Remember that TV holiday film from "Scrooged"? You know, "The Day the Reindeer Died"? Well, someone missed the sarcasm and they have attempted to make it as a theatrical film. Instead of Lee Majors as the hero, we get Dwayne Johnson. It's probably because he lacks the irony skills for the snark required by the script, "The Rock" gets supplemented by Chris Evans. Now if they could just keep their tongue in cheek, this could be fun. Unfortunately, they can't and it isn't.
Casting J.K. Simmons as a fit and upbeat Santa is a great first decision. Taking him off screen for ninety percent of the movie was not. Simmons was the best thing this movie had going for it. At the start, he delivers the right kind of humor and the fresh take on Santa, that could make this work. The problem is the plot takes over, and it is essentially a straight comic book adaptation, complete with CGI villains at the climax. There are a couple of fresh points along the way, but they are so infrequent and they get sidetracked, that the fun to be had there gets lost.
As hard as it is for me to say, the weak link here is Johnson. As the loyal major domo of Santa, he is getting set for the last Christmas before he retires. You know it is not going to go well when anyone says "this is my last..." whatever, because it will either be literally true when the character dies, or the events in the story will discount the declaration of being finished completely. So no suspense her, Dwayne Johnsons character Cal, does not die. Instead, he gets to run up against a number of obstacles that he must overcome to save Santa and Christmas. Evans as Jack O'Malley, a cyber hustler who has helped the bad guys inadvertently by locating the secret North Pole location of Santa. Which makes no sense because every kid knows Santa is at the North Pole. Why does the antagonist, who also has history with Nick (that's Santa for those who don't get it) need Jack to locate Santa's factory town? So that Johnson can have a wise guy sidekick to trade quips with during the action.
The movie started out with a promising set up and fun characters, but the more it gets into the actions of the plot, the less interesting it became. The one exception was a detour into Krampus world, where for most of the segment, we get back to having a good time. The mythos here was sort of interesting, and they played with it a little bit. Cal and Jack become Sam and Dean from Supernatural for a few minutes, but it doesn't last.
The wrap up at the end attempts to return to a schmaltzy sentimentality that the film eschews for most of it's runtime. That's too bad because the schmaltzy stuff is really what we want in a Christmas Movie. So you can put this on the shelf with "Santa Claus: The Movie" and "Jingle All the Way". It is a shiny bauble that someone poured a lot of money into making, but they forgot to make it charming and relevant. This years lump of coal in your stocking.
It would not be possible to write about this movie without the context in which I saw it. The world has changed so much in the last ten years, many of those changes are subtle and may go unnoticed by some people. I however, have noticed. I notice that theaters are often empty when new films are playing, that films which have some serious issue to discuss get ignored off of the screens that they manage to play on when they do get a release. I have noticed that it is a disparaging phrase to say "Your Dad will like it." In the last couple of years, there have been a few films I was lucky to catch in a theater, which almost certainly would have earned that back handed compliment, films like "The Covenant", "The Greatest Beer Run Ever" and "Fly Me to the Moon". These were films aimed at an mature audience, and they were lucky to get any screen time in a theater. While they are of varying quality, they deserved the time I was willing to give them, and they earned a lot more respect than some films which have been huge box office successes, but which are barely real stories or movies. Whenever I have written about them, I have made an effort to give them serious thought (even when they don't deserve it, I'm looking at you "Barbie"). When I see a movie like "Juror #2" being dismissed as "Your Dad's new favorite movie", it frustrates me. Even when those are complimentary due to the old fashioned quality of a film, it sends a message to potential viewers that there is something here that is not for them.
Warner Brothers has made it clear that they feel the same way about this film. It is not for you. The have given it the most token of releases. It is on thirty-five screens around the country. As far as I can tell, in the state of Texas, where I live, it is on one screen in Dallas. Texas with thirty plus million residents, the second most populous state in the country, has one theater showing "Juror #2", the latest film from cinema treasure Clint Eastwood. I saw some spin on one entertainment site suggesting that this was a limited release because the film would only open in the single digits and that Warner Brothers did not want Eastwood to be embarrassed by a flop. If you believe that, let me tell you about the golden opportunity to invest in property in California City. Also I have a bridge you might like to buy in the New York area.
I had to drive two hundred miles one way to see the movie in a theater opening weekend. That is three hours on the Interstate from Austin to Dallas. After the movie, I had the same three hour trip back. I can't say I would always make a trip like that to see a Clint Eastwood project, after all I skipped "J. Edgar", "Hereafter" and "15:17 to Paris" completely. Yet the disrespect that Warner Brothers has shown one of their most productive and creative collaborators was so offensive to me, I felt compelled to make the effort. Oh, and I am glad I did.
"Juror #2" is a thoughtful story about responsibility and justice. Nicolas Hoult stars as Justin Kemp, a man who has turned his life around and found sobriety, but who has been tested by brutal circumstances. He is committed to doing the right thing, but is faced with another test and it is one that has severe consequences for others. As we follow his story, we can easily identify with his dilemma. He knows the truth in a criminal case that he is serving on a jury for, but revealing that truth would be devastating to him personally but also to the two people who will be depending on him in the future. What is the right thing to do, where does justice come in? Justin is also not the only one wrestling with these issues.
Maybe people will see this as an old fashioned movie because it feels like an update of "12 Angry Men". Courtroom dramas lack the fireworks of an action film or comic book movie, but they offer drama that can be completely compelling if told properly, and Eastwood and his team are doing that here. Screenwriter Johnathan Abrams, has constructed a plausible if unlikely scenario, for our central characters to confront. What is even more plausible is the dynamic in the jury room. We don't get the same kind of character detail for most of the jurors that we did in "12 Angry Men", but we do get enough of their attitudes and opinions to understand the arguments that will ensue. Marcus and Yolonda are the two jurors that resist the direction that Justin tries to lead the jury in. They challenge his rationale for hesitating to quickly render a guilty verdict. We know that Justin is motivated both by seeing justice done and self preservation, but his strategies are exactly the temperate thinking that one would hope a jury would engage in before deciding a man's fate.
There are complications in the process however, and Harold, played by J.K. Simmons , is both an ally to Justin's cause and a threat to him. So another set of ethical questions get raised in the story. I said earlier, that Justin and the jurors are not the only ones wrestling with these questions. Both the prosecutor and the public defender have serious moral conflicts that they face. The prosecutor is played by Toni Collette, who in an interesting side note, played Hoult's mother twenty years ago in the film "About a Boy". Faith Killebrew is being tested in a manner similar to that of Justin. One of the eternal issues in our justice system is the conflict over winning a case versus doing the right thing. Prosecutor Faith begins to doubt the validity of her own case. I try to avoid spoilers in these posts, so I will not provide any more details here, but let it be said that the resolution of the film does not leave anyone looking like a moral giant.
As usual, a Clint Eastwood film is polished and the craft in making it its impeccable. Director of photography Yves Bélanger, has worked with Eastwood before, and the film looks terrific in the courtroom scenes but even better when we get some exterior sequences. The dramatic moment that creates the whole plot is clear enough for us to understand what happened and still believe that Justin was uncertain of what took place. Clint skipped composing a jazz inflected score as he has done on some of his other projects, instead Mark Mancia provides a sparse set of musical elements that underscore moments in the film without drawing attention to itself. Longtime editor Joel Cox has done all of Eastwood's films since "The Outlaw Josey Wales" , he seems to understand perfectly the deliberate style that Eastwood wants. The movie moves at a pace that is efficient but not rushed. The visualizations of the big moments are not frantic and they play out as thoughtful narratives as a result. Cox is working with David Cox on this film, I'm not sure if they are related.
Finally I want to take note of the performances. Nicolas Hoult has to hold the film together as a good man conflicted by a bad situation. We can see anguish underneath some of the choices that Justin is making in the film. There is also palpable fear registering as he confronts one of his fellow jurors over the decision they must make. Toni Collette starts the film with a slight Southern accent, the film is set in Georgia after all, but I don't think she was as committed to it in the later parts of the film. Outside of the accent issue however, her performance is strong, registering doubt and resignation at the right moments. Chris Messina plays public defender Eric Resnick, who convinces us that he is convinced of his clients innocence. He has a light touch with the guilt trips that he imposes on Collette's character, which seems to reflect the professional relationship the two of them were likely to have.
This movie forces us to think on moral issues surrounding the way the justice system works. As most of us are aware, it is often an ugly process that emphasizes technical fidelity to the rules rather than finding a just result. The current internet outrage over the State of New York, seizing a squirrel and a racoon and destroying them, is an example of the same kinds of power issues this film presents. Regardless of who wins, everyone who wrestles with a pig ends up covered in muck. It's too bad that Warner Brothers decides that they wanted to tussle with film fans. So far Clint has stayed out of the marketing muck, and has stuck to drawing us a picture of the imperfections in all of us.
Last week I wrote a post about one of the inspiring teacher movies from the past. "Teachers" was pessimistic but still managed to find the sort of inspirational hope that movies like "Dead Poets Society" and "To Sir with Love" thrive on. "Whiplash" is another film about a teacher and a student that that aspire to reach heights of greatness, but it is a very different animal. Remove any thought of Mr. Holland and his music based heart affirming teaching methods. The process in this film would make old school football coaches like Vince Lombardi look like wimps.
Terrance Fletcher is a terrifying nightmare of a teacher. Like many monsters, he can appear benign and even avuncular at the moments he chooses. He talks sweet to a little girl, he passionately remembers a former student to his current students as he learns of that former students death. All of that is a mask for what he really is, a maniacal taskmaster with a standard of perfection that only he can fathom. All the members of his Jazz Band at the music conservatory that he teaches at know that monster. He never hides it from them, instead he unleashes it to bully the musicians into the exacting execution of music that he hears in his head. He justifies the process he uses as a motivational tool to try and find the true musical genius he imagines will emerge from the forge of his personality. The story of Charlie Parker is mentioned several times as a template of sorts for the kind of transformative moment he is seeking.
Andrew Neiman is a student at the school, his passion is drumming and he crosses paths with Fletcher and he becomes possessed by the desire to reach that level of genius. The question becomes, how much does a person need to endure to live up to their potential? Andrew may discover talent that he would have a hard time reaching otherwise, but it will cost him a great many things. These two characters are played by actors who are basically living out the plot of the movie. J.K Simmons and Miles Teller have had to do something extraordinary to make this movie work. Teller must have devoted countless hours to playing the drums in a manner that would hold up the story of promise that needs to be pushed beyond the extreme. His dramatic skills are amazing but when combined with the technical drum wizardry he is tasked with portraying, the performance is awesome.
The monster is played by Simmons. What kind of actor's tools allow a man to shed his own ego and become something loathsome? Sometimes the script deceives you, maybe it is all about inspiring a musician to go beyond his best. "There are no two words in the English language more harmful than 'good job'." This is his manifesto and he lives it. It doesn't hurt that he is a sadist of the first order who can't see the other point of view. When Andrew mentions the notion that the next Charlie Parker could be discouraged, Fletcher in his superior sounding attitude simply says "Charlie Parker would not be discouraged". This is the question begging answer of a sociopath. His cold eyes and stark dress and his manner of speaking should be a sign, like the rattle on a snakes tail, that something bad is going to happen. At the climax of the movie, that you can see anything other than the monster is a tribute to the quiet genius of this performance.
The movie is shot with a dizzying set of musical moments that build more tension than you can imagine. The close ups, fast cuts, and pacing of some of these moments, creates the type of anticipation that a great sports film or a classic thriller might develop. The dramatic moments work because the two actors are so effective. The temper tantrums that both of these men engage in could be laughable if you did not believe in the validity of their characters. Andrew has his charms but he is only slightly less horrifying than his mentor. The callous way he tosses out the one person who cares about him other than his father is an illustration of his ego as well. Two people who have little to give the world except their talent, make a fascinating duo. The story will screw with your head and you will doubt the common sense concerning human nature that you walked in with. Greatness may have a price, and in this movie, the price is your soul.
