Juror #2

REVIEW:

Clint Eastwood has made some outstanding movies (American Sniper, Richard Jewell, Gran Torino), so I was very excited for Juror #2. A courtroom thriller directed by a legend in his 90s is an intriguing concept on its own, but add a moral dilemma at its core, and it’s even more compelling. Nicholas Hoult takes the lead in this tense legal drama, playing a juror who slowly realises he may have been involved in the very crime he’s meant to be passing judgment on. With an eerie and ominous score setting the tone, Eastwood wastes no time in pulling the audience into the weight of the trial, making us question how we would react in the same situation.

The tension starts early, especially during the lawyers’ opening statements, as they lay out the timeline of events on the night of the crime. I found myself holding my breath, watching Hoult’s subtle but powerful expressions as he starts piecing things together. The way Eastwood frames these moments—letting the silence drag just long enough to build suspense—is masterful. You can see the realisation creeping over Hoult’s face, the panic setting in, and that moral dilemma beginning to take root. It’s a fantastic performance that carries the weight of the film.

As a fan of courtroom dramas, I found Juror #2 to be a strong addition to the genre, though I do think it could have spent more time focusing on the trial itself. The film sets up the jury deliberation as a crucial turning point, but the legal back-and-forth could have been more drawn out, allowing the audience to wrestle with their own doubts over the case. Instead, the focus shifts at times to external storylines that, while interesting, take away from the gripping tension of the courtroom.

One of those side plots involves Toni Collette’s character running for District Attorney, which felt somewhat unnecessary given the other subplots at play. Hoult’s character is already dealing with enough—he’s a recovering alcoholic, his wife is going through a high-risk pregnancy, and there’s J.K. Simmons as a retired detective who plays a key role in unearthing the truth. With so many layers to the story, Collette’s political ambitions feel like an afterthought, not adding much to the core moral conflict.

Speaking of J.K. Simmons, his role as a retired detective proves to be more than just a character detail—it’s a crucial (and somewhat convenient) element of the plot. Without his expertise, the possibility of Kendall Carter’s death being a hit-and-run might never have been explored further. This reliance on coincidence is one of the few weaker aspects of the script, but Simmons delivers a strong performance regardless, adding weight to the film’s themes of justice and accountability.

When the jurors finally begin deliberating, the tension skyrockets. The film does an excellent job of portraying the pressure, moral debates, and shifting alliances in that closed-room setting. There are moments where you can feel the walls closing in on Hoult’s character as he struggles with whether to speak up or stay silent. Eastwood is known for his patient direction, and he lets these moments breathe, making them some of the strongest in the film.

The ending, while inevitable in its trajectory, is satisfying in how it prioritises truth over self-preservation. The film could have ended in one of two ways, and I’m glad it took the more honest and impactful route rather than opting for an easy resolution. While Juror #2 isn’t Eastwood’s best work, it’s still a gripping thriller with strong performances and a compelling ethical dilemma at its core. It’s well worth a watch, especially for fans of courtroom dramas looking for something with a fresh moral twist.