It's one of the best films I've seen this year. I would say it is more deserving of a nomination than September 5th or Conclave. Maybe not an award for direction, but way more deserving for best screenplay than Anora or A Real Pain.
shareIt’s very good, but the standouts so far are Conclave, The Challengers and especially Emilia Perez. This one - considered a musical - is the best movie of 2024 and the best movie I have seen in a long time. For me.
shareThis was miles ahead of Challengers. That was well made on a technical level, but the story wasn't very good. I've heard mixed things about Emilia Perez, but we all know the real reason that one is being nominated.
shareI guess I don’t know why Emilia Perez is being nominated according to you? Tell me. It was one of the best movies I have seen. It was the most original and just outstanding. The likes of which I have never seen before. The French director is one of the best directors. His movie Un Prophete in 2009 is my favorite film. He did Rust and Bone, another great one. And the last two episodes of The Bureau. Read My Lips rivals Hitchcock and is superb. The Beat That My Heart Skipped is loved by all. And, with The Challengers, it was excellent and done well by Luca Guadagnino. The first movie I saw by this director was I Am Love - probably one of the most beautiful films I have seen. A Bigger Splash followed which was an interesting take on La Piscine. Call Me By My Name I saw at a festival and it was very touching. I love Eastwood - and his new movie is very enjoyable, a plus. But Emilia Perez is genius. The Challengers is its own champion.
shareEastwood isn't woke.
shareNot surprising. The performances are all fine but the writing came off as really forced and clunky throughout. The story was also fairly derivative and anti-climactic.
shareRegarding the ending, I think it was fairly obvious what was going on and where it was heading.
shareThe writing was not clunky at all. Performances and casting were great. Ending was fine. It makes a case for a lot of discussions on justice, juries, who goes to jail. Cowardice vs. courage. And a discussion I have not seen on this website, the actions of the wife. It was an enjoyable movie experience. Eastwood is always good. It just wasn’t as great at some of these others. And it wasn’t as great as some of Eastwood’s other movies. But it was really really good.
shareSorry, but I have to disagree. The film suffers from a fundamentally flawed script from the start to finish, and I'm not just talking about the robotic dialogue (although it is extremely ChatGPT-y). The structure of the story, character development, and the use of thematic elements and devices are all poorly executed. The story unveils its central conflict within the first 20 minutes, which eliminates any sense of suspense and renders the rest of the movie predictable and uninspired.
The characters are tired archetypes: the prosecutor is a career-obsessed automaton, the retired cop a clichéd hunch-driven device, and the jurors are cardboard cutouts whose views shift on a whim to serve the plot. Like when Keiko initially votes guilty even though its later made clear that she has enough medical knowledge to definitively conclude that the victim was killed by a car (something that the autopsy technician wasn't able to do for reasons that were poorly excused away), only to later change back to guilty again. Jurors change their minds so quickly and with such little provocation that it feels as if there were huge chunks cut out of the movie in editing. The jury’s overused "11-1 guilty vote" trope, and the resulting discussions lack the nuance and tension required to carry a courtroom drama. The dialogue is equally disappointing—stiff, unnatural, and filled with half-finished platitudes. All the characters speak in the same stilted, expository manner, making it impossible to connect with them or take their struggles seriously.
The script is riddled with plot holes that undermine its believability, such as a guilty verdict on flimsy evidence and an abrupt juror consensus shift after the site visit. Its portrayal of the judicial process is laughable, with unrealistic jury selection, a prosecutor doubling as a trial lawyer, and no murder weapon to support the case.
Proper judicial procedures are completely ignored. Jurors openly express biases and engage in wild speculation without consequence. The testimonial validity of the only witness, who just caught a quick glimpse of the defendant in poor weather, isn’t even unquestioned, further highlighting the film's lack of depth. These inaccuracies should stand out, even to viewers who aren't familiar with the legal system.
The film’s moral quandary is undermined by a lazy, superficial treatment of guilt, responsibility, and justice, reducing these complex themes to clichéd talking points. Instead of offering nuance, the script relies on contrivances to create drama, failing to engage the audience meaningfully. Justin’s robotic, emotionally detached portrayal further highlights the script’s inability to handle its subject matter.
The pace of this movie as slow. Scenes drag on far longer than necessary. Attempts to build tension fall flat due to the shallow writing. While the actors do their best with the material, the script is lifeless. The result is a series of dull, meandering conversations that fail to move the story forward or provide any insight into the characters.
The screenwriter's attempt to channel 12 Angry Men is painfully obvious, although it seems they forgot that the arguments presented in that movie were built on strong evidence and carefully constructed arguments, while this film relies on contrivances and shallow dialogue.
This movie may merit a 6/10 by virtue of being elevated by the cinematography and some of the performances but beyond that.... nah
What court procedures were ignored?
This movie is NOT 12 Angry Men but more Runaway Jury - more a John Grisham novel filmed in the South but with an ending that would be in a French movie. This movie is almost in the mold of movies that would be in the 1990s or 2000s. It is something that will appeal to a lot of viewers who have been overlooked and who can’t relate to a lot of newer movies. There are some cliches, some cookie cutter characters but they are comforting.
And people have been convicted for less. There are people that have solid alibis who were convicted. There are people that lied about seeing someone because they don’t want their parents to know they were doing something else. How many people have served time whose DNA never matched before we had DNA, cell phones, cameras. People are tried on their past behavior, their manner, especially if it’s aggressive, and yes, their race. Have you been in a courtroom. Have you served on a jury because I can guarantee you it is nothing like Law & Order, Perry Mason, The Good Wife or LA Law or any semblance of sanity and sense. The judge may give instructions - if someone steals $50, it is the same as $50,000. If it is a squirt gun, it is the same as a real gun. And I can tell you if you get someone forceful and convincing leading the jury, they can hijack the conversation just like a podcaster. That’s why some firms spend thousands of dollars on voir dires.
Toni Colette’s portrayal of a prosecutor in Savannah is perfect. She looked and acted the part. Especially her wardrobe, her bag and her briefcase. Transactional attorneys in international law firms make five times what she makes. Partners have backups from their associates, librarians, paralegals, secretaries, software, the whole army. They are the upper echelon; prosecutors are meat and potatoes. She’s an intelligent rube who passes the ethics test.
I think this is why Eastwood did this movie because it is somewhat old fashioned. We are seeing truth being twisted. I don’t think the crime is the crime in this - this movie comes down to courage and cowardice. Eastwood picked a really good way to show how people think differently. It’s amazing to me how so many people can’t figure out the ending. But that just shows you how people ponder.
You sound like a you’re writing a school paper without supported documentation.
Right off the bat, I'll have to apologies for a misuse of a term courtroom procedures, I meant judicial procedures, referring to the complaints I’ve already made. I updated my post to reflect this. That is, however, the only concession I will make.
This movie is NOT 12 Angry Men but more Runaway Jury - more a John Grisham novel filmed in the South but with an ending that would be in a French movie.
Interviewer: "You've got basically a whole little 12 Angry Men situation going on in the middle of a wider legal drama. The allusions to that film are pretty direct. Were you consciously reworking that classic?
Jonathan A. Abrams: That was absolutely what I did. [After] I had the initial spark of the idea and I settled on wanting to make this an everyman, [I asked] What are the comps? Who's done this effectively before? And [12 Angry Men] is the gold standard. It's one of the greatest films ever made. I had of course seen it before I came up with the idea, but I watched it again and read the script. And again, the economy of that story, the power of simplicity in that story—those were all things that I really strove for, because it was it was very freeing. People love that movie. So if you can deliver something that's even in any way reminiscent of that movie, you're probably doing something very right.
Thank you for the detailed overview of how courtroom dynamics and jury decisions can be influenced by factors like bias and flawed evidence. However, this doesn't seem to relate to the points I’ve raised, and I’m not sure why you’re sharing all this in response. My comments are focused on the writing and execution of Juror No. 2 in the context of its portrayal of legal proceedings and jury behavior—not those elements in isolation. Real people are indeed shaped by the information they have and the environments they’re in, making nearly any outcome possible. A competent script could have explored how the specific circumstances of this case, combined with internal or group reasoning seen in real-world legal scenarios, impacted the jurors’ mental states and deliberations. But this script simply didn’t do that. They believe one thing, then they don't then they do. All without any examination of the inner working of their decisions. You also seem to be referencing the most extreme and outlandish examples, even though this movie adopts a very mild, simplistic tone (as the writer has explicitly stated in interviews). If it were aiming to be a bombastic, outlandish courtroom drama, it should have been written like one; otherwise, it feels incongruent with the material.
Could a more competent screenwriter have incorporated everything you mentioned into a better movie? Of course—they’ve done it before. Likewise, I understand that you appreciate Toni Collette’s style, but I don’t see how that relates to anything I said. Her character is a cliché. If you find that comforting, that’s fine, but from a screenwriting perspective, it’s flat and derivative. Please stop inventing arguments for me and then rebutting them. You’re not the only one capable of having a conversation with yourself.
The truth isn’t being twisted. The movie starts with an 11-1 guilty vote, progresses closer to the truth, and then abruptly stops—for reasons that apparently happen offscreen. This movie doesn’t hinge on courage and cowardice; it’s more like cowardice and more cowardice. The protagonist folds to save himself, and none of the other jurors seem to care much about the defendant’s innocence—including the one juror who must have known from the beginning that the defendant couldn’t have done it but votes to convict him anyway. Where exactly was the courage?
It’s funny to me that you say my response is like an uncited school paper, yet I give reasons for almost everything I’ve said. You just say that things are good or comforting (even if you acknowledge they’re cliches) without ever giving reason for why you think so. The only rebuttals you make are that trial fuckery happens in real life (something I never argued against) and that this movie is not a rework of 12 Angry Men, which is objectively incorrect.
Its often the reliance of people who like a piece of media to say that those who don’t, "just don't get it, man" when in fact, they do and they just think its bad. Which this was. I can see what it was trying to do, but I would have to lower my standards considerably in order to think it even remotely cleared that bar.
I'm legitimately sorry to spam you with so many replies, but I was coming up against MC's word limit.
Insufficiently diverse with a non-woke director.
It never had a chance, but then again these ‘awards’ are no longer prestige badges - they’re warning sirens -
‘🚨THIS FILM IS A WOKE POS🚨’
Probably because suspension of disbelief only goes so far. It's a drama that wants to be taken seriously but someone being on the jury for a trial of someone accused of killing someone you accidentally killed and didn't realize it a year ago reeks of a novice writer penning a bullshit spec script that would've either been laughed out of the office or put on Lifetime if Eastwood's name wasn't attached.
share