Juré n°2

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.

"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.

Juror #2 directed by the iconic Clint Eastwood, Juror #2 brings together an incredible cast led by Kiefer Sutherland, Nicholas Hoult, Toni Collette, and J. K. Simmons. This courtroom drama explores the complexities of jury deliberation in a murder trial that involves themes of domestic abuse. The story is immediately engaging, setting up a clear-cut case, but it soon dives deep into moral territory, where the right verdict is anything but straightforward.

As a non-U. S. viewer, I found the trial process and jury dynamics especially fascinating. Eastwood cleverly exposes the issues of biased jurors and the impact of personal agendas. The film makes you question how often jurors-pressed by personal motivations outside the courtroom-lose sight of the real deliberation required to reach a just decision. This theme feels disturbingly relevant and is well-executed here.

Though this is Eastwood's 45th directorial work, I'd say Juror #2 isn't his best. At times, it struggles with pacing, which occasionally dampens the tension that should be building. Still, the stellar performances from the cast and the moral questions it raises make it a thought-provoking watch, and it's a worthwhile addition to Eastwood's body of work.

Juror #2 , which may well be Clint Eastwood's last film as a director, is very good. We're not talking Unforgiven, Bronco Billy, Million Dollar Baby good, but it is properly good. Hard to tell you anything without spoiling it, but it's a great courtroom drama with a twist early on that takes it to a whole new place. You can relate to all the major characters, and even when they're doing not great things you can put yourself in your shoes and go I'd really struggle not to do that. Well worth a watch.

We don't have enough one and done dramas in the cinemas nowadays. This is exactly the kind of film we need more of. Very glad I saw it in the cinema.

I doubt that this case would ever have gone to trial. The only "witness" supposedly saw the suspect during a dark night, through heavy rain, from a couple of hundred feet away, right? If this case did make it to the courtroom, any halfway decent defense attorney would've knocked down the supposed validity of that witness without much trouble. There's nothing else to go on. The suspect followed her? How far? No one knows, which means that's of no value at all. If she was hit by a car, any autopsy would have shown this to have been the case, i.e. She was hit hard by a very large object... in other words, a vehicle, rather than a hand-held object. In summary, the direction, the actors and the production are all fine, but the whole film is a house built on a foundation that has no strength.