Juré n°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.

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!

"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.

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.

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.