Review of “Juror No. 2”: Nicholas Hoult, stuck in a moral quagmire

Is a small-scale human drama now considered an eccentric, unclassifiable studio release? Even though it’s directed by Hollywood icon and Oscar-winning filmmaker Clint Eastwood? Check out the nonagenarian’s latest film, “Juror #2,” with a flawless cast including Nicholas Hoult, JK Simmons and Tony Collette (but being unceremoniously thrown into a handful of theaters this weekend), we’re struck by what’s happening not inside: star assaults, superheroes (or even regular heroes), physics-defying brawls, brand messages and CGI.

Indeed, the film constitutes an anomaly in our world focused on intellectual property. What is on offer, however, is a gently probing story about the moral seriousness of responsibility and guilt, developed from Jonathan Abrams’ patient script and screenplay. Eastwood’s reliable, simple and character-driven management. And no, not in a post-apocalyptic world brought on by catastrophic events, but in the recognizable nature of everyday life and in that everyday arena of judgment familiar to citizens everywhere: a municipal courthouse.

Ah, so a juicy thriller! Okay, calm down. While homicide is the charge tried in this beautiful mid-sized Georgia town by an enthusiastic prosecutor (Collette, quite good) who is also looking to win an election, the case against James (Gabriel Basso) – a tattooed murderer accused of killing his girlfriend one rainy night on a country road – is not so obvious, according to his competent lawyer (Chris Messina).

The film is not a conspiracy thriller. But dishonesty is the order of the day, and the pool it creates is slippery. The defendant’s situation becomes clearer to one person, the title juror, Justin (Hoult), a soft-spoken young man whose time on the jury initially seems like a pesky obligation to escape while he and his wife (Zoey Deutch) are nervously expecting their first child. However, things quickly become complicated when the facts of the case privately remind Justin of a driving incident in his recent past, one that could have a potentially devastating impact on his own life. (I’m remaining vague to preserve the film’s modest revelations.)

So while “Juror #2” isn’t a white-knuckle film, it is a slow-burning conscience trap, as well as a sharp prism through which to test our own ethics. The position Justin finds himself in – which sends him to his AA sponsor (Kiefer Sutherland) for advice, but not his wife – is treated as a rolling dilemma of the soul.

There are ripple effects throughout the story, affecting many aspects of our justice system, from substandard investigations that breed confirmation bias to trials motivated by political expediency and our need good stories rather than truth. On television, juries are usually made up of common archetypes, but here we are treated to a room made up of diverse and presumably well-meaning citizens who may want justice, but who also have lives that define their perspectives, a life they want to return to. (Don’t expect the theatrical histrionics of “12 Angry Men,” either.)

Anchored in performances that refuse to tell us what to think (especially Hoult’s wary calm), “Juror #2” deftly depicts how, in practice, the ideal of blind justice too easily becomes the shortsighted genre and look away. And even though race and class aren’t explicitly addressed, it’s impossible not to view our protagonist’s actions through a lens of ready-made privilege that Eastwood doesn’t dissuade us from thinking about.

If “Juror #2” is the final effort from this all-time great filmmaker, it may feel like a quiet goodbye: measured conversations replacing the well-known violence and death of his work. But in its relaxed professionalism, it’s still a valid final argument for what Eastwood has always cared about most: how we live as much as how we die and, ultimately, what dooms us all.