Juror #2

Posted on October 25, 2024 at 5:46 pm

B-

Lowest Recommended Age:	High School
MPAA Rating:	Rated PG-13 for PG-13 for some violent images and strong language
Profanity:	Some strong language
Alcohol/ Drugs:	Drinking, drunkenness, and alcoholism
Violence/ Scariness:	Murder trial, graphic and disturbing descriptions and images of dead body
Diversity Issues:	None
Date Released to Theaters:	November 1, 2024

“Juror #2,” directed by Clint Eastwood, has a preposterous premise and a first-rate cast valiantly trying to make it seem less preposterous. Nicholas Hoult plays Justin, a teacher whose wife Allison (Zoey Deutch) is nearing the end of a high-risk pregnancy. Justin has just been called for jury duty. He tries to get out of it by explaining his situation, but the judge (the always excellent Amy Aquino), dryly points out that his hours in the courtroom will keep him away from his wife no longer than his hours at work.

He is assigned to a criminal case. James Michael Sythe (Gabriel Basso) has been charged with the murder of his girlfriend, Kendall (played in flashbacks by Eastwood’s daughter, Francesca Eastwood). Arguing the high-profile case are prosecutor Faith Killebrew (Toni Collette) and Eric Resnick (Chris Messina), Faith’s law school classmate and sometime drinking buddy, a public defender trying to persuade the jury that his client is innocent.

As the lawyers make their opening arguments, telling the story of the night Kendall was killed following an argument with Sythe in a rowdy bar (the bar is even named Rowdy’s, just to make sure we get the point), it begins to dawn on Justin that he was at Rowdy’s that night and saw the argument. As someone who really does not want to be there and told his wife he would do whatever it took to get out of serving, he completely ignores the fact that that memory in and of itself would be a reason to alert the judge that he is a material witness and cannot serve as a juror. But no, instead he thinks more about what happened that night and realizes that while he thought he hit a deer as he was driving home from the bar in a heavy downpour, he may have, indeed he probably did hit Kendall and is responsible for her death. And he decides on two equally important goals: not letting an innocent man be convicted of murder and keeping himself out of prison.

That’s a LOT! And then everything keeps getting melodramatically ramped up even further. Faith is running for District Attorney on a platform of protecting the community from crime, with the election just days away and apparently the vote depending on the outcome of this case. Justin is in recovery and his AA sponsor is a lawyer (Kiefer Sutherland) who advises him not to come forward. And then we are in jury deliberations a la “12 Angry Men,” with an assortment of characters. On the first round of voting, Justin is the only “not guilty.” He has to try to persuade the rest of the jury that there is reasonable doubt without letting them know about his own involvement.

One of the other jurors is a former cop (J.K. Simmons). Another is a med student. Their expertise shifts the balance, but the central question ends up being whether anyone can change.

Eastwood is 94 and outspoken about his political views (remember his debate with the empty chair?). A few cranky old guy elements flicker in and out of the film. It’s more than a low-grade potboiler with high-grade actors for him. He wants to say something about his worldview and he is not subtle. The first image in the film is Allison wearing a blindfold as Justin leads her into the room he has prepared for the baby. This is the part of a movie where usually, in the least time possible, we get to know the main characters well enough to care about whatever challenges lay before them. But Eastwood wants to say something beyond the adorable couple so excited about the new baby and so devoted to each other. The blindfold comes back a few more times in the statue of Justice in front of the courthouse, the one of the woman holding up the scales, with a blindfold over her eyes.

If he wants what may be his final film to make a statement about the inadequacies of the criminal justice system, though, it is one that is muddled by (1) a retired police detective who is dedicated and capable (though willing to act outside the law), and (2) see “preposterous” and “melodramatically” above.

Parents should know that this is the story of a murder case and there are graphic and disturbing images of the body as well as flashbacks showing the suspect and the victim drunk and fighting with each other.

Family discussion: What should Justin have done and when? What should Faith have done and when?

If you like this, try; “12 Angry Men,” “Reservation Road,” “The Judge,” and John Grisham films like “The Rainmaker” and “The Client”

Richard Jewell

Posted on December 12, 2019 at 5:42 pm

B-

Lowest Recommended Age:	High School
MPAA Rating:	Rated R for language including some sexual references, and brief bloody images
Profanity:	Very strong language
Alcohol/ Drugs:	Alcohol
Violence/ Scariness:	Bombing, explosions, characters injured and killed, brief disturbing images
Diversity Issues:	Portrayal of female professional using sex to manipulate men
Date Released to Theaters:	December 14, 2019
Date Released to DVD:	March 16, 2020

Erik Erikson said that at each stage of life we have a choice between growth, learning, and compassion and fear, immaturity, and self-absorption. The final choice he posed was for old age, when people have to choose between ego integrity (satisfaction and completeness at the end of life, a sense of having made a difference) or despair (being lost, lacking a sense of purpose). (I highly recommend “Everybody Rides the Carousel,” an animated film from John and Faith Hubley, illustrating Erikson’s theories.) Two big end-of-the-year releases by two men, one in his 70’s, the other almost 90, seem to come down on different sides.

Martin Scorsese’s “The Irishman” is a movie by old men about what it is to be old, to be looking back on the choices you’ve made and the consequences they have had. The characters in the film, based on real people and their sometimes questionable stories, committed brutal crimes. The movie never excuses their behavior, but it portrays them in a complex, humane, elegiac manner.

89-year-old Clint Eastwood has made “Richard Jewell,” also based on a true story, this one about a man who was accused of a crime he did not commit. Richard Jewell (Paul Walter Hauser) was pudgy and his social skills were uneven. He was fascinated with order and authority and wanted very much to be a police officer. He lived with his mother and he had a lot of guns (“This is Georgia,” he shrugs.) He fit the profile and was an easy target in a city desperate to keep the international athletes, IOC officials, and media confident that everything was under control.

One of three films this month about real-life heroic lawyers who fought near-insurmountable odds to bring justice (the other two are “Dark Waters” and “Just Mercy”), this could have been a heartwarming story, but Eastwood’s cranky “get off my lawn” perspective cannot resist overdoing it as though he was talking to an empty chair. Instead of a movie about a guy who was the victim of the FBI under pressure to find a culprit and the media frantic to find a story. Eastwood is so sure we will not be able to figure out who the bad guys are that he all but has them wear signs.

It isn’t just this FBI agent who is wrong; it’s the government. And it isn’t this reporter or this newspaper that is wrong; it’s the media. It is not enough that the reporter’s first reaction on hearing that there has been a bombing is to hope that the bomber is story-worthy. Eastwood has to make her trade sex for information. (She is dead now, but her newspaper has demanded that the movie make clear it is not an accurate representation.) Our hero, meaning the lawyer, played by the always-great Sam Rockwell, has a bumper sticker in his office that says, “I fear government more than I fear terrorism.” JUST IN CASE WE DON’T GET THE POINT.

It’s a shame because the story has an even more important lesson in this era of social media, citizen “journalists” and milkshake ducks. But the shrill tone of the film gets in the way, especially in its portrayal of the reporter as not just irresponsible about the facts but willing to trade sex for a story. Pro tip: if you are going to make a movie about how terrible it is that the media exaggerates and lies, try not to do that in the movie itself.

Parents should know that this movie includes very strong language and a bombing with some brief disturbing images. Characters drink alcohol and a woman use sex to get information.

Family discussion: Why was Richard Jewell a suspect? Why did Watson believe him?

If you like this, try: “Sully” and “American Sniper” from the same director

Beguiled — The Male and Female Gaze

Posted on June 29, 2017 at 3:52 pm

The best way to see Sofia Coppola’s “Beguiled” is to pair it with the original version, starring Clint Eastwood and directed by Don Siegel. Her film is really in conversation with the 1971 version. Both are the story of a wounded Union soldier who disrupts the lives of the women at a sheltered Southern boarding school in the midst of the Civil War. Each reflects its time as well as its director. Don Siegel directed such testosteronic classics as “Dirty Harry” and “The Killers.” In his version, the schoolmistress played by Geraldine Page is a bit unhinged (she had an incestuous relationship with her brother). The sudden arrival of a man (a literal enemy) is profoundly unsettling to all of the women but the implication is that the absence of men put them on the brink.

One reason Sofia Coppola decided to do a remake for the first time was to tell the story from the perspective of the women, and that has provoked some especially thoughtful commentary. In her version, the women are generally stronger and more resilient. Coppola’s decision to omit a slave character has drawn some criticism, but she said that she could not do justice to the character and that she wanted the girls and their teachers to feel abandoned and to be forced to learn to take care of themselves.

The New York Times wrote:

Ms. Coppola said that she did not give any thought to a female gaze, but that she did see differences in how she and Siegel handled the same material. “Siegel told his film from a male perspective of a guy surrounded by crazy women. I tell mine through the filter of women’s frustrated desires,” she said in a phone interview this month. She recalled that when Anne Ross, her frequent production designer, suggested that she watch the 1971 film, at the end the director thought, Let’s tell the women’s side of this. In Siegel’s version, the women are cast to type as slut, spinster, servant and so on, as if they represented the spectrum of female humanity. Ms. Coppola, who unlike Siegel is not judgmental about female sexuality, has more developed characters for the women.

On Rogerebert.com, Susan Wloszczyna writes about both versions, frankly admitting that she prefers the first.

I gave a pass to the Sunday-best sort of clothes that his keepers wear to impress McBurney, which are somehow crisp and wrinkle-free in such humidity. But then Coppola has the seven females don satin ball gowns with perfectly braided hair and fancy ribbons while serving a sumptuous Michelin-star worthy feast to the soldier on fancy china and crystal. Weirdly, we get to witness one of the younger students don a corset Scarlett O’Hara-style when she clearly doesn’t need one. Perhaps, by this time, the director can get away with such a fantasy sequence that feels like a War Between the States-themed prom.

The Famous Families of the Longest Ride Cast

Posted on April 10, 2015 at 3:55 pm

The cast of this week’s big release, the Nicholas Sparks movie “The Longest Ride,” includes three actors with some of Hollywood’s biggest stars in their family trees. It’s a good reminder to check out some of their best films.

Scott Eastwood plays Luke, the rodeo rider. It is obvious from his face as well as his name that his father is Oscar-winning actor/producer/director Clint Eastwood. Here are three samples from Eastwood’s long and varied career.

Jack Huston plays Ira as a young man in the 1940’s. Houston comes from Hollywood royalty. His grandfather, great-grandfather, and aunt have all won Oscars. What’s really nice is that his grandfather, John Huston, was the director of both the Oscar-winning performances of his father, Walter Huston (in “The Treasure of the Sierra Madre”) and his daughter, Anjelica Huston (in “Prizzi’s Honor”).

Walter Huston won his Oscar for “The Treasure of the Sierra Madre.”

But my favorite Walter Huston performance is in “Dodsworth.” The look on his face in the last scene is unforgettable.

John Huston directed some of the greatest films of all time, including “The Maltese Falcon,” “Key Largo,” and “The African Queen.”

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wjIAM0ixzY

He had some memorable acting roles, too, especially in “Chinatown.”

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UPfrCIKhEoA

Jack’s aunt Anjelica starred in many films including “The Witches,” “The Addams Family” and its sequel, “The Grifters,” “Crimes and Misdemeanors,” and “The Royal Tenenbaums.”

And his uncle Danny starred in television’s “Magic City” and “American Horror Story” and played a key role in Tim Burton’s “Big Eyes.”

Ira’s wife is played by Oona Chaplin, whose grandfather and great-grandfather were two of the greatest talents of the 20th century. Her grandfather was Charlie Chaplin.

She is named for her grandmother, Oona O’Neill, the daughter of playwright Eugene O’Neill.

And her mother is Geraldine Chaplin, who appeared in several films, including “Doctor Zhivago.”

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m2EVab2FgLg

Ira as an old man is played by Alan Alda, who is also the son of a well-known performer, Robert Alda, who originated the role of Skye Masterson in the Broadway musical “Guys and Dolls.” Here he is doing a duet on an old television show.

You can see the progeny of these stars in “The Longest Ride” trailer.

And watch out for more next-generation performers coming soon!

More on “Jersey Boys” Director Clint Eastwood

Posted on June 27, 2014 at 4:28 pm

Clint Eastwood is not a favorite of mine as an actor or a director, though I appreciate some of his work. I think his best performance may have been in Gran Torino, which he also directed. But as a director, he was able to create the movie around his strengths as an actor and around our relationship with him as a performer and persona.

I like “Letters from Iwo Jima,” and think his first film as a director, Play Misty for Me is a nice little thriller. But he completely missed the mark in adapting one of my favorite books, Midnight in the Garden of Good and Evil and I really dislike his Oscar-winner “Million Dollar Baby,” which I thought showed his greatest faults as a director in it heavy-handedness and lack of trust for the audience.

I give him credit for trying to sing in “Paint Your Wagon.”

He did all right with “Jersey Boys,” but it could have been better. Christy Lemire, who agrees with me that it is only pretty good, has an interesting piece about Eastwood’s own take on his films, commenting on his six favorites. Bilge Ebiri wrote a thoughtful assessment of Eastwood for Rolling Stone.

There are, you could argue, two Clint Eastwoods. One is the strong, near-silent type, the man with no name but a pair of Colt revolvers or a .44 Magnum, the lean avenging angel who asks if you feel lucky, punk, and would care to make his day. Whether he’s a tough cop, a tough cowboy, a tough secret-service agent, a tough military man, a tough experimental-jet-fighter pilot or a tough racist old coot, the part is a variation on Eastwood’s screen persona. His status as a macho icon was cast in immovable granite early on; to many, Eastwood is still the man who wielded suggestively-long barreled guns and doled out ruthless justice to criminals and assorted thugs. He is Dirty Harry, by any other name.

Then there’s the Clint behind the camera, the classicist who evokes old-school filmmakers like John Ford and Eastwood’s mentor Don Siegel, the guy who likes to keep things nice and easy on the set, and never likes to do more than a few takes. The director who makes movies that feel ambivalent about taking the law into your own hands, and biopics about jazz musicians, and a genuine tearjerker about a love between two late-in-life romantics that could not be. The serious gentleman who gets nominated for, and occasionally wins, Oscars. The Clint Eastwood who adapts a megapopular Broadway musical for the big screen.

And Andrew Romano calls him the most overrated director in The Daily Beast.

His style is largely procedural. As Esquire’s Tom Junod has written, “the Clint Movie is itself defined by what he won’t do. He won’t go over budget. He won’t go over schedule. He won’t storyboard. He won’t produce a shot list. He won’t rehearse. He doesn’t say “Action” … and he doesn’t say “Cut.” He won’t, in the words of his friend Morgan Freeman, “shoot a foot of film until the script is done,” and once the script is done, he won’t change it. He doesn’t heed the notes supplied by studio executives…He won’t accept the judgment of test screenings…He is well-known for his first takes—for expecting his actors and crew to be prepared for them and for moving on if he gets what he wants.”

I’m not sure that makes him the most overrated, but I agree that he is more serviceable than inspired.

Related Tags:

Commentary Directors