It was hard for me to watch Clint Eastwood’s Juror #2 (2024), the legendary director’s 40th feature film, without thinking about a fellow nonagenarian whose life I greatly admire: my grandmother Marietta Dickman.
A mother of six, twice widowed, and a two-time cancer survivor, Marietta was the closest relationship I ever had with a grandparent. Not many get the pleasure of having a grandparent for the first 31 years of their life and I consider myself extremely lucky to hold onto those memories that were made prior to her passing this past August.
I bring up Marietta because, much like Eastwood, she cherished life as an opportunity to work hard and put her life into her passions. The idea of legacy will undoubtedly be discussed when Eastwood passes, but if Juror #2 indicates his final output, he should be incredibly proud of how he’s concluded his career.
In a debut screenplay from writer Jonathan A. Abrams, Juror #2 follows Justin Kemp (Nicholas Hoult), a journalist and recovering alcoholic living in Savannah, Georgia. Kemp is called up for jury duty in a high-profile case concerning the death of Kendall Carter (Francesca Eastwood). Her boyfriend James Sythe (Gabriel Basso) is charged with murder after Kendall’s body is found under a bridge soon after the two have a public argument at a local bar.
Despite Kemp’s best efforts for dismissal, he’s assigned to the jury and heads to trial to hear both sides of the story. However, upon recollection of the night’s events, Kemp realizes he was not only at the bar the night of the incident, but may be more involved in the case than he initially realized.
Once set into motion, Juror #2 turns into a fascinating, multifaceted drama about the permanence of our actions and the ethical dilemma at play when facing the potential ripple effects. As much as we find ourselves siding with Kemp who’s on the road to recovery and expecting a child with his wife Allison (Zoey Deutch), we also lean into the harsh ramifications of the situation. When someone else’s life is on the line, how far must one go to protect their own future?
Hoult’s performance as Kemp is extraordinary and one of the year’s best. His ability to portray complex emotions through subtle facial expressions, specifically in his eyes, is a remarkable showcase of inner turmoil.
The same can be said for the bevy of character actors entangled in the complexity of the trial’s details as Kemp struggles to keep his conscience in check. Toni Collette is fearless as Faith Killebrew, the Assistant District Attorney prosecuting the case, leading a no-nonsense call to action as she grapples with the logistics of the case herself. The same can be said for Kiefer Sutherland, whose presence as Kemp’s AA sponsor provides thorough insight into the dos and don’ts of not drawing suspicion.
The jurors include J.K. Simmons, Cedric Yarbrough, and Adrienne C. Moore, all with varying perspectives because of Kemp’s lingering doubts, causing their jury duty to go longer than expected. At a glance, one could take Kemp’s uncertainty as respect for the accused that no stone is left unturned a’la 12 Angry Men (1957), but the reality of the situation digs at Kemp under the surface and only irritates the other jurors.
Juror #2 is at its most successful as it pivots and weaves between the jury’s mixed feelings on the trial and Kemp’s attempts at buying time for his own piece of mind. The film’s internal cat-and-mouse dynamic within the confines of the American justice system is an adrenaline rush, yet Eastwood’s direction makes it all look effortless.
Whether challenging skepticism when the facts don’t add up or admitting biases in the case itself, every juror has a place to express themselves and Abrams’ script provides ample breathing room for everyone’s voices to be heard. When the film reaches its ambiguous final shot, you’ll feel as if you’ve heard all that needs to be said and still want to ponder what’s left unsaid.
Early reviews for Juror #2 make a point of stating how at-home the film feels amongst its ‘80s and ‘90s legal contemporaries–Joel Schumacher’s A Time to Kill (1996) and Rob Reiner’s A Few Good Men (1992) came to mind during my watch. While in good company, the moral quandary at the core of Juror #2 gives the film an added layer to pick apart that helps it rise above any TV movie of the week comparisons it runs the risk of drawing.
Over the course of his 53-year directorial career, Juror #2 is the closest Eastwood has come to representing the thin gray line where some of the best drama resides.
If that’s the case, it’s one hell of a final impression.
Review Courtesy of Landon Defever
Feature Image Credit to Warner Brothers via Entertainment Weekly