Run Away Jury - <i>Run Away from the movie</i>

Self | 10-18-03 | Vanity

[mgist]

This movie was a case study in Hollywood propaganda. Gene Hackman (The evil villain) says, "I hate Democrats as much as I hate . . . "

Dustin Hoffman, the quintesential liberal, is out to defend society from the evil corporate gun manufacturers. Puke!

I had to see the movie, my husband is an attorney and loves these movies. I'm not sure if the movie was terrible or the propaganda was so blatant I was just disgusted.

[mgist]

Stay away from this movie.

[goldstategop]

Its anti-gun propaganda disguised as entertainment.

[Steel Wolf]

Interesting how the Hollywood 'don't want to offend anyone' reflex works. On one hand, Arab terrorists might be offensive to some, so The Sum of All Fears is recast as a neo Nazi plot. However, in Run Away Jury, the smoking industry is apparently too cliche to raise people's interest, so they recast the villian as .. gun manufacturers! Ha ha!

Who in their right minds would be offended by portraying gun makers as evil?

[BushCountry]

I usually don't let the liberal actors keep me from watching a film (I wouldn't be able to watch any), but a blanant liberal theme film is utterly replusive, so thanks. };O)

[Ches]

Bang

[ABG(anybody but Gore)]

Thanks for the heads up. I was thinking of going see it this afternoon. Now I won't.

[evad]

TFTW

[kcordell]

I thought this book involved a "tobacco case." My Mom told me it wasn't worth reading so I didn't. Won't pay for the movie either.

[JesseHousman]

Stay away from this movie.

I will.

Thanks for the review of another piece of Hollywood leftist pap.

[sgtbono2002]

I dont go to movies any more they all have a liberal theme behind them.

[Loyal Buckeye]

bad book = bad movie

[dasboot]

Gene Hackman's makin' a living lampooning conservatives. Very shallow...wonder if he'll ever discover how large an ass he's making of himself. His ideology and prejudice blinding to poor scripts? Didn't see the first one. Ditto this trash. TX

[RAY]

If Hollywood crowed depended on folks like me – they would all be flipping burgers.

[E. Pluribus Unum]

America-hater John Cusack produced this film, which is another very good reason to stay away from it.

[Ben Chad]

thanks for the heads up. crossed it off my to-see list which now is empty. this is bad because my wife's greatest joy is going to see movies.

[Long Cut]

I was wondering why Hollywood has made no Terror-War themed movies. Fox News provided the answer last night.

One director:"They view Bush and Ashcroft as bigger threats than Osama bin Laden"

They found that most H'wood folk see the war as "Bush's War", and not theirs. They don't want to make anything that might bring a positive light to the President. Also, PC has a factor...can't offend the Muslims, y'know.

Thus, all the bravery and sacrifices our troops make daily, and the limitless drama and glory of their stories will be totally ignored by those most pampered and snobbish among us.

There are not only NO movies currently in development dealing with the war, there are not even any PLANS to make one.

So, for my generation, there will be no "Sands Of Iwo Jima", no "Back To Battaan", no "Longest Day". In fact, the implication was that no movies would even MENTION the war, even peripherally.

I'm sure, though, that in about ten years, they'll make some flicks depicting those of us in this as PTSD-fried lunatics and fools.

[happydogx2]

We are John Grisham fans and enjoyed the book. The anti-gun message in the movie is clear, disappointingly so considering the book dealt with a tobacco lawsuit.

[willieroe]

I enjoyed this paragraph from movie critic David Elliott of the San Diego Union-Tribune:

The widow's lawyer is Wendell Rohr, a pint-sized Atticus Finch, played with a French Quarter mist of magnolia accent by Dustin Hoffman. When his chief witness fails to appear – we never get any insight into his value – Rohr's foxy guile is to fall back on an anti-gun argument that makes "Bowling for Columbine" seem like a Socratic dialogue, and to win the jury with a home movie of the murdered man at his son's birthday party.

[Let's Roll]

The Grisham book was about a lawsuit brought against a tobacco company. Naturally, Hollyweird changed tobacco company to a gun manufacturer for the movie resulting in more than 2 hours of lecturing on the evils on gun ownership. I also hear it's boring.

Callers to Michael Medved yesterday pointed out that the trailers carefully omit mention of the attack on the 2nd Amendment and that they never would have wasted their $10 on the movie if they had known.

[scan58]

Who in their right minds would be offended by portraying gun makers as evil?

You do know the answer to that question is in the question, don't you?