Written by Andreas Babiolakis

Warning: This review of Juror #2 contains minor spoilers, as well as discussions of domestic violence. Reader discretion is advised.

Despite how rough Clint Eastwood’s filmography as a director has been since his last great effort, Gran Torino (2008), I have always appreciated one aspect of his career. If any actor-turned-filmmaker had the cause to make big-budgeted, block buster affairs, it’s Eastwood, who has had a major impact on American cinema and television for around eighty entire years. Instead, he has dialed down the majority of his films to tell humble or raw stories of everyday Americans, down to the point that enough of his films have shed off any saccharine skin. Considering that his latest film, Juror #2, is hinted to be his final effort as a director, he had every reason in the world to churn out a sentimental, sugary release as a farewell to us all. Instead, he delivers his best film in well over ten years. While still depicting tales that are very real to American lower and middle class citizens with zero pretense, Eastwood gives us a tense courtroom drama that changes the rules a little bit to stay fresh.

How is this legal drama different from its peers? Justin Kemp (Nicholas Hoult) is a journalist who is taught to convey truth on a daily basis. He is a husband to an adoring, pregnant wife (Zoey Deutch), meaning he is a father-to-be as well. He is also a recovering alcoholic with four years of sobriety under his belt. Justin has just been called in for jury duty and thinks nothing of it (outside of how badly he doesn’t want to be selected so he can be at the ready for the birth of his and his wife’s child, who is due any day now). Once the trial starts and Justin cannot get out of being a jury member, he quickly finds something disturbing about it. The trial involves a reformed criminal names James Sythe (Gabriel Basso), who is accused of murdering his girlfriend after a drunken argument. He allegedly followed her down the street from the bar she stormed off from, beat her, and threw her over the guardrail of the nearby street and into the ravine below; this street is notorious for how quickly drivers handle it, and also for its deer sightings. The catch? Justin was sure he hit a deer on that very road the same night of the incident and begins to wonder if he was the person who caused the reported death, and not the accused boyfriend.

What does Justin do? He doesn’t want an innocent man to go to prison for life, but Justin has a family he vows to protect. After looking into the repercussions of coming forward — by asking his Alcoholics Anonymous sponsor who doubles as a defense attorney (Keifer Sutherland) — there is no way Justin will get out of his confession cleanly; he will likely be stuck in prison for the majority — or the rest — of his life, especially given his history as a drunk (despite his sobriety, since he ordered a drink at a bar the night of the crime, although he did change his mind and not touch his drink; surely no one will believe him). Meanwhile, this very trial is important to Assistant District Attorney Faith Killebrew (Toni Collette), who is using this case as the leverage needed to become the next DA elect and doesn’t wish to lose to the well-intentioned public defender Eric Resnick (Chris Messina). Sure, Juror #2 is about a guilty man trying to find a way to get both himself and the accused out of being punished (Justin tries to sway the jury to view James as not guilty), but the film incorporates the moral compasses of many characters. Life isn’t just about the decisions and conscience of one protagonist; we all have dilemmas and ethical crossroads on a daily basis.

*Juror #2* is Clint Eastwood’s best film in years; It is a laser-focused look at what justice looks like in a world full of people one-upping each other.

As the film continues, the lines of justice and absolved souls gets blurred. Justin proceeds to save both his skin and that of another man, but he feels the need to justify the way the trial is heading in order to clear his spirit of wrongdoing. Then there is Faith, who was so hell bent on having a guilty verdict come up at the start of the film. As Juror #2 carries on, Faith begins to question what her role in this never-ending trial is, and even goes outside of her comfort zone to do what she feels is right via a change of heart. There are times where Juror #2 is very wisely written: when it is concerned with the complexities of thought, heart, and guilt.

There are occasional narrative hiccups which do weigh the film down a tiny bit, mainly surrounding J. K. Simmons’ character, jury member and former homicide detective, Harold. Once Harold goes against court legislation and begins investigating the trial outside of the court house, you’d think a guy this wise — who even rightfully suspects that Justin is following him — would catch onto Justin’s secret past; somehow, despite literally giving us all the evidence he needs to confront Justin, he instantly shrugs off this possibility. This is a character who I assumed would pop up again at another point given his dedication to learning what actually happened (and Simmons is fantastic in the role), but that is not the case. Furthermore, on the topic of other jurors, while some members are well rounded and we learn enough about them, some of the other people of the jury are reduced to a handful of lines and typical traits, as if they were just there to fill the remaining seats. I know it is difficult for courtroom dramas to make every jury member matter (and it is an issue many like-minded films suffer), but in a film like Juror #2 where the swaying of votes and opinions matter, talking heads won’t help that point be made.

In that same breath, Juror #2 is far stronger in other ways. By revealing Justin’s part in the trial early on, the film benefits from this dramatic irony, where we sense the real dangers and inaccuracies of statements being made or assumed during deliberations; it makes the weight of Justin’s decisions feel far greater. We also see how difficult the judicial process is at actually pinpointing innocence despite all of the precautions set in place to carry out measures as well as possible. Sure, many lawyers are crooked, but Juror #2 never focuses on the greed or corruption of the legal system; it instead prioritizes how difficult these verdicts are even with fair players and as few embellishments as possible. As I was remarking on the body of Eastwood’s recent films, I couldn’t help but remind myself that a major flaw in his past dozen (or so) films is how poorly they end, as if Eastwood wasn’t sure how to conclude his own projects. Fortunately, that is not the case for Juror #2, which carries a massive wallop of a climax that may have some of Eastwood’s best filmmaking choices in quite some time, which all leads up to a rug that gets pulled from underneath your feet; where do you stand on the subject?

On the note of Eastwood as a director, Juror #2 is full of ideas that you usually wouldn’t find from a grounded filmmaker who lets his characters do the talking, and it makes for a remarkable watch. All of the instances where Justin appears to be behind bars (with lined shadows draped over him, or window panes acting as jail bars over a medium wide shot of Justin) work and never feel over done. There are interesting camera angles and depths of field that affect how we read each scene, usually while making Justin stick out of any shot like a sore thumb. These, amongst many others, are signs of a director having fun in his twilight years, knowing he has a fairly strong screenplay (by Jonathan Abrams) to work with, a strong cast to coach, and a filmography that speaks for itself (he has nothing to prove to anyone, even with the parade of duds and so-so releases within the past sixteen years). Now that Juror #2 is out, while I never wanted Clint Eastwood to stop making motion pictures, if this is certainly his final film, I will miss him even more than before now that I’m reminded of how engaging he is in top form.

Andreas Babiolakis has a Masters degree in Film and Photography Preservation and Collections Management from Toronto Metropolitan University, as well as a Bachelors degree in Cinema Studies from York University. His favourite times of year are the Criterion Collection flash sales and the annual Toronto International Film Festival.