Jay Rohr
Juror #2 is a film that should be seen by physicists: studying it could reveal how to stop time. This plodding thriller clocks in at 114 minutes; however, relativity is the only way to explain why a viewing feels three days long. Despite a solid cast, nothing is built on their performances. Rather, they struggle to drag this suspenseless movie through the mud across the finish line.
Nicholas Hoult (The Great) plays Justin Kemp, a mild-mannered suburbanite called in for jury duty. During a murder trial, he realizes that the accused is innocent because he killed the victim. While driving home in the pouring rain, Justin hit what he supposed was a deer but turns out to have been a young woman named Kendall Carter (Francesca Eastwood). He then spends the rest of the trial trying to steer others towards a not guilty verdict without admitting to the crime.
Part of the problem is that Juror #2 never wants to chance any main characters being unlikeable. At risk of spoilers, everything Justin does to influence the jury is simply pointing out inconsistencies already present in the evidence. The circumstantial nature of the case allows him to heroically champion for justice regardless of selfish motives. In essence, he’s never technically doing the wrong thing by manipulating the trial. Perhaps that’s supposed to seem clever, but it robs the film of tension.
That’s because Juror #2 is more interested in making broad condemnations about the justice system rather than composing a compelling thriller. Characters frequently make declarative statements about legal flaws that sound closer to pundits on the nightly news than human conversations. J. K. Simmons (Whiplash) plays a retired detective named Harold, who literally dumps statistics at one point. All the while, lawyer clichés like the cynical public defender alongside a politically ambitious prosecutor sit in bars sipping brown liquor pontificating on the spirit of the law.
Juror #2 clearly desires to be some kind of hybrid combining Rashomon (1951) with Twelve Angry Men (1954). Parts of the story are delivered in flashbacks which shift somewhat depending on who’s delivering details. However, this often makes no sense since these segments are also portrayed in video footage. This negates any attempt to make the truth murky since most of the truth is very much on record. Meanwhile, every effort to mimic Twelve Angry Men just keeps running into the realm of bad rip-offs.
Compelling dialogue might have saved the film. Screenwriter Jonathan A. Abrams offers none. Interesting characters could have similarly improved the picture. Again, Juror # 2 objects to presenting any roles not seen already on a thousand tv police procedurals. Zoey Deutch (Zombieland: Double Tap) as Ally Kemp is an amazing example of a poorly composed character since her main trait is merely pregnancy. Other facets of her, that could have meant for interesting plot shifts, go completely unexplored.
Pacing is another issue plaguing the movie. Lots of the overall narrative could have been sped up with more concise plotting. Furthermore, the story feels like it unfolds at a snail’s pace because there are no twists or surprises. It’s so clear what’s about to happen, and the eventual outcomes that any audience member is waiting in increasing boredom for the film to arrive at the obvious. What’s worse, potential twists are set up which never come into play. Consequently, Juror #2 is a slog through the obvious crawling right by potentially exciting shifts.
Although Juror #2 is directed by Clint Eastwood, there seems to be no sign of the legend in this work. His only presence appears to be a reason for casting Francesca Eastwood, his daughter, in the minor, albeit important role of the victim. She hardly has any screentime other than as a dead body. That’s one way to minimize her poor acting from dragging the film down. However, when it comes to stylization, Juror #2 is painfully generic. It lacks the subtle visual suspense of previous Eastwood pictures such as Play Misty for Me (1971) or Mystic River (2003).
The cast could have been compelling given better material. Toni Collette is perfect for the role of a politically motivated prosecutor blinded by her own ambitions. Her ability to be flinty yet vulnerable comes across, but the film does nothing with her performance. Nicholas Hoult is wonderful as a fragile recovering alcoholic straining to do the right thing, but his character is never really in any direct danger. His agony is more of a moral abstraction than anything literal. As such, Juror #2 wants to be kin to Crime & Punishment, however, it doesn’t have the kind of writing necessary to match such a story’s philosophical, ethical inquiry. Cedric Yarbrough (Reno 911) gives a standout performance. Better known for his comedic roles, he steps out of type to play a fierce hardliner refusing to vote not guilty. Yet, as his own suspicions grow, the movie does nothing with his potent performance.
Though there isn’t much bad acting, there isn’t much for performers to do. Juror #2 offers as little for them as it does for audiences. This is the kind of movie for people whose greatest moral conundrum in life is eating a grape at the grocery store. Then paying for it on the way out. And bless their faces for being so innocent.
Juror #2 is noir for people scared of the dark. It wants to point out flaws in the legal system, but it doesn’t say anything better films haven’t already explored. There’s also something strange about a movie which takes places smack dab in the middle of quarantine but never acknowledges the pandemic — zero masks, no social distancing, etc. The cast keeps it from being totally unwatchable, however, it’s hard to think anyone needs to see this movie. Lacking fresh ideas, suspense, thrills, or captivating cinematic stylization, Juror #2 is guilty of wasting time. As one of its victims, don’t let this movie kill two hours of your life.
