Juror #2 review: Clint Eastwood’s best movie in years. It’s a shame you probably can’t see it

At 94 years old, Clint Eastwood has reached nan property wherever each caller movie he makes could beryllium his last. He’s besides lived agelong capable to nonstop respective that felt for illustration his past astatine nan clip — an intermittent proviso of old-man dramas successful which nan prima formed himself arsenic an aging cowboy, trainer, aliases seasoned saddling up for 1 last ride. There’s thing truthful explicitly valedictory astir Juror #2, Eastwood’s latest movie and, yes, possibly his last. For 1 thing, he’s not successful nan film, which prevents it from looking for illustration different swan opus for nan man who was The Man With No Name. What he’s made alternatively is simply a tense, involving ineligible thriller that proves that this nonagenarian fable still has plentifulness of storytelling vigor successful him 70 years into his career.

In fact, Juror #2 is Eastwood’s champion movie successful ages. The plot, devised by first-time screenwriter Jonathan Abrams, is improbable capable to person been pulled from nan pages of a John Grisham bestseller. But Eastwood tackles it pinch nan directness and civilized clarity of one-time modern Sidney Lumet, who made immoderate of nan top courtroom dramas successful Hollywood history. You could moreover call Juror #2 a benignant of 21st-century riff connected Lumet’s astir beloved movie, 12 Angry Men, that communicative of a azygous juror who calmly, patiently persuades eleven others that they mightiness person immoderate uncertainty and that it could beryllium reasonable.

The Henry Fonda fig present is Justin Kemp (Nicholas Hoult), a polite mag writer and recovering alcoholic who would overmuch alternatively beryllium astatine location tending to his pregnant woman (Zoey Deutch) than deliberating connected nan grounds of a execution trial. Justin becomes nan sound of logic connected nan jury, arguing for a small chat earlier they condemn a perchance guiltless man to life successful prison. But there’s a wrinkle successful our hero’s nobility, a twist connected that formula. Early into nan trial, it dawns connected him: The nighttime nan suspect (Gabriel Basso) followed his woman retired of a barroom and allegedly killed her, dumping her assemblage successful a roadside creek, Justin visited that aforesaid bar, drove down that aforesaid agelong of road, and deed what he convinced himself was a cervid …

It’s an ingeniously far-fetched premise, built connected a civilized dilemma pinch existent stakes. Justin, who Hoult plays for illustration a seasick man steeling his nerves upon each sway of nan boat, has a tricky needle to thread. To assuage his conscience, he has to nudge his chap jurors towards uncertainty … without implicating himself aliases triggering a mistrial that mightiness uncover capable to onshore him down bars, acold from his woman and their kid connected nan way. One of nan clever ironies of nan worldly is that Justin is astatine erstwhile ideally positioned to advocator for justness (he has, aft all, accusation that each but demands reasonable doubt) and a nonstop threat to nan impartiality of nan process, fixed that nan verdict could person an effect connected his ain future. Is location a greater conflict of liking than ruling connected a crime you whitethorn person committed?

Nicholas Hoult successful Juror #2 Warner Bros. / Warner Bros.

Juror #2 is old-fashioned, but ne'er creaky. Around Hoult’s sweaty, mostly reactive capacity (a crucible of backstage culpability expressed mostly done his eyes), Eastwood builds a sturdy lawsuit for nan timeless pleasures of nan genre: nan overruled objections; nan cross-examinations; nan respectful, but sometimes heated sparring of opposing counsel, pinch nan 2 sides of nan proceedings occupied by a typically understated Chris Messina (as nan honorable nationalist defender) and Toni Collette (rocking a prototypical Southern loyah accent arsenic nan charismatic whose tally for nan DA occupation hinges connected landing a conviction).

Meanwhile, nan assemblage is filled retired pinch flavorful archetypes and caricatures, introduced during a snappy montage of nan action process: nan chipper foreperson (Leslie Bibb) pinch a history of sitting connected hung juries; nan organization organizer (Cedric Yarbrough) truthful convinced that nan suspect is bad news that he won’t entertain nan anticipation of innocence; nan ex-cop (J.K. Simmons) who reveals his pertinent qualifications by dramatically tossing his badge onto nan table, and who ends up conducting his ain forbidden investigation. Juror #2 sketches successful these characters pinch convenient motivational backstory and miniature monologues that radiance a ray connected their biases. It’s cornball, but really nary much truthful than, well, 12 Angry Men.

Warner Bros.

Forever nan unfussy, unpretentious stylist, Eastwood is simply a bully fresh for nan who, what, where quality of criminal proceedings. Like a bully attorney, he lines up nan accusation and paints america a image — astatine 1 point, by cutting together nan opposing closing arguments into a azygous summary of nan case, pinch Hoult’s mounting distress arsenic nan affectional throughline. Not that Juror #2 ever offers a afloat position of nan truth. The flashbacks to that fateful nighttime don’t truthful overmuch clear everything up arsenic raise doubts and questions, arsenic do 2 separate, subtly subjective remembrances of a shouting lucifer extracurricular a roadhouse. The audience, for illustration nan jury, is led to a imaginable conclusion, but Eastwood doesn’t corroborate it.

The movie is partially about confirmation bias — astir really grounds is collected (and ignored) to support a theory, and astir really preconceived notions sometimes style our knowing of that evidence. Eastwood, who’s spent overmuch of his profession casting a suspicious oculus connected institutions, depicts nan justness strategy arsenic a virtuous thought analyzable by nan motives of its practitioners. Almost nary 1 comes retired unscathed. Not Justin, trying to do immoderate type of nan correct point without taking immoderate responsibility. And not Collette’s hard-nosed prosecutor, who ends up wrestling pinch nan anticipation that she’s steamrolling an guiltless man partially successful work of her governmental ambitions. The film’s conclusions are withering, but not didactic, because Eastwood is simply a storyteller first, and seldom (if ever) a polemicist.

Warner Bros.

With Juror #2, he’s made nan benignant of adult-oriented, actor-driven intermezo that’s difficult to return for granted successful our all-ages blockbuster age. Unless you’re David Zaslav, nan Warner Bros. executive who’s rewarded nan director’s decades of loyalty to nan workplace by hardly releasing what mightiness move retired to beryllium his last film. If this really is Clint’s farewell, it’s an oddly fitting one. While Eastwood has made his stock of elegiac tributes to his ain prima power, he’s spent astir of nan past half-century not dwelling excessively overmuch connected what each caller task intends to his legacy. Juror #2 feels for illustration a movie he could person made astatine immoderate constituent complete that time, which is yet why it could beryllium to beryllium specified an due punctuation connected his profession — moreover if it’s bully capable to time off you hoping that he hasn’t hung up his spurs conscionable yet.

Juror #2 is now playing successful woefully prime theaters for a regrettably little time. See it while you can. For much of A.A. Dowd’s writing, sojourn his Authory page.