Juror No. 2

In Savannah, Georgia, journalist and recovering alcoholic Justin Kemp is called up for jury duty on a case concerning Kendall Carter's death, who, a year prior, had a fight with her boyfriend James Sythe at a local bar, and was later found dead under a bridge. Sythe is charged with her murder.

Hoping to attract voters with a high-profile domestic violence conviction in her run for district attorney, Faith Killebrew acts as prosecutor. Witnesses confirm Sythe was drunk and disorderly on the night in question and that he followed Kendall after she stormed off. Additionally, the coroner testifies that her injuries were consistent with a battery by a blunt instrument, and an eyewitness claims they saw Sythe where Kendall's body was thrown from.

Justin realizes he might have killed Kendall when, on the night of her death, he hit something with his car after nearly relapsing at the bar Sythe and Carter were at. Assuming he had hit a deer and unable to find it, Justin drove home.

Horrified that an innocent man might be convicted, Justin asks his Alcoholics Anonymous sponsor Larry for advice, as he is a defense attorney. He informs Justin that due to his prior DUIs, no one will believe he was sober, so he would be imprisoned. Larry adds that the jury must reach a verdict: Killebrew has tied the case to her election campaign and will try it as many times as necessary, so holding out and forcing a mistrial will not save Sythe.

Justin resolves to argue for a not-guilty verdict, using his own sobering story to prove that Sythe is capable of change, but Sythe's public defender, Eric Resnick, is overworked and makes several errors, failing to offer a competing medical opinion and not raising questions about poor nighttime visibility.

Most jurors favor a conviction, with retired detective Harold arguing, at Justin's suggestion to examine the case closely, that the eyewitness testimony could have been skewed by confirmation bias. Another juror confirms there would have been low visibility, and a medical student points out that Kendall's injuries could be from a hit and run, a theory that many begin to agree with, causing Justin to fear he may be identified as the killer.

Harold breaks the jury rules by collecting data on body shop visits following Kendall's death, and the next day, says he has narrowed the search to fifteen vehicles, including Justin's. When presented with this, Justin strategically reveals Harold's research to the court and he gets disqualified from the jury.

Killebrew grows conflicted about the case, realizing law enforcement primed the eyewitness to identify Sythe at trial. Despite her duty of candor, she refuses to withdraw the charge. She takes the repair records and visits each of the vehicles' owners.

Justin's vehicle is on the list, but registered to his wife Ally, who parrots his cover story to Killebrew. Ally later confronts Justin, who admits to having been in the bar that night, without drinking, and repeats that he hit a deer, but on another road. Although skeptical, being pregnant and having previously miscarried, she keeps silent to protect their family.

After a fellow juror refuses to change his vote, Justin convinces the rest to vote to convict although is not present when the verdict is given. Sythe is sentenced to life without parole, and Killebrew discovers Justin is Ally's husband.

After the sentencing, Killebrew sits down with Justin, who vaguely suggests that if someone else accidentally killed Kendall, that person should not warrant harsh punishment. She argues that with an innocent man convicted, it is no longer an accident.

Justin points out that were Killebrew to go after another killer after pushing so hard for Sythe to be convicted, she would lose her position as DA, and a "good man" would see his life and family destroyed. He implores she leave the case alone, adding that Sythe had a history of violence.

Ally delivers the baby safely, Killebrew is elected DA, and Resnick never follows up on Harold's leads. Justin sells his car to destroy his connection to the crime, but as he and Ally are playing with their daughter, Killebrew knocks on their door.

It was announced in April 2023 that filmmaker Clint Eastwood had set the project as his next film,^[4] with Nicholas Hoult and Toni Collette in negotiations to star.^[5] They were confirmed the following month, with Zoey Deutch and Kiefer Sutherland also joining the cast,^[6][7] and Gabriel Basso entering negotiations for a role.^[8] In June, Leslie Bibb was added to the cast.^[9] In November, Chris Messina joined the cast while Basso was confirmed.^[10] J. K. Simmons, Amy Aquino, Adrienne C. Moore, Cedric Yarbrough, Chikako Fukuyama, Onix Serrano and Francesca Eastwood were added in December.^[11][12]

For Collette and Hoult, it would be their reunion on the big screen 22 years after playing mother and son in About a Boy (2002). For Deutch and Hoult, it would be the second time they have been seen on screen, after working together on the film Rebel in the Rye (2017).^{[citation needed]}

Production began in June 2023, when Eastwood was 93 years old,^[4] with filming locations including Savannah, Georgia, and Los Angeles,^[13][14] before it was suspended in July due to the 2023 SAG-AFTRA strike.^[15] Production resumed in November upon the conclusion of the strike.^[10]

Post-production had wrapped by April 2024.^[16] Mark Mancina composed the score for the film; he previously worked on Eastwood's Cry Macho (2021).^[17]

Juror #2 premiered as the closing film of the 38th edition of the film festival AFI Fest on October 27, 2024; the event continues a long-standing relationship between Eastwood and the American Film Institute (AFI), which previously launched the world premieres of American Sniper (2014), J. Edgar (2011), and Richard Jewell (2019) at the festival.^[18]

Warner Bros. Pictures initially envisioned Juror #2 as a direct-to-streaming release on Max.^[2] However, Warner Bros. gave the film a limited release on November 1, 2024.^[19] The film was released in fewer than 50 domestic theaters, and Warner Bros. was expected to not report box office results.^[2] Variety characterized Warner Bros.' decision to deny the film a wide release as "a peculiar approach for a filmmaker who still has commercial appeal", noting that Eastwood had been making films for Warner Bros. for 50 years and was still delivering major commercial successes, including American Sniper (2014), Sully (2016), and The Mule (2018).^[2] Vulture's Bilge Ebiri suggested that Warner Bros.' decision implied deep problems with the modern-day studio system, suggesting that "Eastwood, for all his genre cred and iconic stature, is one of the few major filmmakers left making studio-financed adult dramas. To the modern studio executive, he must look like a glitch in the matrix – not an artist to be protected, but an error to be corrected."^[20]

The film's atypical release drew further controversy when Warner Bros. announced that the film would debut on Max on December 20, 2024, branded as a Max original. A spokesperson for the studio claimed that a direct-to-streaming release was the original intent, and that they agreed with the filmmakers to reconsider a limited theatrical run in order to generate word-of-mouth ahead of the Max release.^[21]

The film received a wide release in the UK, showing at more than 300 cinemas nationwide.^[22]

In the United States, the film opened in 35 theaters and grossed an estimated $90,000 on its first day and $260–270,000 over the weekend; Warner Bros. did not report official numbers, to reportedly "save face" for Eastwood "by avoiding any negative box office headlines".^[23] Internationally, the film grossed $5 million from six territories in its opening weekend, including $3.1 million in France.^[24]

On the review aggregator website Rotten Tomatoes, 93% of 122 critics' reviews are positive, with an average rating of 7.3/10. The website's consensus reads: "A legal thriller with a heavy conscience, Juror #2 is less a summation of Clint Eastwood's storied directorial career than another terrific reminder of his knack for plain-spoken drama."^[25] Metacritic, which uses a weighted average, assigned the film a score of 73 out of 100, based on 36 critics, indicating "generally favorable" reviews.^[26]

Vulture's Bilge Ebiri commented that Juror #2 inverts many tropes of the courtroom drama genre, writing that while in an ordinary legal thriller, "the system usually prevailed" and "justice would be served, even if it took a few extra tries", Eastwood's drama is a film "about how the system can fail even as everybody tries their best". He added that Eastwood's perspective is mirrored by his "own growing cynicism about the effectiveness of [government and legal] institutions".^[20]

Several critics noted that Juror #2 did not fit a traditional political narrative. IndieWire's Christian Zilko called the film "one of the best studio films of 2024", writing that while the film "introduces a reverence for law, order, and due process that seems to suit a lifelong conservative, it eventually reveals a more apolitical patriotism that’s uniquely Eastwoodian".^[27] The New Yorker's Richard Brody agreed that while Eastwood is "one of the most distinctive and original political filmmakers ... the politics [the film] brings to life is essentially, and forcefully, anti-political. ... Eastwood treats celebrity as a diabolical tool and sees the gap between publicity and reality as a trap door to hell."^[28]

The New York Times' Manohla Dargis praised the film and Hoult's performance, but commented that the visuals were more functional than impressive.^[29] Variety's Peter Debruge added that while "as always, Eastwood respects our intelligence", the film "ranks among his quietest films, forgoing spectacle in favor of self-reflection".^[30]

• Juror #2 at IMDb