Recent movies bring a variety of reviews

“Runaway Jury”

By Bo Shell
Staff Writer

In the tradition of “The Firm,” “The Pelican Brief” and “The Client,” another best-selling John Grisham book has hit the big screen.
“Runaway Jury,” not unlike other Grisham classics, takes audiences inside a Louisiana courtroom to witness a controversial hearing with implications far beyond the issues being tried.
When a successful businessman is gunned down by a disgruntled worker, his widow hires Wendell Rohr (Dustin Hoffman), a modest southern lawyer, to argue her side in a multi-million dollar lawsuit against the gun manufacturer.
Rankin Fitch (Gene Hackman) is an intuitive, hard-hitting jury consultant hired by the defense to do whatever it takes to ensure victory. In a fast-paced montage at the beginning of the film we see Fitch and his team secretly photographing potential jury members and frantically researching for dirt for their pasts. When jury selection finally arrives, Fitch selects a jury that should deliver a verdict in his favor.
What he doesn’t know is that Juror Nicholas Easter (John Cusack) and his partner Marlee (Rachel Weisz) have plans of their own. Motivated by their own personal demons, Easter and Marlee begin to show Fitch who is boss, while Rohr unknowingly plays along.
While Easter works his magic within the jury’s chamber, Marlee confronts both Fitch and Rohr with multi-million dollar offers to sway the jury either way, sparking a bidding war between Fitch and Rohr. While Fitch is no stranger to courtroom games and jury tampering, Rhor suffers through an internal moral battle — should he pay for a verdict he believes his client deserves or should he let justice take its course, ensuring victory for gun manufacturers nationwide?
The first hour and a half of the film is fairly interesting. In stereotypical Grisham fashion, suspense builds slowly as litigation becomes more heated, but the payoff for “Runaway” is rather anti-climactic. Clouded with confusing jump cuts and choppy editing, Director Gary Fleder (“Don’t Say a Word,” “Kiss the Girls”) could have done a better job tying loose ends.
Though the original Grisham novel deals with the tobacco industry, in order o create a greater sense of urgency, the creative forces behind the movie version decided gun control was a more appropriate topic. However, when Gene Hackman, known for his Oscar-winning roles in “French Connection” and “Unforgiven,” meets Dustin Hoffman known for his Oscar-winning roles in “Rain Man” and “Kramer vs. Kramer,” who cares what the movie is about?
Though they only share together in one scene, Hackman and Hoffman share a fiery chemistry that characterizes their dramatic careers — Hackman, an aggressive, no-nonsense tough guy and Hoffman, a passive do-gooder who, more often than not, is upstaged by more dominant personalities.
Above all is Rachel Weisz’s portrayal of Marlee. Though she hasn’t been in many notable films before “Runaway Jury,” one can only imagine that offers are soon to follow after she holds her own with her on-screen partner, John Cusack. It’s quite captivating to watch the 5’7” Weisz command Gene Hackman’s hawkish character to do as she pleases throughout a film where strength is the key to victory.
Maybe 15 years ago this movie would have been as gripping as “The Client,” but in 2003, movies like “Runaway Jury” often fall victim to action-packed fight scenes or silly teenage humor.
Debuting third behind “Texas Chainsaw Massacre” and “Kill Bill Volume 1,” “Runaway Jury” dropped to fourth in its second week. Box office reports say the film cost around $60 million to make, but in its two weeks has only grossed $24 million — already dwarfed by “Scary Movie 3″‘s $48 million debut.
With names like Hackman, Hoffman, and Cusack, it’s hard to imagine that this film wouldn’t appeal to everyone. As with any book-based movie, the book is better than the movie, but the suspense carries fairly well with Grisham and “Runaway Jury” is no exception.
So the verdict is out. Audiences looking for a smart film with big names from great movies of the past should definitely see “Runaway Jury.”

“The Texas Chainsaw Massacre”

By Eric Jones
Staff Writer

Just in time to spit right in Jason and Freddy’s face, “The Texas Chainsaw Massacre” proves that teen slasher movies can still be scary! Sure, all of the signs were there: stupid teens, drug use, sex and a freaky guy in a mask, every sign seemed to point toward a light-hearted comedy. And why not? Jason and Freddy are funny! Chucky’s funny! Even Michael Myers is kickin’ it with Busta Rhymes and the Internet. The opening was cheesy, with a short monologue followed by a Blair Witch type skit. Then the movie really began.
It’s not like no one knows what’s going to happen; the movie’s been made before. There are no queries about the story, and in the beginning there are no big scares. Not even when things begin to happen does the movie really dish out anything frightful. None of the characters are really appealing and I really had no qualms about seeing any of them die. Then they began to die, and I noticed something odd. This wasn’t the typical slasher-movie death where there’s a quick swipe of the machete and some schmuck’s head pops off like a basketball and blood smacks across the walls. People were dying, and for once, it wasn’t funny. The deaths were as painful as they were real, and I began to feel sorry for the characters’ torturous calamities. Dragging out some of the most gruesome deaths was enough to make anybody’s stomach roll.
Despite the movie’s horrifying torture sessions and creepy atmosphere, those crazy teens still provide us with the chuckles that only stupid young kids in the paths of vicious slayers can deliver.
The villain, Leatherface, poses a very serious threat to the serial killer stereotype. No longer must killers stalk at viciously slow paces only to pop up at some ridiculous point of the victim’s escape route. Leatherface proves that running after the victim is not only more realistic and scary, but it’s just a more effective teen catching method since most of them have no idea how to run anyway. Also, I was surprised to see Leatherface display his such qualities as sewing and tending to the wounded. These human qualities, coupled with the movie’s astonishingly artistic cinematography, make the movie creepy when it’s not being down right frightening.

“Mystic River”

By Jon Haymon
Staff Writer

A terrific cast and an emotionally raw and sometimes disturbing storyline add up to a fine effort from Clint Eastwood in his new film, “Mystic River.” Sean Penn, Tim Robbins and Kevin Bacon turn in sterling performances as three men who were separated in childhood and reunited in adulthood by tragedy. Set in working class Boston, you can almost feel the chill conveyed by both the weather and the characters onscreen in this suspenseful murder mystery.
Jimmy Markum (Penn), Dave Boyle (Robbins) and Sean Devine (Bacon) are a close band of friends that have what seems to be a storybook American childhood in the opening scene. That all changes when a pedophile posing as a police officer abducts Dave in broad daylight as the boys are playing out in the street. The boys are never the same, and their close-knit group is disbanded by the traumatic event.
Fast-forward roughly thirty years. Jimmy is an ex-con with a fierce devotion to his family, Sean is a homicide detective troubled by his separation with his estranged wife and Dave is a father and husband who seems to have never fully recovered from his childhood tragedy. When Jimmy’s 19 year-old daughter is found murdered, he wishes to bring the perpetrator to justice by his own methods. The crux of the movie is finding out exactly who the murderer is. The three are reunited as Sean is assigned to the case and Dave pitifully attempts to console Jimmy. As Sean and his partner start to investigate, Dave turns up as one of the primary suspects. Dave had come home with blood on his shirt on the same night that Jimmy’s daughter was murdered. As Dave’s behavior becomes increasingly erratic, his wife makes a decision that has severe repercussions for all three.
The acting is top notch. Penn probably steals the show with his outstanding portrayal of his character as the criminal with a moral code, and his look of rage and anguish when he learns of his daughter’s death is one of the film’s most intense emotional moments. Robbins is almost equally impressive, his facial expressions and general demeanor convey such an unstable and explosive element to his character that you are almost scared to see him alone with his own child for fear of what he might do. Bacon is solid as well.
Eastwood has delivered a great murder mystery with a very discernible moral about the terrible consequences of revenge. However, some of the plot elements feel forced. Apart from that, the film is worth the price of admission. For fans of the genre, “Mystic River” will not disappoint.

“Intolerable Cruelty”

By Margaret Ndehi
Staff Writer

“Intolerable Cruelty” was a tolerable movie. That’s the best way to describe it. It didn’t suck, but it wasn’t great. For those who appreciate dry humor and intellectual comedy, this is the movie for you. Ladies, if you want to exact revenge on a man with money who did you wrong, you can get plenty of hints on how to go down the path of successful vengeance.
The plot is quite twisted and a lot of concentration is needed from the very start of the movie. Otherwise, one can miss important clues that can be vital later in the movie. George Clooney stars as Miles Massey, a divorce attorney who would do anything for his client to ensure that they either don’t have to pay a cent or even better, get everything out of the marriage. Catherine Zeta-Jones is Marilyn Rexroth, a wife who married a man for his money. She finds him cheating on her and files for divorce, hoping to get a lot of loot. Unlucky for her, her husband enlists Massey as his attorney. As expected, she ends up poor as a pauper and vows to get back at Massey for her loss.
The movie gets better from there, where Massey, who has gotten tired of always winning and having victory measured with money, finds a challenge in Rexroth. The lovely Mrs. Rexroth, uses this towards her advantage and Massey soon finds himself in love with her. To add onto this, after their quick wedding, they tear up the all-important document: the pre-nuptial agreement. Marilyn has her revenge fair and square. Massey finds out too late that he has been duped.
Not wanting to spoil the ending for all those planning to see the movie, here is a hint: it has the all too common fairy tale ending. I have to say I was thoroughly disappointed since I actually loved the movie until the end, when it totally devastated me with its predictability. Whatever happened to originality?
The moral of the movie is that money will never buy happiness. Find someone to love. My opinion is that we don’t need a movie to tell us that. We know that already. However, it wasn’t too bad. Try and watch it, only if you must.

Posted by Colonnade Archives on Nov 14 2003. Filed under Other. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0. You can leave a response or trackback to this entry