Juré n°2

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 was not to be expected, especially after the unspeakable 'Macho Man'. So to summarise, Clint Eastwood has once again created a significant work. A high-quality cast and, most importantly, a story that usually really shakes the viewer. From life, this can happen to anyone in a similar form, albeit without the heightened premise of trial involvement. Unconscious becomes cruel reality, everyday life becomes nightmare, ignorant becomes guilty. And suddenly you find yourself at a moral crossroads: be honest and cross the threshold of a legal abyss, including that of your own life model, or double your own guilt. In fact, the film draws the viewer into the imagined maelstrom of putting oneself in it and creates precisely the false relativisation provoked in our minds. Briefly reconsidered, it is only when we distance ourselves from the character again that the behaviour becomes intolerable. Clint Eastwood loves his America, but is always critical of its darker side. Especially the legal system, a well thought-out construct with the usual human flaw. Justice remains a stroke of luck.

"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.

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.

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!