“Juror #2” Review

Nicholas Hoult stars in Clint Eastwood’s “Juror #2” as a juror who finds himself confronted by haunting memories of the past in this tight legal drama.

With “Juror #2”, Clint Eastwood’s latest film as a director, I became filled with a slowly-brewing rage that came close to eruption when the credits began to roll. Not because the film wasn’t any good, in fact it was quite the opposite. Compared to many of Eastwood’s past features, I would rank it higher than films like “American Sniper”, “Jersey Boys” and “Richard Jewell”. I was angry about the film because Warner Bros. Pictures, the film’s distributor, had relegated “Juror #2” to a limited theatrical release with a streaming release on Max on December 20. In fact, this was meant to be a streaming exclusive until Warner Bros. decided to give this excellent courtroom drama a bit of time in theaters to build some word-of-mouth advertising. Regardless, the way this film is being released feels like a lousy way to treat potentially the final film of a man whose brought so much money and respect to a studio he’s worked almost exclusively with for his career, including the two Best Picture winners “Unforgiven” and “Million Dollar Baby”. In spite of all the studio politics that anger me so, “Juror #2” is an exceptional effort from Clint Eastwood that feels evocative of the kind of cinema that we don’t see too much these days. 

Following a high profile murder trial from start to finish in Georgia, Justin Kemp (Nicholas Hoult) is selected to be the titular member of the jury. This is especially strenuous for him since his wife Ally (Zoey Deutch) is in her third trimester and needs his support. Nevertheless, he must do his duty. But as Assistant District Attorney Faith Killebrew (Toni Collette) and public defender Eric Resnick (Chris Messina) lay out the details of the case, Justin comes to a horrifying realization that he might be the one responsible for the victim’s (Francesca Eastwood) death and not the defendant (Gabriel Basso). 

With a title like “Juror #2”, my mind was instantly drawn to the classic Sidney Lumet legal drama “12 Angry Men” where most of the characters remain nameless, only being identified by their juror numbers. In fact, there’s a scene where the jury deliberates where Nicholas Hoult almost embodies Henry Fonda’s heroic Juror #8. However, the details of this film are far more murky which makes “Juror #2” such a white-knuckled legal thriller. When most of us are just trying to live until our 90s, Clint Eastwood has achieved this while continuing to make incredible films, having released this film at the age of 94. But with the way this film is executed, it still has the vigor of Eastwood when he was making films like “The Bridges of Madison County” and “Unforgiven”. 

This is screenwriter Jonathan Abrams’ first film as a writer and it boggles your mind how this could be possible. With the way this script is so well-constructed, you would think he’s been making screenplays since the 90s at least. As “Juror #2” unfolds, your mind fills with all kinds of resolutions for the truly compromising situation these characters have found themselves in and none of them happen. This is because our first thoughts are often easy solutions and those are often the first things to go when you rewrite a script. It’s perfect for a director like Clint Eastwood because he’s never been too interested in neat endings. He is obsessed with showing the audiences the grey even if they’d be more comfortable with black-and-white. 

Nicholas Hoult is absolutely brilliant in this role and deserves an Oscar nomination for his layered performance. What makes his character so compelling is that you know he’s a good man. He and his wife have a strong relationship, he’s ready to start a family and he’s put in the hard work as a recovering alcoholic. Your heart goes out to him as he wrestles with this profound guilt about the case and the fate of its victim and defendant. The reasons for why he only is just now realizing his connection to the case also work very well and put him and he audience in an interesting situation where we want to see justice prevail but also want Justin to get out of this. But can these two ideas coexist? Hoult’s performance is subtle, raw and deeply investing, making him a truly excellent protagonist. 

Toni Collette also astounds with her role as the prosecution. At first, she’s set in stone that the defendant is guilty but then serious doubt begins to slowly infect her over the course of the trial. This is especially conflicting because she’s in the midst of an election campaign for District Attorney and this case could make or break her candidacy. Her role starts off as one of the most typical in the film but morphs into one of the most engrossing which is what I like in a genre film like this. I love when the conventions of the genre are stretched or even broken to make way for better things. 

The entire ensemble cast is well-used and everyone has a chance to shine. It reminded me of “Oppenheimer” because “Juror #2” is in no hurry to show off the big names that star in the film. I would see a big name cast member, like J.K. Simmons, who doesn’t have much dialogue for the first twenty minutes of the film but then he gets his turn to speak and you know why he’s there. Alongside Simmons, I was especially intrigued by Cedric Yarborough’s performance as Marcus, a fellow juror who is ardent in his support of conviction which puts him at odds with Justin and his arguments for acquittal. It feels like a play on the relationship Lee J. Cobb and Henry Fonda had in “12 Angry Men” which is a strong indication of the film’s quality. Overall, the skill with “Juror #2” is how it is able to look at other legal dramas, borrow a few things from them but then go off in a different direction that holds your attention with an iron grip. 

It’s no shocker that our justice system is flawed and “Juror #2” does point this out but in a much more subtle manner than you might expect. Don’t expect Nicholas Hoult to give an impassioned and profanity-laden rant like Al Pacino in “...And Justice For All” . These characters don’t have to go on massive monologues about how broken things are, they just have to live through it. Instead of hammering in the point, “Juror #2” would rather just show a compelling narrative and leave us with the questions. This includes an exceptional ending that revels in its ambiguity when it could have been too easy to be definitive and betray what this film is building towards. 

So if this film is so remarkable, how come it has been screened in so few American theaters with minimal marketing? How come a director like Clint Eastwood has been left with making films that are meant to go straight-to-streaming. I have nothing against streaming services, they’ve given me some of my favorite films, but there’s something wrong about a Clint Eastwood film not getting a wide theatrical release. As much as I hope Eastwood continues to make films (with this quality, it’s clear that he is as strong as ever behind the camera), I am realistic with his age but that makes it all the more puzzling as to why Warner Bros. would let what could be Eastwood’s final film be shown on so few screens. If we are to relegate these kinds of films to just streaming, what are we saying? That grown-up films with no explosions, no CGI creatures and mainly dialogue-driven drama don’t belong in the cinema? 

I don’t even know what’s going on with Warner Bros. anymore. In the past few years, this studio has alienated Christopher Nolan to the point where he left to make “Oppenheimer” with Universal, slaughtered Zack Snyder’s original vision of “Justice League” until fan outcry got the momentum going for his celebrated director’s cut and raised serious concerns that they would pull the plug on Turner Classic Movies until Paul Thomas Anderson, Steven Spielberg and Martin Scorsese got involved to help administer the network. If this is how they treat a legendary filmmaker like Clint Eastwood, where does that leave the rest of us? 

Not to say that Warner Bros. is beyond hope. This studio has made some wonderful films this year like “Dune: Part Two”, “Beetlejuice Beetlejuice” and “Joker: Folie à Deux” but their mistakes have been costly and have been cruel. “Juror #2” was made for $35 million and, given Eastwood’s status, could have made that budget back with a wide release. But is genre and IP all that motivates studios to give films hundreds of screens? If that’s where we’re going, then I don’t think cinema has any place for me. But I will keep on coming back to the theaters multiple times per week like I always do as long as great filmmakers like Clint Eastwood keep honing their craft. They’re worth it.