MovieChat Forums > Runaway Jury (2003) Discussion > This is one of the dumbest, most hypocri...

This is one of the dumbest, most hypocritical movies ever spoilers

posted 13 years ago by does_england_exist
64 replies | jump to latest

Putting Liberal/Conservative jazz aside, this movie is still a steaming pile of nonsense. First off, the gun company was in total compliance with the LAW. You can't ask more than that. The guy who sold the gun illegally was punished and the guy who committed the crime was dead...JUSTICE was done, but somehow that wasn't good enough? We have to go after the manufacturer, merely because they're aware that their product is sometimes misused?

Ok...so what if Ford is aware of how many Fords are involved in drunk driving incidents? Are we gonna sue Ford for selling a car to an alcoholic? I mean, aren't people responsible for their OWN actions?

And BTW, if you think guns can be illegalized and crime rates will decrease, you're living in a vacuum. Just ask yourself if anti-narcotic laws keep drugs off the streets. Your best bet is leaving the potential perp wondering if he's gonna get perforated for breaking into your house. Period. If he KNOWS you don't have a gun and your neighbor does, who do you think is gonna get robbed, raped and murdered? Yeah. You.

Another thing: Nick and his little girlfriend break all kinds of laws, too many to count. The 'evil' gun company, who has complied with the law 100% prior to the trial (hiring Fitch was obviously wrong) only hired Fitch in the first place to defend itself against an unjust lawsuit. Entire companies were on the line; that's JOBS! Livelihoods. Family businesses built over generations. They're just supposed to lie down and take it while these two 'activists' break every law in sight and manipulate other human beings in some twisted revenge quest? Those are our heroes in this film? Uh, no.

I love the line at the end of the film...'we let them vote their hearts'...ummm, excuse me, you *let* them??? How bloody nice of YOU. Give me a break.

[–] drjettrink 11 years ago

Juries and "activist" Judges make new all the time.

Appeals or the lack thereof, sometimes all the up to the Supreme Court uphold these decisions or voids them.

[–] 11 years ago

[deleted]

[–] does_england_exist 11 years ago

Yeah...it's been awhile since I read the book, but I think even then (when the plaintiff had a MUCH better case), everybody knew none of the 'victims' would see a dime.

[–] rizdek 11 years ago

I think the problem is that you assume you are supposed to see the actions of Nick and his girlfriend as right and the actions of the defendant as wrong. As I see it, both misused the system to achieve their goals. It's just that Nick "won" the case that time. And certainly not by legal or ethical means.

I always thought the point of the story...both the book AND the movie was to present a relevant issue, develop a plot full of twists and turns, salt it with interesting characters. In the end it was supposed to captivate us and make us think. That's the way Grisham books are. There are rarely clearcut good guys or clearcut bad guys. There's just people acting out interesting legal issues.

[–] does_england_exist 11 years ago

Not quite. My assumption is that we are supposed to feel Nick and the gf are 'the good guys' despite their wanton law-breaking, and that we are supposed to feel the gun companies are the bad guys, despite the fact that reluctant law-breaking was their only recourse to getting railroaded in an unjust lawsuit. Now, Fitch was a bastard, no middle ground there, but still.

This is what irritates me about political films--in this case, the good guys stalked their prey and orchestrated a miscarriage of justice as retribution for an emotional issue...yet we are CLEARLY supposed to be happy for the outcome.

Crap like this makes it impossible for reasonable people on both sides to come up with reasonable solutions. All you ever hear is the right/left extremism, and said extremists calling anyone who disagrees with them in any way an extremist. Hyperbole doesn't lead to progress.

[–] rizdek 11 years ago

I do admit the movie might be viewed as trying to put that slant on it more so than the book. But even though I agree with your views on frivolous law suits, I wasn't viscerally repulsed by the movie like you seemed to be. I simply didn't "associate" with or feel for Nick and his gf. I didn't "buy in" to their scheme. Of course, with the defendants tampering with witnesses and the jury, I didn't "feel" for them either. You are right, Hackman played Fitch to be a bastard so we're supposed to dislike him personally.

I guess it just hits different folks differently. However, while I found the action and story interesting, it was a bit too intense for me to enjoy re-watching. So, for reasons other the one that bothers you, I never have watched this again.

[–] does_england_exist 11 years ago

I used to live in the French Quarter, they chase each other around all my old haunts...If I happen to see Runaway Jury on tv, I'll watch it for that, and for the eye candy value. Lol.

The rest is just legal and political fluff, bad enough to be on a fanfic site.

This is one of the dumbest, most hypocritical movies ever *spoilers*

This is one of the dumbest, most hypocritical movies ever spoilers