JUROR #2-Clint Eastwood's Courtroom Drama Earns a C+

Clint Eastwood, movie star, award winning director is 94 and still making movies. JUROR #2 is an old fashioned courtroom drama that casts doubt on his current filmmaking prowess. The problems in the plot render a C+ verdict despite convincing performances by Toni Collette as the prosecuting attorney, Chris Messina as the defense attorney and Nicholas Holt as Justin, a.k.a. juror #2. The promising premise places Justin onto the jury of a murder trial. The jury pool is questioned by the judge for any conflicts of interest. Justin's plea to be excused rests with his high risk pregnant wife (Zoey Deutch) needing him home. This doesn't fly with the judge and he's seated as juror #2. The reluctance to serve was relatable. Soon, the real conflict of interest is revealed. Justin may be the actual culprit culpable of vehicular manslaughter and defendant, innocent of the murder charge. In flashback Justin is placed at the scene of the conflict in a bar down the road from the scene of the crime. The defendant and his girlfriend (played by Eastwood's daughter) were witnessed engaged in a heated altercation at the same bar in question.  Fact, Justin left the bar at the same time as the boyfriend and was driving nearby when he struck something (or someone?) on the road. Justin exits his car in the rainstorm to check for evidence of what he may have hit. He's unable to see anything other than a conveniently placed deer crossing sign. This seemingly innocent fender bending accident is dismissed by Justin who continues home to his pregnant wife. Only now that he is on the jury does Justin recall to the best of his ability, the incident. Justin turns to his AA leader, who's also an attorney (Keiffer Sutherland) for legal advice. The questionable advice he receives for $1 (to insure confidentiality) is beyond a reasonable doubt, if not immoral. "Don't inform anyone of this. You're likely to be charged with vehicular manslaughter. With your past DUI, you are likely be found guilty and sentenced to 30 years." The drama in the courtroom is only mildly entertaining. More enjoyable are the warring attorney's bombastic styles which belies their friendly banter outside the courts at the local bar. J.K. Rowlings is winning as a juror who gets dismissed for doing detective work (his former occupation) outside the trial which could influence the outcome. But the jury deliberations are shamelessly,  cliched facsimiles of "12 Angry Men". An implausible philosophical discussion between the prosecutor, now the newly elected D.A., and Justin on a bench outside the court house is circumspect and lacking in conviction.  The surprise verdict is not the whole unsatisfying, surprise ending. Perhaps now 94, Eastwood should take heed from his Dirty Harry character, who said, "A good man always know his limitations."