Juror #2 (2024) | REVIEW

Directed by Clint Eastwood — Screenplay by Jonathan Abrams.

Movie-star-turned-filmmaker Clint Eastwood is a 94-year-old four-time Oscar winner who is still working with some of the industry’s best actors and studios. Although we’d all love for him to keep making films forever, this could theoretically be the final film from one of the very few stars of Hollywood of which adults of all ages will have had some kind of knowledge. It could even, given his status and talent as a filmmaker, have been a genuine Oscar contender. You would think, then, that this film — which stars actors like Nicholas Hoult, Toni Collette, J.K. Simmons, Kiefer Sutherland, and others — would be a film that Warner Bros. would proudly release in theaters as prestigious cinema for grown-ups. And yet, that’s not exactly what happened. Eastwood’s potentially final film was released in fewer than 50 theaters across the United States, as well as modest theatrical releases in only a select few territories around the world. Instead, it was prioritized as a holiday streaming release as a ‘Max Original’. It sounds like a headscratcher even before you see the film, and, frankly, it’s still a headscratcher after you see it because, well, Juror #2 is a gripping legal thriller that shows that Clint Eastwood, even at 94 years old, still has what it takes to make compelling films.

In Clint Eastwood’s Juror #2, we follow Justin Kemp (played by Nicholas Hoult), a journalist and recovering alcoholic, who is expecting his first child with his very pregnant wife, Ally (played by Zoey Deutch). At the start of the film, Justin is called up for jury duty, and his wife’s pregnancy is, regrettably, not a good enough reason for him to get out of it. Justin is eventually picked as one of the jurors — hence the title — on a case concerning the death of a woman who was found dead under a bridge following a public heated argument with her boyfriend, James Sythe (played by Gabriel Basso), who has a history of violence. Sythe is charged with the crime, and the jury has to determine whether or not Sythe is guilty. There’s just one big problem, though. When Justin starts to hear about the details of the case, he realizes that he may have been involved. At the time of her death, Justin had hit what he thought was a deer with his car, but now it is chillingly clear to the family man that Sythe is innocent, as Justin is the actual culprit. Shocked and plagued with guilt, Justin now has to figure out if there is a way where the innocent man can go free without anyone getting the idea that he, himself, is guilty. 

It is tough not to think of William Friedkin as you’re watching this. I say this because Friedkin’s final film, The Caine Mutiny Court-Martial, was a confidently made and quite good courtroom drama that, despite landing all the right beats did, admittedly, have a visual look that felt like TV. Juror #2, which, though we cinephiles don’t want to think that thought, could theoretically be Eastwood’s final film, is also concerned with justice and the legal system (even though it is more of a legal thriller than a drama), and while the film is quite good, there are times, specifically with supporting character performances, when it feels like a television product. Oh, and those two films also have another thing in common, as Kiefer Sutherland is in both films. Now, though I really liked both films, Eastwood’s is definitely more cinematic and has more of a pep in its step. Although — and this really cannot be denied — it does turn into a lesser version of 12 Angry Men with numerous of these jurors being either poorly written or acted, it is, from minute one, an exciting and efficient legal thriller that Eastwood gets a lot out of. 

Despite those issues related to performances and side character writing, it is a really well-designed narrative with its central themes being recurringly brought up through dialogue without it ever feeling like you’re being hit over the head with it. It smartly doesn’t bury the lede about its lead being unknowingly responsible, but rather gets straight to the point and makes for challenging thriller viewing, as you can understand every thought that crosses Justin’s mind. It is such a tasty moral conundrum for a film to ponder, and Eastwood gets the most out of it. It is a smartly executed thriller that gets its hooks into you, in large part thanks to Eastwood’s direction and the genuinely gripping, tense, and conflicting work delivered by Nicholas Hoult, whose performance is right up there with his best. J.K. Simmons, Chris Messina, and Toni Collette also make impressions, though without standing out. 

“Sometimes truth isn’t justice,”

– Nicholas Hoult in Juror #2.

As a film, it communicates a deep uncertainty about the state of the justice system and, especially given the original theatrical release being very close to last year’s presidential election, perhaps also the state and future of the US government as a whole. Eastwood’s film ponders what true justice is and whether there are enough good people out there willing to look past selfish protectionism and personal gain to do the right thing. It’s a powerful film that leaves you with a pit in your stomach, from one perspective, though also with some optimism, from another perspective, and what side you land on may say a lot about your sense of what is right. It is a really smart ending from Eastwood in what is, frankly, one of his best films of the last, maybe, fifteen years (for me, it sits right next to films like Richard Jewell and The Mule, both of which I also think are really powerful and/or gripping). Juror #2 is a sturdy and compelling legal thriller with a tasty premise that is handled really well by Eastwood. 

8 out of 10

– Review Written by Jeffrey Rex Bertelsen.