MovieChat Forums > Mynvosa
Mynvosa (117)
Posts
I miss strange films / recommendations?
Why are fantasy stories allergic to the word "wyvern"?
Did anyone else guess the killer from the very first scene they were in?
Are there any other films that deal with similar themes or social issues that you would recommend?
How do you feel about the film being in black and white?
Who would you cast in the inevitable live action version Netflix will make 15-20 years from now?
Any thoughts on why Oshin never gained traction in the anglosphere?
Any film recommendations for people who enjoy this movie's atmosphere?
Why does everyone...
View all posts >
Replies
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 <i>12 Angry Men</i>, 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.
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.
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.
<blockquote>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. </blockquote>
Man you should tell the writer that …
The following is from the GQ interview with Abrams, <i>Juror #2 Screenwriter Jonathan A. Abrams on How His First Produced Screenplay Became a Clint Eastwood Movie </i>:
<blockquote> 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.</blockquote>
Everyone was an asshole in this movie.
The protagonist, the clichéd hunch-driven former cop who violated jury rules, the prosecutor who cared about putting the defendant away no matter what. The defendant was a bad guy even if he didn't kill his girlfriend. And let's not forget Keiko, the juror who was quite happy to vote guilty even though it's later revealed that she has medical knowledge which would refute the defendant's role in the death of his girlfriend. She later changes her vote back to guilty for no adequately explained reason. Everyone in this film was a dick. If you're singling out black people in particular, that's a you problem. In fact, the black jurors were the only people with some semblance of a reasoning for why they were willing to condemn the defendant despite the flimsy evidence. I would argue that this makes them the least dickish of the bunch.
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 <i>12 Angry Men</i> 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
Sorry, 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.
Not 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.
Adding a pregnancy and subsequent baby to a show is often the kiss of death for any TV series. It’s not necessarily a “jump-the-shark” moment, but it usually indicates that the writers have run out of ideas. The same applies to introducing a major new character into an already established show – it rarely ends well.
Think of all the once-great shows that went downhill after a pregnancy and baby arc:
- <i>Roseanne</i> after Jerry was born.
- Every season of <i>Archer</i> after AJ was born felt like a prolonged decline.
- <i>Friends</i> after Emma was born.
- <i>Bewitched</i> stayed decent after the addition of Tabitha but declined sharply after the birth of Adam.
- <i>Malcolm in the Middle</i> managed to stay good for a while after Jamie was born, but it definitely wasn’t as sharp as the earlier seasons.
- The same thing happened with <i>Frasier</i> after Alice was born.
1. <i>Alien</i> (1979)
2. <i>Aliens</i> (1986)
And a very, very distant 3rd would be
3. Literally every other movie in the <i>Alien</i> franchise because I consider all of them to be equally bad after <i>Aliens</i>.
Hate to break it to you, but the <i>Alien</i> franchise has always been 'woke.' All the way back in 1979, <i>Alien</i> featured a female lead and a diverse cast (albeit only considering the small cast size) in a movie that was an allegory for rape.
But here's the thing: I don't care if a movie is "woke" or not. I care if it's GOOD. The original <i>Alien</i> is a great watch because of its suspense, atmosphere, groundbreaking special effects, and Ripley as a complex, compelling character.
Before a film even comes out, I see people on MC freaking out about it being "woke." Why does anyone care? I just don't get why some people are more obsessed with whether a movie has women and a diverse cast than if it's actually good. So much mindless hate.
View all replies >