top of page
Writer's pictureKieran O'Brien

‘Juror No. 2’: A Lose-Lose Scenario is a Win-Win for Audiences – Film Review

Clint Eastwood’s back with a finely crafted legal thriller

Nicholas Hoult as Justin Kemp in Juror No. 2 sitting in the stands.
Credit: Warner Bros. Pictures

Much has been made about the lack of a wide release for Juror No. 2 in U.S. theatres. Warner Bros.’ inexplicable decision to bury Clint Eastwood’s latest film by releasing it in fewer than 50 cinemas across the U.S.A. is just the latest in a series of recent blunders made by the studio (I still get sad thinking about Batgirl and Coyote vs. Acme).


Fortunately for me, I live in a country with an abundance of cinemas screening Juror No. 2. My screening was decently attended, too. I would maybe understand Warner Bros.’ attempt to surreptitiously kick this movie under the rug in the hopes that nobody noticed it if it were bad.


It’s not, though. Juror No. 2 is a thoughtful thriller that unfolds at a steady, yet enthralling pace made by one of cinema’s most prolific creatives with over fifty years of directing experience. It is absolutely worth your time, even if Warner Bros. CEO David Zazlav seemingly wanted nothing to do with it (the new rule of thumb, it seems, is that if David Zaslav doesn’t like it, you probably will).


All Rise

Toni Collette as Faith Killebrew speaking with J. K. Simmons as Harold
Credit: Warner Bros. Pictures

When Justin Kemp (Nicholas Hoult) is called for jury duty in a high-profile murder trial, he realises that he knows something about the case that could sway the result. Coming forward wouldn’t be easy, though. Is he willing to sacrifice everything in order to convict—or acquit—a potential murderer?


I’m being purposefully vague about the details of the plot because each detail—each reveal—is worth experiencing in real time as you watch the movie. Without giving it away, the scenario that Kemp finds himself in is a moral dilemma that would make any philosopher squirm.


The story itself is quite simple, moving from the trial to the jury deliberation where the bulk of the movie takes place. It also cuts occasionally to Faith Killebrew, the Assistant District Attorney who is prosecuting the trial, played by Toni Collette as she discovers that the case that could make her career might not be as simple as it seems on the surface.


Your Witness

Nicholas Hoult as Justin Kemp lying in bed with wife, Ally, played by Zoey Deutch.
Credit: Warner Bros. Pictures

Hoult and Collette are two of the biggest reasons that Juror No. 2 is worth watching. Hoult’s character especially has to walk a real tightrope of motivations, and he pulls it off extremely well. He plays a kind and honest man—the sort of person who wears his heart on his sleeve. What better character to force into keeping a high-stakes secret? Watching Kemp’s internal struggle manifest outwardly through Hoult’s performance makes for incredibly compelling viewing.


Despite being a legal thriller, the plot—so to speak—isn’t anything like you’d find in a Grisham or Connelly novel. There’s no corruption, guns, or blackmail. It is, instead, a deceptively mundane unveiling of circumstances and small details that only serve to make Kemp’s decision tougher and tougher to make.


Honestly, I loved this aspect of the movie. Some will undoubtedly struggle with the slow pacing and the lack of any big turning points, but not me. In a world of loud, hyper-stylish movies, I think there’s incredible satisfaction to be found in Eastwood’s steady and methodical hand behind the camera.


I’m also fond of the attention Eastwood gave to the other jurors on the trial. The standout is, naturally, J.K. Simmons, but nearly all of the others were given a light touch of either personality or backstory that made them interesting to watch. Zoey Deutch also plays Kemp’s pregnant wife which isn’t a meaty role, but she’s given a few good scenes.


I Rest My Case

Nicholas Hoult as Justin Kemp looking out a window through the slats in some blinds.
Credit: Warner Bros. Pictures

As studios struggle to adjust to an audience that is increasingly temperamental when it comes to franchise flicks that cost hundreds of millions of dollars, it is baffling when they refuse to accept the answer staring them in the face. Juror No. 2 has the feeling of a movie that if had been released in the 90’s could’ve made a $100 million easily.


Obviously, it’s not the 90s anymore, but shouldn’t studios be striving to recreate that era? A string of solid mid-budget hits—like Juror No. 2 could’ve been—is far healthier than propping up the industry on bloated tentpole movies.


Apologies for the rant. Juror No.2 is a great movie. It’s an original project not based on any existing franchise, directed by a storied creative that everyone has heard of, and it’s of exceptional quality, too. It deserves to be seen. It deserves better than what it got.


 

Thanks for reading my review. If you liked it, consider checking out my wishlist or buying me a cup of coffee at https://ko-fi.com/kieranobrien or below.



Comments


bottom of page