Recensioni degli utenti

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.

To be short, it's not a masterpiece, but finally, they shoot a normal movie, where people behave like normal logical human beings, not like crazy people, illogical, or in an absolutely unreal situation that you will never imagine. Here you will see just people who behave most likely how the majority of us do. I would most likely do the same as the main character, which I definitely ain't going to say about 99% of other movies nowadays. It's probably a bit old-fashioned movie by the latest standards, but it's still how normal life is going on. I was pleased to see that movie and would recommend watching it if you like a good plot story. The actors' play is also quite solid as well, and there's not any bad personage even though it's a court-criminal story. Besides, what I also like about this movie, is it's not just the black and white story. It's a bit more complicated, but somehow everything is positive and nice in the movie.

This cast is doing their best, but the material is so incredibly dumb. The elevator pitch of the plot is intriguing, but it's got the silly execution of a CBS crime procedural.

I watched it for the cast, and for the moral dilemma and mystery of the premise, but the trailer had more actual plot clarity than the movie itself. Enjoying this movie requires gazing lovingly at Nicolas Hoult's beautiful face and letting Toni Collette's reliably strong performance distract you from the fact the writers assume no one understands how courts or trials work. And the ending leaves absolutely everything to be desired.

"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.

The title sounds like it would be a gripping, thrilling suspense flick. It wound up being a less than mediocre slow burn character building movie with too many holes to take seriously.

My husband and I were surprised to learn Clint Eastwood was involved, we would not have expected that. Some filming was creative and some scenes were impressive. However, many of the characters and their actions were not believable.

We got that the movie was supposed to create discussions afterwards, but it was more about how the movie went wrong in so many ways.

I don't understand how this is rated so highly. The premise was interesting but the execution lackluster.

We debated turning it off halfway through and I held onto hope that something exciting was going to happen but never did. It was a long set up for disappointment.

On the plus side, there were a lot of familiar faces cast, some performed better than others, but it's still nice to see a wide array of experienced actors.

Not giving Juror #2 a wide release in cinemas is yet another crime we can add to Warner Bros.'s prestigious repertoire because even at 94 years old Clint Eastwood has still got it. Calling this effective would be a severe understatement, there's no easy way out here. A nailbiting and thoroughly engrossing examination of Eastwood's career-long infatuation with guilt, justice and the limitations of American law, turning the courtroom drama on its head with a fantastic script from Jonathan Abrams, the suspense is simply unbearable at points. Eastwood's taut and marvellous direction is here in spades, all backed by a very engrossing score by Mark Mancina, but it's truly the performances that had me teetering on the edge for the film's runtime. Nicholas Hoult never overplays the torment boiling beneath the surface, expressing internal panic to the viewer but not to the others around him. While Toni Collette and J. K. Simmons deliver equally fantastic performances, although, truthfully, I'm a little disheartened that Kiefer Sutherland's role was so limited. Like the gunslingers of his past, if Juror #2 ends up being Eastwood's final film (as horrible as that thought is) then the man has gone out in a triumphant blaze of glory.

I watched the movie on the closing night of the AFI Festival and was once again thrilled by Eastwood's work. I greatly admire his humanitarian vision for his community, which this film captured beautifully. Though the story was somewhat predictable, the journey from start to finish was smooth and thoughtful, showcasing his unique touch throughout. Unlike many recent films, it ended at the perfect moment with a fitting gesture. Despite a modest budget, it was a richly crafted and impactful motion picture. The movie can be more sophisticated as the story had the potential, but I have a great respect for what I received.

From the aspect of technicality, I am really pleased to see that the movie met Eastwood's standards.

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.

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 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.

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.

I always love to see a thriller with a good hook in theatres and Juror #2 had me intrigued from the basic premise alone. Clint Eastwood may be inconsistent as a director but he's made so many certified classics that any movie he directs deserves at least some attention. With this being his supposedly final film I had to believe it was going to be something special and if this truly is it for him he definitely ended on a high note.

The script does such a good job at putting you in the head space of this main character and it left me with conflicted feelings in all of the right ways. Nicholas Hoult is terrific in a role that would demand a lot of any actor and his few scenes with Zoe Deutch really endeared me to that character. I love a good courtroom drama and the film managed to be a very successful one by making good use of its hook to ring every bit of tension out of those scenes. I was constantly intrigued to see where things would end up and it left me with one of the best questions you can have after any movie and that is what would I do on the same situation?

The script has a lot to say about the justice system and it's inherent flaws and I was very glad that the film didn't end on a stereotypically happy note but rather on a fairly bittersweet one which left as conflicted as everything else had up until then. The commentary isn't always as deep as it attempts to be however with a lot of observations that ended up feeling fairly surface level. A lot of that comes down to the supporting cast in particular the other jurors who all ended up feeling very one note with very little depth. They felt like conduits to deliver commentary rather than well rounded characters and their dialogue started to feel hokey to me very quickly.

I also wish the overall technical craft was a little bit stronger. Eastwood is a legend for a reason but I just wish he did more interesting things behind the camera here. The way in which the central dilemma is revealed is fairly underwhelming and there were portions of the second act that began to drag for me because of how repetitive a lot of the courtroom scenes could be. But there's nothing about it that offended me, it's fantastically edited with a really good score but I just couldn't help but wonder what a director with a bit more of a distinctive visual style could've done with this material.

Juror #2 was exactly what I wanted it to be and I think it's a travesty that Warner Bros doesn't have any interest in pushing it properly. It's constantly riveting and intriguing because it always made the most out of its premise. I wish the commentary was deeper and the technical craft were a bit stronger but it's nice to see a director of Eastwood's calibre go out on something as quiet and meditative as this. We don't get movie like this enough nowadays and it deserves so much better than how Warner Bros has treated it.

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!

Are you, like me, tired of the barrage of superhero movies with overblown budgets, rushed vfx, flawless characters and poor writing?!

Well then, this movie is a must see for you! Not only it's likely Eastwood's last movie, but also a real good one.

Well written by Jonathan Abrams with very real and relatable stakes, you're guaranteed to leave the theater thinking : oh gosh, what if this happened to me?! What would I do?!

Actors pull off great performances, invoking real emotions.

I am appalled at how little marketing the studio has done for this movie. I'm very glad I saw it and I hope that other film makers, who want to bring real, wholesome and relatable movies to theaters, are able to do that.

The actual direction was fine with decent cinematography.

Writing was lazy, too many large holes in the storyline and completely unrealistic portrayal of the legal system.

Without giving anything away, too many of the legal decisions were just convenient for the story.

Pacing was also a bit too slow.

Writing was not equal to the fantastic cast .

As far as the cast, the acting was above par.

Performances were excellent from everyone, including the well known and unknown actors. That is a testament to East was directing.

However, the ending utilized a device that has been overused in numerous movies.

Felt more like a made for TV movie than big studio release.

Superb casting with Nicholas Hoult & Toni Collett reunited 22 years after the Nick Hornby adaptation of About a Boy while Hugh Grant was in the screen next door in Heretic!

Nicholas Hoult's acting deserves an oscar nomination as he struggles with his internal demons to do the right thing

It's a great story and along the lines of 12 angry men it focuses on the jury, the American selection process leaves a lot to be desired but this also focuses on the importance of good detective work & not to find your culprit then concentrate on evidence to convict that person without any proper investigation of any other possibilities

Juror #4 is key to the plot , I never give spoilers as you know but perhaps it could been better written if the reveal & twist was withheld from the audience until the final quarter rather than it being in the first quarter that took away the suspense & mystery angle which would have made this a 10/10 must see and you leave feeling there were a plot holes there

It's a story about turning a new leaf , it's about life & death and loss and the pursuit of justice regardless of evidence and jury peer pressure.

Thought provoking with symbolic blind justice emblems throughout

Bravo Clint 8/10 Pad. A.