Runaway Jury

Status
Not open for further replies.

JamisJockey

member
Joined
Jan 4, 2003
Messages
2,743
Location
Northern VA
What a good premise, and good acting, and good directing......yet the movie stank to hell! This movie was absolutely full of anti-gun bias (primary to the plot). I give it one Star, only because the acting and the way the plot twists out. However, I strongly advise everyone skip this one.
I'm so pissed....:banghead:
I'm an athiest, yet I fully intend to go see the Passion of the Christ just to support Mel Gibson.
:D
 
Yup, the book was GREAT - and it was focused on Big Tobacco. I couldn't wait to see the movie when I heard it was in production, but I was nearly sick when I heard about the changes. It ruined what would have been an otherwise fine movie. :barf:
 
Just like The Sum of All Fears. Good reading books that are changed to fit an agenda. I just mark down the producer and director and writer for when I get a chance to right a wrong.
 
I saw it last night before I really knew what was up.

Hated it. Talk about Anti gun garbage.

The chick didn't even look that good. At least make a bad movie with a good looking gal. Sheeezzzz...what's this world coming to?

Good Shooting
Red
 
I just finished watching it and I must say that it is a good movie, not a great one. I do understand why they changed the story from tobacco to firearms. Firearms are more dramatic and probably most importantly, Hollywood bleeds anti-gun rhetoric. Besides, the attacks on tobacco industry has leveled off and isn't such a big deal any longer.

The opening sequence is a powerful scene to support anti-gun feelings of hoplophobias. The director's commentary of Gary Fleder, along with the making of special feature, were mainly focused on the story of jury consultants and buying a verdict. The director revealed that the sequence was based on Mark Barton, a day trader that killed nine people in two Atlanta brokerage firms. He supposedly lost $100,000 day trading and killed his family sometime before walking into the offices of All-Tech Investment Services in July 1999. Barton would later take his own life.

One thing the Fleder mentioned in his commentary was the bloodless scene of the office massacre. And there was no gore to be seen, but he did capture the horror actor Dylan McDermott expressed so well of being a fish in a barrel.

And isn't that the utopia those who support anti-gun laws would have for us? They would like us to believe that without guns, the world would be a peaceful place as the end of the movie shows children running around and laughing on a playground? Isn't that why they want to pass gun laws? For the children? Or wouldn't it be more so that criminals would have fish in a barrel if a law was passed to ban firearms?

But being logical as we are understand that laws meant to control criminal use of guns do not stop those willing to break the law. Those laws prevent or restrict law-abiding citizens from using their right to arms for the defense of their life and livelihood.

It's too bad that not only did the characters in the movie have an agenda, but the producers of this propaganda did as well. There were no mention of federally licensed gun manufacturers who sell to federally licensed distributors, who then sell to federally licensed dealers, who then sell to those who fill out a 4473 form and have a background check done prior to the ownership of the firearm.

For those who are naïve about the Second Amendment and freedom, this movie makes an easy arguement to them for the prohibition of firearms and paints an evil face on the gun industry. It's just sad that some people will buy into a view without looking into it further.

-Tommy
 
Can someone give me a little synopsis of the plot (bg kills people, somebody sues gun manufacturer, who is of course corrupt?). This sounds like one of those "have to see how screwed up it is" movies.
 
Every time you see crap like this, you line the pockets of antis AND make them feel they have popular support in all the "fly-over" states. Hence, they keep hammering the issue until those weak-between-the-ears finally believe the Big Lie through sheer repetition.
 
Can someone give me a little synopsis of the plot
Both sides hire 'jury consulting firms' that are corrupt. The plantiff's side is high, mighty, and moral. The gun companies are really rich white men that sit around in a smokey room plotting. Of course, the gun companies firm (led by Gene Hackman) is alot more corrupt. However, insider on the jury is extremely persuasive, and contacts the consultants via his girl friend. Plays both sides, finally the gun side gives in and pays. Verdict goes against the gun company anyways, it turns out that the insider was in a town where there was a high school shooting, town sued and went bankrupt....and that the character played by gene hackman was the consultant responsible for that loss.
 
I loved the book!! I am not a smoker, but I did get a little sick of how they beat up the tobacco companies. I skipped the movie mostly because I knew it would make me all stressed and angry. I like to watch movies to relax not get all mad. I still can't believe they changed the entire plot of the book!
 
Just rented this movie w/o knowing the plot.

Can I get a: :barf: :barf: :barf:

On the :barf: scale, it get's a whopping 5 :barf: 's out of 5.
 
The anti-gun stuff was the background for the plot that depicted the jury consulting folks. However, the arguments against firearms was strongly stated (and all BS). Glad I didn't see it in a theatre.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top