JUROR #2 - 2024 / CLINT EASTWOOD

INTRO

On November the first, after some uncertainty (due to the controversial proceedings of WARNER BROS. PICTURES on this matter, about which I'll elaborate further later on) and a first showing (on October the 27th) at the thirty eight edition of the AMERICAN FILM INSTITUTE festival (as it had already happened with some of the filmmaker's previous films) JUROR #2, CLINT EASTWOOD's last opus as a director has been officially premiered. It marks his forty fifth credit as such, a figure which includes a musical videoclip, two episodes for the television, an uncredited scene in DIRTY HARRY (1971, by DON SIEGEL), a short film and forty movies (with himself starring in twenty four of them, plus two cameos).

There's been a lot of talk about this film being, most likely, his final farewell, like CRY MACHO (premiered in 2021) was advertised as his last film as an actor (although you never know with this man). Both goodbyes make perfect sense, given the guy's ripe age (he turned ninety four last May), but after some months during which it was taken for granted that Juror #2 would be his last work, Eastwood's official X account (@EastwoodMalpaso) announced last October that Clint was already going through some new scripts. Be it as it may, we have reasons to celebrate, because if this film actually becomes his last, he'll be gone from the film industry on a very high note.

I'd like to make clear that I am a completely biased guy when it comes to talk about Clint Eastwood. In fact, I deem him as the ultimate icon in the history of the seventh art, as I've said before. But that does not prevent me from thinking that his work as a filmmaker is not without its flaws, and that is what leads me to briefly explain the good impression that this movie has left on me (and I am in the majority here): I, for one, and despite my bias, found Cry Macho somehow bland and harmless. It did not feel like the proper icing on the cake to such an ilustrious career as Eastwood's. Juror #2 can definitely be it, as much as the great RICHARD JEWELL, from 2019, could have been it too. To be honest, I've always wished that his last film would be much more like Richard Jewell (or even like THE MULE, from 2018) than like Cry Macho, as it's been the case. And in spades.

Does this mean this movie is a masterpiece? In my opinion, that tag is nowadays something overrrated and subjected to suspicion (if only for how easily used it is), and something that I save only for works that, in their own way, I subjectively think that have successfully passed the test of time. That's why I think is too early to know if this film already is, or will end up being one. As far as I am concerned, it could easily make it into Clint's thirty best works (as an actor, director or both) in his entire career, but it would be very difficult for it to be considered within his ten or fifteen best (quite normal, if you come to think of it, given the competition).

But this is a commendable movie any way you look at it; it is classy, nimble, entertaining and flies by in no time. It is, beyond the moral or critical approach of the director (and this means to be a resounding compliment), a restrained, serious and normal film, where you get to see regular people (this is a story about people seems to be the first thing Eastwood said to scripwrtiter JONATHAN ABRAMS after reading his script) involved in situations which may not be a hundred per cent your everyday routine, but are completely plausible at least. This is not about FX or shows of light and sound, twisted dystopias or weird guys doing even weirder stuff. It is even traditional, in its own way (and even more given how things usually work today within this industry), because it does not use any tricks beyond the script, the director's skills after several decades devoted to his craft and the acting of a more than capable choral cast. Filmmaking from another age by a filmmaker for the ages, which leaves the spectator speechless and forces them to have more than second thoughts on what they've just seen, besides being the spark which starts up further debate.

And I don't know whether Clint Eastwood considers himself a filmmaker, more than anything else, or on the contrary, an actor who took a very successful leap to directing, but it doesn't matter, for Juror #2 is (among other things) a product made for its actors to shine, by someone who no doubt understands them.

Eastwood with Nicholas Hoult, taking a break

PLOT AND CAST

Juror #2 is a courtroom drama in which JUSTIN KEMP, a young journo who has to serve as juror in a trial for murder, realizes soon after the moral dilemma he's deep into, when he becomes aware of the fact that his close presence to the crime scene on that fateful night could decisively affect the verdict.

Eastwood's career as a director has led him to enjoy star-studded casts in his movies, such is the case of UNFORGIVEN (1992), MYSTIC RIVER (2003) or SPACE COWBOYS (2000), but some other times he has gone the complete opposite direction, choosing, depending on the film, completely unknown performers or even people with no previous experience as an actor, just for authenticity's sake. This is what happened in GRAN TORINO (2008), LETTERS FROM IWO JIMA (2006) or THE 15:17 TO PARIS (2018).

Let's say that Juror #2 is rooted firmly on the first category, counting on a cast which may not be as spectacular or well known to the public at large as in previous occasions, but which removes itself from the experiments of the second and features important and mostly famous names, like the young but seasoned english actor NICHOLAS HOULT (who portrays Kemp), the Oscar winner J.K. SIMMONS (for WHIPLASH, by DAMIEN CHAZELLE, 2014), TONI COLLETTE (who doesn't remembe THE SIXTH SENSE,by M. NIGHT SHYAMALAN, from 1999?) or KIEFER SUTHERLAND (son of the recently passed and Clint's former pal, DONALD), among others.

It needs to be remarked that Hoult and ZOEY DEUTCH, who plays his fictional wife, had already shared the screen, in 2017, in the movie REBEL IN THE RYE (directed by DANNY STRONG), about the life of writer J.D. SALINGER.

But even more curious is that Hoult and Collette had also worked together, twenty two years back, no less, in the film called ABOUT A BOY (2002, by brothers PAUL and CHRIS WEITZ), in which to top it all off, they were son and mother (a very young mother, I have to say, for Collette is only seventeen years Hoult's senior).

Collette and Hoult, discussing serious stuff
many years after

JUROR #2 IN THE MAKING

By the spring of 2023, Eastwood's camp announced this was going to be his next work, which would be located, once again, in the southern city of Savannah, as happened with his very much remembered flick from 1997como ya pasó con su recordada cinta de 1997, MIDNIGHT IN THE GARDEN OF GOOD AND EVIL, and in LA as well. From then on until the end of the year, the cast proceeded to negotiate and confirm their involvement in a movie which was considered a wrap just one year later, during last April (2024), after having been stopped in its tracks for some months due to the actors strike of 2023.

The script was written by the already mentioned american writer Jonathan Abrams, a first timer in this field thanks to Juror #2, while Eastwood himself produces the movie together with a team of several other producers, some of whom (TIM MOORE or JESSICA MEIER) had already worked with him in previous movies of his. As for the technical side of it, Clint has resorted again to some of the susual suspects, like photography director YVES BÉLANGER, among others. On the other hand, MARK MANCINA, who also worked with him in Cry Macho, took over the minimalist, unsettling and sombre score.

Two things to be remarked concerning Abrams, and unrelated to the plot itself. The first one is that, once he was done with the script, he was asked by one of the eventual producers, MATT SKIENA, about his dream director to direct a film based on his script (more or less a modern take on a classic movie which will not be named yet). He was also told to aim high. Abrams said Eastwood was the first name to come to mind, and he recalls the day the both of them first met as one of the best in his entire life, because he just knew, after the conversation that they both had as if they were long time friends, that Eastwood was the right person.

But the second one is even more striking: Abrams made up his mind about writing that kind of script after his own experience as a counsellor for the district attorney, something which led him to attend trials as a member of the audience and even being a witness to the selection of a jury, in which, according to his own words, everyone wanted to be exempted from their duty. This led him to think that the only excuse there was left for him to listen to was someone admitting to the judge that they could not serve as a jury for having comitted the crime themselves.

CONTROVERSY WITH WARNER BROS.

As for Warner Bros. Pictures and the controversy concerning the film's premiere, this could be summarized saying that those studios, either don't consider Eastwood a reliable artist this deep into his career, or are suspicious of how a new film of his could work at the box office after the commercial flops of the last two. Or both things. This is the only way to explain how Juror #2 has enjoyed such a limited premiere in the States (I've read about just forty eight theatres), instead of the fanfare to be expected from the new movie of someone like Eastwood, whom besides being a living legend, still has an obvious commercial hook. I was pleasantly surprised when I realized it was being shown (and in english) at a nearby theatre, and I rushed to see it on the third of November already, fearful as I was of it being removed from the billboard in no time, because I did not know whether this modus operandi was restricted to the USA (apparently it was) or applied to the rest of the world as well. And we are supoposed to be grateful, for the original intention was to stream the film from the get go, on MAX, with no theatre showings.

Clint talking to a member of the crew during the shooting

 

Clint is a nonagenarian artist with almost five decades of almost exclusive and beyond successful cooperation with Warner, and it seems like is not enough for him to get the respect and the recognition he deserves. You don't need to do some serious thinking to be aware of all the money (more than two billion dollars) Warner has had to earn thanks to a vast array of hits by a person who, to top it all off and as it has always been his habit, has finished many of those hits before due schedule and under the initial budget. And all because of those two alredy explained recent flops and regardless of what has just been mentioned or the fact that the film which came immediately before those two, The Mule, got really close to make, at the box office, four times the fifty million dollars of its budget. And regardless as well of the sheer amount of money made by such recent movies like AMERICAN SNIPER (2014) or SULLY (2016), whose earnings multiplied their initial budgets more or less tenfold in the first case, and sixfold in the second. What about that?

It's also fair to mention that Warner had already did Eastwood a favour when funding Cry Macho (its managers thoughts it was very unlikely that a film like that one was going to turn a profit) out of gratitude to the director, for being who he is and for all the earnings produced during so many years. And yet, this way of proceeding shows an apparent oblivion towards someone who makes movies in a very different way concerning what is deemed as normal nowadays. This last bit is explained very well by american magazine VULTURE, when they say that Eastwood, despite his iconic status, operates in a way that makes the studios think he's a mistake to be corrected, more than an endangered species worthy of being protected. A glitch in the matrix they call it.

Warner's intention is to not spend any money in advertising and also to avoid making public any figures regarding how the film fares at the american box office (the first time it happens with a film by Clint Eastwood), with the patronizing excuse of saving Eastwood's face in the event of another commercial flop, something I'd be really puzzled about was I to know it's been Clint's idea, because it doesn't feel like him and above all, because his legacy is untouchable since decades, regardless of hypothetical external favours. Truth is, operating that way the company saves itselfes from criticism if the movie fails or if, in spite of all the limitations, it ends up being a hit across the pond (as it's already happening).

This is funny for, if I am correct, the film's budget exceeds by a very small margin the thirty million dollars, but only during the opening weekend it made more than five (in Europe). Keeping in mind that the film has been warmly welcomed, that is Clint Eastwood who we are talking about, whether people like it or not, and all the time that the movie might have stayed on the billboard, who knows, somebody could have been in for a surprise. And if there was no surprise, I guess you could say that, in spite of Warner's despicable shenanigans, they would have gotten to be right in the end. But who would care? And besides, there won't be any money figures to be known.

As for the great critical reception (it averaged a mark of 7.4 on IMDB, for example, after the first five days and around two thousand and three hundred votes, turned into a 7 two and a half months later and after sixty six thousand votes), I've read some comments taken from specialized media that I'd like to discuss. But I'll leave that for last.

David zaslav, controversial CEO of
Warner Bros. Discovery

 

All this amidst all the rumours concerning the ability and the dubious good judgement of WARNER BROS. DISCOVERY's current CEO, David Zaslav. It has also been said that what the reason behind this decision could be a thoroughly thought plan to, as already said, save money inadvertising and increase the suscriptions to Max which, just like Warner Bros. Pictures, belongs to Warner Bros. Discovery too.

Perhaps this almost symbolic american premiere might serve, at least, the purpose of enabling the film to be a candidate to the next awards season, although there won't be any kind of promotion in that regard, aparently. And again, given the current standards those awards work by, who cares? It's a good thing that the european market is indeed treating Eastwood the way he deserves to be treated. And above all, the french one, which seems to have an unconditional love for him and has propelled the film to the top of the box office. Spain, by the way, comes second regarding its best opening weekend all around the world, I think.

*Written in November, 2024: As I write this, I learn that Warner won't change its mind and, regardless of the (very good) commercial and critical reception (and again, of the fact that we are talking about what most likely will become Clint Eastwood's last movie, no less), Juror #2 will be removed from the american billboard in no time (on the seventh of November, I think, so its time of american showing will be already a thing of the past when this entry gets posted) and will be available on Max before the end of the year (maybe on the twentieth of December). And just one week after having written the above paragraphs, Warner Bros. Discovery is going back on its own word, but on its own way, trying to go unnoticed, and Juror #2 is enjoying some extra time at some american theatres and being shown at some new ones. In the end, those who know about this identify the time stretch between September and January (both included) as the awards season, and who knows if this last move is not intended to try the movie to maybe enjoy a bigger than at first expected prominence when those awards arrive, given its unexpected success (ten days after its premiere the figures are around ten million dollars, and this in six european territories alone) and despite all the limitations. And besides, the company's very own web includes Juror #2 among the Warner films to be promoted concerning those awards.

JUROR #2 - FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION

You may think that that Warner's own lack of interest when it comes to making this film work has had the opposite effect with the audience, at least the european one, which has paid close attention. Would this be what Warner was expecting to get all along? Who knows?

Come what may, Collette will always have
the honour of saying that she worked
in a movie along Clint Eastwood

THE WHOLE PLOT. SPOILER ALERT!

Before getting started, there are a couple of things I'd like to say.

The first one is that I had already posted this entry some time ago, with all the impressions about the plot that I got from a first viewing of the movie at the theatre, but with some uncertainty concerning some stuff, its own place within the plot and some more than likely omissions. After further reading about the film, and having enjoyed it a second and a third times, paying much better attention to it (and both times valuing it even more than I had the first time), I concluded that there was a lot to be corrected, and that's what I started doing, trying to point out every mistake, etc, over my first draft. But soon after I realized it would be easier doing exactly the opposite: to write the whole thing all over again, perfectly knowing that what I write is accurate, while also taking advantage of everything I had done right in the first place. What you are about to start reading is the final outcome.

The second one is that my own first viewing of this movie was conditioned by some mistake the film has nothing to do with, which led me to some prejudice about Juror #2. More on this at the end.

Juror #2 deals with themes which are usual in Eastwood's filmography, such as justice, guilt and moral. Not without a reason the motto that can be read on the poster, below the film's name is Justice is blind. Guilt sees everything. It also opens the door to further debate about the flaws of the popular jury in particular, and the american legal system as a whole.

 

The plot focuses on the overwhelming dilemma that Justin Kemp (Nicholas Hoult) has to endure, suddenly dawned on him after he realizes that his involvement in the death, one year prior, of the young KENDALL CARTER (played by FRANCESCA, one of Clint's daughters) could go beyond his own participation as a juror in the subsequent trial. The film shows us that he knows much more than he is willing to admit, and that the contents of that secret could be paramount in the course of that trial. After all, this is about a hypothetical murder and the future of the alleged culprit (JAMES MICHAEL SYTHE, portrayed by GABRIEL BASSO) is at stake. Kemp is not aware of this at the beginning, but he will soon be.

But any way, everything looks quite clear at first. Carter and Sythe make a not very well-matched couple and a quite temperamental one (he tends to be violent and has a deepely troubled past, and she seems to get aggressive with ease), with what is later known some history of equally tailored behaviours. The two of them arrive, one more night, at a local pub called Rowdy’s (I don't know whether that name is some kind of self tribute to Eastwood's character, ROWDY YATES, in the distant TV show RAWHIDE), where they incidentally run into some other usual customers. They drink, they have fun and they look like a couple who is, more or less, in love, until she suggests something to him that he does not welcome (she demands that he makes his mind up about both of them moving in together), and, given her insistence, he gets mad, a beer bottle gets shattered and the customers are aware of the whole scene. To cut a long story short, she gets angry and leaves, he follows her to the parking lot, both exchange some angry words and they eventually split, with Carter leaving the place under the pouring rain. Sythe heads to his car. The customers, who have already seen them behaving in a very similar way, get out the pub as well, witness the fight and film it all. The next day she is found dead, lying on the rocks under a nearby bridge down the road. Sythe is arrested and accused of malice murder, because besides all the witnesses who were present when the fight took place and saw his behaviour in and out Rowdy's, some other details of the investigation point at him.

Francesca Eastwood

    

Gabriel Basso

But first things first. Related to those themes the movie is all about, which have just mentioned above, right before the start we can see a drawing of TEMIS, greek goddess of justice, under the film's title, besides the beautiful detail which beginning the plot with a close-up of a blindfolded woman is, exactly like Temis. That woman is ALLISON (played by Zoey Deutch), Justin's wife, being guided by him so she can see the surprise which he has for her: the room he's prepared for their soon-to-be first-born. Everything as a preliminary moment to the baby shower they are hosting. She tells him everything is perfect, and that he is perfect as well, and the audience cannot help rooting for Hoult's character, who seems to be a textbook good guy at first glance, being that soft-spoken and discreet in his demeanor. After the party, they both talk about Justin being summoned for jury duty in the upcoming trial for Carter's death. He says he'll try to allege something so he can get rid of his duty and stay home with her until she gives birth, because as Justin himselfs tells to the judge, the pregnancy is a high risk one. Both know that seems unlikely.

Enters lawyer FAITH KILLEBREW (Collette), an arrogant and apparently little responsive person, who aims to become the district's attorney after the imminent election. She takes over the prosecution of a case which she identifies as easy and which, most likely, will help her (given its high profile of domestic violence) to get votes and reach her goal. She herself admits campaigning mostly on this case, and soon after she'll have a first encounter with Justin, who picks up her phone after she drops it at the court's parking lot, where both are heading to.

Eastwood goes on with his nods to the american legal system, in connection with the film's themes (that's at least what I think of it), when the educational video which is shown to the candidates for the popular jury says that said institution must protect everyone's right to a trial, and that it is a cornerstone of the american democracy which is guaranteed by the constitution.

Opposite to Killebrew is ERIC RESNICK (CHRIS MESSINA), a colleague of hers beyond their shared occupation, who is in charge of the defence, allegedly as a public defender, although the reason why the defendant needs one instead of a, let's say, private lawyer of his own, is not mentioned. Both lawyers meet and Resnick says his client wants a trial, something she was already expecting.

The candidates (some of them) explain the reasons why they could become not eligible for jury duty. The first one is a black female, YOLANDA (ADRIENNE C. MOORE), who drives a public bus and says that, due to her job, both Sythe and Carter had rode her bus, a few years ago, as she herself explains to the patient judge, who takes that cheeky explanation as a joke, while she proceeds to pick Yolanda as a juror.

I wanted to raise the racial subject here. Besides Yolanda, there is another black man as a juror, and both of them are, out of the jury's twelve members, by far the most vehement, impatient and even rude of them all (this clashes with the respect that, according to Jonathan Abrams, is shown among the jurors, given that there are even some inappropiate comments concerning the physical appearance of another juror made by one of these two people), not to mention the motivations (even personal) they have and that drive them to rwach a quick and biased verdict that allows them to go on with their lives and reach their goals as soon as possible, something which clashes with everything the popular jury is about, because someone's life is at stake and that cannot be taken that lightly. Neither of them wastes any time in showing unease every time things don't go their own way, to the point of even losing their cool and being arrogant. And I am focusing on their skin because I don't know whether the fact they both are black is something premeditaed by Eastwood, in an attempt to move away from all things woke and depict as normal what it definitely is normal and should not need to be explained: anyone, no matter the colour of their skin, etc, is subjected of being rude sometimes and not behaving themselves considering the circumstances. But anyway, I won't be surprised if I know of accusations of veiled racism in the near future because of this, despite all the flawed white people who populate the plot, including the main suspect.

Chris Messina

Justin is next, but the pregnancy thing is not enough for him to be fred from his duty. The judge says that's commendable, but not enough to avoid becoming a juror in the state of Georgia. She promises him not to spend more time than necessary in his new duty. Said judge, who by the way is called THELMA STEWART (HOLLUB in the end credits), is portrayed by AMY AQUINO (seen on the awesome TV show BOSCH and also on its sequel, BOSCH LEGACY) and explains that the fact that they don't want to be there makes them ideal to judge the facts, given their neutrality, having nothing to gain or lose. She says that's the best way to find justice.

Once the jury is constituted, both lawyers interrogate its members, and Resnick asks MARCUS (CEDRIC YARBROUGH), the other black person, if he has ever had any altercation with a significant other. Marcus gets annoyed (the racial thing I guess) and asks Resnick if he is going to ask everyone the same thing. Resnick replies he will, if he has to. Marcus says that ain't him.

HAROLD (Simmons), is a florist who has spent the last ten years living in the area, and after him along comes LUKE, played by JASON COVIELLO, a divorced man who has lost the custody of his daughter. Justin, in turn, explains that he does not write about crime in his job as a journo, and that he did not know anything about this case until now. At home he explains Allison he's been picked, but that the trial will not last long.

Killebrew, completely focused on this case, is shown giving some kind of press conference in which she says that women involved in violent relationships have to be protected. At the bar she sits along Resnick and both discuss something she has just mentioned during her speech and that they both learnt from a mutual teacher: justice is truth in action. Resnick asks her if she still believes it, to which she says yes, but he explains to he that being a politician means that sentence might lose its significance (you believe in something like that unless that gets in the way of a victory).

 

A very pregnant Allison (Deutch)

Amy Aquino

The trial begins and with it also some flashbacks of what happened at Rowdy's Hideaway on the night of the last 25th of October, when Carter died, and which in good measure are just Justin's memories, who begins to remember and be aware of his connection to the case. The audience and him realize something is not right and there could be much more than meets the eye. Justin can be seen sitting at a table, alien to the couple, who is behind, and he even passes them by when he proceeds to leave, right before the argument between Carter and Sythe takes place him. Later on Justin is in his car while they argue outside the bar, and some punters are recording the argument, but he is not aware.

Resnick says the couple's behaviour during that night had turned into some kind of involuntary game for them: they loved each other, they argued, they fought each other and the next morning everything was back to normal. Killebrew talks about a violent relationship and states that Syther followed and killed Carter. Justin keeps on remembering stuff. He had to pull over when he hit something while driving. He got out the car and saw nothing (it needs to be remembered that there was a rainstorm and the visibility was scarce), even when he leaned out the bridge. Then he saw a danger sign which alerted of the possibility of deers crossing the road and he left thinking he had probably hit one, but in the light of what has been already said about the case he realizes that maybe he did not hit a deer, but Carter herself, whom he could have bumped into and thrown down the bridge to her death. An agitated Justin throws up in the washroom and Marcus asks him if he's alright.

Justin attends an AA meeting (there's no further explanation about this but the audience learns something new about the main character: he's a former alcoholic), after which LARRY (a very brief, unfortunately, character played by Sutherland), his sponsor, tells him he's looked quite distracted during the meeting and that he can talk to him if there's something in his mind which worries him. Larry also gives him the usual advice, something like you know what to do; we're as sick as our secrets. Justin does some googling on the case and realizes that last 25th of October (when Carter died) was also Allison's due date, so we learn that something went wrong concerning that pregnancy. She tells him he looks quite agitated when he comes back home late that evening, although she doesn't know anything.

At this point, the reader and the spectator may be thinking that something like what it seems to be happening is very unlikely and too much of a coincidence to be deemed credible. It is obvious that something like that is quite accidental, but is also far from impossible, and legal history is full (relatively) of similar or even weirder stories, no matter how implausible they may look.

During the next session the lawyers interrogate the witnesses and more flashbacks are shown, although what can be seen seems to be a tad different depending on who tells their own recollections of that night. There is some kind of RASHOMON effect here (originated from the famous namesake film directed in 1950 by AKIRA KUROSAWA, which depicts the debatable little reliability of the eye witness, given that the same fact can change depending on the eye of the beholder). In a first memory Carter can be seen defying Sythe to hit her, already at the parking lot, and the first witness says that he followed her across some place called Old Quarry Road, which is the place where the bridge under which Carter's body was found is. Resnick is not having that, for said witness, a regular at Rowdy's, also admits having drunk on that night and gone back to the bar after recording a video, and that's why she cannot be sure about how far down that road Sythe went.

Enters that night's waitress at Rowdy's as the second witness. She says she did not see neither of them again that night and that the morning after, while taking the trash out, a hiker who had just found Carter's body asked for her help. That hiker also testifies and Resnick, after Reed claims to be a regular hiker and says the grounds where Carter was found are tricky ones and suitable shoes are needed for hiking across them, remarks the fact that Carter was walking on high heels, almost in the dark and under heavy rain, so she could hace fallen to her death.

A tortured Justin having a hard time

Before I go on with the plot, I'd like to talk about the institution that popular jury is, and also about some of the people chosen as jurors in the plot. Some of the readers may have probably seen themselves forced to stay for many hours at a polling station on an election day, due to having been chosen as board members, representatives or any of the duties to be performed at said station. People can be surprising but usually those who have been through something like that (including yours truly) find it boring as hell and something you just want to get rid of no matter what, but which, unless for some specific and unlikely exceptions, is almost inevitable. Why do I mention this? Because being chosen as a juror has to be something similar, but only much worse.

It's not about wasting your day spending ten or twelve long and boring hours sitting at a table with not much to do, as in the above explained case, but about being under the stress of knowing that someone's fate depends (at least to a certain extent) on you, and during as long as needed to reach a verdict. Or maybe it doesn't get to that ending, but the process can be very long anyway, and also gruelling and unpleasant, and people have their own lives to carry on with. But a verdict cannot be reached just like that, because things have to be done right and the jury has to leave every external pressure and prejudice aside, given that someone's life is at stake. More or less what I already said when I wrote about the two black jurors, who happen to be two of the worst examples of how you should not approach jury duty. There are several jurors who take Sythe's guilt for granted, without putting further thought besides what seems to be obvious, and they are eager to reach a (guilty) verdict so they can leave and mind their own businesses. And that is not the way things should be done.

On with the plot. Next to testify is a forensic doctor who says Carter had been dead nine hours when she was found, and that the cause of death is blunt force trauma, also stating that the possibility that Resnick argues, of Carter sustaining those injuries due to falling on the rocks, is possible but quite unlikely.

Killebrew interrogates a witness who lives very close to the infamous bridge and who claims having seen a man getting out of his car and search around it under the rainstorm at 23:48 (he checked the clock). That man had to be Justin and yet the witness points at Sythe as said person when Killebrew asks him to.

An increasingly nervous Justin goes to see Larry and tells him he wants a lawyer, which Larry happens to be. He tells Justin that for just one dollar they can enjoy a lawyer-client privilege, and Justin tells him it all. Larry acknowledges the seriousness of the situation and tells Justin that despite not having drunk on that fateful night, with his history of DUI (driving under the influence) behind him no one would believe he was sober. He advices him to not come forward because given his history with the booze he could serve from thirty years to life for vehicular manslaughter.

Larry (Kiefer Sutherland) giving Kemp
 some valuable piece of advice

The defense calls Sythe, who doesn't deny the argument concerning Carter and him moving in together and says she was drunk. Once at the parking lot, she broke up with him and left. In everyone of these flashbacks Carter can be seen showing Sythe one middle finger or even two, as a gesture of disdain. He admits having thought about following her, but that when he got in his car, parked next to the 2 17 mile marker, he remembered that his niece's birthday is on the 17th of February and that pulled him out of everything. He went home thinking that the next morning everything would be ok again, like always. He admits being an idiot for not wanting to move in with her, but he says he loved her and he would never do anything like that to her. He also says he understands the prejudices against someone like him, given his past (about which we don't know anything yet), but he also says he's changed. Resnick shows videos of the couple, in a loving attitude, recorded at Rowdy's  the night of the events. However, Killebrew interrogates him with a different mindset, emphasizing on the fact that he smashed a beer bottle and the violence that something like that implies (he says it was an accident). She accuses him of having left Carter alone in those conditions on that night, and questions his alleged love for her when he was capable of letting her down like that.

Eastwood shows Temis again and the judge announces the evidences are over, demanding that the lawyers do their closing statements. Killebrew talks about a malice murder, and also mentions the testimony of the witness who pointed at Sythe. She accuses Sythe of losing his mind when he realized Carter was serious about breaking up with him, and she says his DNA was found all over Carter's body. Resnick replies that of course Sythe's DNA could be found on Carter, given that they were a couple, and that no murder weapon had been retrieved. He remarks the courage of the defendant to go through the process of admitting everything he had admitted, something that Killebrew refers to as a performance. She asks the jury to find him guilty, while Resnick says there has to be a killer out there and that person is not Sythe. Let's find him innocent.

The popular jury begins its own meetings. A blonde, posh-looking female who is called DENICE ALDWORTH (LESLIE BIBB), asks to be some kind of spokesperson for the jury, given that she's been in that kind of situation before. She says is best to vote first and then talk. The score is ten (guilty) to one. Marcus, one of the aforementioned black persons, shows the first hints of his empathy and knowledge about how to behave while on jury duty saying stuff like let him rot (Sythe) or reacting in an inquisitorial manner when the only person who doesn't vote guilty (or innocent either, for that matter) takes his stance. That person is Harold, who says that Sythe should have pled out, to have his sentence shortened. Marcus, when listening to this, says and then there was one, like if calling Harold a smart ass.

Justin is the only one who hasn't said anything yet and Yolanda, the other black person, behaving pretty much like Marcus, pesters him bringing up Allison's pregnancy as soon as she senses that Justin is in doubt. Justin says, and with good reason (and even more knowing what he already knows), that is somebody's life what they are talking about, and they should at least discuss about it (that's what the jury, among other things, is all about). Yolanda reacts (in a very polite manner too) saying it has to be a joke, but Justin asks them all if they are ready to send somebody to jail, just like that, and maybe for the rest of his life. Marcus and Yolanda say they have no doubts, and she says that Resnick hasn't been able to prove Sythe's innocence, beyond a reasonable doubt, to which Justin replies that the burden of proof is on the prosecution, to prove Sythe's guilt, and not the other way around (as you can notice, the bus driver knows her way around law and the legal system), revealing Yolanda's ignorance.

Justin asks if there is someone with the least doubt about Sythe's guilt, and whe his fellow jurors remain silent, he goes on saying that if they have to think about it, that means they are in doubt. Yolanda says she has three kids waiting for her at home (???) and Aldworth asks Justin what the problem is (???). When he says there is no problem, Yolanda asks him if what he wants is to piss her off or what (Eastwood's depiction of this character as an uncouth, rude and selfish person, without the slightest notion of empathy or the matter she is into pushes the limits of the ridiculous, surpassing Marcus' thuggish, vengeful and intimidating persona), but Justin defends himself saying that he has questions. Marcus says that's not true, because is Justin's own guilt talking. Justin gets nervous and Marcus goes on saying that the only thing Justin wants is going back to his little neighborhood with his head held high knowing that he's done the right thing after giving Sythe a chance. Luke asks Marcus why he is picking on Justin like that, and Marcus responds telling Luke to mind his own business and calling him little fella (rude and brute).

Justin says there are two keys: the first one is that Sythe asks for a trial instead of confessing an hypothetical guilt. And the second one is that he also testified, instead of taking the fifth. That does not mean he's innocent, but it makes him deserving of a few hours of the jury's time, so everyone can make sure of everything. Aldworth agrees and Marcus (again) says that is making them all to lose their time.

This is when the film, apart from some other similarities, reminds (or even pays an implied tribute to it) of SIDNEY LUMET's first movie, 12 ANGRY MEN (1957) the most. I'm not saying that Juror #2 reaches the heights of one of cinema's most accomplished titles, but the vibes are definitely similar. That film is the unnamed classic movie I mentioned above and Justin, in his own particular way, is a very peculiar version of HENRY FONDA's character in said movie, when acting with a bigger and stronger sense of duty and responsibility than that of his fellow jurors (barring Harold).

Most of the jury during one of the hearings. Second from the left is
 Justin, followed by Yolanda and Harold. The fair-haired woman
 from the above row is Denice, the supervisor

Killebrew goes on with her campaign and tells the press that Sythe will pay and Carter will have justice. She also talks about women involved in violent relationships, etc.

The jury deliberates, and when is time to talk about the eye-witness who pointed at Sythe, Justin says that person was too far away from the bridge and it was raining cats and dogs. Luke says that because of his job he has done a lot of landscaping around the area and he knows the visibility is little, given all the trees that there are. BRODY (DREW SCHEID), the young, chubby and long-haired juror, jokes with the fact that said witness is old too. But Marcus and Yolanda (who else?) say the identification was positive and there was no reason for the witness to lie about it. Justin is sure that man saw somebody, but maybe that somebody wasn't Sythe, and Aldworth asks him to not weight up possibilities, because the jury must asses facts.

Harold steals the show when he begins to say things like that thirty two per cent of the homicides occur among domestic couples and that Sythe was arrested two days after Carter's body had been found. He also says that the police did not asl anyone else. When listening to that, a bearded juror, and also a very well-mannered one (VINCE,played by PHIL BIEDRON), calls him old mand and tells him that he watches too much telly, to which Harold responds showing his police badge. The jurors get alarmed and he says he did not say anything because no one asked, but the oldest juror, NELLIE (REBECCA KOON), says they can make good use of his experience.

Harold lets his experience do the talking and, according to the experts, his role could Eastwood's own embodiment on the screen, as a veteran with nothing to hide who has no problem in showing the rest of the jurors that he is at least one step ahead of them Having been a detective (he remarks this to Nellie when she addresses him as officer) would have invalidated him to be chosen as juror, and the audience may wonder, once again, how something that obvious hasn't been considered from the get go, but the plot itself answers the question skilfully when Harold, pressed by his colleagues, says what has been mentioned already: he did not say he was a cop because nobody asked. Apparently, one of the most basic advices to those who are under oath is to only answer to what has been asked, without providing any further information, and no one asked Harold about it. I'm not saying that everyone needs to be asked whether they had been cops in the past or not, of course, but questions about their background, job, etc, look suitable to me. The legal system is far from perfect and, as strange as it seems, things like those can happen and actually happen. A simple research about every juror's past would have been advisable, but said system is full of negligences because there are many cases, little time and less resources than desired, not to mention all sorts of personal interests which get in the way of justice.

Harold says the police had it all worked out right from the beginning and they did not bothered to go beyond. The omnipresent Yolanda asks if there is any problem with that and he says that maybe none, but that a tunnel vision like that might work against you. The police just ignored any other way, something that KEIKO (CHIKAKO FUKUYAMA), the asian juror, calls confirmation bias. Harold agrees and states that the police mean well, but they are making a mistake. There isn't even a murder weapon which has been retrieved (Marcus says that a weapon is easy to hide and to make it disappear. This is when another young juror, COURTNEY (HEDY NASSER), asks about the possibility of Carter dying some other way, and Keiko mentions a hit and run. Justin gets scared and spills his coffee over Vince. Harold says that's a very good theory, because in addition, the rain and the low visibility would explain the fall down the bridge to the creek below. Marcus, someone who is very good at listening and accepting different points of view, asks what the difference is if that piece of shit (Sythe) ran Carter over instead of hitting her to death.

Harold insists. His guts tell him Sythe is not a murderer and Marcus reminds him that he had voted guilty on the first day, to which Harold says no, because what he had said was that Sythe should have pled out, not that he thought that Sythe was guilty. The reason behind it is that Harold thinks that Sythe stands little chance of success, no matter how smart Resnick can be, because the public defenders have a caseload ten times bigger than that of the district attorney, while earning less money (more flaws of the system). Harold thinks Resnick does what he can, but most likely it won't be enough, and that's not a fair fight. Marcus says that nothing is (fair) anymore, but I don't know what he means. Harold says that his twenty two years in the street tell him there is more than meets the eye. Nellie asks him what he'd do as a detective, but the session ends there until the next monday. It's Halloween (thanks to the trick or treat the audience learns that Allison, Justin's wife, is a school teacher) and Killebrew is told by the bailiff that there won't be a verdict that Friday.

Justin, in front of the suspicious Marcus

Harold decides to investigate the bridge area (he can't do that) and Justin follows him with his car (the same one he drove on that fateful night). Justin hides himself but his phone rings and Harold notices his presence and recognizes his car. When Justin gets home he realizes he's forgotten a medical appointment he had with Allison, who's angry and scared. She tells him they did not make it this far with the previous pregnancy, and this is when we learn that the labor that should have taken place on the night the alleged crime was committed, ended up in a painful miscarriage. Allison says she can't do that alone and she gets disappointed when Justin tells her that the jury still has a lot of work ahead because Justin is one of the two jurors who don't think Sythe is guilty. She asks why and he talks about evidences and so on, and he also says that everyone deserves a chance, like the one she gave him. There is no further explanation on this, and Justin asks her if she would deem correct to sell the car without mentioning it had been involved in a wreck. She tells him that fact was already advertised (they want to sell the car) and, given his insistence in her thinking about that possibility, she answers that she doesn't think it would be wrong that someone bought the car without knowing that detail. She goes to bed and, like had happened at the beginning of the film, she turns off the light when Justin is still in the room she leaves, leaving him alone and in the dark, something which I suppose is a metaphor concerning Justin's situation in the plot.

Meanwhile, Killebrew and Resnick meet at a bar and have a brief and brilliant exchange: she says a guilty verdict should have been reached in a couple of hours, given how clear everything looked, but he answers that if a verdict hasn't been reached is because he's given the jury enough reasons to think otherwise. Killebrew says he's only given the jurors smoke and mirrors, while she's provided evidences, and he defends himself saying that where there's smoke, there's fire. She calls him an optimistic but he says he's just realistic, for he knows many of hisclients are guilty and he just tries to get the best from a difficult situation. But he also says he's sure that Sythe did not kill Carter and that the fact that the jury is taking longer gives him hopes that everything will be done as it has to. She mocks him and he proposes a toast to the legal system, which may not be perfect, but is the one they hace. Once again, this last par is very significant.

Next monday Harold asks Justin why he had followed him on friday, and he says that because what Harold had done wasn't allowed. Harold knows it, but he also wants to know what's really happened and someone has to do something about it. He shows Justin a list with every car that has gone through body work between the 26th of Otober (the dat after Carter's death) and the end of the last year, and Justin asks if Harold is still convinced of the hit and run theory. Harold says he is, and he proceeds to explain some shenanigans of the business which have led him to know how to get that information. He's also spent the weekend narrowing down the cars on that list (only cars with very specific damages, and he's ruled out every situation with police intervention) until reducing them to just fifteen, among which there is a 96 Toyota 4 Runner, forest green, identical to Justin's. He tells him that if said car is indeed Justin's, he just need to know it so he can rule it out too. Justin asks him about his plan and Harold asks for his help to find the car, given he's sure dollars to doughnuts that a hit and run is what has taken place.

Justin gets really scared now, and I'd like to remark Hoult's acting skills, for he's a performer that I did not dislike before this movie but I wasn't exactly thrilled about either, besides thinking that he was pretty boring when he began as an actor. But Eastwoodse squeezes and shakes him from start to finish with an array of scenes which show Justin's burden and he stands his ground quite convincingly. This is the moral dilemma the movie is all about. Concerning this, I'd also like to say that, as much as the spectator's logical perception pushes them to think that it was Justin who unintentionally killed Carter, and that the plot's twist is obvious, there's no certainty about it whatsoever this deep into the film. Leaving Sythe aside, it could be Justin or some other driver. Or maybe something else happened and Carter fell or was killed some other way, something which would favour the theory of Justin hitting a deer or some other animal. Justin knows what he knows, and that makes him feel guilty and responsible enough to try to absolve Sythe, while at the same timen he tries to get rid of the consequences that investigating him could bring him and his family, probably because he's not sure of being the culprit. The only certainty about the whole thing might be who did not kill Carter, but more on this later on.

As I said, Justin gets more and more scared, and when the bailiff calls them all to enter the session, he fakes clumsiness and drops all the papers Harold had given to him (something that Harold beholds in a susprisingly indifferent manner). The bailiff helps him to pick them up and cannot help taking a glimpse of what is on them, which has to do with the case, so she tells them both to wait and she informs the judge, who reprimands them. Resnick asks for a mistrial, because if Harold is also a cop, who knows what thing he could have filled the heads of the remaining jurors with, but the judge says no way, because this is Resnick's failing for not having found out about Harold's past (another flaw in the system). Resnick says that's Harold's misconduct, but the judge is not having any of it. Killebrew says something like the resources are growing thin and that there is no reason to start everything from scratch again. The judge agrees and accuses Harold and Justin of breaching the oath they swore as jurors, but Harold says he's sworn by his oath as policeman to not betray his principles, etc. She dismisses him as juror and avoids accusing him of contempt because of his past as a policeman. When is Justin's turn, Harold admits that everything had been his own idea and that he did it on his own, and Justin lies when he says he did not get to see anything of what there was on the papaers, to which Harold once again reacts in a very neutral fashion. Justin continues as juror and Resnick gets mad at Killebrew for what she said about the resources. I guess that shows that fight is not fair, as Harold had said, and he gets angry for she should not be the one to complain. She gets surprised, making clear what was told about her at the beginning: empathy is not her forte.

Harold runs into her before leaving ands asks her if she ever thought about another culprit. He tells Killebrew that this is a hit and run and they are getting all wrong. He tells her that he had checked that the forensic surgeon had done up to five autopsies on that very same day, which is proof of a very likely mistake and puts the spotlight on the insufficient resources of that system Eastwood focuses on. She says they had done their job, but Harold thinks that if they had, neither of them would be there in that moment. She kinds of ignore him in a very arrogant manner and insists in the fact that that guy (Sythe) is bad news, to which he responds that maybe, but that he did not kill Carter. Killebrew begins having second thoughts.

Killebrew, confronted by Harold

Harold is replaced by juror number thirteen, IRENE (ZELE AVRADOPOULOS) a sucker for true crime. Justin lies again about Harold's information when he says that all he knows is that it was a list of cars. He says Harold was bent on proving Sythe's innocence too. Yolanda asks if that means they should change their vote, and Justin says that's only all he knows. Keiko insists in the hit and run theory, emphasizing on Carter's injuries, which according to her showed that Carter could have been hit by a large vehicle. Justin asks her if she's a doctor and Keiko says she's currently studying to become one. He thinks they should leave those things to the profesionals, but Brody says doctors can also be negligent. Keiko finishes saying that fractures like those cannot be due to a fall, but a severe rear impact, and Sythe's car has no damages. This is known thanks to Irene's question, and she explains her theories about the case, as the result of many hours watching true crime, something which makes the other jurors angry and leads Aldworth to tell Irene that all that does not turn her into SHERLOCK HOLMES. Irene states they are just patterns taken from many cases (Sythe is the perfect suspect but said suspect very seldom is the culprit, cops hate paperwork, etc).

Keiko says Old Quarry Road feeds the highway and that a GPS system leads you there when there's too much traffic, and another juror (ELI, portrayed by ONIX SERRANO) says that maybe that was what the driver who hit Carter thought. Luke says it makes sense, but then what happens with the witness who pointed at Sythe. Maybe he saw someone else. Yolanda is fed up with so many maybes and Justin says thosemaybes are reasonable doubt, to which Brody and Keiko agree. The jury is not so sure about Sythe's guilt anymore.

Killebrew's own doubts lead her to start her own investigation. She's also aware of everything that is at stake for her and doesn't drop the charges, and this attitude is similar to Justin's: they both try to do what is right, but without getting damaged.

A new vote by the jury produces a 6-6 tie and Justin says that's proof that they are doing right, but Yolanda does not agree and she says that the whole thing is just wearing them down, for the more you go back and forth over something, the more you question it (this has to be the only reasonable thing this lady says during the whole film). Justin thinks that these theories question Sythe's guilt, and this is when Marcus explains the true reason behind his stance. One of Sythe's tattoos show that he is (or was) member of a gang of drug pushers called WEST SIDE CROWNS. Marcus runs the boys and girls club and knows what those people do. Despite knowing that his own reasons shouldn't get in the way of justice, he admits having reasons which are personal to sentence Sythe, because his own younger brother got tattooed (allegedly as member of said gang, although this is not clear) at fourteen and died before turning seventeen due to a stray bullet in a fight over a piece of ground. Justin reminds them of the fact that Sythe said he had changed (not to mention that what Marcus tells does not mean, in principle, that Sythe would have had anything to do with it), because people change. Yolanda says, based on the scientific and empirical evidence which seeing the faces of the same people on her bus on a daily basis is, that is not true.

And then Justin explains that he is proof of it. He tells his story with the booze, focusing on something that had taken place four years ago and that according to Justin should have killed him without even getting in a car. And yet, he walked out unharmed. He was sentenced to community services and spent some time teaching kids how to write. He says that alcoholics usually charm people, but that the lady teacher he was accountable to could see through him and did not cut him any slack. She made him responsible of his own doings and gave him hope of a future for him. It is clear, although tacitly, that this teacher was Allison, and hence Justin's gratitude and his four years with no booze. Justin is sure that he is not the same person he was four years ago, but Marcus says that people like Sythe never change. Justin replies saying that is not for them to judge (again, I don't want Sythe to be found guilty, but I also need the investigation to move away from me), and that someone will end up paying, like it always happens, although Luke is not sure about that. Justin tells him to not get carried away by his own feelings and asks Luke, in relation to his own daughter, if he would not want justice for her was she Carter. Of course he would. But what if Sythe was his son? Wouldn't he want justice too? Luke has to admit he would.

Killebrew decides to visit the witness who pointed at Sythe during the trial. He tells her that the police came to see him and showed him pictures of Sythe, but no one else's, because according to him, the officers were already sure and they just wanted him to confirm their point of view. When she leaves, he asks her, worried as he is because maybe he had not done the right thing, if Sythe is guilty (as if trying to reassert his own doubt), but Killebrew leaves without saying anything and he is left pensive and concerned. And so is Killebrew, who before knocking on the old man's door, has seen that a car has scared her because it passed her by with very little margin, when she was taking a look down the bridge where Carter was found. That makes her realize that an accident is more than likely in that area.

Marcus insists saying he hasn't changed his point of view and that he is done talking, while Yolanda reminds us all that she has three kids waiting for her at home. Aldworth gets stressed and says she's just trying to do her job, but it looks like the more they spend their time deliberating, the further they are from reaching a verdict and the situation is taking its toll on them. Suddenly, Courtney (one of the jurors who wants Sythe to be found guilty) says that, despite everything that has been deliberated, it looks like Sythe is guilty, due to his nature and how he behaved that night, something that Vince agrees with talking about abuse and wants Sythe to be screwed. He is not changing his vote, but neither are Nellie and Brody, who want Sythe to be found innocent. Given the situation, Irene suggests visiting every one of that night's scenarios, just in case it helps, to which the judge agrees without the lawyers questioning her decision. The jurors are warned to not talk among them or to someone from the outside, or collect any evidences while they are at it.

Killebrew takes advantage of the info collected by Harold to pick the investigation where he left it off and starts visiting the owners of those fifteen cars still on the list, eventually going to Justin's place to talk to Allison (ignorant of their relationship), because she is the one whose name the Toyota is registered to. Concerning the car, Allison tells the story which she thinks to be true, because Justin had told it to her, and that is the one about hitting a deer, but in a place called Brimstone Pass instead Old Quarry Road, as Killebrew asks her. They say goodbye after a few words about the pregnancy and both seem puzzled, but without tying up the loose ends yet.

Larry shows up for the third and last time, because Justin asks for his advice. He tells him that everything is heading to the a hung jury, which usually leads to another trial. Justin wants to absolve Sythe, and asks whether a mistrial due to what has just been told, would mean that everything was sorted. Larry tells him that, given the case's publicity, people will demand it to be tried as much as necessary, unless the district attorney's office decides that Sythe is not the right person and finds another. Otherwise, there won't be any other chance to finish it all without a verdict, which means that Justin needs a verdict no matter what, and the only way that the prosecution doesn't look hi way is to find Sythe guilty. It never ceases to amaze me that in a situation like this one, someone like Larry, subjected to his legal professional privilege, cannot say anything of what he knows, even if that means that a trial is going the wrong way and someone who doesn't deserve it may be found guilty, but I guess this is just the way things are.

Justin comes back home and he is seen taking a look at the Toyota's parts which had needed fixing when Allison shows up and interrogates him. Justin says he's found a buyer, but she is interested in what had happened on the night of the accident, and everything related to Killebrew's visit. She asks him if he hit a deer at Brimstone Pass or at Old Quarry Road, because the first version is the one she's told Killebrew (Allison googled who Killebrew is after she was gone), whose visit surprises and alerts Justin. When Allison compels Justin, due to his own doubts, he confesses he took a shortcut through Old Quarry Road and was at Rowdy's, but that he did not drink (he repeats that as many as three times), despite having ordered a drink. He says he was sad and in a very poor condition because of the miscarriagepero and he did not want to go back home and give her an even harder time, because she had enough already, and that's why he did not tell her anything back then. She says that of course she was broken inside, because she felt responsible for the miscarriage.

Killebrew asks Resnick to meet at the county jail where Sythe is held, because she wants Sythe, without any kind of camera or external pressure, to tell her to her face that he had not killed Carter. Resnick realizes she is in doubt. Sythe reasserts himself and tells her that if she wants justice for Carter she just have to find who killed her, and he also says the biggest regret of his life is not having followed her that night, for had he done it, she'd still be alive.

The time is right for the jury to visit the scenarios where the couple had been on the night Carter had died and once at Rowdy's, Justin remembers his inner struggle with the drink he did not taste, although that flashback doesn't show Carter and Sythe behind him. The waitress seems to remember him and he avoids her look, something which Marcus notices. Justin keeps remebering how much he was in pain on that night, once he was back in the car, and how much it was raining. When they go to the bridge Marcus confronts him (they are not supposed to talk among each other) and tells him he thinks Justin is hiding something, while he reminds Justin of the time he saw him throwing up, the thing with Harold, etc. He tells Justin he can see through him and that no one can be certain of what had happened that night. Justin is on the brink of slipping very close to the edge of the bridge and tells Marcus that maybe Carter had fallen, to which Marcus says he does not care, because as far as he is concerned, Sythe deserves to die for having abandoned her like that (allegedly after having killed her, something that he's one hundred per cent convinced of) and that he will never absolve him. That either a charge is reached or it will be a hung jury. Justin is frightened and he locks eyes with Sythe himself, when Sythe is back into the car to be driven back to jail. I find this last thing quite curious and what I mean is that visiting all those places, just in case it helps, seems normal to me, but the fact that a handcuffed and in a suit Sythe has to be there too is pretty weird. But the thing is that, at that very moment, Justin remembers that he saw Sythe driving the opposite way, because he was driving ahead of him and suddenly he took a dangerous 180 degrees turn on the open road and came back, something that means that indeed he did not follow Carter. And this is what I meant when I talked about the only one more than likely certainty concerning the movie, related to whom had not killed Carter.

What a countenance

Soon after, Justin is absent (due to Allison giving birth to their baby, we suppose) at the session in which Sythe's unanimous verdict of guilt is read. Not only Justin has changed his vote, but also the other jurors who happened to think that Sythe was innocent. And as much as Justin's reasons may be wicked, he has some and those can be understandable (according to that wickedness). But what the others reasons to change their opinion? Maybe they got tired and irritated, they had personal reasons or any other internal or external pressure, but the truth is that they changed their mind and that behaviour is outrageous, keeping in mind what is being judged and the primal reasons that make an institution like the popular jury exist. These jurors have proven, at least most of them, that they don't care about those reasons. All the judge's explanations about why they were ideal for the task, given thay lack of bias, etc, have been overshadowed by, among other things, the jurors selfishness. And this is a personal opinion.

Killebrew accepts the verdict with no signs of joy or relief, despite all the good it can do for her career. The judge bids farewell to the jury and Killebrew notices the sentence in god we trust which adorns the badge hung on the wall behind the judge. A new nod to justice courtesy of Eastwood. Or to the absence of it.

Already at the beginning of his life as a dad, Justin is obviously regretful and, unable to move on, he attends the session in which Sythe's sentence is read (life with no parole due to the murder with malice of Kendall Carter). When he is about to leave, Allison tells him that none of this is his fault, that he's done the right thing (I'm not sure whether she knows everything Justin has been keeping to himself or not) and that Sythe is not a good person. He doesn't agree. He says he did not defend his stance properly (or Sythe himself) and that he only said what everyone wanted to hear. He feels guilty and the least he can do is attending said session.

Killebrew, in turn, has succeeded in the election. Someone send a bouquet of flowers to her and when she sees it she doesn't care about it. Neither does she care about the assistant who tells her about it (her lack of humility remains untouched), although she takes the card the flowers came with on her way to the previous mentioned session, in which we can already see Sythe dressed as a convict in the usual orange jumpsuit, and looking as he did not care about the sentence, knowing it is going to be very bad no matter what. Once at the court, Killebrew becomes aware of the fact that those flowers had been sent by Carter's family, as a gesture of gratitude. But something on the card and Justin's presence at the same session make her to tie up the loose ends: she remembers what he said about his wife's pregnancy when he was chosen as juror, and that the very pregnant Allison named someone called Justin as her husband when she went to visit her. She remembers that story about hitting a deer and a Google search lets her know that both of them are a couple. Justin is already gone but she also leaves quickly as soon as the session is dismissed and finds him outside, sitting on the bench which is placed right in front Temis' statue. She sits too and the audience can notice how each of them is sat on one end of the bench while Temis remains right between them. Another nice detail by Eastwood. Justice interposes itself between the two remaining options.

Collette and Hoult relax during an interview, far from the final
 tension beteween them on the screen

Killebrew tells him that she is surprised to see him there, and Justin tells her she looks tired. She says likewise, to which Justin explains the situation with the new born, but Killebrew tells him she did not mean that. Justin congratulates her for the new job and he tells her about the amount of good she can do with it. Boh of them agree on the fact that something like that is not always easy, and she says there are time sin which you try to do what you think is right, only to realize that you are doing wrong. She alludes (without mentioning him) to Sythe: someone about whom you think he's a psycho and who turns out to be a regular guy, not even a criminal. He talks about an accident and she denies that possibility. Justin says that neither scenario can be proved and he refers to himself (again, without saying his own name) when he talks about a good guy who happened to have an accident under terrible circumstances, and about all the hypothetical consequences to his family. Killebrew asks what happens to justice them, but he saus that the truth doesn't always mean justice. She doesn't believe that Justin can really believe that, and he goes on the attack saying that if she follows that path, the media will eat her alive, the case will go on forever, someone else will take her job, a criminal will get out of jail and a good person and his family will be destroyed. What justice is there in that? And he leaves, leaving her alone on the bench while the breeze shakes Temis' scale in front of her.

Days after, Justin takes flowers to Carter's grave, probably due to the remorse he still feels, and a gardener tells him that it looks like the storm is gone, which seems to be a metaphor on Justin's own guilt, and he agrees unconvincingly.

Killebrew is in her new office, and the whole thing includes a parking place to her own name. Resnick shwos up with a plant, as a present, and he tells her that he hopes everything has been worthy. He also tells her that he will see her later on, at the bar, and that she is buying. They are mates, but Resnick seems to be annoyed by how things have panned out and her attitude.

Justin and Allison are home taking care of the baby and he tells her that the Toyota is history already. Someone knocks on the door, Justin opens it and is Killebrew who is at the threshold. They both stare at each other without uttering a single word.
 

The screen fades to black and the next thing we see is directed by Clint Eastwood. That's the end and the audience starts thinking about what they have just seen and what has actually happened. Now is time for me to explain what I said at the beginning of the plot about a misunderstanding which led me to think expect different from the ending: on the website of the theatre I went to watch the movie it was stated that it lasted one hundred and fifty seven minutes, no less, and when it all ended, leaving the end credits aside, only around one hundred and ten had gone. This is nothing the film can be blamed for, of course, but keeping in mind that I thought it was going to be longer, I was expecting a more prolongued final act, maybe Harold to show up again (who had say goodbye after his dismissal from the jury to, apparently, never be seen again) and the plot to take a turn or more stuff about to be known. In this regard, Kiefer Sutherland has an even briefer role than Hasrold's and this is what left me a little bit cold at first, being it the only flaw I could think of. I thought there would be more, that we al would know further.

But I did not realize the film aims at something bigger. I am surprised to read on social media people bitterly complaining (the minority, to be honest) about the ending and how disappointing they had found it, and I think most of those people are not looking at the bigger picture. What I mean is that I think they have just focused on the fact that the important thing about the movie is knowing what really happens in the plot, neglecting the background of it and its menaing. And I can disagree with them, but I can hardly blame them because, despite the fact that I loved the ending, I did not realize about certain stuff at first either.

Where are you, Harold?

CRITICAL RECEPTION

Mostly very well received by the critic (and by the fans), Juror #2 proves that it aims at something more profound than what we know as the usual courtroom drama (a very popular subgenre a few decades ago), when we realize that, more than focusing on what actually happens within the plot, it chooses to show a guilty conscience (regarding how its characters behave) and is good proof of the director's skills in that field (ROTTEN TOMATOES). The already mentioned Vulture magazine says that, more often than not, justice prevails in movies like this, even if it takes an extra time and effort, but in this one we are witnesses of a legal system that could fail even if everyone tries his best to prevent that from happening (something similar is said by Killebrew, almost at the end), something that could mirror Eastwood's own vision and his scepticism concerning said system and its efficiency. It is remarkable, in this regard, that scene shared by Messina and Collette in which they both share a toast to a legal system which, no matter how flawed it is (the film proves it is quite flawed in fact), is the one they have.

Some other reviews also focus on the political side, even if only implied, of the filmmaker. THE NEW YORKER says that the politics which lurk around the plot are quite antipolitical, while INDIE WIRE comments that, as much as the film depicts a devotion for law and order which could be deemed as conservative, it eventually unveils an apolitical patriotism which is solely Eastwoodian.

Hoult and Eastwood

FINAL THOUGHTS (AND MORE SPOILERS)

As he usually does, Eastwood chooses to respect the audience's intelligence and challenges it, inviting it to draw its own conclusions without giving too much information. He moves away from the spectacular while favouring reflection and unanswered questions. I've already said, at one point within the plot, that there was no one who could be considered the culprit in all certainty, because the plot is not conclusive in that regard, and that is what I keep on thinking once the film is over, in spite of having read online reviews which claim Justin to be the murderer (something that some other deny, citing lack of certainty), as if the film was only about that. That's why we don't know (even if we can almost envision it) what the reason behind Killebrew visit is. Perhaps she went there to tell Justin that she is after him and on the lookout (it looks like something of the sort), or maybe there are even some unseen cops already waiting to arrest him. Or she could have visited him only to tell him that she will leave things as they are, as he had suggested her, or to try talk him into turning himself in or confessing everything he knows. But there is no way we do know for sure. Abrams, the scriptwriter, compares this scene with the final moment shared between SEAN PENN and KEVIN BACON's menacing gesture in Mystic River, a film he admits having as a guiding light when it comes to Eastwood, and concerning which there are some similarities in Juror #2. It is implied that I'll be watching you, but at the same time there is no certainty.

I've read that the script's first draft had Justin carrying on with his life as if nothing had happened, but witn an obvious feeling of guilt. As if he tried to move forward without achieving it, due to everything that had happened and his doubts about the whole thing. But apparently, Eastwood wanted Abrams to go further and have Killebrew at Justin's doorstep in the end. In most cases, only Collette's character would be the one to do what is supposed to be right, not caring about all the consequences that admitting her previous mistakes could be in store for her, although quite late (the system fails, and also the people). I've also read that the few naysayers of the script the movie is based on, say that there are too many gimmicks or unlikely things to be found on it, like Killebrew doing a Google research to find out who Allison is married to. But experience, and common sense as well, are proof that something like that would be, in fact, the normal and right thing to do, and that due to the already explained flaws within the system, there are many cases which go wrong because of negligences related to things as basic as that one.

We could even twist the whole thing a little bit more and think that Justin is an ex alcoholic unworthy of trust who actually did drink on that night and that, because of the alcohol, all his memories got blurred. That would lead us to an inability to trust whether he saw Sythe driving the opposite way when he went home or not. Carter herself could have died as the consequence of some fatal accident, and not due to somebody else's actions. But all this would mean moving away from the film's true aim.

It is not important to know the whole truth about what happens, but the moral quandary the main character has to bear. And not only his, but also that of the remaining jurors, concerning their responsibility with what is right, in contrast to their own personal interests and prejudices. If it doesn't suit me, I dismiss it, no matter how much my decision could affect someone else, and depicting this kind of behaviour, as despicable as it is, but also inherently human, is part of the film's goal. In this regard, nothing more obvious than Justin himself, constantly trying to get away with what he thinks it might be his fault, without having to bear the consequences of that hypothetical guilt, while trying to prevent an innocent person from ending up in prison. Even Harold, as worried as he was about the possibility of Sythe not being guilty, and who always behaved accordingly (even doing things which could get him into trouble) while he served as a juror, apparently forgot about it (he never shows up in the plot again) once he got dismissed and went back to his everyday life.

As usual, there are people who explains it all much better than I do, and this is why I'll leave a couple of links taken from ROGERT EBERT's website, for those who might be interested and can read english. On the first one, journalist CHRISTY LEMIRE makes a brief and to the point review of the movie, and on the second, MATT ZOLLER takes a step or two further, addressing the controversy of the release with a very accurate title. I have allowed myself to borrow a couple of things from both, which have been already commented. Very interesting readings, the two of them.

JUROR #2 / CHRISTY LEMIRE

A PROPHET IS WITHOUT HONOR IN HIS OWN COUNTRY / MATT ZOLLER

It is, indeed, a story about people. But about flawed and burdened people, who have a tense conscience and operate in a moral grey area (in which Eastwood probably finds himself as of today, and from some time ago, regarding his own social and political convictions, and even more if we consider how some of the characters of his most famous movies have evolved) in which nothing can be taken for granted and no one seems to know what is right or wrong. One of the most recurring considerations the plot offers to the audience is the usual what would I do was I in the same situation? Because this is all about difficult choices and the toll of doing what is right, and the spectator becomes, somehow, another juror. The jury also becomes a suspect, given its behaviour, and so does a system brimming with flaws.

When I wrote about the entirety of Eastwood's body of work, and about him and his life as a whole, I mentioned there were many movies in his filmography that could be deemed as minor (in the absence of a better word), because they had not been as successful as others and they were not among his most famous works. But I also said that some of them have been paramount in his career, and most of them quite valuable. Well, Juror #2 could be within that group, but with an honourable mention, given all its virtues on every front. One of his most low profile films which could easily be much less talked about had it been created in the nineties, for example, instead of being, perhaps, his last one. Even with all the controversy about its premiere and what I have just mentioned, it will most likely remain far from the impact, in the shape of success and awards, of films like Mystic River or MILLION DOLLAR BABY, or achievements with the status of cinema icons like Unforgiven or his perennial role as HARRY CALLAHAN. Come what may, Clint has done it again. This is one of those films which I'm sure they get better every time you remember them, or you read or talk about them, and as far as I am concerned, also after having seen it twice again, something that has helped a lot to fill in the gaps of the first plot I had written.

If you did not get to see it at a theatre, go look for it on Max (it was indeed premiered on it on the 20th of December). It could be the last time.

Thanks Clint, once more.

Clint Eastwood. Nothing to prove

It makes me happy to know that my mum got to read some of the things I had to say about, in her own words, my favourite actor. This is all for her.

We love you mum, and we miss you. More than can be put into words.

Cheers!