Today's Review: Runaway Jury
Starring: John Cusack, Gene Hackman
Directed by: Gary Fleder

Rating: 3 (out of 5)

If you wish to subscribe email The Naked Critic

I must be out of my mind reviewing a movie about the gun issue.

I mean, there's no way I can win. No matter what I say, no matter how neutral I try to be, and no matter how I stick to the facts of the movie, I've got a load of hate mail coming my way. These missives will come to me from people on both sides of the debate...the gun lovers AND the gun haters. And they'll either take issue with an out-of-context comment or, more likely, my refusal to condemn the other side. But what they will ALL have in common is that they'll be typed in all CAPS, poorly written, contain atrocious spelling and grammar, and will all question my sexuality by saying "YOU'RE A F**!!!"

And all of this over the most mediocre movie of the year.

There is some very good news for pretty much every woman alive between the ages of 25 and 40, and it's the fact that John Cusack is in yet another movie. I can hear the sighs of thousands of single ladies as I type the words. That guy has a hold on women that, quite frankly, mystifies me. It's not like he's still the king of the romantic comedy, because the past year or so has seen him in a courtroom drama, a violent slasher flick ("Identity") and an art-house flick about the young Adolf Hitler ("Max").

Boy, do women love this guy. It's like whatever he does, every woman I know just FAWNS over him. You could have cast Cusack as Leatherface in the remake of Texas Chainsaw Massacre, and women would be lined up around the block to see it. Then afterwards they'd gush and say things like "Omigawd...like, I know he's a psychopathic killer and everything, but underneath that mask of human skin he wore, his eyes were just so soulful and sad! I just wanted to hug him! He could impale ME on his meat hook any time!"

Of course, Cusack is just one of the stars of this movie. You've also got Gene Hackman and Dustin Hoffman, who have teamed up for the first time ever. This is a big deal to people who care about things like this, kind of like when Pacino and DeNiro appeared together in "Heat". And, like in "Heat", they only share one scene together, and it's fairly short and utterly pointless.

The movie opens with Jacob Wood (Dylan McDermott) driving to work. He's a young, successful, good-looking stockbroker, who's preoccupied with his young son's birthday party. So, right away, you know something bad is going to happen to him. Sure enough, he's gunned down in a senseless workplace rampage by a psychotic day-trader. Because setting the crime in a post office would be too obvious.

Fast-forward a few years, and there's a big trial a-brewing. Jacob's widow Celeste has sued the gun manufacturer for damages, alleging that if they hadn't made it so EASY for the postman - I mean, day-trader - to actually GET the gun, her husband might still be alive. The cynic in me likes to think that, if she wins this case, she'll then go on and sue Marlboro for her father's respiratory problems, and then McDonalds because she has to now buy her son's clothes in the "Husky Sizes" department at JC Penney. (Oh, don't write in...I SAID it was the cynic in me.)

Now we meet Nick Easter (Cusack), who opens his mail to find a summons for Jury Duty. Fortunately, it's Jury Duty as in having to go to a courtroom and listen to lawyers argue, and NOT Jury Duty as in having to go to the theatre and watch a horrible Paulie Shore movie. Rather than throw the summons out, like the rest of us would, he keeps it and bitches and moans to his co-workers at the mall about it.

Of course, Nick is also being tailed by goons...because that's what goons do. These particular goons work for Rankin Fitch (Hackman), a so-called "Jury Doctor". He's evil, which is telegraphed by the fact that he sports a goatee. This vexes me...all too often, if a character in a movie has a goatee, he's evil. As a goatee-wearer, this causes me no end of grief. Children run from me, women shun me...it's really starting to give me a complex.

So anyhoo...the job of a "Jury Doctor" is apparently to spy on prospective jurors to figure out which ones would be "sympathetic" to their cause, or which ones could be easily "persuaded". The gun makers, who are all like southern and Snidely Whiplash-esque, have made it clear to Fitch that he has to win this case. Now, a "Jury Doctor", looks like it's a pretty lucrative gig; he's getting paid a fortune, and he's got a gajillion goons working for him. This is annoying, because my guidance counsellor never mentioned Jack Shit about "Jury Doctor" as a potential career.

Hey! I know! I'll sue her!

On the other side, Celeste is being represented by Wendell Rohr (Hoffman). He's nice, he's principled, and he sincerely believes that he has a case. Therefore, you know he doesn't have a chance in hell. Heck, he doesn't even have any goons! All he's got going for him is his hundred-dollar suit. He's toast.

Nick tries his best to weasel out of Jury Duty by employing the "I'd rather be playing video games" defense. On one hand, I applaud him for his chutzpah, because this is a very difficult tactic to take. Believe me. I've been trying the "video game" excuse for years with a variety of tight-assed bosses, and they won't have none of it. So, naturally, trying it in front of a judge is a lost cause. He winds up on the jury, despite the fact that Fitch can't dig up any dirt on him and doesn't trust him.

But wait a second! What's this? Is there some jury-rigging afoot? Disorder in the court? It appears so! It seems our Nick WANTED to be on the jury! And he and his girlfriend Marlee (Rachel Weisz) are playing both sides...this Jury is for sale. Marlee contacts both Fitch and Rohr with a note, letting them know that she has the power to swing the verdict in their favour...for a price. And ever since they've taken the "Verdicts" section off eBay, a good verdict has become increasingly hard to find. The game, as they say, is afoot.

You'll never be able to say that "Runaway Jury" doesn't have a stellar cast. This cast is so big that even established character actors like McDermott, Luis Guzman, and Orlando Jones have been relegated to 5 line parts. I kept expecting to see Edward Norton and Marlon Brando as extras, that's the kind of cast we have here.

Which is, obviously, where the budget went. $60 million on actors' salaries, and a buck-fifty for the script.

In the original novel, the case was against the tobacco industry, rather than the firearms industry. So, they made that change, and I guess at the same time decided to get rid of all the character development, plot twists, and dialogue. It's really nothing more than a star-powered movie of the week. There's more emotion in a "Very Special" episode of "Diff'rent Strokes" than there is in this movie.

Plus, it's biased. It doesn't even pretend not to have a rabid anti-gun bias. "Bowling For Columbine" was more even-handed than this. Don't complain to me...I didn't write the movie. And I'm not saying that I'm pro-gun or anti-gun. But you'd think that with a hot-button issue such as this, they would at least TRY to mask their bias. But they don't, and as a result, it winds up feeling like a huge anti-NRA commercial.

Of course, it's not all bad. If you're a fan of acting (or a 25 to 40 year old woman) then this is the movie for you. Hackman is, quite frankly, incredible. He owns every single frame of this movie. Hey, Hoffman's no slouch, but all he really has to do is mumble a lot and act charming. And Cusack? He's fine, but he's always fine...it doesn't matter. His very presence in this movie ensures that it will do a brisk rental business with women that have a pint of Triple Brownie Overload ice cream waiting for them at home. Sigh.

In fact, it's acted well all around, and it keeps moving at a brisk pace. It really is the writing that is the weakest link here. Characters and situations are introduced and quickly forgotten, which gets annoying.

Now, if you'll excuse me, I need a lawyer. Guidance counsellors of the world beware...if I win this one, I'll be setting a precedent!

BACK


© copyright 2003 1418336 Ontario Limited all rights reserved.