Juror #2: A Review (Review #1905)

 

JUROR #2

Justice may be blind, but can it be actually served impartially? Juror #2, the latest and perhaps final film from Clint Eastwood, takes us through a very tragic story in a straightforward manner, making the multiple layers of tragedy all the more impactful.

Justin Kemp (Nicholas Hoult) is a magazine writer, recovering alcoholic, and future father. His wife, Allison Crewson (Zoey Deutch), is in her final month of a high-risk pregnancy, having already suffered a prior miscarriage. Justin has no desire to serve on a jury, as do almost all the potential jurors in a Savannah courthouse. District attorney Faith Killebrew (Toni Collette), in a tough reelection race, is personally handling the high-profile case against James Sythe (Gabriel Basso), accused of murdering his girlfriend Kendall Carter and dumping her body in a remote creek. Public defender Eric Resnick (Chris Messina) has rejected, at his client's request, to accept any plea deal and go to trial. Justin, along with the other jurors selected, may not be thrilled to be there, but they will do their best to render a judgment.

Over the course of the trial, Justin finds to his horror that he is connected to Kendall's death. He knows that James Sythe is not guilty, but revealing this will then bring him into legal trouble. This is confirmed by Justin's AA sponsor, attorney Larry (Keifer Sutherland), whom Justin quietly hires to have that attorney/client privilege. Justin does his best to sway the jurors, almost all of whom voted to convict, to reverse their decision without revealing his own involvement in the case. Only one juror, former cop Harold (J.K. Simmons) is on Justin's side, albeit for different reasons. Another juror, Marcus (Cedric Yarborough), is dead set against Sythe, also for his own reasons. 

As the trial goes on, Justin keeps that delicate balance between trying to guide the other jurors to acquit while not revealing all that he knows. Will he succeed in saving both himself and James Sythe? Will Faith stumble onto the truth in time? 

Juror #2 was initially intended to be released as a streaming-only film. I find this an absolutely shocking to downright horrifying decision given how Juror #2 is one of if not the best film of 2024. After seeing the film, I downright question the sanity and/or intelligence of Warner Brothers executives who showed little to no faith in Clint Eastwood or Juror #2 to appeal to audiences. 

Perhaps Juror #2 was too quiet for them. There is nothing flashy or grand or epic about the film. Apart from a few moments that have a subtle nod to the proceedings, such as a breeze swinging the scales of justice on an outdoor statue or a quick shot of Justin behind metaphorical bars, Juror #2 never calls attention to itself or its style. Clint Eastwood has a very quiet directing manner in Juror #2. Everything is on a surface level, with no great theatrical moments or thunderous score to underline the growing crisis. 

That, however, is nowhere near a flaw. It enhances Juror #2, giving it not so much a documentary-like feel, but something that feels relatable and close to life. Jonathan Abrams' screenplay is very subtle in its symbolism and effective in giving us complex characters and situations. Justin's very name is an ironic one: the man who, unintentionally, created the situation that is bringing about a miscarriage of justice as he is trying to avoid a literal miscarriage.

The more I think about Juror #2, the more I am impressed with its world-building and structure. We are not told things right off the bat but have Justin's life revealed in pieces. We, for example, don't learn of Justin's alcohol struggles immediately. We also, over the course of the film, see how the jurors and Faith can reach their conclusions both pro-and-con. 

Juror #2 does something so rare in films today: it respects its audience and our intelligence. It gives us both information that other characters are not privy to (such as how Justin was at the bar where James and Kendall had their fight, albeit him unaware at the time that he was selected) but also gives us the backstories of even minor characters. One juror, for example, wants the case over with quickly so she can go back to her children. Another is personally prejudiced against Sythe due to Sythe's criminal past. Both, however, do take their job as jurors seriously and find the evidence against Sythe strong. 

One brilliant aspect in Juror #2 is that there are no villains, but a collection of good yet flawed people, bringing their own experiences to the case. We know, for example, that Justin is a good man despite his actions. The film, however, also does not portray Faith as merely interested in getting a conviction that will boost her polling numbers. She too cares about justice and believes that she is doing the right thing. Once she begins to doubt whether Sythe did commit the crime, she begins to investigate herself. Us knowing that Sythe is not guilty makes us sympathize with him, even if he is less than an upstanding citizen. Marcus, however, is hostile against James precisely due to Sythe's past. The film also portrays Faith and Eric not as fierce adversaries or as one good, one bad. Instead, they are friends, both doing their best for their respective clients and aware of the legal system's virtues and flaws. 

Juror #2 is reminiscent of 12 Angry Men in how it looks at the jury system, though with the added twists of jurors' personal involvement. Unlike 12 Angry Men, Juror #2 does not suggest that the process works. Instead, it suggests that like all systems, it is flawed and capable of tragic errors despite everyone's best and sincere intentions.

This is an exceptionally well-written film. It is also an exceptionally well-acted film. Nicholas Hoult has built up an impressive career in both drama and comedy and has transitioned well from child to adult actor. Here, his Justin is a man in full: decent yet flawed, aware of all the facts but struggling between doing the right thing. None of the options presented to him are good, but the audience sympathizes with Justin. This is a very quiet performance, where we see Justin's struggles through his eyes. Yet we also see Justin as loving husband and father, a regular man.

Collette, unlike Hoult, may struggle with her American accent a bit (Hoult did not have a pronounced Southern accent like Collette did). However, that is a very minor flaw in her Faith, someone who balances a desire to win her election with a genuine desire to do right. Her scene with Basso's Sythe (who is equally good) reveals that she may not like the suspect, but she also suspects that she may have the wrong man. Faith, through Collette's performance, shows someone who does care about Kendall. We see this in quick moments, such as her reaction when she reads a thank you card from Kendall's family. We also see the shock when she realizes that Allison Crewson and Justin Kemp are connected.

Juror #2 is so exceptionally well-acted by everyone, even those with smaller roles. There is a substitute juror who has to go in late into the trial. In other hands, the director might have played up the new juror's love for true crime podcasts for laughs. However, Eastwood and Abrams make this a strength, showing that the new juror understands how things may not always be as simple as they appear. That is one of Juror #2's greatest strengths. It takes things seriously without being somber or dramatic. It plays things naturally, showing us people who are no different than the audience. 

The strength of Juror #2 goes to Mark Mancina's score. Never dominating the scene, it is like the film itself: quiet, simple, but effective, sparingly used but more impactful when it does come. 

Juror #2 should never have been considered for a streaming-only release. This is not a streaming film. It is a well-crafted, well-acted, well-directed piece of filmmaking that is probably the best film of 2024. At a time when pretentious gibberish like Conclave or outright junk like Gladiator II: Judgment Day are being promoted for Best Picture, there is this little film that does what those films fail to do. Juror #2 manages to entertain while making the viewer think and care about the story and its characters. How anyone can come to a conclusion that those other films are better than Juror #2 is a mystery to me.

DECISION: A+