Summary: While serving as a juror in a murder trial, Justin Kemp finds himself facing a moral dilemma, if he does the right thing, he could lose everything he holds dear.
Having followed Clint since the '60s, I was eager to see his next production, rumored to be his last, on the big screen. Thus, Warner's decision to limit its release to fewer than 50 theaters across the US, was disheartening to say the least. Moreover, Guillermo del Toro's enthusiastic tweet, praising the courtroom drama while urging viewers to see it at their local cineplex, made it sting all the more.
Then the email came... Juror #2 was coming to one theater in town for Thanksgiving week - what, really! If I wasn't a man in my 60s, I might have done backflips. Hell, I might risk one regardless after having seen it, because Juror certainly met expectations.
del Toro described the direction as "unfussy", which aptly characterizes Eastwood's style - you get a few eye-catching shots, but nothing overly show-offy, the production values, set design, edits and such are smartly, professionally done. This is simply a solid, well-made picture by a master craftsman and his crew.
The moral complexities that have been a signature throughout his career are present, he's always been willing to explore those murky gray areas. It also takes the stance that, while flawed, this system is the best option we have to see justice done. But when you meet the people who hold this person's fate in their hands, it makes you question that. From a guy who refuses to budge an inch, to a woman who just wants to go home, to two younger folk who seem totally disinterested - and while they're countered by one who is intensely interested, it's based on her love of TV crime shows. Then we come to the man who knows the truth, and yet... I think about this in my own life; remembering co-workers who were all trained professionals, but not equally as competent or diligent. Just who are we trusting when we get our car repaired, or need surgery, or in this particular situation, when relying on a jury of your peers? It's not like they received a diploma for the task.
While there are a few hiccups in Jonathan Abrams script (lapses in logic, contrivances), they're minor and not worth emphasizing in a film of this caliber - a film that's thought provoking and yes, refreshingly made for grownups!
It does take its time, pacing wise, but doesn't feel draggy or overlong. I never got fidgety or felt the need to check the time, for me, it's exactly how, and what it should be.
Performances are first rate, Toni Collette and J.K. Simmons are standouts, but it's Nicholas Hoult who carries the film, playing a man who's struggling to hold it together and trying desperately to find a way to do the right thing, without destroying his own life. It's the best work he's ever done to my mind, layered, and worthy of consideration come awards season.
In closing - seeing the words, "Malpaso Productions" at the beginning made my heart skip a beat - made me smile from all the memories associated with it; and if this is indeed the actor/director's final bow, he went out with a winner.
SPOILER! Why is the scene pictured up top dispiriting?
Because for a while I was in Justin's corner, I wanted him to save this person and save himself in the process, I thought, despite the lies and such, he was basically a decent guy, but what he says to the DA rips away that facade... While I get his reasons (this is self-preservation), the way he acts, his words and manner - yeah, he's just another mess of a human being, and far from the flawed hero.
.jpg)
.jpg)
