17 Comments

What a dull movie!

Expand full comment

I agree with your review. It felt like a TV movie. The portrayals of the jurors were ridiculous. They were written as dummies. Didn't they ever hear of nuance? For instance, Juror #2 asks another juror, "What if your son was accused?" and he just nods, like "Gee. I never thought of that". Really?

I wish the movie explored money and economic status a little more. The defendant didn't have the funds to even hire another Medical Examiner to look at the autopsy. I keep thinking of the OJ trial and how he had so much money to keep putting doubts in the juror's heads.

Expand full comment

Exactly! What's funny is that most of us are raised now on judicial procedurals (the Law & Order effect) so Eastwood has to know audiences will at least know the basics.

Expand full comment

Thank you! Felt like a lifetime original, and its politics were just as deep.

Expand full comment

This movie is just bad. I couldn’t agree with your review more, including allowing the best actor in the movie, JKSimmons, to take it over.

Expand full comment

This mediocre film's utter lack of logic (they could have stood to run this by maybe one legal consultant, at least), dimension, or complexity has been widely lauded by critics, and had a 90+ Rotten Tomatoes score that made me question if I'd seen the same movie everyone else saw. Thank you for your service, Clint Eastwood, but please retire already. And thank you for your wide-awake review, Kristen Lopez.

Expand full comment

I’ve seen it three times now. Loved it every time . Might go for a fourth viewing.

Expand full comment

This is an unhinged response. Having just seen the movie (which could've been great was mostly bad/frustrating), I found Kristen's review to be excellent and spot on. In what world do we want all media critics to be unanimous? Unless... wait... is this Clint Eastwood??

Expand full comment

93% of critics on rotten tomatoes agree it’s a real winner. Hopefully you will watch again.

Expand full comment

Happy to stay in the 7% right now. Thanks for reading.

Expand full comment

Cool. Give it another viewing with an open mind if you’re willing. Sometimes movies grow on you over time.

Expand full comment

No one should have to go through the punishment of seeing this film twice

Expand full comment

Did we see the same movie? You really missed the point of the movie. You obviously have a political agenda against Clint which shouldn’t be part of your review. Justice should be blind like your review. Read NYT critics choice review or SF Chronicle or Deadline because they saw the movie I did.

Expand full comment

That’s the joy of film criticism, we don’t all have the same thoughts. Glad those reviews exist for you!

Expand full comment

Just keep politics out - view the movie not stating your agenda in my opinion this is how a reporter should conduct themselves. 🙏

Expand full comment

You clearly don't know the difference between a film critic (opinion) and a reporter (facts), or the difference between stating one's own agenda and recognizing someone else's.

Expand full comment

Curious are you related or dating the critic?. So strange to respond after all this time as well. New Year’s resolution no more social media posts with bad movie critics or the 7% who just don’t get Clint Eastwood’s movies. This movie could teach a lot if you actually listened to what it is saying. Oh and I know the difference between film critics bad opinions and “fake news” social media reporting. I have zero agenda except pointing out this movie was excellent.

Expand full comment