MPAA Rating: PG-13/Genre: Legal Thriller/Stars: John Cusack, Gene Hackman, Dustin Hoffman, Rachel Weisz, Bruce Davison, Bruce McGill, Jeremy Piven, Nick Searcy, Luis Guzmán, Stanley Anderson, Marguerite Moreau, Leland Orser, Gerry Bamman, Nestor Serrano, Ed Nelson, Joanna Going, Cliff Curtis, Jennifer Beals, Bill Nunn, Juanita Jennings, Nora Dunn, Guy Torry, Rusty Schwimmer, Rhoda Griffis, Henry Darrow, Corri English, Lori Heuring, Dylan McDermott/Runtime: 127 minutes
If you were to make a list of the 7 things that I am sure the majority of people have found themselves having to do at one point or another yet still find to be absolutely frustrating no matter how many times they have had to do it, I have no doubt that one of the items that would have to be on that list would be that most infamous of phenomena known as jury duty (incidentally paying one’s taxes was the number one answer). Of course, is it really any wonder why that would be on this list dear reader? I mean not only are you being legally obligated to decide a virtual stranger’s fate on a variety of criminal issues which can be quite the stressful situation for some individuals, but you also are having to deal with the fact that you are literally stuck sitting there at times with absolutely nothing to do except listen to 2 human piranha (or lawyers if you prefer the proper classification) argue over one another back and forth like toddlers and, perhaps worst of all, the doughnuts and coffee in the jury room every morning might not be the freshest in the world (oh the horror indeed!). Yet as exhausting as jury duty can be on a regular basis, can you imagine how much more tense it would be if you not only had to serve on a case with potential nationwide significance, but that unbeknownst to you there were also forces at work both behind the scenes and amongst your fellow jurors that were engaged in a chess match of sorts with each other to try and fix the trial with no less a prize than the verdict at stake for the very low low price of 10-15 million dollars? Thankfully while this is not an issue that is being raised by the latest game show to hit either primetime television or the Game Show Network it is one that the land of movie magic decided at one time to attempt to answer for all of us who might be interested. An answer that came in the form of the 2003 slice of cinema, and film I happen to be reviewing for you today incidentally, Runaway Jury. Indeed here is a film that I have no shame in telling you is one that most assuredly has more than a few moments in it that at best has more than a few implausible moments to it and at worst is sure to make those of you who are cynics at heart raise an eyebrow, Dwayne Johnson-style, and proceed to keep it raised for pretty much the entirety of the film’s runtime. With that being said however, it should also be said that for as implausible as this slice of cinema can be it is undeniably entertaining as well. Suffice it to say then that Runaway Jury might not be the most legally accurate legal thriller out there, but with the aid of capable work both behind and especially in front of the camera it still manages to be one heck of a enjoyable rainy day movie all the same.
The plot is as follows: An adaptation of the book of the same name by John Grisham, Runaway Jury takes us to the city of New Orleans where we begin at a rather unusual place for a thriller. That being as a witness to a loving husband/father by the name of Jacob Wood as he makes his way to work where, upon arriving, he begins his typical day all while joking around with his colleagues and nay a conflict anywhere in sight. Of course, lest you are concerned you have been duped into thinking this is a different film than what you were promised, it isn’t long before the story fixes this in a heart wrenching fashion with the arrival of a former colleague who, within minutes, horrifically opens fire on his former place of employment and kills at least 11 people including poor Jacob. From there, the film moves ahead a solid 2 years where we see that Jacob’s widow Celeste, with a noted local defense attorney by the name of Wendell Rohr by her side, has made the choice to sue Vicksburg Firearms feeling that it was their gross negligence that made this tragedy possible in the first place. Rather than take the simple route and just decide to settle this out of court however, we see that Vicksburg has decided on a different strategy altogether. Namely by bringing in a notorious “jury consultant” (read: fixer) named Rankin Fitch and his team to help their attorneys pick a pool of jury members that they think will get them their desired verdict via whatever means necessary. Now in another universe, this might seem like the perfect plan and that Fitch, a man who has never known defeat in his pursuit, will be able to notch up another victory in his cap much to the detriment of Celeste, Wendell, and just the American justice system in general. Unfortunately (?) for Fitch however, we soon see two distinct elements appear in this particular case that neither he nor Rohr might have planned for. The first takes the form of a wild-card individual by the name of Nicholas Easter who seems like he really could be persuaded to go either way verdict-wise. Yet it is the second, an enigmatic person calling herself Marlee, that is perhaps more intriguing. This is because shortly after the trial has begun we see that she reaches out to both Fitch and Rohr with a wild claim. That being that she has the capability to give each man the verdict they individually want, but they have to be willing to pay a certain amount. Oh and one more thing: once one of the men agrees to pay her this amount then this so-called “verdict auction” is promptly closed. Thus with the case heating up, Marlee proving in various ways that her promise might be legit, and both Fitch and Rohr desperate for a win for their respective sides how will things shake out with this proverbial legal three-ring circus and above all what is Nicholas Easter’s role in all of this? That I will leave for you to discover…..
Now right off, it should be said that while the work done behind the camera is nothing special, it’s still certainly capable and able to get the job done all the same. This starts with the work done at the helm by director Gary Felder “2001’s Don’t Say a Word and 1997’s Kiss the Girls plus some episodes of TV’s The Shield” and honestly this is some fairly solid work on display here. Indeed not only does Felder do a remarkable job of utilizing both a collection of truly ingenious camera angles plus creative editing work to help ensure the film’s pace is able to stay as swift as possible whilst also organically rising the amount of tension present in the story, but he also skillfully utilizes the camera and lighting in the scenes set in court to make it feel as realistic as possible rather than mere Hollywood fantasy. With that in mind though, perhaps the one key area behind the camera that might give some pause for concern is in regards to the work done on this slice of cinema’s script. Not because, despite being penned by no less than a solid quartet of writers, it doesn’t capture the spirit and essence (among things) of the source material it is an adaptation of (trust me when I say that it definitely is able to do that and then some despite one or two significant changes). Rather, it’s because the script does contain a fair amount of moments that will require you to suspend a fair amount of your disbelief for them to work as effectively as the film would like them to. Yet even with that in mind, it should be said that if you are able to do so I think it’s a safe bet to make that you will be left satisfied with the various twists and turns that this film proceeds to throw your way even if a lot of them might not exactly fit into the realm of plausible all that well. Along with the aforementioned ingredients, it should be said that the work done on this slice of cinema by its cinematography department, as headed by one Robert Elswit, manages to do an exemplary job of not only aiding the work by the director at elevating the suspense in an exponential yet wonderfully welcome organic matter, but also at creating a bit of unease in the mind of the viewer as well. Not just in regards to the outcome of the trial mind you, but also with respect to the characters as we begin to see just how three-dimensional and complex they are as people. Lastly, I also think a fair amount of praise should be afforded here to the work done on this film’s musical accompaniment by Christopher Young (1995’s Tales from the Hood, 1987’s Hellraiser, and 2000’s The Gift among others). No, it’s not the most iconic score the man has ever done, but even so there is also no denying that it manages to be both effective whilst also reinforcing the rest of the work done both behind and in front of the camera quite well. Suffice it to say that when you also factor in solid albeit nothing really to write home about all that much work from the editing department, it’s clear that the work done behind the camera here might have some hiccups, but it’s also by no stretch guilty of being poorly done either.
Alongside the capable work done behind the camera however, this slice of cinema also benefits quite immensely from a fairly impressive collection of performances in front of the camera as well. This starts with John Cusack and honestly he’s not too bad here. Indeed as Nick Easter, we see that Cusack does a great job at playing this guy who is an affable and likable individual that, at first blush, might also seem to be nothing more than someone who is a bit of a sarcastic, more than slightly rebellious, and aimless individual in regards to where he is going with his life. As the film goes on however, we see that Cusack does a terrific job at slowly and surely peel this particular layer away to reveal that there is an insightfulness, intelligence, and even honorability to the character that not only make him worthy of our sympathy as an audience, but also rooting for as the film goes on. Suffice it to say that it’s a winning performance from one of the more underrated acting talents of his respective generation. We are also treated to a delightfully sinister turn here from screen legend Gene Hackman in the role of Rankin Fitch. Indeed, before his retirement in 2004, Hackman was always a joy, but especially whenever he played a villain role that he could sink his teeth into. Suffice it to say that this is definitely the case here as well as we see that he does such a great job at bringing a smugness, sleaziness, and just downright despicability to this master manipulator that yes you hope to see him get his comeuppance in some way by film’s end, but you also can’t help (as terrible as it may be) admiring how devoted and dedicated he is to both who he is and what he does. Equally as brilliant as Hackman however is the performance given by fellow screen icon Dustin Hoffman in the role of attorney for the plaintiff Wendell Rohr. Indeed, much like Hackman, Hoffman is nothing short of a screen legend and here we see that he does a phenomenal job at playing a guy who, despite the potential temptations of his profession, is someone who is passionate, morally sound, inherently decent, and dedicated to doing right by his client more than anything even with this tempting offer of the jury siding with him hanging overhead. That and the scene between him and Hackman is nothing short of electrifying in the best way possible. Lastly, this section would definitely be amiss if I didn’t take some time to factor in the solid performance given by Rachel Weisz. Yes, the character is one that certainly has a significant degree of mystery to such an extent that she can come across as one-note in nature. Much like with Cusack’s performance however, we see that Weisz does a phenomenal job of showcasing for us that there’s definitely more to Marlee than meets the eye especially when it comes to how dedicated and strong-willed the character is. Not just as a person, but also in regards to accomplishing her specific goals in this film respectively. Indeed it’s a terrific performance and one that certainly holds its own when sharing the screen alongside such acting titans as Hoffman and Hackman. Suffice it to say that when you also factor in wonderful support turns from such talents as Bruce Davison, Bruce McGill, Jeremy Piven, Luis Guzman, Leland Orser, Nester Serrano, Cliff Curtis, Jennifer Beals, and Bill Nunn among quite a few others it’s clear that this film might not be entirely flawless, but this cast definitely does its part to acquit it on that particular offense and then some.
All in all and at the end of the day is Runaway Jury a cinematic case that is a slam dunk in every way imaginable? Sorry, but that honor is still one that I find best applies to 12 Angry Men and maybe a few other entries in this distinct subgenre of movie magic. Having said that however, is this the worst entry on any of the creative talents involved’s individual resumes? Thankfully for my peace of mind and sanity I can confirm that this is also not the case which, if you’ve seen John Cusack’s work in such “gems” as 2016’s Cell, 2012’s The Factory, and 2014’s Drive Hard to name but a few noteworthy examples, should cause you to breathe a fairly hearty sigh of relief. Yes you should know that this slice of cinema is one that most assuredly has its faults here and there with perhaps the key one being that this film’s story is one that in nearly every aspect and twist/turn screams ludicrous, absurd, convenient, or some wonderful mixture of all three. Should you find yourself able to look past the flaws on display and accept that this slice of cinema’s narrative might not be the most plausible in the world however, I think it’s a fairly safe statement to make that you may just find quite a bit to enjoy here including some capable work at the helm, a decent pace that moves things along at a fair clip, some solid yet unremarkable cinematography, a script that might change a key aspect to the story yet otherwise remains fairly faithful to the source material, and a collection of performances in front of the camera that all (with particular regard to the ones provided by Hackman, Cusack, Hoffman, and Weisz) manage to be quite well-done with everyone doing a quality job with what they are given here in terms of characterization no matter how big or small their overall amount of screentime in the grand proceeding of things may be. Suffice it to say then that if you are looking for a hard-hitting (and dare I say realistic) legal thriller or drama that will leave you with something significant to ponder long after the credits have begun to roll then definitely check out either 12 Angry Men or A Few Good Men because those are definitely what you are looking for. On the other hand, if it’s a rainy day outside, you’re bored, and you are looking for something that will keep you entertained for a couple of hours then definitely check this movie out. I can’t promise it’s true to life in anyway, but I can promise that you won’t be judged harshly or at all should you do so. Make of that what thou will. On a scale of 1-5 I give Runaway Jury “03” a solid 3.5 out of 5.
