Was expecting a little more from Eastwood directing.
When expecting father Justin is called in for jury duty, he discovers he might have killed the victim of the case. Now it is a matter of how to continue.
Directed by nonagenarian Clint Eastwood, and starring Nicholas Hoult, Toni Collette JK Simmons, and Zoey Deutch, Juror #2 is a mixed bag. Strangely, it got a limited American release, and was originally going to go straight to streaming. But perhaps it should have stuck with the streaming platform.
Eastwood is no slouch when it comes to directing actors, plus we have JK Simmons and Toni Collette. His past films, such as Gran Torino, Changeling, Million Dollar Baby, etc, are incredible experiences. But they aren’t always winners, and can be a little stilted and forgettable. Unfortunately, Juror #2 is one of the latter.
That isn’t to say it doesn’t have positives; the film is down the middle. It’s premise is strong, asking the audience: “What would you do in his position?” It is a compelling idea and not outside of the realms of possibility. There might be spoilers, in fact in some ways the premise is a spoiler, but you cannot talk about anything if not that.
The film is exclusively a courtroom drama, and barely does it shift from this perspective. We follow the proceedings of a case against James Sythe for the murder of his girlfriend. The prosecutor on the case is Faith Killebrew (Toni Collette) who is gunning for the office of DA. Our jurors are selected and quickly display a lack of care or sympathy for the defendant. But as the case details are revealed to them, Justin realizes he was there at the time of the crime. Moreover, he might have actually killed the victim.
This is made more complicated as his partner Allison is due to give birth to their first child. But his struggle of conscience drags the case on and on, and a vote must be decided on.
The jury’s apathy is the most emotionally interesting aspect of the film. In a society where everyone is busy and have no time in the day, days in court can seem wasteful to them. It was a novel twist to the “12 Angry Men” screenplay. Justin’s conundrum also factors into this reluctance, as well as his history of alcohol abuse.
So the premise is very strong for a courtroom drama. But the execution of it is a little… shallow. It is wild that a film this emotionally charged, directed by Eastwood, would feel so flat. With the material, with actors like Collette in the mix, there’s very little impact in scenes that should be impactful. When our defendant James Sythe gives his not guilty plea… it didn’t even resonant. Was this on purpose? Surely not, we the audience know he is innocent.
As if meandering performances weren’t bad enough, the film deliberately sits on the fence for the majority. Justin is not actively doing anything; just running the clock for as long as he can bear it. While this is probably the intention, it makes the meat of the scenes taste of little. How many times is Justin going to conveniently drop something in a scene to avoid eye contact? Surprisingly often. Or when the film just slides over plot holes like: “How’d an ex-police investigator get on a jury?” “They slipped up, I guess.”
The actual case feels obvious as well; with the cause of death looking extremely obvious. The evidence against the defendant is vague and insubstantial. It doesn’t feel like a case where everyone would agree on a guilty verdict.
Perhaps I am being too harsh. But the real tension only started to rise towards the very end. When the premise came to light.
It should have been an exceptional piece of drama. A slippery moral conundrum about justice and selfless/selfishness. As it stands, this is only for those really keen on courtroom dramas.
