Juror #2

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.

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.

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.