While serving as a juror in a high-profile murder trial, a family man finds himself struggling with a serious moral dilemma, one he could use to sway the jury verdict and potentially convict or free the wrong killer.
Chuck says:
Inexplicably given a very limited release by Warner Brothers, Clint Eastwood’s “Juror #2” has exceeded it studio’s low expectations. It’s garnered overwhelming good notices – it’s currently sitting at 94% positive at the Rotten Tomatoes website, based on 142 reviews – and debuted at number one during its first week of availability to purchase or rent at home. Seems there is still a demand for adult fare after all, a fact the suits at the major studios can’t be bothered with. If a movie isn’t likely to clear a $1 billion at the box office, they have no use for it.
And while Eastwood’s last few directorial efforts have been a mixed bag – “The Mule” and “Richard Jewell” worked, “The 15:17 to Paris” and “Cry Macho,” not so much – he’s on firm ground here, delivering one of his most morally complex, thought-provoking films. To be sure, “Juror’s” premise requires a huge leap of faith, but once it’s established, the drama that plays out is on par with its most obvious antecedent, “12 Angry Men.”
Nicholas Hoult takes on the titular role as Justin Kemp, a recovering alcoholic who’s attempting to get his life on track. His wife, Allison (Zoey Deutch) is expecting and as they settle into their new house, a sense of calm prevails. However, when Kemp is chosen for jury duty, his newfound peace begins to fray.
The trial he and his 11 peers preside over involves the brutal murder of a young woman (Francesca Eastwood). Found at the bottom of a ravine next to a rural stretch of road, her volatile boyfriend (Gabriel Basso) has been accused of killing her. The evidence is overwhelming, as they had a very public fight in a bar down the road. She was seen leaving the establishment by patrons, heading in the direction she was found, her boyfriend following her. Obviously, an open-and-shut-case.
However, as Kemp hears the details of the trial, a horrible suspicion arises within him. He realizes he was at the same bar at the time of the incident, witnessed the fight between the couple, and left a few minutes later. Striking something with his car on the way home, he could find nothing when he got out to inspect the damage, ultimately assuming it was a deer that had run away. Now, he’s not so sure and feels he may have been responsible for the woman’s death.
As I say, the circumstances screenwriter Jonathan A. Abrams asks us to accept pushes our suspension of disbelief to its limit. However, the moral quandary that results is weighted with so many intriguing dramatic possibilities, we let it slide.
The trial moves quickly and once the jurors are left to deliberate, Kemp introduces elements of doubt where the defendant’s guilt is concerned. To be sure, they are self-serving, but they prompt worthy discussion between the jurors, some of them eventually coming around to Kemp’s way of thinking. Doubt is raised outside the courtroom as well, when the local district attorney, Faith Killebrew (Toni Collette) comes to realize perhaps the wrong man is on trial. Will she dig further to find the truth or, being up for reelection, just let things be? The possibility her office may be trying an innocent man is not a good look.
Eastwood’s cast is filled with screen veterans who, even if their roles are brief, make an impact. J.K. Simmons as a retired cop, who is also a juror, Chris Messina as the defendant’s lawyer, Leslie Bibb as the jury forewoman and Keifer Sutherland as Kemp’s A.A. sponsor each deliver key moments in service of the script, none of them going out of their way to call attention to themselves.
Kemp’s dilemma is an engrossing one. While his act was unintentional, should he come forward and run the risk of destroying his family? Yet, having the knowledge you let an innocent man go to jail is a psychological burden that would ultimately be too much to bear. Hoult’s fine work is essential here. Even though we may not agree with the choices Kemp makes, we still sympathize with him, the actor subtly showing the inner turmoil he’s wrestling with, drawing us to his corner.
Eastwood is no stranger to questioning our nation’s justice system and it’s easy to see why this script appealed to him. The faults in our courts, as well as the players who manipulate them, are in his crosshairs, and it’s to his and Abrams’ credit that they provide no easy answers to these complex issues. “Juror #2’s” great strength is that it puts in the shoes of its protagonist, forcing us to ask what we might do in his situation. On the surface, the solution to Kemp’s dilemma seems plain; however, in a system in which justice is sometimes just so much collateral damage in upholding the law, there are no easy answers.
3 1/2 Stars
