We are living in an era where every film is either an expensive, massively audacious endeavour or a more intimate undertaking where a lower budget and more scarce resources are no longer seen as an obstacle, but rather a cause for celebration as the craft becomes more accessible. Unfortunately, this means that the mid-level budget drama is becoming endangered, which aligns with the gradual departure of the masters that defined this approach to filmmaking. Clint Eastwood is a divisive figure for several reasons, but there is an argument to be made that he is amongst the last of a generation of directors who set out to craft solid, entertaining works that did not need to be wildly ambitious or sprawling, but rather serve a very simple purpose, which is to offer reliable, well-crafted stories that keep the viewer enthralled. For over a decade, it has seemed like everyone’s work that Eastwood had made has been promoted as being his final directorial outing, which is understandable considering it stretches more than half a century. Yet, despite his advancing age, he has nevertheless always found time to make another film, with some of his most memorable work being made in the last few years. His most recent offering – and the one that seems like it legitimately could be his swan song – is Juror #2, a fascinating legal drama in which Eastwood tells the story of Justin, a mild-mannered journalist and dedicated family man who is summoned for jury duty, and despite his hesitations at being subjected to such an inconvenience, is dedicated to his civic responsibilities, which turns out to be a murder case in which a young man is accused of murdering his girlfriend. However, while observing the case and hearing the facts, the protagonist comes to a startling realization – he was present the night of the murder, and while he recalls leaving and seemingly hitting a deer with his car, something that he begins to call into question once he hears more facts from the case, plunging him into a state of immense guilt as he realizes that he might be responsible for the death and that he might be involved in sending an innocent man to prison for a crime he did not commit. Solid, rapid-fire filmmaking from a master of the medium, Juror #2 is a fantastic, well-crafted courtroom drama that once again proves that Eastwood is as skilled today as he was at his peak, even when working with something relatively conventional.

On the surface, Juror #2 seems like quite a traditional courtroom drama, and it certainly is not a case where we are misled into thinking this film is something entirely different than it ends up being, which is a trait we’d expect from more rambunctious filmmakers that believe that subversion is the only path towards artistic integrity. Eastwood is a director who values convention but doesn’t rely on it, and this film demonstrates his ability to merge tradition with innovation in subtle but fascinating ways. The core of this comes in the subject matter – this is a fairly commonplace courtroom drama, following the day-to-day routine of the various people who occupy these institutions, with a particular focus on the jury, who are ordinary citizens who are brought in to become temporary additions to the establishment, and essentially have the unenviable task of deciding the fate of someone whose entire future rests in their hands. It’s far from the first work to explore the efforts of these people to work out the challenges that come with such a process (in fact, one of the great pieces of American theatre is 12 Angry Men, with which this film shares quite a few thematic and tonal similarities), but it is one that we’ve seen become increasingly rarer as time has progressed since there’s a belief that audiences don’t necessarily want to see a film about a dozen people bantering and bickering before concluding as to whether someone is innocent or guilty. Yet, somehow Eastwood not only manages to make a film that overcomes these obstacles, but he does so in a way that is thoroughly engaging and entertaining, which he does through focusing on both the process itself and the people behind it – far too many legal dramas focus on the didactic theoretical frameworks and tend to get weighed down by the details, whereas Juror #2 is more focused on the human side of the process, looking at the trials and tribulations of jurors, as seen through the eyes of someone who has to hide the fact that he has a vested interest in this case that extends far beyond his expectations as a juror, something that the film deconstructs incredibly well by taking quite a unique approach to the narrative structure and how it is unfurled throughout the film, which proves to be more compelling than we may initially expect.

The success of Juror #2 doesn’t depend on either it’s straight-laced, attentive understanding of the legal process, or on its ability to subvert expectations and present something entirely different – instead, it comes from the collision of convention and subversion, a balance that we find is quite elusive in the majority of contemporary American cinema when it comes to films that address these sacrosanct institutions, but which are not as static as we may expect. The appeal of this comes in how Eastwood sets out to challenge traditions of the courtroom drama – he’s not necessarily promising an entirely reworked approach to the genre, but rather one that is more intricate and compelling based on the angles from which certain subjects are approached. We all have seen enough media to know how the American legal system functions on a superficial level, with the general terminology and structure being well-known to all of us, which is more than enough knowledge to understand this film. What the film does do differently is add layers onto these elements, crafting a film that is as much about how broken the judicial system is as it is a deeply unsettling story of guilt and paranoia, and how this can fester in the mind of someone who realizes that he may be on the precipice of getting away with murder, but finds himself as a moral crossroads, knowing that he is essentially playing a part in sending someone innocent to prison, but also refusing to put himself in the same position, leading to an enormous existential crisis. Eastwood manages to effectively avoid all the common tropes of the genre – the court proceedings are not elongated, and there’s a lack of overtly heavy-handed hysterics for the most part, and instead the majority of the film oscillates between the jury deliberations (which are electrifying, and perhaps even tinged with layers of subversive humour that adds a touch of levity to quite a dour narrative), and the protagonist’s efforts to quietly ensure that his involvement in the crime is concealed, working to cover up the cracks that he didn’t realize could potentially lead to him paying the same consequences he has been tasked with determining for another individual. It’s a fascinating approach, and the director extracts every bit of nuance from this already complex story, executing it in a breezy, wildly entertaining manner.

Situated right at the core of Juror #2 is a fantastic performance from Nicholas Hoult, an actor who has proven his incredible versatility and skill for over two decades, yet still feels oddly underpraised, at least in terms of the recognition he deserves. This film isn’t necessarily the kind that anyone would expect to contain an actor’s best work, and Hoult has such a storied career filled with diverse roles, that we can’t honestly position this as his greatest performance. Instead, it is proof that he’s one of our most reliable leading men – he’s fully immersed in every element of the film, taking on the challenging role of this dedicated young man trying to recede into a pleasant suburban life with his wife and unborn child, but who finds himself plunged into a state of interminable paranoia as a result of the realization that he is a juror observing a case of someone accused for a crime he realizes he committed (although the film is quite clear to not draw any definitive conclusions, although it does lean heavily in favour of a particular answer to the central question), and who suddenly realizes his sheltered life is on the verge of changing. Hoult is fantastic in the film, particularly since he possesses that rare quality of being both a magnetic screen presence who constantly captures our attention, and someone who can play into the darker themes without coming across as inauthentic. It’s an exceptional performance that once again relies quite heavily on traditions, but which does so in a decidedly more elegant, nuanced manner. Hoult is joined by a terrific supporting cast, which includes Toni Collette (reuniting with Hoult for the first time in over twenty years since About a Boy) as the conflicted prosecutor caught at her crossroads, having to choose between her duty as a legal professional and her political ambitions, as well as the always-wonderful J.K. Simmons, who is at the stage of his career where he simply makes a film better based on his presence, which has never been more captivating in its simplicity than here. Even the bit parts played by lesser-known actors portraying the jurors add to the vibrant cast of characters that gives Juror #2 such a distinctive tone and elevates it far beyond the middle-of-the-road courtroom drama it would be in another director’s hands.

Juror #2 is a terrific film, a complex and engaging courtroom drama that seems to be driven by conventions at first but proves to have some unexpected depth that may not indicate its intentions to be a revolutionary take on the genre, but rather a well-crafted, deeply compelling work of traditional, mid-level filmmaking that is unfortunately gradually being replaced by works on either side of the spectrum, which makes us yearn for the day when masters like Eastwood were at their peak, being able to craft these captivating genre projects without needing to worry about being entirely original or daring, knowing that audiences would be receptive, regardless of quality. Mercifully, Juror #2 is exceptionally well-made, with even the technical elements reminding us of a prior era for the genre, where it didn’t need to feel like a brooding, atmospheric work steeped in philosophical and existential inquiry, but could instead just be a rapid-fire legal thriller that follows a clear pattern, but does so with exceptional skill and technical mastery. It may not be entirely creative or ambitious in scope or form, but Juror #2 is still a tremendously enjoyable work, avoiding being too verbose or intellectually, but also avoiding the temptation to aim for the low-hanging fruit, choosing to retain some semblance of artistry, even if it still orbits around the kind of pulpy, conventional storytelling we often found in these films during their heyday. It is never easy to discuss whether a film is going to be a director’s last, but Eastwood has had a lengthy career, and while nothing has been definitively said (and in any case, every film he has made since Gran Torino has been marketed as being his swan song), Juror #2 would be a solid epilogue for a director who has occupied his specific niche for fifty years, and who proves his skill has not eroded with age, having the same energetic approach to the narrative process as he did when he was at his prime. Juror #2 is one of the year’s most delightful surprises, and proof that consistency and earnestness can be perfectly reasonable substitutes for subversion and ambition when done correctly, which is exactly the case with this tremendous film.