- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Juror #2 Discussion (Spoilers)
Posted on 12/27/24 at 7:33 pm to Esquire
Posted on 12/27/24 at 7:33 pm to Esquire
For me, the movie passed a couple of hours on the night after Christmas when we were “Christmas-movied” out and struggling to find anything better. So, in light of the circumstances, it was an enjoyable film.
My primary critique is that I wouldn’t classify it as a courtroom or legal thriller inasmuch as I’d classify it as a drama film that used a legal process as its backdrop. We got close to elements of traditional legal thriller when Nicholas Hoult’s character was debating whether or not to disclose that he could have had some involvement in the case. We also got some of it when Toni Collette’s character had to weigh her prosecutorial record and political ambitions against the potential of locking up the wrong person.
That all said, we knew who, based on the ending, we were led to believe was the real killer in the first 10 minutes, and no subsequent facts were ever revealed to cause us to really question that assumption. The only two I noticed were:
(1) Hoult’s character didn’t see a body when he stopped on the bridge and looked over its ledge.
(2) In the flashbacks of the suspected killer following his girlfriend out of the bar, I noticed what could be interpreted as inconsistencies between a couple of the accounts, as if we shouldn’t take the flashbacks as gospel.
But neither of those threads were ever really pulled any further, leaving what I view as a drama with legal undertones more than a legal thriller or suspense film.
My primary critique is that I wouldn’t classify it as a courtroom or legal thriller inasmuch as I’d classify it as a drama film that used a legal process as its backdrop. We got close to elements of traditional legal thriller when Nicholas Hoult’s character was debating whether or not to disclose that he could have had some involvement in the case. We also got some of it when Toni Collette’s character had to weigh her prosecutorial record and political ambitions against the potential of locking up the wrong person.
That all said, we knew who, based on the ending, we were led to believe was the real killer in the first 10 minutes, and no subsequent facts were ever revealed to cause us to really question that assumption. The only two I noticed were:
(1) Hoult’s character didn’t see a body when he stopped on the bridge and looked over its ledge.
(2) In the flashbacks of the suspected killer following his girlfriend out of the bar, I noticed what could be interpreted as inconsistencies between a couple of the accounts, as if we shouldn’t take the flashbacks as gospel.
But neither of those threads were ever really pulled any further, leaving what I view as a drama with legal undertones more than a legal thriller or suspense film.
1
Posted on 12/28/24 at 8:36 am to coolpapaboze
You gonna take the chance that a stranger at a bar, remembers you ordered only one drink but didn’t drink it from a year ago ?
Like the lawyer said, your history will be enough for the jury to assume you had been drinking.
I thought it was a good movie, wasn’t expecting a blockbuster
Like the lawyer said, your history will be enough for the jury to assume you had been drinking.
I thought it was a good movie, wasn’t expecting a blockbuster
Posted on 12/28/24 at 9:18 am to Esquire
Hoult is having a good run. The Order was another goof movie of his
Posted on 12/30/24 at 3:12 pm to Stamps74
quote:
Like the lawyer said, your history will be enough for the jury to assume you had been drinking.
His wife didn't even believe him at first.
Posted on 12/30/24 at 3:20 pm to Monceau
I have a general agreement with you. It was a fine film but nothing special.
There was just nothing that interesting about it ultimately, just a moral dilemma, and the supposed ambiguous ending doesn't really do anything.
It would have been far more interesting to me if Hoult had ended up winning the argument, the guy is found not guilty...and he actually did do it, not Hoult.
Or something to that effect.
There was just nothing that interesting about it ultimately, just a moral dilemma, and the supposed ambiguous ending doesn't really do anything.
It would have been far more interesting to me if Hoult had ended up winning the argument, the guy is found not guilty...and he actually did do it, not Hoult.
Or something to that effect.
Posted on 12/30/24 at 7:58 pm to Fun Bunch
quote:
It would have been far more interesting to me if Hoult had ended up winning the argument, the guy is found not guilty...and he actually did do it, not Hoult.
That’s actually one of the twists I was looking for as well. The other was the discovery of some piece of evidence that revealed to the viewer (and perhaps even to Hoult himself) that Hoult’s vehicle did run into the victim. Hoult never had complete certainty he didn’t actually hit a deer, so this would have exacerbated his moral dilemma. But perhaps the “not twist” was meant to be the twist all along.
There were a few other areas that I thought could have used more development:
(1) J. K. Simmons’ sidebar investigation was never completed. His character went MIA after he was kicked off the jury. He just as easily could have continued to investigate, but I suppose him disappearing was meant to allow Hoult to shoulder his moral dilemma entirely himself, without any outside pressure to come clean.
(2) In the confrontational conversation with his wife, I could have sworn Hoult revealed to her he actually did take “that” road home instead of the “fabricated” road. Yet she never really did anything with that revelation, instead focusing on whether or not he actually drank alcohol. If I’m remembering that correctly, I suppose this could have also been meant to require Hoult to face his dilemma alone and without any outside pressure to come clean.
(3) How did we get to a unanimous guilty verdict? Hoult spent half the movie convincing as many jurors as possible that there was reasonable doubt, something the med student made an even more compelling case for. Yet they suddenly and without explanation went from a 50/50 split to a unanimous guilty verdict.
This post was edited on 12/31/24 at 10:39 pm
Posted on 12/31/24 at 8:57 am to AuburnTigers
Dog shite movie. Really dropped the ball hard. Even worse. It was boring as hell.
Posted on 12/31/24 at 10:06 pm to Monceau
quote:
3) How did we get to a unanimous guilty verdict? Hoult spent half the movie convincing as many jurors as possible that there was reasonable doubt, something the med student made an even more compelling case for. Yet they suddenly and without explanation went from a 50/50 split to a unanimous guilty verdict.
This was a part I thought either the writing got lazy or they didn't want to extend the movie. The potential murderer spent the whole movie convincing people something else could have happened, successfully. Swayed half the jurors, then immediately after the visiting the bridge and the guy from reno 911 told him he was acting funny, he was able to (i guess) flip all the ones he'd spent the last few weeks getting to consider another direction immediately flipped back. Everyone seemed to be good with a hung jury and the crime scene that was enough for the prosecutor to open her eyes wasn't as compelling as what he said during that (im guessing brief) time between that visit and the verdict.
Posted on 1/2/25 at 11:45 pm to Esquire
It’s the stories we tell ourselves. The state told a version, the defense did as well. Both showed the biases in the differing fight scene outside the bar. One shows the girl clearly emasculating the boyfriend. The other shows a typical argument you’d see at any bar at closing time.
The main character was grappling with a moral dilemma but he knew the boyfriend was innocent. He told his “story” to the DA and ultimately decided that he could rationalize his not confessing to hitting some that night.
The DA, in my opinion, is an avatar of God (her staring at In God We Trust” pushed me in this direction).
The DA showing up at his house after he made his decision was symbolic of a final judgement between him and God. We can tell ourselves any story we want, but our souls are at stake.
The main character was grappling with a moral dilemma but he knew the boyfriend was innocent. He told his “story” to the DA and ultimately decided that he could rationalize his not confessing to hitting some that night.
The DA, in my opinion, is an avatar of God (her staring at In God We Trust” pushed me in this direction).
The DA showing up at his house after he made his decision was symbolic of a final judgement between him and God. We can tell ourselves any story we want, but our souls are at stake.
Posted on 1/3/25 at 10:12 pm to Monceau
Good movie but the biggest problem was there was no real suspense.
We got shown hazy memory of him hitting something that we think was her but no confirmation. That could’ve become quite a lot of suspense as we see evidence come forward that either questions or confirms that, but it never happened.
We were told what happened 10 mins into the movie, we were never given any indication anything else happened, and that is exactly what happened, where’s the suspense?
I guess we were supposed to be suspenseful about the fates of Justin and James but neither of them were particularly likeable so it was hard to care that much. The baby storyline was supposed to add sympathy and also tension that something could go wrong in her pregnancy again, but nothing ever went wrong.
The ex cop flower show owner played by a super famous actor was basically a red herring. I thought he would play a major part in the plot but he really didn’t impact the story at all other than putting the DA onto the trail of the car repairs, which she could’ve gotten a million different ways.
I dk it’s like they built up all these tension filled suspenseful storylines and then never explored any of them
We got shown hazy memory of him hitting something that we think was her but no confirmation. That could’ve become quite a lot of suspense as we see evidence come forward that either questions or confirms that, but it never happened.
We were told what happened 10 mins into the movie, we were never given any indication anything else happened, and that is exactly what happened, where’s the suspense?
I guess we were supposed to be suspenseful about the fates of Justin and James but neither of them were particularly likeable so it was hard to care that much. The baby storyline was supposed to add sympathy and also tension that something could go wrong in her pregnancy again, but nothing ever went wrong.
The ex cop flower show owner played by a super famous actor was basically a red herring. I thought he would play a major part in the plot but he really didn’t impact the story at all other than putting the DA onto the trail of the car repairs, which she could’ve gotten a million different ways.
I dk it’s like they built up all these tension filled suspenseful storylines and then never explored any of them
Posted on 1/4/25 at 10:37 am to Tiger1242
I was rather disappointed. My Cousin Vinnie had more compelling court room scenes. This movie seemed so CW Network.
Posted on 1/4/25 at 11:40 am to Adajax
Yea this movie just didn’t do a good job of building suspense and then the main characters and plot weren’t strong enough without suspense.
ETA: and I want to reemphasize they built a cool character in the retired detective and got a great actor in JK Simmons to play him then completely wasted the character.
I thought maybe the guy would be guilty and then JK Simmons would solve the crime and confront Justin
ETA: and I want to reemphasize they built a cool character in the retired detective and got a great actor in JK Simmons to play him then completely wasted the character.
I thought maybe the guy would be guilty and then JK Simmons would solve the crime and confront Justin
This post was edited on 1/4/25 at 11:44 am
Posted on 1/7/25 at 8:27 pm to GalacticaCannon
quote:I agree. It was a good movie and I appreciated the attempt with the Agatha Christie level build up to something. But it wasn’t there. As another poster said, how did we go from such a hung jury to a conviction bent jury so quickly? I don’t think the ending was meant to be ambiguous, but it isn’t believable that he is just going to go to jail now and the other guy will get let off.
Really dropped the ball hard
Was the movie supposed to have us all lose faith in the jury system? Because damn.
The most unbelievable part was the prosecutor suddenly getting a conscious about sending an innocent person to jail.
Still liked the movie, but it could have been so much more.
This post was edited on 1/7/25 at 8:28 pm
Page 3 of 3
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News