User reviews

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!

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.

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.

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.

Juror #2 is a decent watch that brings a thought-provoking moral dilemma to the screen, though it falls short of its potential. The story centers on a jury member facing an internal conflict that poses compelling questions about duty and conscience. For those unfamiliar with such moral quandaries, the narrative might indeed feel fresh and gripping, and it's easy to see why many viewers found it intriguing. However, the emotional portrayal is underwhelming; despite the weight of his decision, the protagonist appears oddly detached, which dampens the intensity and limits viewer engagement. Those well-versed in philosophy or psychology may find the film's moral tension lacking depth, leaving them to focus on character development-which, unfortunately, is also sparse. Ultimately, Juror #2 presents a solid premise with an interesting conflict, but its muted execution and slow pace make it less impactful than it could have been.

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.

Say what you want about some of Clint Eastwood's recent output, the man delivers classic filmmaking and Juror #2 is no different. A cleanly shot and straight to the point courtroom drama about morals and justice, it feels like it could have been made anytime in the last seventy years.

Nicholas Hoult plays Justin Kemp, a four years sober alcoholic who is summoned for jury duty. He'd rather be at home with his heavily pregnant wife but is happy to do his duty until a slight wrinkle emerges; a man is on trial for the murder of his girlfriend but Justin may well of killed her in a hit and run a year ago. Knowing the accused is innocent, but not fancying spending the rest of his own life in jail, he tries to convince his fellow jurors to return a not guilty verdict while not implicating himself in the death. A task made harder on both ends by Toni Collette's hotshot prosecutor, determined to land the conviction that will secure her the District Attorney position, and fellow juror JK Simmons, a retired detective who starts to do some digging.

There are a couple of threads running through Juror #2. Has Collette's lawyer lost sight of justice in her quest for glory? Gabriel Basso's accused may be innocent of the murder but does he really deserve mercy? Really though, it's Justin's story and the movie is pinned on a fantastic central performance from Hoult who makes us really feel his dilemma. He is not a villain trying to get away with murder, rather an ordinary guy concealing the truth out of understandable self preservation. He genuinely spent the previous year thinking he hit a deer and his first inclination on learning the truth is to confess. He is talked out of this by his AA sponsor and lawyer Kiefer Sutherland who tells him circumstances (not least the fact he has a history of drink driving) mean he would be looking at a very long time in prison. Add in the fact his wife is stressed at being left alone due to her pregnancy being high risk and having previously lost twins and we can feel his tension emanating from the screen.

While the central conceit and character are delivered expertly there are other parts of the film that feel much more slap dash. Some of the dialogue is tin eared (pretty much all the interactions between Hoult and wife Zoey Deutch are sickeningly saccharine) and some of the other jurors are outrageously thin caricatures. We've got black guy who runs a youth centre and has "seen the damage gangs cause", young stoner guy, true crime obsessed women and sage older lady amongst others. None of these characters are massively important but something a little less cardboard cut out would have been nice and when the weak characters and dialogue combine the film can stumble and on occasion become outright annoying.

For the most part, the quality of the film making over rules the script's weaknesses and it's nice to see a glossy example of this increasingly rare genre on the big screen, even if the ending feels a little bit like the film is trying to have its cake and eat it. If this ends up being Clint's last film then it's a fitting conclusion to a career that has always been interested in justice and redemption. Then again, if he can release a film at 94 there's no reason he can't do it at 96.

7 neck tattoos out of 10.

Juror #2 is the story of a man called James Michael Sythe, played by Gabriel Basso, on trial for the murder of his girlfriend. However, the person responsible for her death is family man Justin Kemp, or Juror #2, played by Nicholas Hoult. Will Justin send down a man for life to continue is life with his partner or will he do what's right for justice?

This is a spoiler free review, so it may come across as vague. I would consider the information revealed during the court case as spoilers, as this movie is a court drama.

What I can write about it the acting. Everyone in this movie is great in their roles. Our lead, Nicholas Hoult, who this movie revolves around, plays the family man well and is on an emotional rollercoaster throughout the movie. Battling his inner conscience of what's the right thing to do. Does he send a man down for murder when he knows that he didn't do it? And how can he convince his fellow jurors that the man on trial didn't do it without incriminating himself? All this whilst he has a pregnant wife to think about. When thinking about who stood out in this movie acting wise, the actor that sprung to mind was Gabriel Basso, who plays the man on trial for the murder. Of all the characters, he's probably featured the least, but you could argue, his character is the second most complexed. Gabriel Basso must play the role of a man that could seem guilty, but could also seem innocent at the same time, in equal measures. With the little screen time he has to do this, he did a fantastic job!

The camera work was done efficiently, utilising closeups to convey emotion and the leads inner battles process rather than dialogue. The dialogue was natural, especially between the Justin Kemp and his pregnant partner, Allison Crewson.

The movie is 1 hour and 53 minutes long, and it feels it. There could've been some more cuts, because at the end of the movie, it felt like there was a second ending which would've been interesting to explore, but it felt like it was rushed to wrap up. Having said that, when the jury concluded their final deliberations, the film did have me on the edge of my seat to hear that their conclusion was. But after that, the movie just kept going. It felt as though there was another story to be told, but not enough time to tell it. And that second story could've been very interesting, so a wasted opportunity.

The book Th1rt3en has this same premise, the person on the jury is the one who did it, but the execution is much better.

Overall, the movie just didn't make the most on the interesting premise.

This movie truly makes you reflect on life and the choices you make. It's a powerful story about facing tough decisions, taking responsibility for your actions, and the moral dilemmas that come with them. The main character struggles with whether to prioritize his family or another person, revealing the thin line between right and wrong. Everyone will have an opinion on his decision, and deep down, you'll sense what he should have done. In the end, the real question is: do you value your own life over another's? The answer lies in your personal values. This thoughtful film is also a fantastic conversation starter, prompting discussions on how others might act in the same situation.

Good movie 🍿 I only have one little issue with it..

Had it been up to me, I would not have shown the flashbacks that one of the characters has right at the beginning of the movie.

Because of those flashbacks the viewer knows right from the start which character is guilty or not !!

I would have kept the flashbacks till the second half of the movie, that would have kept the audience guessing much longer snd would have made for a good plot twist near the end of the movie.

Showing the flashbacks right at the start of the trail, the audience knows who did it, no guessing anymore, so plot twist 🤷‍♀️

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.

Expectant father "Justin" (Nicholas Hoult) is slated for jury duty and so duly sets off for the selection hoping that he doesn't get picked and that he can return to his wife to await the arrival of their bundle of joy. Sadly, though, they like the cut of his jib and selected he is. It's a murder trial with a man accused of brutally killing his girlfriend after a bar-room brawl. Prosecutor and aspiring DA candidate "Faith" (Toni Collette) thinks it's all in the bag, but defence attorney "Resnick" (Chris Messina) isn't so sure. As the proceedings commence, our second juror gets a bit of a shock. Some of this evidence is proving startlingly evocative. The more he hears of the incident, the more he begins to realise that his job as a juror might prove to be much more personal than he anticipated. With pressure from his wife and his fellow jurors to get it all over with, he has to fight to try and find a way to more fully explore the evidence and luckily he manages to convince one of their number "Harold" (J. K. Simmons) to help him. As the they dig deeper, what might they find and what might they incentivise the prosecutor to find too? I think Hoult holds this together well, and as the audience becomes better briefed on just who did what to whom, director Clint Eastwood still manages to keep the film engaging and tensely paced leaving the audience with quite a moral dilemma as truths start to out and sympathies become severely tested. Simmons supports well, as do Collette and Messina but Kiefer Sutherland appears too sparingly to make much impact on the story so it really is left to us and "Juror #2" to come to terms with what happened and with our own consciences.

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.

'Juror #2 (2024)' is the latest film directed by Clint Eastwood, who continues to impress with the relative consistency of his output even as he continues to require more and more candles on his birthday cakes. Known for his reserved, to-the-point directing style that always brings his features in on time and under budget, the nonagenarian filmmaker clearly has an eye for cinema and the desire to continue contributing to it. There's pretty much nobody more experienced in Hollywood, and he clearly loves making movies enough to do it every couple of years despite being well past the age most folks want to retire. All that is to say that if Eastwood is involved, it's unlikely a picture is going to disappoint (although not impossible, *cough* 'The 15:17 To Paris (2017)' *cough*).

The best way I can describe the film, as well as most other Eastwood efforts, is solid. Someone on Letterboxd (I'm paraphrasing Matt Lynch, I think) said this could have been made at any point in the last 75 years and that's pretty much on the money. Although it does attempt to say something about truth, justice and the American way (it can't be a modern Eastwood movie without some good ol' fashioned conservatism), it isn't particularly contemporary in its themes or aesthetic. That isn't a bad thing, though. It plays like a take on '12 Angry men (1957)' but focus the morality play more specifically onto one person, a recovering alcoholic who thinks he holds the key to a 'not guilty' verdict but can't come completely clear for reasons I won't spoil. There is some focus on a couple of secondary characters and the way in which they each have to decide if the truth is more important than their personal gain, but the narrative is anchored around the protagonist and we very much experience the story from his point of view. It's interesting to see him navigate his dilemma, and the flick does a good job of getting you to think about what you'd do in his situation. It does skip over some key internal development at a certain point in order to generate a sense of suspense in the build-up to a reveal, and I feel as though this does a slight disservice to the film as it prevents us from fully grasping why the lead does what he ultimately does. Still, most of the experience is engaging both intellectually and emotionally.

The piece isn't massively affecting and it also isn't always the most compelling - or, perhaps, exciting - take on its genre, but there's a sense that it's close to the best version of itself possible and it's entertaining enough for what it is. The performances are all really good, the writing is relatively naturalistic, the cinematography is refined, and the direction is consistent. It's a solid movie, but it isn't really something you'd write home about. Then again, it's the sort of thing that will probably play differently for a certain generation. I could easily see it eventually being a sleeper hit on cable television for those who still consume their media that way. It's good, but not great. However, as I've said before, sometimes that's all you need. It's a nice Sunday afternoon movie.

Just horrible. I don't even know where to start.

Let's start with the dialogue. I don't think I've ever heard people talk like this. It feels really fake. All these half-finished empty, shallow sentences put me off, right from the start.

Secondly, the casting. I don't believe Nicholas Hoult is a bad actor. I liked him a lot in The Menu and the smaller part in Mad Max (Fury Road) was pretty good as well. At no point in the movie Nicholas Hoult is convincing as a lying, manipulative alcoholic. It's just not a part for him. The overcompensating first part of painting a picture of him being a loving good guy is cringeworthy as well.

Zoey Deutch didn't do it for me but wasn't bad. J. K. Simmons was a highlight in the movie.

What about the jury room? This is where the tension is supposed to build. But what do we get? A few very dumb stereotypes. An old lady with the dumbest lines I've ever heard. A typical dumb Instagram model type girl with horrendous lines. And my god, the part of the stoner type of guy was.... I want to forget this.

I can't think of a lot of positive notes. But, I guess it's pretty impressive to still direct movies when you're 94 years old.

The 'plot twist' was given in the trailer. Why?!

Awful!

With a few exceptions, all of Clint Eastwood's films seem to be about one single topic that he has been obsessing about for the past 30 years: justice. Juror #2 certainly goes back to this theme, more directly than ever. The question this time seems to be about the very definition of justice and whether the principle that justice has to be delivered on an individual case vs a broader context is right. In pure Eastwood fashion, the film doesn't provide a straight answer and instead lets us, members of the audience, reflect on it.

While the film's topic is universal, Eastwood grounds it in a contemporary setting and contemporary values, reminding us that the only justice that matters is today's justice. I believe it's in that sense that the overt reference to Twelve Angry Men needs to be interpreted. Less as an homage, and more as an artifact to paint how the justice system and the concept of justice may have evolved since that iconic film. While the motions may look the same, the meaning to us now and the outcomes are very different.

Without going deeper into the story or its meaning, suffice it to say that Juror #2 is deeply thought-provoking and engaging. Apparently Warner Bros. Wanted to release it only on its streaming platform because it "looks like a tv show". This is probably true and mainly means it is shot in a classical way (for example, without excessive camera movements and without cgi) and likely with a concern for cost. But how little do you need to care about film to think that's a bad thing or something that would preclude you from a theatrical release? I guess we have to be thankful they even produced the film at all, as one can appreciate the risk in producing a film by a 94 year old director. The film is outstanding, so thank you, Warner.

While some may think the twist was given away in the preview, Juror #2 is a thought-provoking movie that puts you in the seat of the protagonist. What would you do when faced with the same situation - do what is right, or try to get away with it. The film created the right amount of tension throughout that I was on the edge of my seat. Nicholas Hoult was amazing and loved seeing him and Toni Collette in a film together again. The script was well-written and I thought the movie was paced perfectly.

I know Juror#2 hasn't gotten the marketing it deserves, so I hope you'll check it out while it is in the theaters! Come award season, this movie will be abuzz!