the cinematography is nothing to write home
about -- it looks like a little of "Midnight in the Garden of
Good & Evil" combined with a little "City
Hall". Very drab and very basic. And the dialogue
is not that riveting, with the exception of the bathroom scene.
Hoffman should have been given much better material to work
with, and Cusack's lines are hardly what we expect an actor of his
charm and ease to be coughing up. When all a film has is
good performances, it is enough to make the film watchable and
entertaining, but the style and much of the substance is lost or
gone. I expect that in a film. I like that.
So,
"Runaway Jury" is definitely worth watching, will
probably do better than Grisham's last couple efforts, and is
worth the ticket price alone for that fantastic bathroom scene.
This was also a nice reminder of how good John Grisham's films can
be -- very idealistic and very moving at times. Hell, you
don't have to be a lawyer to see that.
-- Billy
Ray
( 2 1/2 out of 4 pops )
Talk
about this film with other Popkorn Junkies |
