ニューオーリンズで銃の乱射事件が発生した。その犯人は16人を射殺して自殺してしまう。そして、事件で夫を失った女性が大手銃器メーカーを相手に訴訟を起こす。それに対し、被告側は伝説の陪審コンサルタント・フィッチを雇い、陪審員に裏工作を開始する。
AIが作品の魅力を深く読み解いています
製作費: $60,000,000 (90億円)
興行収入: $80,154,140 (120億円)
推定収支: $20,154,140 (30億円)
※製作費・興行収入はTMDBのデータを参照しています。収支は(興行収入 - 製作費)で算出したFindKey独自の推定値であり、広告宣伝費や諸経費は含まれません (1ドル=150円換算)。
監督: ゲイリー・フレダー
脚本: ジョン・グリシャム / ブライアン・コッペルマン / デヴィッド・レヴィーン
制作: ゲイリー・フレダー / Christopher Mankiewicz / アーノン・ミルチャン
撮影監督: Robert Elswit
This offers quite an interesting look at just how seriously big business takes the selection of a jury, when large amounts of money are at stake. Gene Hackman is "Fitch", a man who makes a very good living acting on behalf of these organisations. His job is to probe into the private lives of prospective jurors, of their loves, peccadillos, politics - looking for weaknesses or reasons not to select them. This case involves one of the most contentious in the US pantheon of criminal law - the right to bear arms, and it falls to "Rohr" (Dustin Hoffman) to bring an action against a weapons manufacturer that is going to be tough. As the case proceeds, we are introduced to the less honourable nature of one of the jurors, and his girlfriend who have a plan of their own - and, as you'd expect, there is money and pressure being applied to ensure that the jury reach the "correct" verdict. Intriguing as the plot is, though, the film itself stutters along without much innovation. The courtroom scenes are a bit dreary and once we have established the premiss, Hackman's efforts are all rather repetitive and become less and less menacing and sophisticated as the story slips into a rather mediocre melodrama of private life shenanigans. Hoffman is adequate, no more, as are Rachel Weisz and John Cusack as the eagerly duplicitous but not awfully bright "Easter". Based on one of John Grisham's more inventive stories - nobody ever actually wants to be on a jury - this loses much in it's translation to film and by the mid-point I was really pretty turned off by the whole thing. It's watchable, but becomes more preposterous as it proceeds to a conclusion that, though not quite what you might expect, is still a bit flat.
