Juror #2 starts strong, drawing the audience in during the first two acts and delving into the intrigue surrounding the morality of the decisions made. But the film never quite hits the right spot. What should have been a sharp look into the cracks in our justice system ends up becoming the story of a privileged man trying to mitigate his guilt while protecting his own life behind a white picket fence. The third act falls flat completely, with underutilized characters being dismissed without much ado, and any tension built up is quickly lost as one confusing decision after another is made. I have to say that the film makes you wonder what you would do in Justin's situation, which could lead to some interesting conversations after the film. You can find this movie on watch free movies flixtor.
Like most of us, Justin Kemp doesn't want to be selected for jury service. His wife Allison is in the third trimester of a high-risk pregnancy and he'd rather be with her than be confined to a stuffy courtroom. He reports for selection and is selected for jury service by prosecutor Faith Killebrew and public defender Eric Resnick (Chris Messina). The case: James (Gabriel Basso), a notoriously angry boyfriend, is accused of beating his girlfriend Kendall (Francesca Eastwood) to death. After a drunken fight at a local bar, Kendall storms off and James chases after her. In the morning her body is found at the bottom of a hill. Though Mr. Resnick claims he may have screwed up, this seems like a clear cut case. Mr. Killebrew knows he won, which should help him get elected district attorney. Everything goes smoothly, until Justin remembers he was there that night too, and on his way home he hits what he thinks is a deer. But what if it was Kendall?
Jonathan Abrams' screenplay asks the audience to play the role of a jury and weigh all the evidence presented to them. Wisely and purposefully, gaps are left in the sequence of events that led to Kendall's death, raising reasonable doubts about who, exactly, killed her. Just as we doubt the evidence presented, so do some of the characters, especially Justin, creating a major moral dilemma: should he come forward (a bad idea if you believe his lawyer, his Alcoholics Anonymous sponsor)? Or should he say nothing and sentence a not-so-innocent man to prison? Once this aspect is fully realized, the outcome of the trial is no longer a matter of "guilty" or "innocent". Rather, it is about answering the question: Are you willing to do the right thing, even if it means risking your life?
If the movie had stuck to this concept, it might have been able to maintain the suspense until the end. However, it just drags everything down as more elements are added to create layers.
