Typically, courtroom dramas with all-star casts are films that flawlessly can please mass audiences.

But “Runaway Jury” is one with imperfections that take away from the successful aspects of the film.

The film does take a new look at the courtroom by focusing on the jury more than the attorneys or the plaintiffs, but the stereotypical techniques that courtroom dramas use are unfortunately still there.

This film focuses on a case of a gun company being sued for the deaths of eleven people who were shot when gunmen opened fire in an office building. The victim the trial is centered around is Dylan McDermott’s character, Jacob Woods, whose wife Celeste is suing the gun company for insurance and grief damages.

But the movie’s plot mainly focuses on jury selection, which is manipulated by Gene Hackman’s character, Rankin Fitch, and his sidekick Vanessa Lembeck, played by Jennifer Beals. Fitch has a staff of hard-working computer geniuses who know how to find the tiniest details about people’s lives.

The other side of the case, headed by defense lawyer Wendell Rohr, played by Dustin Hoffman, airs sympathy for Celeste. This side also includes jury consultant Lawrence Green, played by Jeremy Piven, who does his own digging on the jury.

Now, as if all this jury investigation didn’t confuse the trial already, there is another character who adds to this complexity. Rachel Weisz, who goes by just Marlee in this film, is working from the inside and is asking for money from both Rohr and Fitch to buy the trail’s verdict. Whoever pays determines what the verdict will be.

Marlee’s character is one of the two with a compelling performance in the film. The other is Nick Easter, played by John Cusack.

Cusack’s and Weisz’s roles are what made me want to keep watching this movie. They have a secret, which is why Marlee is demanding the verdict be bought rather than decided through normal jury deliberations.

Weisz’s acting flows well with the plot as she adapts to all the twists and turns. She stays strong no matter who tries to stop her efforts, which was mainly Fitch and his crew. They take drastic measures to stop what she is trying to do to this trial.

Although there are some problems with the script, the masterminds of Cusack’s and Weisz’s characters were the most intriguing.

Cusack’s acting was similar to that in many films he has been in. “Identity” is the best example because his character in this film also is multi-dimensional. Both use different personality characteristics and reverse psychology for one purpose or another. Although these make the film entertaining, they also fit into the types of clich‚s dramatic movies use.

Piven’s character had the potential to be intriguing, but the script did not give him the chance.

His character probably could have solved some of the flaws in the script, because he found out Fitch was tampering with the jury, which could have led to what was going on between Easter and Marlee. Instead, Piven’s attempt essentially were ignored.

If not because of this, it was because of the change in the plot that came out of left field way too close to the movie’s end. This happened when one of Fitch’s dirty groundlings, was on the trail of why Marlee wanted the jury bought and what that had to do with Easter.

But this information came way too late and really could have been the plot for the entire film. Instead, the screenwriters threw it in at the end, when it did not serve the purpose it could have.

Another aspect this film did not use to its full potential was the relationship between Rohr and Fitch. When separate, both Hackman and Hoffman did well in his or her role. Hackman did well defining the cold-hearted mogul of the “justice” system that he was. Hoffman also defined his role as the kind, but not timid, defense lawyer who could still pull off a somewhat tough exterior.

In the scheme of courtroom dramas, “Runaway Jury” had the potential to be different. Despite the acting, the elements in this film and the script that could have been used to set it apart weren’t used.