The Wasteland Reviewer

Juror #2 (2024) Written Review

Is the world of cinema ready for the potential end of an era? One of the biggest figures in the history of cinema is Clint Eastwood. He has been acting for the last 70 years when he started popping in small film roles as well as TV shows like Rawhide. He has been working behind the camera for over 50 years since he first directed Play Misty for Me and worked closely with Don Siegel on the set of Dirty Harry. But at a ripe age of 94 years old, Clint has his latest effort, Juror #2, hitting theaters in quite a limited fashion (plenty of drama brewing back at Warner Bros) and soon to be on MAX streaming service. But the most important question is if Juror #2 is a worthy send off for such a monumental career? 

Does this courtroom drama offer up a compelling enough story to grab the imagination of audiences? This is a deceptively impactful moderate sized film in 2024. You get some familiar vibes of great courtroom dramas before it but there is one huge conceit for Juror #2. This film injects the idea that one of the jurors knows the defendant is innocent…because they (the juror) are responsible for that death. This is quite the unique twist to throw into a courtroom drama. The screenplay from Jonathan A. Abrams does a fine job of setting up the moral quandaries that will encompass such a twisted tale. There are certainly conveniences in the story that bring it to its conclusions, but it is still a compelling tale. Some of the jurors come off a bit too paper thin to deliver the necessary impact but those performers make the most of it. But the presentation of the story and its themes on justice keep the audience engrossed up until the final intense frame of film. 

Where does Eastwood’s direction fit in when it comes to bringing this tale to life? It has been a little while since we have seen a film with this much zeal coming from the Hollywood legend and it is a breath of fresh air for sure. There is a keep eye for pacing (which moves this two-hour film well) as well as the grounded feel to the visuals. Eastwood has always been great at building tension (even in some of his lesser projects) and anytime the heat is building on our juror protagonist, you can feel it poignantly. There are a few inspired storytelling moments when it comes to montage and editing. The opening and closing remarks are seamless between prosecutor and defense attorney and the perspective of our protagonist. This helps ratch up that tension that will eventually blow off. The most compelling element is when the film decides to show us what really happened that night from our juror’s perspective. The tension and emotion is raw and impactful. Eastwood certainly still has it. 

How does this cast bring such a compelling narrative to life? Most of the film rests on the shoulders of Nicholas Hoult, our titular juror. The writing for this character is not the most dynamic but Hoult is able to nail the performance perfectly. There are a few moments where he says so much without any dialogue at all. Just the power of emotion portrayed through someone’s eyes and through tears. Even in the final moments of the film, Hoult is carrying this one. Toni Collette is a fantastic actor and does a great job adding depth to the prosecutor and her own journey of understanding justice. There are some strong supporting turns from Zoey Deutch, J.K. Simmons, and Chris Messina. There are some other actors who are really doing their best with characters who do them zero favors (including the presentation of both black jurors). In general, there are some talented actors who tie this all together. 

Is Juror #2 a worthy send-off for Eastwood (if this is indeed it)? This is his strongest film in probably 16 years with only a few films that you could make an argument for. This is a classic style courtroom drama with a killer twist on the formula. Eastwood went out and directed this one with all he had, and it shows.