"Juror #2", and how to twist the court movies formula

Clint Eastwood, which surprisingly did not need a Ouija board to finish the direction of this film, delivered a movie that, even at his age, knows it has to be entertaining; proving that directors as Martin Scorsese and Francis Ford Coppola aged much faster than the actor who has been making movies since more than a decade earlier.

Justin (Nicholas Hoult) is a recovered alcoholic, now married with Allison (Zoey Deutch) and anxious about her being on the last trimester of a high risk pregnancy; they already had lost multiple babies before. This complicates when he gets into juror (#2 [that is the name of the movie]) duty, which he wants to finish as soon as possible to be with her wife. This murder case is against James Michael Sythe (Gabriel Basso) for killing her girlfriend (Francesca Eastwood), being prosecuted by a wanna-be-politician (Toni Collette). Everything seems to be going smooth until Justin realized that James is not guilty, because he killed this woman by accident and did not realized it because he thought it was just a deer. Now, Justin has to convince the already decided jury that the prosecuted is innocent, all this while he could no tell the truth to anyone, specially Harold (J.K. Simmons), a retired detective that is part of the jury and is investigating the case on his own.

What an amazing drama. The premise of this is just like a gossip, full of secrets, oposing characteres and an always changing dynamic. This is what is known directly as entertainment. You do not require an spectacle, not big CGI battles nor impressive sound design needed, just a couple of empathic characters in closed rooms and you in the edge of your seat. A screenplay full of conflicts, ups and downs, characters interacting with each other in difficult situations. Just a really engaging narrative and well written script.

On the cinematic side there is not much else. The locations are well illuminated with different kinds of contrasted lights, and every place feels different from the others with their good amount of personality. The montage is dynamic, the shots last what they must, and a couple of match cuts help to make more organic the transitions between the present and the past. The productions values are good, being a direct to streaming movie, yet having multiple locations, top tier actors and a consagrated director that its holding to this existential plane like Latin-american dictator to power.

Talking about that walking Mama Coco, Eastwood does a competent job. There are a couple of interesting visuals that elevate the scenes. Justin scene in the jury room from outside the window with blinds that simulate bars, having him prisioner. The close up of the prosecutor investigating, that when she stands up reveals the clue she misses. Even at the beginning, after the credits with the statue of justice, blindfolded, cut directly to Allison also blindfolded makes a really smart way to introduce the story and theme. Yet, even with this, the rest of Eastwood's direction is pretty conventional and without much to praise.

But, to be hones, the strongest feature of Eastwood as a director is his way of directing actors. There are amazing actors as Hoult, who has a lot of potential and histrionic range, Collette stoles every scene she has making the others feel like amateurs, and Simmons can act while sleeping and having brunch. There are also other actors, maybe not the most recognized, famous or award winning, but here do pretty solid and emotional interpretations. When you need to feel sympathy, you experience it, when you should hate a character, she is a b*tch, and if two characters have certain relationship you fully believe they do. It is simply impressive how well the almost century-year-old relic can direct actors.

Also the theme and moral implications of the movie are very complex. The ethics of the main character are kind of questionable, but you understand him and support him. Also, you undestand the personal motives that moves those who oppose to the protagonist, and each of them represents a different aspect or version of justice and society. There is also a critic to politicians and their dishonest ways to get to power, to society that denies second chances and does not separate people from their past, as well as the limitations and even direct fails in the justice system. At the end, the movie stablishes that there is no good nor evil, not absolute justice, no such thing as a solid line that separates innocent from guilty, and, in this matter, not really an ending that chooses one or the other.

Juror #2 is a movie that explores a completely new angle of court movies, the court and trial is just the beginning here, the real drama, conflict and story are after it, when someone has to decide the fate of a man based on nothing but a hunch. The cinematic aspect is competent, with little sparks of well achieved directing, and a truly talented and amazing work with actors who break themselves both legs. Yet, the screenplay is what really shines, full of drama and conflict, sympathetic characters, strong relationships between them, and a deep and complex exploration of its theme. Even when justice is not objective, the enjoyingness of this movie is closer to that impossibility.

You can read my reviews on Sonic the Hedgehog 3 and the final season of What if…? on my personal blog, Once Upon a Time in the Movies: https://onceuponatimethemovies.blogspot.com/