Juror #2

By the end of the film, you can tell they really thought they did something. Credit to the stacked cast with great acting skills, but wow - what year was this written? It felt like an early 2000s episode of CSI, except with awful pacing making you constantly question the script. Pacing and depth aside, references to gangs and crews was almost laughably cringe with statements like "... when he got inked." The 2000s called and they want better pacing for a movie with this much potential. If the cast wasn't what it is, this film would easily be a 4/10, but they saved it. I wouldn't recommend it, but I wouldn't exactly stay fans of the genre away from it .. just don't expect much.

"Juror #2" is a movie that teases greatness but ultimately falls short due to its flawed execution. The premise is undeniably strong, offering a fresh take on the courtroom drama genre that immediately grabs attention. The story revolves around a juror torn between his duty to deliver justice and the burden of a personal secret that could change the case's outcome. It's the kind of setup that promises tension, moral dilemmas, and edge-of-your-seat storytelling. However, the film struggles to make the most of this potential.

Despite a talented cast delivering commendable performances, the script fails to provide the depth and nuance necessary to elevate the story. The characters, while well-acted, often come across as trapped in a plot that feels more concerned with sensational twists than meaningful development. The narrative choices veer into contrived territory, undermining the gravity of the film's premise. Instead of a thought-provoking exploration of justice and morality, we are given a story that leans too heavily on clichés and illogical decisions.

What's most disappointing is how close "Juror #2" comes to being great. With a sharper focus on its central themes and more thoughtful storytelling, it could have been a standout in its genre. Instead, it feels like a missed opportunity, one that leaves you wondering what could have been. The strong performances and intriguing premise deserve acknowledgment, but they aren't enough to save the movie from its poor execution. In the end, it's a serviceable but forgettable watch-a film that could have soared but instead settles for mediocrity.

While serving as a juror in a high-profile murder trial, a family man finds himself struggling with a serious moral dilemma, one he could use to sway the jury verdict and potentially convict or free the wrong killer. Prosecutor Faith Killebrew (Toni Colette) hopes to draw voters to her campaign for district attorney (DA) by highlighting her high-profile domestic violence conviction. A dissenting juror (Nicholas Hoult) in a murder trial slowly manages to convince the others that the case is not as obviously clear as it seemed in court presided by strict Judge Thelma Hollub (Amy Aquino) . As Juror #2 holds out with a verdict of not guilty, thus setting the stage for arguments and reasons why or why not the guy may be guilty . As he desperately seeks to convince his eleven peers (Leslie Bibb, Cedric Yarbrough, James Michael Sythe, Chikako Fukuyama, J. K. Simmons) to reconsider their conviction of a man (Gabriel Basso) framed of murdering . As 12 jurors are str uggling to decide the fate of a guy who allegedly killed his wife. Justice is blind !. Guilt sees everything !.

Middle-budget Clint Eastwood film about some jurors quick to condemn a man on trial for murdering his girlfiend before reviewing the evidence. Though the whole movie is mainly set in a courtroom and a jury room it never lacks for taut , suspense , intrigue and inspired direction . Eastwood, director of masterpieces such as Unforgiven, Mystic River or Million Dollar Baby, returns to his cinema of dark stories and ethical dilemmas in this closed-door courtroom thriller starring Nicholas Hoult (Skins), Toni Colette (The Sixth Sense, Hereditay) and J. K. Simmos (Whiplash). Here, Eastwood explores the differences between justice and truth, the complexity of ethics and impartiality.

The struggle behind closed doors is tense , charged and riveting. Jonathan Abrams's brilliant script was left virtually intact in its move to feature film. Courtroom drama too plenty of flaws, unlikely situations and unresolved ambiguities to be anywhere near the genre's best. However , being splendidly directed by Clint Eastwood with an extraordinary plethora of actors who give magnificent performances . The acting level of the cast during some of the intense discussions and debates almost bursts in the screen .

There's also a sensitive music by Mark Mancina. As well as as an evocative cinematography by Yves Bélanger, mainly shot in Savannah, where Eastwood previously filmed Midnight in the Garden of Good and Evil (1997) . Despite the small streaming ans TV release the film (releasing only in USA 50 theaters despite strong test results) is due in the US it is nonetheless getting a wide theatrical release in many other countries. The motion picture was well directed by Clint Eastwood and is expected to retire after this movie. This film along with the filmed in the 2000s as ¨Cry Macho¨, ¨The Mule¨, ¨American Sniper¨, ¨Invictus ¨ , ¨Gran Torino¨, " Changeling" , ¨ Million dollars baby¨ , ¨Mystic river ¨ make that the dramatic force of this great director turns outs to be impressive , despite being over ninety years old . Juror #2(2024). 6.5/10. A notable Eastwood film, which honors his alleged cinematic farewell.

I saw this film at the premier in the TCL Chinese theater as the closing film of the AFI Film Festival of 2024. Nicholas Hoult stars as the titular character who is forced into a moral dilemma when he is chosen to be on a jury for a murder. The story is kind of a twist on the old Henry Fonda role in "12 Angry Men" of which I can't say more without creating a spoiler. Hoult's performance is more than adequate along with the rest of the stellar cast including Toni Collete as the prosecutor who is running for District Attorney, JK Simmons as Hoult's ally on the jury, Gabriel Basso as the defendant, and many others. The story and screenplay are involving with a few surprises although the inevitable conclusion is not. Eastwood's direction is solid as usual but not exceptional; however, given the constraints of the story I would say that it is more than fine. So, in summary this film is a 7/10, certainly not a 10/10 but not a 4/10 either (I reserve 4 and below ratings for films that are technically incompetent). Recommended if you can find it given Warner's lack of support for the film!

This could have been so much more.

Reels you in, twists and turns of justice, morality and keeps you guessing, unfortunately it ends, without the ending expected.

I was very disappointed with the ending as it appeared to be taking another twist but just ends.

Hollywood and premature ending movies have to be the worst , however, it was enjoyable up to that. Bit of a slap in the face for such a lazy ending. This could have been so much more. It's a shame really.

The movie does have many qualities though and is worth a watch, it was fairly enjoyable, even intense at times and reels you in.

Give it a watch , enjoy.

Unfortunately could have been so much more.