'Juror #2 (2024)' is the latest film directed by Clint Eastwood, who continues to impress with the relative consistency of his output even as he continues to require more and more candles on his birthday cakes. Known for his reserved, to-the-point directing style that always brings his features in on time and under budget, the nonagenarian filmmaker clearly has an eye for cinema and the desire to continue contributing to it. There's pretty much nobody more experienced in Hollywood, and he clearly loves making movies enough to do it every couple of years despite being well past the age most folks want to retire. All that is to say that if Eastwood is involved, it's unlikely a picture is going to disappoint (although not impossible, *cough* 'The 15:17 To Paris (2017)' *cough*).
The best way I can describe the film, as well as most other Eastwood efforts, is solid. Someone on Letterboxd (I'm paraphrasing Matt Lynch, I think) said this could have been made at any point in the last 75 years and that's pretty much on the money. Although it does attempt to say something about truth, justice and the American way (it can't be a modern Eastwood movie without some good ol' fashioned conservatism), it isn't particularly contemporary in its themes or aesthetic. That isn't a bad thing, though. It plays like a take on '12 Angry men (1957)' but focus the morality play more specifically onto one person, a recovering alcoholic who thinks he holds the key to a 'not guilty' verdict but can't come completely clear for reasons I won't spoil. There is some focus on a couple of secondary characters and the way in which they each have to decide if the truth is more important than their personal gain, but the narrative is anchored around the protagonist and we very much experience the story from his point of view. It's interesting to see him navigate his dilemma, and the flick does a good job of getting you to think about what you'd do in his situation. It does skip over some key internal development at a certain point in order to generate a sense of suspense in the build-up to a reveal, and I feel as though this does a slight disservice to the film as it prevents us from fully grasping why the lead does what he ultimately does. Still, most of the experience is engaging both intellectually and emotionally.
The piece isn't massively affecting and it also isn't always the most compelling - or, perhaps, exciting - take on its genre, but there's a sense that it's close to the best version of itself possible and it's entertaining enough for what it is. The performances are all really good, the writing is relatively naturalistic, the cinematography is refined, and the direction is consistent. It's a solid movie, but it isn't really something you'd write home about. Then again, it's the sort of thing that will probably play differently for a certain generation. I could easily see it eventually being a sleeper hit on cable television for those who still consume their media that way. It's good, but not great. However, as I've said before, sometimes that's all you need. It's a nice Sunday afternoon movie.
The best way I can describe the film, as well as most other Eastwood efforts, is solid. Someone on Letterboxd (I'm paraphrasing Matt Lynch, I think) said this could have been made at any point in the last 75 years and that's pretty much on the money. Although it does attempt to say something about truth, justice and the American way (it can't be a modern Eastwood movie without some good ol' fashioned conservatism), it isn't particularly contemporary in its themes or aesthetic. That isn't a bad thing, though. It plays like a take on '12 Angry men (1957)' but focus the morality play more specifically onto one person, a recovering alcoholic who thinks he holds the key to a 'not guilty' verdict but can't come completely clear for reasons I won't spoil. There is some focus on a couple of secondary characters and the way in which they each have to decide if the truth is more important than their personal gain, but the narrative is anchored around the protagonist and we very much experience the story from his point of view. It's interesting to see him navigate his dilemma, and the flick does a good job of getting you to think about what you'd do in his situation. It does skip over some key internal development at a certain point in order to generate a sense of suspense in the build-up to a reveal, and I feel as though this does a slight disservice to the film as it prevents us from fully grasping why the lead does what he ultimately does. Still, most of the experience is engaging both intellectually and emotionally.
The piece isn't massively affecting and it also isn't always the most compelling - or, perhaps, exciting - take on its genre, but there's a sense that it's close to the best version of itself possible and it's entertaining enough for what it is. The performances are all really good, the writing is relatively naturalistic, the cinematography is refined, and the direction is consistent. It's a solid movie, but it isn't really something you'd write home about. Then again, it's the sort of thing that will probably play differently for a certain generation. I could easily see it eventually being a sleeper hit on cable television for those who still consume their media that way. It's good, but not great. However, as I've said before, sometimes that's all you need. It's a nice Sunday afternoon movie.