chris morton

Great film with a few issues. The film centers around a binary moral dilemma where the Juror (Kemp) believes the suspect (Sythe) might be innocent because the Juror may have been the culprit to begin with. This is a great premise. But where they went wrong is nobody had any facts in the film. The prosecutor didn’t have facts of Sythes involvement. The Juror didn’t even have the facts of his own involvement. At the end the prosecutor also did not have the facts of Kemp's involvement. The evidence that could have been used was now over a year old (the car). So everyone was speculating. Meanwhile we are made to believe that it must be Kemp or Sythe. One must burn, make your choice. But this was not the case. Kemp just needed to state that the prosecution did not have the evidence sufficient for him to give a guilty verdict to Sythe. This was the truth. In fact this was the only truth. And there was no moral dilemma for Kemp to bring himself into it considering that his belief in his own (possible) involvement was also just more speculation. He never saw a body or blood or any evidence. He just felt a thump in his car one year prior. Had Kemp been clued into his own involvement pre body shop repairs and covered his tracks by weaving a web of lies, this could have been a very different film with much higher stakes. But in this film I was a bit puzzled about what Kemp was so worried about. He (nor anyone else) had any evidence that he was involved. His main focus should have just been doing his job with a level head and convincing the jurors that there was not sufficient evidence for a Guilty verdict. He never would have had to stray from the truth. That said, I think Eastwood can tell an engaging story. I enjoy the economical filmmaking, the reserved style, and the wonderful performances from the entire cast. Its worth a watch.

The good: interesting setting. Semi interesting concept. The bad: Bland visual design. Two dimensional characters. Contrived wall-to-wall music telling you how to feel at every turn. Incredibly Cliche ending with remaining plot holes and loose ends. The Why: The fact that people blame the bad reviews on sexism is laughable. This was a 60 million dollar budget (at least). Every resource was available to the filmmakers to make something creative and original. And they made an incredibly unwatchable show. This isn't the 1950's. We now have a proven track record of movies and TV starring women and / or directed by women that people really truly love. Do you think Katherine Bigelow and "Zero Dark Thirty" got "review bombed"? The answer is no. Because it was well made and original. So can we stop allowing untalented people who fail upwards to be the creative leads on the most anticipated shows of the year? We don't care how many diversity check boxes were filled in. The final product on the screen actually has to be good. Nobody is saying you cant make a wonderful show about two female cops thats directed by women. We are just saying, you have to actually make it good. The hiring standards might have been lowered, but the final quality standards will continue to hold strong. Sorry. Its just where reality comes head to head with wishful thinking. This series lacked originality, creativity and any kind of character depth. I have an awful habit of finishing things that I start, but I really wish I would have turned it off after episode 3.