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.
- rg9400December 2, 202412 Angry Men is one of my favorite movies of all time, so I was very excited to see a movie that had such a similar plot setup, albeit with a twist. From the very first scene, Clint Eastwood hits you with symbolism, literally starting with a character wearing a blindfold that will constantly be juxtaposed with the statues of blind Lady Justice. Whether it be focusing in on the scales of Lady Justice or a character looking out a window, framed by bars, or slats of light hitting a character's face that is otherwise shrouded in darkness, all cinematic decisions are in your face, subtlety checked out at the door. I actually do not mind this, but I think it's worth noting because it is a constant presence throughout the movie. The other thing worth noting is that the movie will stretch your suspension of disbelief. Not only in its premise, but also within the way certain jurors act. Some of the ways characters investigate or come to conclusions feel a bit contrived. Regardless, this movie is focused on one thing, and that's the moral quandry that it places its main character in. This aspect of the movie is fantastic, showcasing the inner struggles of a character trying to do the right thing but struggling with his own desires. Nicholas Hoult is fantastic in this movie, really bringing that turmoil to the surface. And through 75% of the movie, it manages to maintain that constant tension and utilizing it to reflect on various other characters, most notably Toni Collette's DA agent whose political aspirations ride on the outcome of this trial. In the last 25%, the movie starts to feel like it is overstaying its welcome though, and the pacing slumps. I think the movie's lack of subtlely is harmful here because it relies on so many unnecessary flashbacks, especially in the last act, where we already have all the relevant plot and character details well before that point. All of this could have been excused had it landed the ending. It does not. I hate the ending to this movie. Throughout the movie, the protaganist's beliefs, values, and struggles remain constant, only for the movie to completely undercut them in the last 10%. The decisions are head-scratching because not only do they not feel in line with the characters, they also do not make sense with the thematic throughline. This movie asks what justice truly means and what is required to acheive it, but then it seems to not want to grapple with that question. In the end, it sort of reaches the conclusion I was expecting anyways, but by skipping some critical character moments, it ends up not mattering. When that final scene played out in our theater, it ended up feeling so anticlimactic that when the credits started rolling, everyone was almost in a daze. This movie should have ended by landing an emotional haymaker, but instead it goes out with a whimper. I can overlook a lot of the smaller stuff, but that last 10% knocked my rating down a few points easily.
- MrTrivetFebruary 2, 2026It is an emotionally engaging moral drama that skillfully uses the theatricality of the American legal system to tell a story built on tension and dilemmas of conscience. It is classic courtroom drama at its strongest - driven by dialogue, decisions, and consequences. The film works best when it forces the viewer to take a stance. Questions of responsibility, truth, and justice have no easy answers here, and the tension arises from watching the protagonist struggle to reconcile personal conscience with the mechanics of the system. It is the kind of film you want to talk about after the screening - to debate, to argue, and to return to the central question: is truth always more important than justice?
- neuroparadoxJuly 29, 2025Nicholas Hoult nails it (yet again) in this tense, Grisham-esque courtroom thriller that wears Its heart on its sleeve, rather than layering the story with needless twists. Instead, it just builds tension on topics & situations that will definitely... exercise your morals. Excellent showing from this hot, young, new director. 😁
- A-BagAugust 8, 2025I can’t begin to understand how this complete piece of garbage got a 97 on rotten tomatoes. I suppose if you didn’t know how a court works or how crimes are investigated, prosecuted or jury’s deliberated you would find this movie reasonable. Watch at your own risk, this movie will make you dumber.
- Kevin WardJuly 1, 2025Juror #2 is Clint Eastwood’s latest—a morality tale dressed up as a ‘90s courtroom drama that questions justice’s true aim. Nicholas Hoult stars as Justin Kemp, an expectant father pulled into jury duty for a murder trial. The case centers on James Michael Sythe, accused of killing his girlfriend, Kendall Carter, after an argument at a local bar. Prosecutor Faith Killebrew (Toni Collette), who’s in the middle of a DA election, aggressively pushes for a conviction, while Sythe’s underfunded public defender, Eric Resnick (Chris Messina), tries to mount a defense. Each character in the trial has personal motivations that cloud their judgment. Killebrew’s ambition fuels her determination to close the case quickly, while jurors bring their own biases to the table—one eager to go home, another convinced Sythe’s just a bad person. Kemp’s journey is the most riveting, however, as he wrestles with a moral crisis that becomes the film’s driving force. He gradually realizes he might have information that could exonerate Sythe, but there’s one big issue that makes revealing it a thorny decision. It’s a really compelling courtroom drama that refuses easy answers. The performances are excellent across the board, especially from Hoult, Collette, and Messina. 94 years old and Eastwood is still producing. This may be my favorite of his directorial efforts of the last ten years, or so. Not sure that I like any of its Oscar chances, but it’s worth checking out regardless. sidebar: a couple came into the movie and sat down immediately next to me 1 hour and 20 minutes into the movie!! like wtf? What are we doing. They can’t possibly have understood what the hell was happening in this movie. They also talked for the first two minutes after sitting down and I was very close to losing it. Thankfully not a peep after that, but I will never understand missing the first 80 minutes of a film.
- Desmond DaleJanuary 24, 2025While I will say that I found the affair to be both highly entertaining and well acted, ultimately I came away feeling like it only exacerbated my beefs with the films Eastwood often spearheads. I saw a lot of criticism about how the major plot action was preposterous and unrealistic, but I have never found realism to be synonymous with effectiveness. The level of realism didn't annoy as much as the film's level of antiquity and out-of-touchness. And yes, I do find it annoying that Eastwood is once again manning a film that fails to understand the psyche of the average black person in America. Why are the black people in the film the biggest believers in the justice system? Why do they seem to be the most static and possess the weakest powers of deduction? Who ever heard of a good guy prosecutor who only cares about absolute justice above netting a guilty verdict? Or a good guy ex-cop willing to put himself on the line for the sake of absolute justice? And the last nail in the coffin of disappointment has to go to that completely uninspired ending. I'm all for open or opaque endings but the close of Juror #2 just felt lazy and underdeveloped.
- ScottDecember 15, 2024Eastwood’s directing has veered between cliche and compelling, and this is more the latter. It’s a good riff on 12 Angry Men that raises the stakes with Hoult’s character having a vested interest in the outcome of the trial. It’s a portrait of justice: imperfect people in an imperfect system. Some trying to do their best, some just trying to get home to take care of their own. And Eastwood makes all of them very empathetic and understandable in their motivations.
- vangh1February 26, 2025Really impressed with this one. Given the conceit of the plot, it definitely could have gone over the edge into ridiculous territory, but it manages to stay a really grounded examination of morality, truth, and survival instinct. I was worried as Marcus pulled Justin aside on the bridge that they were going to strain credulity with how much Marcus has been able to deduce or suss out, and instead that scene ends up reinforcing what I love about the movie instead. The ending is just the right amount of ambiguous, as it doesn't necessarily give you "everything," it leaves a little room for reflection and discussion, but there's no doubt in my mind that based on what we've seen we know exactly how events will proceed and we're not left guessing.
Get Plex on Your Devices
Free on 20+ platforms. Pick yours.Juror #2 Trivia
Juror #2 was released on October 30, 2024.
Juror #2 was directed by Clint Eastwood.
Juror #2 has a runtime of 1h 53m.
Juror #2 was produced by Jessica Meier, Tim Moore, Matt Skiena, Clint Eastwood, Adam Goodman.
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.
The key characters in Juror #2 are Justin Kemp (Nicholas Hoult), Faith Killebrew (Toni Collette), Harold (J.K. Simmons).
Juror #2 is rated PG-13.
Juror #2 is a Thriller, Crime, Drama film.
Juror #2 has an audience rating of 9 out of 10.
Juror #2 had a budget of $30M.
Juror #2 has made $21.4M at the box office.