Hey folks, Harry here with a look at the star studded Grisham flick, RUNAWAY JURY... Indiana Rocky here caught a screening of the film in New Orleans, and he's sort of mixed on the film, and there is some spoilers in his review... but the main thing that got a reaction from me was his wish for a GRADUATE PART 2.... Dear God On Earth, why? Why would you want a Graduate Part 2? I mean, it ends perfectly. Frankly I don't really want to know what happens to those characters... Do I want to find out it went happily ever after? That they grew to hate each other? That he got into plastics after all? NO! I don't want to know! I'd prefer to have endless conversations with friends and fans of the film and Buck Henry's brilliance and just wonder... There's a magic to not knowing how it all turns out. ya know? Sigh... personally that one line in his review got more of a reaction than this whole review about this film. Maybe it is just me. Here ya go...

Howdy Harry.

I just got back from a screening of the new Hoffman/Hackman/Cusack flick 'Runaway Jury' down here in the Big Easy.

Now, I have been excited about this film for quite some time. Not only was it filmed in MY city, the great New Orleans, but it also stars the greatest living actor of our time, Dustin Hoffman. Now, I have been disappointed by his choices in roles lately, from that stupid Joan of Ark movie to the aweful "Sphere," but I quite enjoyed "Moonlight Mile," so I was hoping for the best. Now, Popeye Doyle is also in this film. Two screen legends and friends in the same film! Hell yeah! Now what sealed the deal was John Cusack in it. It could not be that bad with this holy trinity signed up. Plus, it was free! I was there!

I'm not a fan of Grisham's stuff. I have never read any of his books, and the only film adaptation I've seen of his was part of "The Rainmaker" on an airplane. I didn't find that too bad, but it was one of Francis's lesser films. As fans of Grisham's book probably know by now, the movie replaced cigarettes with guns. Apparently, the ending was also changed into a much happier scene. Oh well, I don't care. It was a pretty liberal movie. It is what you expect. The poor victim of a shooting sues the evil gun manufacture. The prosecution's side are a bunch of angels. The defense is evil. They spy, blackmail, and burn down buildings. Well, what do you expect from Hollywood?

The film was okay. It was predictable, but it was great for seeing the great acting it in. Cusack was good, as he always is. It's nice to see him, once in a while, getting away from those romantic comedies. Yeah, their good, but we all know he can do so much more. He plays the role of a conniving juror well, even leading the audience towards a faulty conclusion about his character during the first thirty minutes of the film.

Hackman, playing the role of a jury manipulator, brings life to this character. You want to hate this guy when he gets on the screen. The villainy may go a little over the top, but that is the problem with the writers, not Mr. Luther- I mean Hackman.

Hoffman is poorly used in this film. He plays the innocent lawyer who could sit in heaven on the right hand of God. There was one scene where I was hoping his character would get a little depth and venture into the shadows, but nope, this guy can't be curropted. Hoffman can be used for so much more! Why can't you get him to play a three-dimensional character? He was so poorly used for this film that I really do hope they make "The Graduate, Part II." I will never let go of that dream.

Now, I know all of you will be wanting to know- Hoffman v. Hackman. How do they relate to each other when they are on screen together? Sadly, there is only one real scene when they are actually confronting one another. It wasn't as good as I was hoping. Hackman make some cracks at Hoffman's character's dressing style, and Hoffman just keeps on saying how Hackman is so evil. We still have to wait for that great on-screen pairing.

Rachel Weisz, playing Cusack's love interest and partner-in-scam, does fine. I never bothered to see the Mummy movies, but I did see her small part in "About a Boy." She really does expand in this film, really playing both sides. She does better with her American accent than Hoffman does with his Southern-like speech.

One thing I am disappointed in is that Jeremy Piven is hardly used at all, like always. In the beginning, it seemed like he was really going to be important to the story, but he just kind of gets lost in the middle of the film, never to recover. Come on, guys, give this guy a break! Make a "Cupid" movie or something!

Now, the actors really make this movie. I have a real problem with the writing, especially its references to New Orleans. Come on, guys, not everyone in New Orleans goes to Voodoo shops. I haven't even been in one of those places. Second, French speaking blacks are not Cajuns! The may be Creoles, but they are not Cajuns. There is also more to New Orleans than the French Quarter, although we don't sell the city by showing the ghetto. There is also no City College at Tulane. There is a University College, but no City College. There is also no stop on the smelly streetcar at the zoo. Thankfully, there were no terrible accents, except Hoffman's did get on my nerves a bit. If they had some of those "Waterboy" accents, I swear I would have killed someone. At least they got the jazz right, not putting Cajun accents in the city itself.

Anyway, it was a decent movie. The audience enjoyed it. There was clapping at the end. It will make a nice weekend outing in October. It's not bad, but it's not great, either. If you are a big fan of these courtroom movies, see it. However, if you are looking for a great courtroom movie, see "Twelve Angry Men."

Call me-

Indiana Rocky