Rating: 4.5/5
Synopsis:
At ninety four years old, Clint Eastwood is still giving us fresh stories. Here, he explores a moral dilemma in a thematically rich courtroom drama. We follow Justin Kemp, a young man who is expecting a child with his wife. He receives a letter in the mail to appear for jury duty in a murder case. As he hears the details, he begins to wonder if he is connected to the murder. As he recollects, he believes that he might have been the one who accidentally killed the victim with his car on a rainy night. What follows is a riveting examination of morality, filled with unique perspectives in a complicated situation.
Positives:
It’s a darn shame that “Juror #2” has been deemed a streaming movie. Only playing in roughly fifty theaters during a very short run, a film of this quality deserves better. “Juror #2” is one of the best films of the year and Eastwood’s strongest film since “Gran Torino”. While I’ve enjoyed most of his filmography, it amazes me that he is still able to produce a product with such depth and care. This is a story that may not appeal to those looking for a thrilling court case filled with explosive interactions. But if audiences are willing to look under the microscope and examine the inner workings of a complex situation, “Juror #2” will be a very rewarding experience. I actually believe the presentation of events and the deliberation of the case is refreshingly grounded. I could see regular people who are impartial to a case with their own perspectives dictate their vote on a jury. Some people just want to get home to their families, others are swayed by the argument of the opinionated, and some want to examine every detail to make sure the right verdict is reached. The film is more concerned with exploring how human nature and perception can influence a case in the justice system. I believe the film does so in spectacular fashion, so credit to Eastwood for producing such a rich story.
The performances across the board are exceptional. Nicholas Hoult is one of the most underrated actors working today and he proves it again here. Whether it be an eloquent speech about the multifaceted nature of convicting someone to the stressful expressions he conveys, he succeeds on every level. As we learn more about his backstory, we understand why he has sympathy for the man on trial while also grappling with the possibility of losing everything he loves if he comes forward. His interactions with the other jury members really helps flesh out his character and the complexities of the case. While the film is dialogue heavy, every interaction feels crucial to understanding the different layers of the process. I love that Eastwood allows even the secondary characters to feel understood, conveying their perspective on why the man on trial deserves one fate or another. Toni Collette and Chris Messina both provide good supporting performances as the attorneys on the case. Colette has a lot to gain from winning this case, choosing to explore it with tunnel vision until her perspective is challenged by multiple jury members and her fellow colleague. J.K. Simmons also has an effective but short addition as a former crime investigator on the jury. He begins to wonder if the pieces add up, much like Hoult’s argument for deliberation on the case’s possibilities. Zoey Deutch gives a surprisingly nuanced performance as Hoult’s wife in the film as well.
I credit Eastwood for continuing to provide rich, small scale stories that counter the blockbuster culture. While I enjoy those as well, I miss the days where an engaging drama leaves audiences thinking long after the credits roll. Eastwood’s approach is not meant to take a side in this crucial case or within the functionality of the justice system, but rather to provide insight and understanding from each character. The film isn’t showy from a technical perspective, but the material is thoughtful and engaging. I also enjoyed how well the film was paced at just under two hours. It’s a shame that the release format will likely hurt “Juror #2’s” awards changes, but that doesn’t take away from the many successes it achieves.
Negatives:
I truly don’t have much to say in this section. The main issue some may point out are the comparisons from “12 Angry Men”. Both films follow similar templates as a group of strangers are assigned to deliberate and decide the fate of a man on trial. Once discussed, more details arise and alternate perspectives complicate the outcome of the case. The main difference is that Hoult’s character is more of a focus than the case. I can understand how some may feel like “Juror #2” borrows the best elements from that film. Another aspect that may underwhelm certain audiences (not me) is that the film isn’t flashy like some of the other famous court case movies. It may be subtle in presentation but the material is deep.
Conclusion:
“Juror #2” proves that Clint Eastwood can still make a movie that ranks among the year’s best. The film displays elements of a classic old school drama while keeping the plot fresh. The cast also displays a commitment to telling this story in the most effective way. Nicholas Hoult gives a commendable performance that is one of my favorites of the year. I appreciated the fact that the story wasn’t overly dramatic, letting the real life circumstances of the characters drive the plot forward. I really enjoyed the film and highly encourage those who are looking for a riveting courtroom drama with a moral dilemma at the surface to give it a watch. It is one of the best films of the year and not one to miss!
