Juror #2 Movie Review

Juror #2 (2024)

Rent Juror #2 on Amazon Video (paid link)
Written by: Jonathan A. Abrams
Directed by: Clint Eastwood
Starring: Nicholas Hoult, Toni Collette, J.K. Simmons, Gabriel Basso, Kiefer Sutherland, Zoey Deutch, Leslie Bibb, Chris Messina
Rated: PG-13
Watch the trailer

Plot
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.

Verdict
It's a competent courtroom drama that never reaches the heights it promises. The jury scenes feel like what someone imagines serving on a jury would be, but not quite reality. The movie completely omits how the jury was swayed to render a verdict, and this movie is too long. It had a great place to end, keeps going and achieves a middling conclusion before it continues for even longer, and finally provides an ending that thinks it's better than it is. This isn't bad, but it could have been so much more.
It depends.

Review
Justin (Nicholas Hoult) is a writer and soon to be father called in for jury duty. He's selected as a juror despite his reservations. It's a domestic violence case, and he soon realizes he was at the bar where the accused and the victim were that night.

The hook of this movie is that Justin may be involved in what happened. Does he remain silent or reveal the truth? His history of substance abuse would automatically make him seem guilty. He has the choice to say nothing and condemn an innocent man or take responsibility and jeopardize his entire life.

Nicholas Hoult plays Justin

Justin is obviously holding out, hesitant to vote guilty. He wants to talk about it, though he could have agreed with everyone else and voted guilty. With Justin arguing alternative possibilities, other jury members are wondering if it could have been a hit and run.

Having served as a juror myself, the first question we asked when deliberations began was the burden of truth. Is it beyond a shadow of a doubt or just reasonable doubt. The legal definition is beyond a reasonable doubt. That's something this movie should have pointed out. It would have helped frame the jury's approach and the burden on Justin to sway them.

Would the DA really re investigate this case? It's to show she's a moral person, but logistically she doesn't have the time. The other reason is so that she can Justin can have a chat at the end.

J.K. Simmons plays Harold

I like that this uses juror's personal stories and past to tie into their viewpoints. It's similar to Justin who is wracked with immense guilt, knowing he shares some fault in this crime. He's wondering if he should absolve himself, but to do that he has to convict someone he knows is innocent of this crime. While the accused has a criminal history, his past crimes shouldn't convict him for this crime. We watch Justin facing this choice the entire movie with the jury at first wanting to vote guilty except for Justin. Then for the rest of the movie the jury is split. At the end they reach a unanimous conclusion, but I wanted to see how they were swayed. That seems like a crucial moment, and the movie just skips over it.

Eastwood movies have a habit of being too long. I was going to criticize this for not being ambiguous enough, but it kept going. We get an attempt at an ambiguous ending that isn't as clever as the movie would like to think. This has a great premise, it just doesn't know how to plot a courtroom drama. This would have been quite the movie if it could have built on the premise.