PG-13 for violence, language and thematic
John Cusack, Gene Hackman, Dustin Hoffman,
Rachel Weisz, Jennifer Beals, Cliff Curtis, Bruce Davison,
Nora Dunn, Luis Guzman, Orlando Jones, Jeremy Piven
BASED ON THE BOOK BY:
In providing movie reviews on our site, CBN.com is not endorsing or recommending films we review. Our goal is to provide Christians with information about the latest movies, both the good and the bad, so that our readers may make an informed decision as to whether or not films are appropriate for them and their families.
By Holly McClure
Special Notes: For those of you who are John Grisham
fans and wondering if the movie is anything remotely like his 1996 best-selling
legal literary thriller, it's not. The civil case before the court is
no longer about jury tampering and the big bad tobacco company. Now it's
about jury tampering and a firearms company that is sued by the widow
of a man who was gunned down in his office. Veteran actors Hoffman and
Hackman are collaborating for the first time on screen after some 40 years
Plot: When a family man is murdered by an angry
employee on a rampage, the widow hires Wendall Rohr (Hoffman), known for
his wit and being an advocate against gun violence. The other side hires
an infamous jury consultant, Rankin Fitch (Hackman), to assist their attorney
representing the gun manufacturer. What both of them discover in their
"discovery" is a plot to manipulate the jury by someone on the
inside. With millions of dollars at stake, the two sides use various means
to try and secure the votes of the jury to win a case that will set precedence
for gun cases.
Good: Director Gary Fleder (Don't Say a Word, Kiss the Girls), has taken this Grisham tale and loaded it with
lots of action, intense moments of physical danger and bold dialogue like
''We love fat women, people!'' (It's a line used by Hackman when he instructs
his troop of snoops, blackmailers and operatives who work for him.) This
is a world of secretly shot footage of potential jurors, vindictive and
manipulative actions against the twelve jurors and an involving side plot
with a juror (Cusack and his mysterious girlfriend, Weisz). The two scheme
to sell the jury to the highest bidder which creates the danger and greed
that propels the plot. In the end, there's an unexpected twist that involves
their past, where true intentions are brought to light and redeem their
behavior. Hackman is perfect as the cliché of amoral ruthlessness,
coolly directing his team like a symphony. Hoffman plays the old-fashioned,
above-board "good guy" who is confident and honest but still
has a few tricks up his sleeve. I enjoyed the dynamic storyline, but it
seemed too bizarre to be true and too horrifying if any of it is true.
I think the OJ trial created skepticism about our legal system and juries
being bought or bribed. This story doesn't exactly help that line of thinking.
In fact, it left me wondering and sort of hesitant about any future jury
duty I have to pull.
Bad: Although the action is interesting and the
acting entertaining, there are a couple of things that bother me about
this movie. When you have a story about a jury and the director casts
a group of actors like Nora Dunn, Luis Guzman, Orlando Jones and Jennifer
Beals, I think it's safe to expect some strong performances from the talented
bunch. Instead, either the editor left the best parts on the cutting room
floor or there were no best parts to be cut. Jeremy Piven plays an idealistic
jury consultant who fast-talks his way onto Rohr's team, then does little
besides gape skeptically at the counsel's unorthodox tactics. My biggest
gripe is that the story uses the movie as a political soapbox against
gun manufacturers and does it in such an obvious, over-the-top and politically
correct way, that it should be embarrassing to everyone involved. Hackman's
character represents the ruthless, evil, "no feelings" law,
that stomps all over the common man for the sake of the powerful and mighty
gun manufacturer and smacks of evil. Hoffman is portrayed as the human
"with a heart" against guns, sent to represent and protect the
poor widow and her son against the evil gun manufacturers. By film's end,
he's practically made into a hero -- but for what and why? The story acts
as if some triumphant victory was established because a gun manufacturer
was found guilty of a shooting spree it didn't commit. Never-mind the
fact that the murders were committed by an emotionally and mentally disturbed
employee who came into the office with premeditation to vent his anger
at his former co-workers. Does Hollywood truly believe its own hype? What's
worse, does it think we do?
Bottom Line: I despise the political message in
this film and the way they went about showing it. To blame the sin and
horrible act that one man commits (against several innocent people) on
a gun manufacturer just because it was their gun that he used is ridiculous.
If we take away accountability for our actions in society and to each
other, then we have nothing of real value left.
Holly McClure writes movie reviews for Crosswalk.com.
CBN IS HERE FOR YOU!
Are you seeking answers in life? Are you hurting?
Are you facing a difficult situation?
A caring friend will be there to pray with you in your time of need.
Popular Entertainment Products