re: Juror #2 Discussion (Spoilers)

I didn't feel line starting a new thread so I'm bumping this one. It's on Max now.

I really liked it. One of the better late Clint movies imo. Hoult is really good. My wife was pissed at the ending lol.

My interpretation was she wanted to “look him in the eyes face to face” like she did with the guy in jail to “know” if he was guilty or not. But they had that moment on the bench after the trial where he basically confessed so idk

This is such a cool idea though.

I wonder if someone on the jury told the rest of them the truth about what happened if they would even believe them. Highly doubtful right?

I love Clint Eastwood. Will have to check this out soon!

quote:

---

“what would I do?”.

---

I would have probably easily convinced myself that I simply hit a deer like I originally thought, and it had nothing at all to do with the case I was a juror on. IF the detective lady started getting interested in me because I went to a body shop in the days following the woman dying, then I'd tell her that I hit a deer driving up Brimstone Pass. Don't believe me? Prove it. Actually, I wouldn't have said anything at all to her other than corroborating what his wife had already told her. Incredibly dumb to not only talk to her, but to actually make a thinly veiled confession to her.

I mean it was just okay for me. Kind of hard for me to buy that everyone was ready to convict just based on the fact that the bf and gf had an argument at a bar where no physicality was present.

Literally no physical evidence. No marks on the defendant of a fight. No murder weapon. the whole premise was. hey this dude got in an argument with his girlfriend at a bar. she got pissed, walked down a narrow street in a rainstorm, and we found her at the bottom of a ravine off the road.

I mean obviously he tracked her down beat the shite out of her on the side of the road and threw her over. I'm would be surprised if this case ever got to trial in real life based on that evidence. I mean I understand they had an eye witness but in pouring rain on a dark unlighted road. That one eye witness could be shredded on the stand. I just had a hard time buying into the premise based on that

I agree. Keifer Sutherland scaring the shite out of Hoult's character is the hinge for the whole movie. But the reality is it was an accident and he hadn't been drinking. If he'd come forward as soon as he realized what was happening, he would have been much better off. He believed he hit a deer and went about his life as though he had. There was no attempt to hide the repair work. He also hadn't been drinking and I'd take my chances that someone in the bar would back that up. Sure, he was there, but someone took his order and someone bussed his table. Probably a good chance he can get testimony that he ordered one drink and didn't drink it. Where's the evidence he was drunk? The path he chose, keeping his mouth shut, well now he's probably in a lot more trouble than he would have been had he come forward earlier.

Watched it tonight, thought it was a C+. I was really excited for what it could be when they setup the dynamic with Juror #2, but I just couldn’t get past some of the case absurdities.

How they never dove into the hit and run storyline actually confused me as it was so obvious from the start. When they setup the opening arguments I expected the prosecution’s statement to say something like “he followed her and murdered her… with his car”.

It was such an obvious way for someone to get killed in that situation that I immediately started wondering how Juror #2 got the body work done. I was genuinely confused when their argument was centered around him beating her up with his bare hands and pushing her into the ditch. The type of detective work that the Whiplash detective dude did took about 10 seconds to think to do.

I also didn’t love how they left the knockoff Gone Baby Gone moral dilemma sort of unresolved. We got what Juror #2 decided, but we don’t really know what the DA decided. They should’ve given us a clear answer of whether she came there to arrest him or not.

quote:

---

Maybe. Her moral dilemma at the end felt poorly explored and was integrated in way too late to feel meaningful.

I thought the ambiguous ending hinging on her decision was a real "Well, we have to end this somehow" decision

---

Agreed. They were trying to create the sacrificing the sanctity of law and justice for career implications and then have this sort of be the case that decides that, but I don’t think they did it will enough

I wouldn't say awful but I really didn't like the ending and thought it was a cop out by Eastwood. My other critique, which has already been addressed, is the believability of this case. Outside of that, it reminded me of the old school court room dramas, which I enjoyed.