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... Read allWhile 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.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.
- Awards
- 4 wins & 14 nominations total
- Director
- Writer
- All cast & crew
- Production, box office & more at IMDbPro
Summary
Reviewers say 'Juror #2' is a compelling courtroom drama exploring justice and morality, directed by Clint Eastwood. Nicholas Hoult's performance is lauded, though some find the plot predictable. The film, featuring Toni Collette and J. K. Simmons, is a solid addition to Eastwood's work, though not his best. The direction and pacing are effective, yet some critics wish for deeper thematic exploration.
Featured reviews
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 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.
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" 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.
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.
There's something very forced and artificial about this film. The court procedure scenes are super unrealistic and poorly done. The way the jurors speak and interact is very scripted and poorly acted. The whole film seems off. No lawyer acts like these lawyers both inside and outside of a courtroom. And by the end and most dramatic scenes, they carry almost no weight and fall flat. I really don't understand what other reviews are talking about and are likely basing their opinion off of poor standards and Clint Eastwood being the director. Honestly, this film comes across like a made-for-TV movie.
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.
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.
Storyline
Did you know
- TriviaKiefer Sutherland got his part by writing to Clint Eastwood telling him how big a fan of his he was, and that he wanted to star in one of his movies before he retired. Kiefer's dad, Donald Sutherland, had co-starred with Clint in Kelly's Heroes (1970) and Space Cowboys (2000).
- GoofsFaith cites her office's limited resources when arguing against a mistrial. This should have drawn a swift rebuke from the judge, who may only consider the motion on its merits.
- Quotes
Larry Lasker: We're only as sick as our secrets.
- ConnectionsFeatured in WatchMojo: Top 10 Best Movies of 2024 (2024)
- SoundtracksHard Livin'
Written by Chris Stapleton and Kendell Marvel
Performed by Chris Stapleton
Courtesy of Mercury Nashville Records
Under license from Universal Music Enterprises
Details
- Release date
- Country of origin
- Official sites
- Language
- Also known as
- Присяжний #2
- Filming locations
- Production companies
- See more company credits at IMDbPro
Box office
- Budget
- $30,000,000 (estimated)
- Gross worldwide
- $24,800,000
- Runtime1 hour 54 minutes
- Color
- Sound mix
- Aspect ratio
- 2.39 : 1
Contribute to this page
Suggest an edit or add missing content
