Clint Eastwood’s Morally Ambiguous Courtroom Drama Asks Us for Questions

I love morally ambiguous films. They offer a lot of food for thought about what we would do if we were in the main character’s situation, and they open the door for debate about the questions they present. This is essentially Juror #2. It’s Clint Eastwood’s modernity 12 angry menalthough it does offer a plot twist that complicates the central case beyond discussing one man’s guilt. The film, which may or may not be Eastwood’s last, makes us jurors as we begin to question the information we are given and who is providing it. It’s an imperfect film that intrigues until the end.

Nicholas Hoult’s Justin Kemp is apparently a nice guy. He is by his wife, Allison (Zoey Deutch), who is in the last trimester of a high-risk pregnancy and has been sober for several years. When he is called to the jury, Justin quickly realizes – following prosecutor Faith Killebrew’s (Toni Collette) opening statements – that he was at the same bar the night James Sythe (Gabriel Basso) allegedly killed his girlfriend Kendall (Francesca Eastwood). Justin thought he hit a deer that night, but he starts to question it. Justin has to decide: does he protect himself or clear the name of a potentially innocent man?

Juror #2 plays with our minds

Moral ambiguity works well

Eastwood’s film is good at messing with our minds. Jonathan Abrams’ script leaves gaps in the events of the night Kendall died. There are enough of them to cast reasonable doubt on who exactly killed her. The moral arguments are less about her death and the moments leading up to it and more about what Justin – knowing what he knows about that night – will do about it. Hoult plays his character with enough nuance that I’m never completely on his side, though it’s understandable where he’s coming from.

Justin struggles to decide what to do, but as the case grows more complex and complicated, his initial attempts to help James begin to fall by the wayside. Hoult plays with this nuance incredibly well, making Justin a little difficult to read but also as unpleasant as he is likable. This is difficult to achieve, but he does it with ease. Juror #2 it puts our minds to work and I found myself torn on the case and unable to make a firm decision as often as some members of the jury.

The case seems simple at first, but it is much more vague than we might expect. Often the drama shifts between putting James on trial and defending Justin as a suspect. Ultimately, the film asks whether we would be willing to stand up for someone else – regardless of whether we are unsure – if it means risking our life and comfort to do the right thing. Justin’s journey isn’t so much about proving James’ innocence as it is about what he would be willing to give up, considering how set in his ways he initially is in a decision.

I also liked the film that questions the imperfections of the justice system and the prejudices that the characters – the jury and the lawyers – bring with them to the courtroom. You may still be in doubt about the whole subject at the end of Juror #2 and that is the mark of a good film. As the film draws to a close, the relationship between Justin and Collette’s Faith, who hopes to become Georgia’s district attorney, is juicy and full of tension, making for a thoroughly enjoyable watch.

Juror #2 Has Many Great Characters, But Underutilizes Them

The film is also negatively affected by a non-existent soundtrack

Juror #2 has a star-studded cast, although some of them barely manage to do anything, and when they finally do, they are eliminated. One of the most interesting aspects of the film occurs when Harold (JK Simmons) admits that he is a retired detective during jury deliberations. Like Justin, he isn’t convinced that James is guilty and suspects something isn’t right. When he decides to do some investigating on his own, the consequences of this take him out of the film entirely and we never see Simmons again. It’s a shame, considering what a contrast he would have made to Justin.

Other actors, like Leslie Bibb, who plays the jury president, get a few lines here and there, but otherwise don’t have much of an impact on the story or the main characters. What caught my attention the most, however, was the general lack of a good score. Juror #2 It’s a perfect film for a composer to play around with. There are many intense moments, dangers and tension, but Mark Mancina’s soundtrack is practically non-existent. When it plays, it doesn’t add anything meaningful to the scenes. Sometimes silence is effective, but here it’s just oddly noticeable.

Juror #2The company’s problems are not enough to significantly harm its strengths. The film is never monotonous and the script manages to veer off in different directions as soon as things start to become too obvious. While the drama doesn’t try to subvert our expectations considering it’s still a simple watch, it’s also not willing to be too basic in its story. The film’s rather simple premise is greatly complicated by ethical arguments, human emotions, and actions that are worth analyzing even after it ends.

Juror #2 It’s now showing in theaters. The film is 113 minutes long and is rated PG-13 for some violent images and strong language.