“Juror #2” (2024) is director Clint Eastwood’s latest movie and writer Jonathan A. Abrams first. On October 26, 2022, Justin Kemp (Nicholas Hoult), an expectant father, loving husband and recovering alcoholic, is called to serve on a jury to determine whether James Michael Scythe (Gabriel Brasso) is guilty of murdering his girlfriend, Kendall Carter (Francesca Eastwood, who is Eastwood and Frances Fisher’s daughter, was arrested this month on a felony domestic violence charge, and is out on bail) on a rainy night on October 25, 2021. On his first day as a juror, he realizes that the defendant is innocent because he was on the same road and hit a deer…or did he? What is justice: truth or the process?
If no one is the perfect victim, then “Juror #2” may have created the perfect murderer. He did not do anything objectively unreasonable except glance at a text with the phone on his seat and did not know anyone died so there is no intent or malice aforethought. Justin gets introduced as the ideal, solicitous husband to his loving, schoolteacher wife, Ally (Zoey Deutch), who is in the third trimester with their rainbow baby. They have lots of multicultural friends, and he is a journalist. It also does not hurt that Hoult has those big blue eyes and is a great actor, who works with his hands, not just his face. Justin tells the jury, “Alcoholics can charm anyone,” and anyone incudes the audience. As he agonizes over whether to come forward and tell the truth, it is easy to sympathize because he has a lot at risk as his AA sponsor/lawyer, Larry Lasker (Kiefer Sutherland—is Hoult so tall or Sutherland so tiny), points out. If he confesses, he could be found guilty of felony murder or murder in the first degree because of his DUI record and his visit to Rowdy Hideaway before Kendall died. No one will believe that he did not drink. He could be an unreliable narrator. He does his best to get the jury to fulfill their oath and consider the evidence, but as the delivery date approaches and the evidence points to details that come uncomfortably close to what happens, his good intentions begin to unravel.
Even though it sounds like a courtroom drama, thankfully the filmmakers use the testimony to have flashbacks shot from the witnesses’ perspective so even when the same scene gets shown multiple times, the execution has a Rashomon-esque bent-more violent or more sedate depending on the witnesses’ position. “Juror #2” is a conventional straightforward movie, but it leans heavily on righteous indignation that just because a person is physically abusive to their partner, they should not be prejudged. The narrative’s events and the film’s release date are parallel each other, which is an added nice touch which gives more weight to the events and will make moviegoers feel as if they are part of the action. It is a Halloween movie and an election movie with prosecutor Faith Killebrew (the always superb Toni Collette), doing double duty by running for election as D.A. and handling this case.
Each juror and witness are like voters. Though well-intentioned and anchored in lived experiences, the witnesses and black and younger jurors are biased and the loudest voices in the room kind of like a lynch mob whereas the older are wiser. It is true that eyewitness testimony is more unreliable than most think, but the timing of release is too convenient to ignore that these plot points deride identity politics without demonizing anyone. It is subtle, but there, and it would be like sticking your head in the sand to ignore that the director talked to a chair to stump for his preferred candidate.
J.K. Simmons stands out as the best juror, Harold, who happens to have a profession that the filmmakers probably hold in as great esteem as the characters. Initially he is a natural ally with Justin, but he is also a threat because of his perspicacity. His presence calls into question the central question of “Juror #2” about what matters in a criminal proceeding. When Faith and her former classmate, public defender, Erik Resnick (Chris Messina) cross swords in court, it stays there. They are friends first then professionals, which is accurate although during ongoing litigation, you may not feel like spending every free moment with your opposition at Fitzroy Bar. They are blissfully unaware that their courtroom positions are actually at odds with their self-interest, which is a fun twist.
“Juror #2” is at its best for cautioning against judging people on appearances and advising to assume good faith of all people. Faith begins to see holes in the process, and instead of being demonized as the ambitious woman, she is just a human being trying to do the right thing, not a corrupt person looking for a scapegoat to rip into. The bar is so low that it actually is an achievement when filmmakers avoid explicit misogyny. If the film falters, it gives into tropes as it approaches the denouement. As Justin begins to create doubt in the jurors’ mind, other jurors carry the baton and take the lead such as Keiko (Chikako Fukuyama). Once others decide to take his position, if Justin wavers, it should not be such a determinative factor in the verdict, and it is a crucial flaw in the story that is not considered.
Visually “Juror #2” is a conventional basic movie though there are glorious shots akin to Daenerys sprouting dragon wings in the season finale. It does not matter if it is obvious and heavy-handed. If it was not done, no one would complain, but having the closing arguments framed as if the lawyers are chastising Justin of his guilt, not the defendant, is a brilliant way of turning up the screws on the already tortured man. The opening montage that segues from Russian artist Natalia Barashkova’s ink and pen drawing illustration of the allegory of justice, Themis, the Greek goddess of justice, to blindfolded Ally works, but has less of an impact on a gut level though she and their baby are Justin’s primary motivations…or if you are cynical, excuses to save himself from accountability. Eastwood sinned a bit. To establish that a court day ended, he apparently thought the dialogue was insufficient and ends some scenes with what appears to be stock shots of Savannah’s city skyline. To these dilated eyes, they were dreadful and jarring. Some kids with a drone could do better.
In the end, regardless of the facts and the verdict, when Justin does not immediately fess up, he is guilty in his heart, and the film does not make this point as clear as it needed to be. He is human and relatable, but perhaps not as good as “Juror #2” paints him. It is a film that ultimately buys into the logic that some people are more worthy than others by manipulating us into siding with Justin’s actions even though he fails to come forward and is potentially a murderer. The entire matter could have been settled if he got his car inspected. It could have been a deer. Attractive, married, good to his wife, father, journalist, clean shaven, no tattoos are better than a dead, volatile woman and a tattooed, possibly former drug dealer who could not commit and were toxic for each other. To destroy sympathy for Justin, the filmmakers give him an eleventh-hour flaw to root for justice.
“Juror #2” is fine, but better suited for a matinee than a night out. It is entertaining and well-acted. The talent elevates material that would fit in perfect for a television movie if men had an equivalent of the Lifetime channel or it was Law & Order: Savannah. Fans of the cast should indulge. While it may not be Eastwood’s best, it is better than a lot of people’s lifetime body of work in terms of consistency and clear, which the apples and oranges “Megalopolis” (2024) could not be accused of being though when it soars, it defies gravity but is also often a good-spirited mess. The message may be superficially acceptable in demanding more more than jumping to judgments but is a bit suspect in its distrust of judging people based on their past. People may change, but if they say that they only do so when people are looking, and there is skin in the game, it is probably best to be a little suspicious.
