With the release of “Juror #2,” originally pitched as Clint Eastwood’s final film, the 94-year-old director is hardly going out with a bang. Warner Bros. decided to release the movie to fewer than 50 theaters, burying it in the abyss of streaming services. But how is the film itself? Here’s my take (minor spoiler alert).
On paper, there’s a lot to like. Nicholas Hoult leads a star-studded cast that includes Toni Collette, J.K. Simmons, and Kiefer Sutherland, all of whom turn in strong performances. Yet, despite the talent involved, the film falters with shallow character development. Beyond Hoult’s Justin Kemp, Zoey Deutch’s Allison Crews, and Colette’s Faith Killebrew, I struggled to recall the names of any other characters. It’s perhaps an indictment of the film that so few characters leave a memorable impression. Even the jurors themselves, despite their significant screen time, are relegated to brief moments of exposition or isolated outbursts—the limited times we learn anything about them. This underutilization of such an acclaimed cast leaves the film feeling like a missed opportunity—almost like a made-for-TV movie.
That might not be the worst thing, as the film’s focus remains tightly on Justin’s moral and legal struggle. Serving on the jury of a high-profile murder case, Justin slowly realizes he is actually the one responsible for the very crime the jury is tasked with deliberating. Hoult does an excellent job conveying Justin’s internal turmoil, and his pale expressions and visible anxiety as his worst fears come true are gripping. His dilemma of whether to condemn an innocent man or risk putting himself in legal trouble sustains the tension of the film, as his nervous reaction to the facts of the case and eventual realization illustrate.
Visually, the film’s recurring flashbacks to the night of the crime are effective, layering more complexity onto Justin’s character. The rain-soaked night, marked by tragedy and mistakes, serves as a metaphor for Justin’s troubled sense of morality. As more information is slowly revealed, his struggle with overcoming alcoholism and the emotional aftermath of his wife’s miscarriage add depth to his character.
The trial is bookended by poignant scenes between Killebrew and Kemp, with a particularly chilling conversation taking place post-sentencing. Killebrew, having realized she got the case wrong, quietly explains her regrets, while Justin softly discusses himself in the third person. Killebrew’s transformation from ambitious and politically driven—knowing securing a conviction can secure her election as district attorney—to deeply conflicted contrasts sharply with Justin’s descent into self-serving rationalizations. “Sometimes the truth isn’t justice,” Justin tells her, encapsulating the film’s central question.
The exploration of shades of grey within the justice system is where “Juror #2” shines most. However, these strengths are hindered by the shaky plot of the film itself. The jury’s unanimous conviction of the defendant James Sythe, despite the flimsy evidence presented, is hard to believe. The prosecution’s case rests entirely on circumstantial evidence and the testimony of a witness identifying someone from hundreds of feet away in the middle of the night. Initially, half of the jurors seem convinced of reasonable doubt, but their sudden reversal undermines the film’s climactic, yet inevitable, turn. Unlike Justin, whose motivations are apparent and deeply explored, the jurors’ abrupt change of heart is never adequately explained. The lack of character motivations—save for brief hints of selfish reasons like inconvenience—stretches the audience’s suspension of disbelief and weakens the story’s resolution.
What’s frustrating is that “Juror #2” is very much a thinking man’s movie. It’s not a high-budget action spectacle where you can turn off your brain and enjoy the ride; it demands engagement, and with that comes higher expectations. A movie that seeks to provoke thought can’t afford plot holes so big that Kemp could drive his beat-up Toyota 4Runner straight through them. While the setup is intriguing, the plot ultimately doesn’t hold up to that level of scrutiny.
The conclusion of the film also stumbles, offering a choose-your-own-adventure ending. An initial ending, where Justin cradles his newborn as police cars race past through the window, offers a subtle but powerful sense of his uncertain future. But a subsequent conclusion—where Killebrew arrives at Justin’s doorstep—opts for a much more overt resolution. The abruptness of the new district attorney arriving seemingly determined to get justice undermines the subtlety of the police lights just moments before.
For fans of true crime-style dramas, “Juror #2” isn’t one to miss, though it might be tough to catch in theaters. The movie is far from perfect, but in a world of blockbusters, it’s a refreshing, mid-budget film that doesn’t overstay its welcome. It’s a satisfying genre movie, even if it fails to push the envelope or live up to Eastwood’s best work.
While the film leaves the audience with unresolved questions, that might just be the point. Yet for a director of Eastwood’s caliber, and with such a compelling premise and talented cast, I can’t help but feel that “Juror #2” falls short of its potential. The result is a thought-provoking legal thriller and glimpse into the American justice system that entertains but struggles to rise above its flaws.