codefool

In perhaps his most intense movie, Clint Eastwood gives us a story of torn conscience and the very real costs of doing the right thing. It doesn't go well. It is - imho - his most dramatic effort of his directing career.

Interesting casting choice is that most of the actors are virtually unknown, with only Toni Collette, J. K. Simmons, and Kiefer Sutherland the only real recognizable faces (with slight exception of Leslie Bibb of "Law Abiding Citizen.") So the jury has an "everyman" feel which you can't really assume what they will do based on past character "types."

But the major conflict concerns Justin Kemp (Hoult) who gets placed on a jury for an event to which he was an actual witness if not a participant. He is told that he must judge the case based solely on the evidence presented, but he knows things that no one else does, so what to do? He eventually seeks advice from a lawyer (Sutherland) who is also his AA sponsor, who gives him very bad advice to keep quiet or he will go to jail for life. He has a baby on the way after losing twins and feels he needs to be there for his family. But is even that worth living with the idea that an innocent man goes to jail?

Now, this is very bad advice. A jury is to be impartial, and (in real life) Kemp, having heard the opening statements, should have raised his hand and informed the court of his involvement.

As it is, Kemp tries to get the jury to acquit, and we pass through familiar moments of 12 Angry Men while they deliberations drag on. Eventually, the prosecutor (Collette) decides to do some investigation (which should have been done at the start) and we get shadows of My Cousin Vinny.

Unfortunately, in the end, Eastwood leaves us with nothing. I won't give it away, but we don't know what happens. We can guess, and I guess that's the point, but it's not satisfying.

Worth a watch.