‘Juror #2’ Review: Clint Eastwood’s Taut, Understated Courtroom Drama Ends Up a Mistrial

Clint Eastwood’s 40th directorial effort is a twisty courtroom drama-slash-thriller that finds a good man in an impossible situation – both in the sense of “How can he get out of this?” and “Well, that’s highly improbable.” Then the movie settles into a taut, understated good time with a strong lead performance … before stumbling confoundingly at the finish line.

“Juror #2” finds magazine journalist Justin (Nicholas Hoult) lovingly helping his wife (Zoey Deutch) through a delicate pregnancy when he’s called for jury duty. To put this in the least spoilery way possible, he shockingly discovers that, through an extremely unlikely set of circumstances, he’s intimately involved in a case that concerns a capital crime, with the defendant’s life in the balance. Coming forward, however, could have dire consequences for his family, so this ordinary guy has to find another answer from within the workings of the trial itself, lest an apparently innocent man be convicted or his own hidden involvement come to light.

The intelligent script by Jonathan Abrams handles the obstacle of the gag’s believability quite well, aided in no small part by Hoult’s fine performance. Abrams has done his homework, sprinkling convincing details here and there about the public defender-vs.-district attorney dynamic, the struggles of recovering alcoholics – even tidbits about couples going through pregnancy together.

Eastwood’s characteristically understated filmmaking helps make the case. We don’t feel manipulated by score, unnecessary cutting or histrionic performances; we’re simply witnessing events unfolding. As in the two-time Oscar-winning director’s better work, the pacing is leisurely, but the storytelling feels calm, no-nonsense.

And let’s hear it for a courtroom drama that’s nuanced, that has actually thought through the process and possibilities. It depicts fruitful discussion in the deliberation room; there are emotional outbursts, but it’s entertaining to see people reason their way to new positions. It embraces the perfection and imperfection of the justice system, begging to consider the difficult proposition that “Sometimes truth is not justice.”

The other characters can feel a bit thumbnail-sketched (the politically ambitious prosecutor; the true-believer public defender; the angry juror unwilling to listen, etc.). Chris Messina manages to be sympathetic as the defender, but the whole sidebar about Toni Collette’s prosecutor running for D.A. feels like a distraction. The filmmakers try to hide J.K. Simmons in the weeds as one of the jurors, but the instant you see him, you know he’ll be important – and he does not disappoint in his limited role.

But the movie lives or dies by its lead performance, and that’s fortunate for “Juror #2.” Hoult has been very good for a long time now – if you haven’t yet, check him out on Hulu’s “The Great,” he’s a hoot as a randy, manic man-boy with an actual army at his disposal. Here, he and Eastwood skillfully craft Justin’s levels of guilt and fear. We feel the weight on him increasing and increasing as his desperation grows. There’s an almost Dostoevsky-like quality to this daylight noir as the deeply conflicted juror discovers multiple meanings of his AA sponsor’s words: “We’re only as sick as our secrets.”

That said, “Juror #2” suddenly careens into nowhere in the end, strangely declining to show us key moments. Objection! In storytelling decisions that are hard to understand, the denouements (multiple) we’ve been building toward for the entire movie are skipped. The climax feels like a mistrial. Perhaps this is Eastwood’s streamlined style and restraint taken to the extreme, though the filmmaker has previously captured epic emotion (think of Sean Penn’s discovery of his daughter’s death in “Mystic River”) or shattering conclusions (his character’s vengeful return at the end of “Unforgiven”) … making these dramatic choices all the more puzzling. Many will find the ending unsatisfying. Out of order, even. Sustained!

The external narrative about the film has to do with its suspiciously unheralded, limited release (fewer than 50 American venues scheduled at press time), which is what studios sometimes do when they have dogs on their hands. “Juror #2” is no dog, and it’s made by a legendary filmmaker with whom the studio, Warner Bros., has a decades-long relationship – and who, not for nothing, is 94, so who knows how many more movies he has left in the tank? That’s strange, but it might be unwise to read into it, as not only have Eastwood’s films sometimes come out with little fanfare – what had you heard about “Million Dollar Baby” before it abruptly materialized? – but this is the same Warner Bros. that has infamously made some “business decisions,” as the kids say, hamstringing movies (“Batgirl,” “Coyote vs. Acme,” anyone?).

“Juror #2” is a sober examination of guilt and trying to make amends in a low-key thriller with a slowly tightening noose. The verdict is: Apart from those mystifying decisions in the end, it’s a solid piece of courtroom entertainment.

“Juror #2” hits theaters Nov. 1 after premiering at AFI Fest on Sunday.

The post ‘Juror #2’ Review: Clint Eastwood’s Taut, Understated Courtroom Drama Ends Up a Mistrial appeared first on TheWrap.