If there is any actor/director out there in Hollywood I like to think is immortal given how long they’ve been in the business, it would the man, myth, and legend himself Clint Eastwood. Just this past decade alone (2010-2019), he has made eight films that were released when he was already in his eighties. That is pretty incredible if you ask me. The reason I’m bringing up this bit of information is that Clint Eastwood has directed another film at the young of ninety-four, which is a legal drama titled Juror #2.

Given that this is a film involving a courtroom, I was going to start this review with a question like, “don’t you hate being summoned for jury duty?” or “there have been great legal dramas in the past. . . .” However, with Eastwood’s age at the time of this review, there’s strong speculation that Juror #2 might the final film of his directing career. This is speculation, of course. Because of that, I want to mention his name as much as possible and try to promote it to the best of my abilities regardless of whether I like the film. Confused by that last statement? Allow me to elaborate. 

As of this writing, it’ll be more than a month since Juror #2 was released in theaters. Believe it or not, this film was released on November 1^st, but did you hear anything about it? Don’t feel ignorant if you didn’t because Warner Bros. (the production company behind the film) intended it to be a streaming film for MAX and decided to release it to a very small market, so small that I had to drive an hour just to see it. Fortunately, I did a double feature that night, so I made good use of my time. Still, it bugs me that Warner Bros. decided to somewhat hide this film with little marketing and fewer markets. Maybe it wasn’t that good but still needed to released it because it was made by a famous director. Was that the case with this legal drama? As usual, let’s find out.

In Juror #2, we follow Justin Kemp (Nicholas Hoult), a journalist and recovering alcoholic, and his wife Allison (Zoey Deutch). They are expecting any day now. Justin gets summoned for jury duty though he plans on trying to get out of it due to the situation that he is in at home. Despite using the excuse of Allison’s pregnancy, Justin gets selected for a jury being labeled juror #2. The case Justin serves on involves an individual by the name of James Sythe (Gabriel Basso) who has been accused of killing his girlfriend Kendall Carter (Francesca Eastwood) a year prior to the events of the film. Assigned to the case is Assistant District Attorney Faith Killebrew (Toni Collette), who sees this as an opportunity to attract voters as she is running for higher office in an election happening in weeks. As the trial proceeds, Justin and fellow members of the jury start hearing the narrative of what happened the night Kendall got killed, which triggers a disturbing memory for Justin. Little did he know, Justin is somewhat associated with the case because he was at the same bar when James and Kendall were fighting, leading to Kendall’s death. After Justin left the bar, he started driving home in the pouring rain when all of the sudden he hit something which caused him to get out and investigate. Seeing a deer crossing sign, Justin assumed he hit a deer and decided to drive home to Allison. Piecing those bits of information together, Justin then begins to realize that he was the one who had unintentionally killed Kendall. This puts him in a moral quandary as he doesn’t want a terrible but innocent man convicted, but he doesn’t want to ruin his life because of something he didn’t know he did. Seeking for help, he consults with his alcoholics anonymous sponsor Larry (Kiefer Sutherland), who is also a defense lawyer, but Larry gives him news he for which wasn’t prepared. Given prior driving under the influence (DUI) violations that Justin has received and him going to bar despite the fact he didn’t even drink any alcohol, Larry tells Justin that nobody would believe him and he would be imprisoned if he were to confess. Larry also adds that the jury must reach a verdict because it would force a mistrial if it gets a hung jury, and leaving Justin with less of a chance to escape his fate. With that information, Justin must convince the other members of the jury to plead not guilty which is easier said than done as some members have strong feelings against James given his reputation. 

Right off the bat, I can confidently say that Juror #2 is not a bad film whatsoever. In fact, I enjoyed it quite a bit to where I didn’t even check my watch once, which is a bad habit I have with films over ninety minutes. That said, I can’t confidently say it was the greatest courtroom drama I have seen. Though, to be fair, this film is still fresh in my mind, which is saying something with the amount of films I see.

When it comes to the filmmaking aspect of Juror #2, Eastwood still has it. From the direction to the impressive cast, ranging from A-List actors to ones you would see mostly through television, this is a competent movie. Full disclosure: I had some reservations going into the movie given how Eastwood’s films can be. While he is consistent with direction, sometimes the story and/or characters could feel like an afterthought. Two films that come to mind are The 15:17 to Paris (2018) and Cry Macho (2021), with the former being a disappointment and the latter being just okay. Fortunately, Juror #2 is a much better film than those two I mentioned. Given that Eastwood is past ninety, it’s a remarkable feat. 

What keeps Juror #2 from being a flat-out great film from start to finish would be the last twenty minutes. I wouldn’t say it ruined the film, but given how well paced and engaging was the rest, it felt like a bit of a cop-out despite the fact that our character’s options were limited. Part of me wished our main protagonist had a religious belief or background just so we can see that guilt in a more relatable way. I mean, after all, guilt is part of the Catholic experience and it would have been interesting seeing Justin going through the situation as a Christian let alone Catholic, but I didn’t see that movie unfortunately. Still, it was nice to see a character in a film deal with such emotions and not wanting someone to go to jail because he doesn’t want to ruin their life in the process. Honestly, I wish I could go into more detail about the ending and what the character decides to do based off of his guilt, but I would be going into spoiler territory and that’s not something I want to do with a film like this.  

For the most part, Juror #2 is a really good film with an ending that I’m not 100% on board with, but it has kept me thinking since leaving the theater. It’s not as great as A Few Good Men (1992), My Cousin Vinny (1992), or 12 Angry Men (1957), just to name a few classics involving a court room. Still, it has an interesting premise from the start to where if this was a book, it would be hard to put down. I definitely do recommend seeing it and if you’re willing to wait, it should be streaming on MAX sometime this month (December 20^th, I believe). While I do (unfortunately) speculate that this might be Eastwood’s final film, I’m glad his potential swan song is something worth watching instead of being mediocre to where that will a lasting memory compared to the great work, he has made from the many decades working in Hollywood. That said, I am wondering if the film is great enough to get a Best Picture nomination. Do I think it should? Honestly, the jury is still out (no pun intended) on that thought.