Terrible script (SPOILERS)
-
Archived from the IMDb Discussion Forums — General Discussion
sheetsadam1 — 3 months ago(December 26, 2025 05:11 PM)
The basic premise is very good, if far-fetched: a juror comes to believe that
he
may be responsible for the crime at the center of the trial he's serving on.
But the script is terrible.- The case was too flimsy to have ever gone to trial. No physical evidence at all, merely the word of an elderly man who saw someone commit the crime of GETTING OUT OF THEIR VEHICLE from 100 yards away, at night and during a thunderstorm… This fundamental flaw continues to plague the movie until the end, since it's impossible to accept that the accused will not be freed upon appeal or that anyone else would be in any real legal danger no matter how we interpret the ambiguous ending.
- Most of the jurors are completely incompetent. "They didn't prove his
innocence
beyond a reasonable doubt," one of them says! I was dumbfounded. - J.K. Simmons' character was completely misused. He's eventually removed from the jury after he's discovered to be investigating the case himself outside of the trial and to have a law enforcement background (which, inconceivably, the attorneys were unaware of). He feels strongly enough about the case to berate Toni Collette's prosecutor character as he leaves the courthouse for the last time… And then he never shows up again. In a better version of the movie, he continues to pursue the case and his investigation and further interactions with Hoult and Collette become a major focus of the third act.
- One juror - who we never hear speak a single line of dialogue before or after - eventually reveals herself to be a medical student and, at a key moment of the film, has questions about the cause of death. Questions which apparently didn't arise when she heard the medical examiner testify in open court or for the days of jury deliberations up to that point.
- The jury is hung 6-6 the last time we see them together as a group. We then cut to the unanimous verdict being read in the courtroom. WE NEVER LEARN HOW THEY GOT THERE!
- Kiefer Sutherland's character is pointless, there only to offer absolutely horrendous legal advice for the less than five minutes he's on screen.
- Hoult's character's conversation with Collette after the verdict is uncharacteristic, an excuse to keep the movie going for an additional 15-20 minutes. It could have ended with the verdict and been a commendable - if very flawed - commentary on how the justice system sometimes fails and how apparently (since we never actually see the final jury deliberations), for Hoult's character, self-preservation overrides everything else.
- The public defender in the trial is at one point convinced that the victim slipped and fell and says so in open court. Not five minutes later he's telling the jury that the responsible party must be found.
- At one point, Collette's character begins investigating other suspects outside of the trial based on a list of damaged vehicles, undermining her own case. So eventually she gets to Hoult's address. He is conveniently not home, but she has a nice chat with his wife and doesn't notice the NUMEROUS pictures of the couple hanging everywhere in the room.
- We're told at the beginning that this is a high-profile case and that it's outcome could swing Collette's upcoming DA election by as much as five points. Not one of the jurors seem to be aware of it.
- It just ends ambiguously with no resolution.
Now, Eastwood is a fine director and the cast (at least the ones with their names on the poster) are professionals and because of that, the movie is never actually unwatchable despite all of the things I mentioned. It would have been much better if it was. A bad movie is a bad movie. This was a great cast, director and premise completely wasted on a trite and disjointed script.
Draft Barron Trump