Juror #2

The Coffee Shop
1

New film directed by Clint Eastwood and released on Max.

This isn’t a film review. I will leave that to Slowguy. The basic plot is that a man is chosen to be on the jury for a trial of an another man accused of murdering his girlfriend. The juror (Juror #2) realizes he might have very pertinent information related to the guilt or innocence of the accused and the conundrum he faces in coming forth with that info or not.

*** SPOILER - DO NOT READ ANY FURTHER IF YOU HAVEN’T SEEN THE MOVIE - SPOILER ***

My thoughts…

  • I really liked the premise of the plot and the dilemma the juror faces when he realizes he meet be the reason the girl is dead.
  • JK Simmons’s character. What a potential juror does or did for a living is one of the first and most basic questions asked during the voir dire process. Granted, it was addressed in the movie by the judge to the defense. Real world that would never happen as that question is always asked.
  • Kiefer Sutherland’s character. Yikes! His legal advice was bad and likely criminal and would get him disbarred. His point regarding Hoult’s character’s previous alcohol problems is a salient one but everything else was cringe worthy.
  • How the fuck would the ME not know or at least consider the possibility the woman was struck by a car and knocked over the bridge? What about the police?
  • Toni Collette’s ADA/DA character. Towards the end of the movie she is basically convinced the accused didn’t do it but sits back and lets the jury convict the guy. With the final scene I guess we’re lead to believe she’s going to make amends for that but there’s zero chance they could convict Juror #2.
1 Like
2

Basic question…how does a person get on the jury in a trial of your girlfriend’s murderer (or how does the movie explain how this is even possible). Maybe i misunderstood your plot description.

3

The writing was just bad. I could give countless examples but it doesn’t matter. The film isn’t good enough to transcend those shortcomings with character development, plot pacing, resolution, or pretty much any measure of good filmmaking. There wasn’t a scene I can remember that wasn’t distractingly bad in some aspect.

It may have benefitted from a series treatment (4 episodes?) but as it stands not worth investing the time in.

4

One man is accused of murdering his girlfriend. Another man is on the jury. The man on the jury doesn’t know the defendant nor the victim but realizes once the trial starts that they all might have crossed paths on that fateful night.

5

Ohm that makes more sense, lol. I read it as it was the juror’s girlfriend that was killed.

6

Funny, my daughter watched it last week and described the plot to my wife and me, and we had the same confusion over how he managed to be on a jury for a trial involving his girlfriend’s death.

Watched it the other night and agree with the consensus of most posts in this thread. Reminded me a little bit of those John Grisham adaptations, but worse.

7

I’m glad they didn’t go full 12 Angry Men on us, but yeah