Clint Eastwood’s films often have the protagonist in precarious situations and his new movie is no different.
Eastwood’s latest has Nicholas Hoult starring as Justin Kemp, a man in quite the conundrum. At first glance, things seem fine for Justin, as he’s in a happy marriage with a pregnant wife and a good job who’s simply called up for jury duty. The problem is the case he ends up assigned to.
Justin has to be a juror on a murder case involving domestic violence which resulted in the death of a woman, with the defendant in the case being her boyfriend (Gabriel Basso). However, around the time of the woman’s death, Justin was driving home on a rainy night and hit something with his car.
As I said in my review of the “Joker” sequel earlier this year, I’m a sucker for courtroom dramas. It’s a setting with so much potential for battles of wit and sharp dialogue, with plenty of emotion. That’s all certainly present in “Juror No. 2,” a film that instead of following the prosecution or defendant, centers on one of the 12 important spectators.
Having a juror as a central figure is a nice break from the norm in the genre and can create a movie full of tension. It certainly isn’t the first time it’s been done, either. The 1957 classic “12 Angry Men” is all about the jury deliberation, rather than a courtroom procedural. Eastwood’s film mixes the two, showing some of the arguments by attorneys while also spending time in the jury’s room.
The difference of course is Justin’s potential involvement in the case. While it is a bit farfetched that he just so happens to be assigned the case, it does produce some suspense, especially as he has to play his cards right in the jury deliberation. He doesn’t want to send an innocent man to jail, but also doesn’t want to implicate himself.
What makes Justin’s situation more dire is that he’s a recovering alcoholic who has had DUIs in the past. Meaning if it were to come out that he was possibly the one responsible, a sentence could be heavy. Watching him have to walk a tight-rope to navigate the situation as the case works its way through the justice system is quite engaging.
One just wishes the writing had been stronger for much of the film. This is a picture with a good, but somewhat improbable scenario, meaning the writing needs to be great to really sell it and everything that follows. The screenplay by writer Jonathan Abrams is unfortunately, not quite satisfactory.
This is Abrams’ first and only writing credit, for both movie and TV, and… it shows. There are moments of dialogue that feel simplistic and segments where reveals happen that come across as overly convenient. There are also bits and pieces that feel like they should have been reworked.
For example, J.K. Simmons plays a juror, Harold, in the film. During the deliberation, he reveals himself to be a retired homicide detective. Not just a beat cop, but a full-on murder investigator, yet he didn’t reveal this during jury selection.
As good as it is to have Simmons on screen, this should have been cut or rewritten, because an experienced, retired detective would know it’s proper protocol to acknowledge this during selection. It’s bits like this that can take a viewer out of the film.
Another thing that can do that is the film’s ending. Not to get into spoilers, but the way the movie closes is redundant and a bit confusing. Additionally, after doing some research, it turns out the filmmakers shot the ending multiple different ways, showing there was a lack of a clear vision. It’s one thing to be ambiguous with an ending, and another to not know how to finish the flick.
It does help, though, to have quite a good cast line-up. Again, it’s always nice to have Simmons on screen, and he’s good as usual. Hoult is also quite strong in the lead role. He really brings out how his character is having a crisis in multiple forms, from his family’s future to his own morality.
Toni Collette is also, unsurprisingly, good as the tough lead prosecutor. One performer who feels miscast, though, is Cedric Yarbrough. The character he plays is already written as rather one-dimensional and Yarbrough isn’t really able to elevate the material and provide more complexity.
Because of its interesting premise, though, along with its headlining of good performers and Eastwood’s experienced direction, “Juror No. 2” is certainly worth a watch. There’s a feeling, though, that stronger writing could have pushed this one into the upper echelon of the courtroom genre. 3.5 out of 5.
Matthew Liedke on Film 