[Ad - Sponsored by INTOTHEAM] Nicholas Hoult is the juror with a terrible secret in what is potentially Clint Eastwood's final film, so Film Brain wonders why the studio is giving it a very downplayed treatment.
Category
😹
FunTranscript
00:00This video is sponsored by Into The AM.
00:02Hello and welcome to Projector, and on this episode, Nicholas Hoult is as guilty as sin in Clint Eastwood's Jura No. 2.
00:11CLINT EASTWOOD'S JURA NO. 2
00:15CLINT EASTWOOD'S JURA NO. 2
00:27Magazine writer Justin Kemp, played by Nicholas Hoult, is selected for the jury of a high-profile trial where Gabriel Basso's James Scythe is accused of murdering his girlfriend, Kendall Carter, played by Francesca Eastwood.
00:39But as Justin listens to the evidence, he realizes that he killed Kendall, having accidentally struck her in a hit-and-run, believing that he'd hit a deer at the time.
00:48As Justin hides his terrible secret, he tries to convince the rest of the jury that Scythe is innocent.
00:54Jura No. 2 is Clint Eastwood's 40th film as director. He's now at the age of 94, and many are speculating this may well be his final film, including internally at Warner Bros., who considered it their final project with Eastwood.
01:07But in promotional interviews, the cast have actually downplayed any retirement rumors. Tony Collette has even said that Eastwood is looking for another project to direct, nor has he announced that for himself.
01:17But Jura No. 2 has been making headlines for not necessarily the right reasons, because the press feels like Warner Bros. is burying the film's release, at least in the US.
01:27The film was originally set to debut on the streaming service Max, but that was upgraded to a theatrical release at the last minute on the basis of test screenings, but Warner Bros. is only releasing this in roughly around 50 screens in America.
01:39Deadline actually says that number's close to 35, nor are they planning to announce box office results. Some are saying it's just a token run before they drop it on Max anyway, and that it's basically awards qualifying, but actually, Warner Bros. haven't even cleared it on their awards shortlist, which is very unusual, especially because Eastwood and the studio have a long history that go all the way back to the 1970s.
02:03It doesn't seem like Warner Bros. is very optimistic about the film being a financial success, or maybe the flop of Joker Foliadur has scared them off courtrooms for life. However, in the UK, the film is getting a conventional wide release as per normal, they even previewed it at several cinema chains, so if it is indeed Eastwood's final movie, does it at least do him justice as a legendary cinematic icon? I believe it does, and that Warner Bros. is guilty of wholly unearned pessimism.
02:31I'm going to apologise in advance because I'm going to say something you'll likely hate. Christmas is coming. I know, I'm sorry, I'm sorry, I said the C word, but I'm going to make it up to you because I've got a great gift idea if you're looking for one. Maybe get someone you love three t-shirts from Into the A.M. They've got a whole host of great designs on their website, like this spaceman right here.
02:55This particular t-shirt actually glows in the dark. Maybe get a little bit of tranquility with this beach scene right here, or if you're feeling even more spacey, how about this nice one of the spaceman exploring new worlds.
03:12So if you want to create your own bundle and maybe get yourself a t-shirt as well because you deserve a gift too, go to into the a.m. dot com slash film brain to get 10% off your order, and you'd also be helping the channel as well because that's an affiliate link. Think of it like a little gift to me in the bargain as well. Happy and safe holidays everyone.
03:32And justice is the main subject of the film. It's something that Clint Eastwood has come back to in his films repeatedly as a theme. Think for example of his death row thriller True Crime, or the deconstruction of the western genre and vigilante justice in Unforgiven.
03:45Early on in juror number two, the judge in the case tells the potential jurors the fact they don't want to be selected is actually what makes them perfect candidates because they're impartial and they have no involvement, or at least they don't think they do at the time.
04:00But she also acknowledges that it's a flawed system, but it's the closest thing that we have to justice. But even the best case in the world is merely an interpretation of events, extrapolating from the evidence found and available and the arguments being constructed around them.
04:16And obviously some arguments are more convincing than others, but there's always blind spots. There's always things that we don't know because we simply weren't there. And because it's a system that's made by humans, it will have flaws just like us because we're fallible.
04:32Everyone brings their own beliefs and biases that shape how they view the trial and the evidence and the way that they perceive events in general. Look at the way the attack on Delilah in Unforgiven becomes more sensationalized and changes as the rumor spreads and they're trying to get more people to go after the bounty.
04:50You see the exact same thing happen in Jura 2. The argument that Scythe and Carter have in the bar before she leaves alone to her eventual death is seen several times in the first act as various characters give their testimonies of it. And each time we see it play out, it plays differently depending on the perspective.
05:10Was he abusive? Did he put his hands on her? Or did he not? Were they just a loving couple having a drunken late night fight because Scythe was refusing to move in with her? Did she flip him off casually outside of the bar as she walked away? Or did she purposefully walk up to do it right in his face? Which version of events actually happened is left purposefully ambiguous and it's left for you to decide if it even matters at all.
05:34Likewise, a crucial eyewitness testifies in the trial that he can place Scythe at the scene of the alleged murder. But our dramatic irony, knowing that Justin did it, places severe doubt on whether he saw what he thought he saw or merely what he believed he saw.
05:50Even this review is merely my perspective on this movie, the way that I saw it, and you might feel differently about this film or even some other thing that I reviewed because you saw something in a way that I didn't, because you brought something differently to that experience. It's these nuances and complexities that the film delves into.
06:12And no one is aware of the fallacy of perspective more than Nicholas Holt's Justin, who seems like he has a bright future ahead of him at the start of the film. He's got a loving wife, Allie, played by Zoe Deutsch, with a baby on the way. He's just doing his civic duty, serving on the trial. He has no interest in it and would really just want to stay home with Allie in the last weeks of her pregnancy.
06:36It's only listening on the jury does he start piecing things together. He remembers he was actually at the bar that fateful night a year prior. He saw the argument happen between them and it was a rainy, stormy night. He was driving back home, his attention slips for a moment and he hits something.
06:58He didn't see her before or after. He gets out of the car to look around. He doesn't see her body at the bottom of the bridge because it's dark and it's raining. He just sees the sign of the deer and sees the damage to his car. He thought nothing of it at the time. And Holt has played some nasty pieces of work over the years. Think of things like Kill Your Friends or The Menu. But he's clearly been cast here because he's still got a boyish, very innocent looking face.
07:24We the jury, I mean the audience, are empathetic towards him despite the fact that we know he's killed someone because we know it's an accident. He might not have meant to do it, but he has killed someone all the same. And honestly, we get more of a perspective on it than a jury actually would in reality.
07:44The film is Holt wracked with guilt and trying to hide that as best he can, listening to the arguments in the trial, knowing full well the truth. And the consequences of what he's done is literally playing out directly in front of him. Kendall's parents are watching the trial and they are determined to try and find justice for her killer. And they are in the same room as him, but they don't realise it's actually a different person from who they're thinking of.
08:12The film deliberately parallels Justin and Scythe as both men have had trouble will pass, that each of them have struggled to shake off, and they both claim they've changed from the people they once were. Scythe was involved with criminal gangs and had lots of trouble with the law and violent crime. But he is adamant now that he has left that world behind him and that while his relationship with Kendall was tempestuous, he loved her and he definitely did not kill her.
08:40Now, whether you think that he's true about leaving that world behind him, we do know that last part is a fact. But his past convictions and crimes means that everyone perceives the case as a slam dunk and presume that he's guilty because of his past deeds.
08:58On the other hand, Justin is a former alcoholic. He met his wife, a teacher, doing community service and managed to get sober. But there's an added shame about that night. You see, he nearly had a relapse. He was at the bar, he'd ordered a drink, it was on the table, but he managed to stop himself from getting a sip. He was at a very low moment at that time, but he shouldn't have even been there at all.
09:24Unfortunately, when Justin confides the whole situation to his fellow AA member and lawyer Larry, played by Kiefer Sutherland, in a handful of largely expository scenes, he's reminded that no jury is going to believe that he wasn't drunk that night because of his history. He is, to quote the very legal term that Larry uses, screwed.
09:46Is it fair that both of these men are judged for their previous characters and deeds? Assumptions born from things that may be different now? Do they not deserve the benefit of the doubt? I mean, after all, innocent until proven guilty? Does one inadvertent mistake deserve to ruin Justin's entire life and put him behind bars for perhaps 30 years?
10:08Well, to quote another Eastwood movie featuring an alcoholic, deserving's got nothing to do with it. Life can be unjust, even if the justice system tries to compensate for that.
10:20So much of the second half of the film is Justin trying to have the best of both worlds, trying to find a way of freeing Sy from being convicted of his crime, but not so much that it reveals his own guilt and he becomes convicted for it. And that's not easy when most of the jury are convinced that Sy did it in the first place.
10:38The emphasis on lengthy dialogue scenes and debates in the jury room means it owes far more of a debt to the likes of, say, 12 Angry Men than a modern Hollywood thriller, although the fact that Justin keeps stalling the jury did kind of remind me of Paulie Shaw's jury duty. I think that was just a random stray thought of mine.
10:56Eastwood's direction is exactly what you'd expect if you've seen his films. It's solid and unshowy, if somewhat old-fashioned. I did actually think the cinematography in Juror No. 2 was a bit flat, but that's largely because Eastwood's direction is very much functional. It's not flashy. The pacing is quite slow and deliberate, but Eastwood is clearly going for a more thoughtful approach. It starts fairly slowly and builds over time.
11:24It asks for patience from the audience, but it does reward it. Over time, you do actually find yourself drawn into the story and these characters, and a quiet tension starts to build as you realise just how much is at stake, not just for Justin, but also for the other characters as well.
11:44The film is a debut script from Jonathan A. Abrams, and while the premise is solid, as you can probably tell from me describing the film's plot and all the basic elements that are in play, there's a lot of coincidences and contrivances required to allow the story to work. That's definitely the weak point of the script, as some elements are really quite far-fetched, almost to the point of implausibility.
12:07I can almost imagine the Legal Eagle video on this in my head already, you know, Juror No. 2 gets lawyered, and he probably makes some very good points about the film's questionable depiction of legal practices at times.
12:20One of the biggest stretches in the film for me personally was Othello Juror, played by J.K. Simmons. Simmons has a key role in this film, playing the husband of a flower shop owner that is keeping his own secret. And Simmons is great in this film, because most movies are better with J.K. Simmons in them.
12:38But his casting in this film seems like an attempt to use his credibility as an actor to disguise the fact that this is a pretty obvious hole in the film's logic. Well, that or this trial is absolutely terrible when it comes to doing background checks.
12:55The supporting cast is one of the film's strongest elements, especially as it becomes more of an ensemble piece as it goes along. Toni Collette does good work as ever as prosecutor Faith Kilbrew, who is hoping to use the case to secure her election to district attorney in a few days' time. She is absolutely certain that Scythe is guilty. She has built her whole case around that fact, until she too starts to doubt that assumption on her part.
13:22The film actually re-teams Collette with Nicholas Holt, who played her son all the way back in About a Boy, 22 years ago. Although they don't really have all that much interaction together, despite being in quite a lot of scenes together. It's one of those weird things, because obviously she's presenting the case to Holt, but as part of the jury.
13:44Instead, Collette spends much of the film playing off the dependable Chris Messina, who is playing Scythe's defence attorney, and is also her friend, who's trying to convince her that his client really is innocent. Zoe Deutsch, who I think is hugely underrated as a performer, manages to make what could have been a very underwritten part of wife Allie into an actual human being.
14:07Allie is struggling with her own anxieties about her pregnancy, because it's a high risk. It's established that she has had attempts at pregnancy before that have failed, unfortunately. And as the trial drags on longer, and Justin starts behaving more erratically, she starts to worry more and more about that.
14:26There are scenes where she tests her faith and belief in her husband, and they're really well acted by her and Holt. In fact, this too is another reteaming, because they previously played a couple in Rebel in the Rye a few years ago. In the jury as well, you also have Cedric Yarborough as the member who is most adamant about finding Scythe guilty, as much as Justin tries to convince him otherwise, and Leslie Bibb plays the leader of the jury.
14:55However, while all the name and character actors that you would recognise do solid work, I did find that some members of the jury are occasionally a bit shaky in their performances, and that's likely a combination of the writing reducing them to stock archetypes, and the fact that Clint Eastwood famously only does a handful of takes.
15:13This works fine for experienced actors who know how to hit their marks in one or two takes, but less so for those that are less experienced in front of the camera. Infamously, this very much worked against Eastwood in the 1517 to Paris, where the whole lead cast were all real-life people that had never acted before.
15:35And the same thing I do think creeps in a little bit here, although I will say the jury also do have their amusing moments. They do provide some elements of comic relief, like one juror later in the movie who admits that she's a big fan of true crime podcasts and acts more like she's trying to solve the case than help provide a verdict.
15:56Juror number two is a decent courtroom drama that may be a little bit far-fetched at times, I will admit that, but also manages to be a thorny examination of guilt and the fallibility of justice. As I said, this is an old-fashioned movie to the extent that it almost feels like an anachronism in 2024, so maybe that's why Warner Brothers is feeling so gloomy about its commercial prospects, and it isn't strong enough, at least in my opinion, to be a likely awards contender.
16:25But it is also a film with a strong cast that's made for adults, and that is a rarity in this current landscape. And as such, I do think it will absolutely find an audience, whether they see it in cinemas or not, as it is resolutely a Clint Eastwood film, and Clint Eastwood movies still have an appeal.
16:47Even from a few years ago, people are still going to see Clint Eastwood movies, even though in the last decade, he's had a bit of a shaky streak when it comes to his directorial outings. I do think it deserves a little bit better treatment from the studio, but deserving's got nothing to do with it. That's for the audience to judge.
17:08If you liked this review and you want to support my work, you can give me a tip at my Ko-fi page, or my YouTube Super Thanks feature which is right below the video. Or you can become a member of the jury over at my Patreon, where you can see my videos early among other perks, including access to my Discord server, and you can also join YouTube memberships for similar perks. Or just simply like, share and subscribe, it all helps. Until next time, I'm Matthew Buck, fading out.