Maybe the answer to “Why did Warner Brothers barely release Clint Eastwood’s ‘final film?” was that it’s just not very good.

“Juror # 2” is competently cast, acted, shot and put together. But the script is melodramatic to the point of “hackneyed,” with a couple of unintentional laughs thrown in for good measure. I caught at least one continuity error, and that is about the only thing that really held my attention the rest of the way through this eye-roller of a Clint curtain call.

Others can grade great grandpa on the curve, but about the best you can say about this “Matlock” melodrama is that it’s not “Cry Macho,” even if it’s not any better than that the worst of the “final films” that preceded it.

Nicholas Hoult stars as a recovering alcoholic and expectant father who finds himself on a Savannah murder trial jury in which he has a very important important piece of evidence about the crime which the accused is seemingly certain to have commited.

Juror number two is pretty sure he himself did it.

Seeing as how another juror turns out to be a retired cop, you have to wonder if the “real” killer will get away with it. And you ponder the competence of the prosecuting attorney, running for DA (Toni Collette) and the public defender (Chris Messina) during voir dire (jury questioning and selection).

But that’s kind of the point. Eastwood’s conjured-up a condemnation of America’s justice system, and in his most Clint touch of all, leaves the rush-to-judgement “their only suspect” cops out of the equation altogether. Yeah Clint, prosecutorial misconduct along the Georgia coast always has a local policing element. Or didn’t you hear?

Jurors bicker over a verdict with the two Black jurors (Cedric Yarbrough and Adienne C. Moore) the quickest to vote “guilty” to get out of there and go home. The others, urged on by Justin (Hoult), start teasing-out other possible solutions to the mystery, and break the judge’s strict orders to not attempt their “own investigation.”

The most tained juror of all consults his AA sponsor (Kiefer Sutherland) who conveniently turns out to be another attorney. And the advice that counselor counsels is jaw-dropping, more dramatically convenient than real world ethical.

Coincidences like that abound as our guilty juror flashes back to that fateful night and tries to head off A) sending an innocent man to prison and B) to void letting suspicion fall on him as he attempts that.

Eastwood serves up a politically correct jury — white, Black, Asian, young, old, etc. — passing judgment on a case so convoluted and a screenplay so contorted that even the aspiring DA starts doing her own investigating. Because again, the COPS are left out of this altogether.

The strangers in the jury room leap into instant “old man” and “stoner” insults, this coming after the second or third reference to “this flawed process” and “imperfect it may be” in court. The worst thing anyone calls the DA is “a politician.” That’s the depth of the messaging here.

Further complicating our suspect juror’s attack of conscience and rationalizations about the other suspect being “a bad dude” is his “problem pregnancy” wife (Zoey Deutch) who needs him by her side once he’s saved the innocent man and covered his own tracks from within the jury room.

I was willing to go along with some of this as Eastwood goes through the motions of presenting the jury selection and the trial. He can’t reinvent the genre, so he doesn’t try.

But the picture isn’t playing and there’s little suspense and even less logic you start taking note of the abrupt shifts in the not-quite-caricatured characters and the plot. You hear a juror accuse another of changing his or her tune from what he said “just the other day” on the FIRST day of deliberations.

And you take comfort in Collette, Yarbrough, Simmons, Deutch and Sutherland, the stand-outs from the cast, as you pity those who aren’t as compelling as they might have been were they working for anybody other than “One Take Clint.”

Rating: PG-13, violent images, profanity

Cast: Nicholas Hoult, Toni Collette, Chris Messina,
Cedric Yarbrough, J.K. Simmons, Leslie Bibb, Adrienne C. Moore, Kiefer Sutherland and Zoey Deutch.

Credits: Directed by Clint Eastwood, scripted by Jonathan A. Abrams. A Warner Bros. release.

Running time: 1:54

Three major problems hamper Make a Girl as a film. The first is its very premise. Akira offhandedly makes Zero, a literal living, breathing girl, from nothing. Born a teenager, his lab-grown girl already knows at birth all the information needed to live in human society (like language skills and critical thinking)—even if she lacks the experience to use that data correctly. And to be clear, this isn’t an everyday occurrence in the world of this film—other people aren’t just going around making teenagers on a whim.

Despite this, no one bats an eye at the fact that Akira created life. His friends give little more than an exasperated sigh, and his scientist peers find her interesting but not much more. What he has done logically has world-shaking implications, but there’s no government interference or societal outcry. People just don’t seem to think it’s much of a big deal.

Stemming from the problems with the premise, we have the next major issue: the tone. Much of the film is silly and lighthearted, focusing on Zero adjusting to living in human society and trying to figure out her role as Akira’s girlfriend. It’s so lighthearted that, given the should-be-serious subject material, it rings false. It almost feels like there is some major twist in the works—like the whole world is fabricated or a dream or something similar. It’s incredibly challenging to suspend disbelief. Then comes the final climax, which is so intense and graphically violent that it feels like part of a different (and much more interesting) film.

And here we reach the final issue plaguing the film: its theme. When it comes down to it, Make a Girl is focused on the question of free will. Does Zero love Akira because she was designed that way, or are her emotions all her own? But more than that, how can she prove it one way or the other? That is the personal dilemma at the core of the film. The problem is that rather than truly develop and explore this conundrum, the film jumps directly to the most extreme way of testing it. And while it makes for an exciting, visceral climax, the movie does little thematically to lay the groundwork for such an overreaction.

Of course, the film isn’t all bad—even within the problems stated above are more than a few interesting elements. One interesting aspect of the film is that its hero and villain face the same struggles. Both are bashing their heads against a wall in an attempt to even start to understand the greatest scientific mind of the previous generation: Akira’s mother. Both are going to evermore extreme lengths to try and progress—to step out from the shadow of such a great woman. But the pressure is soul-crushing and leads both to do things they come to regret. When it comes down to it, their core problem is the same: neither can understand Akira’s mother’s thought process and thus can’t continue her work or even build upon it.

Another interesting development is its investigation of love. While romantic love is the catalyst, the film focuses on familial love as well. It also does some fun playing around with the idea of love triangles, childhood best friends, and the ways people use their roles in other people’s lives to fill the voids in their own. Basically, it explores how love can let you see the world in a new way—and can change your life to make you a more balanced and productive person in the process.

On the visual side, Make a Girl is a mixed bag. There are times when the 3D animated film truly does look like a traditionally animated film—however, the majority of the time, it does not. That doesn’t mean it looks bad, however. The more action-packed the scene, the more stunning the film becomes. On the other hand, some noticeable wide shots that are a bit odd. Despite the 3D models used in the film, the characters seem under-detailed. There are also some strange frame-rate drops in the animation.

The music is not bad, but it is definitely forgettable. I honestly can’t remember a single bar of it—or even a moment where the music stood out in the least—positively or negatively.

In the end, Make a Girl has an undercooked premise, inconsistent tone, and underexplored theme. The animation itself is likewise filled with ups and downs in the quality department. It is, simply put, a film with some interesting ideas but poor execution.

Disclosure: Kadokawa World Entertainment (KWE), a wholly owned subsidiary of Kadokawa Corporation, is the majority owner of Anime News Network, LLC. One or more of the companies mentioned in this article are part of the Kadokawa Group of Companies.

Joy, 2024.

Directed by Ben Taylor.
Starring Thomasin McKenzie, Bill Nighy, James Norton, Charlie Murphy, Rish Shah, Cecily Cleeve, Eoin Duffy, Mariam Haque, Abbiegail Mills, Olivia Sellers, Joanna Scanlan, Tanya Moodie, Ella Bruccoleri, Douggie McMeekin, Miles Jupp, Louisa Harland, and Toby Williams.

SYNOPSIS:

3 trailblazers: a young nurse, a visionary scientist, and an innovative surgeon face opposition from the church, state, media, and medical establishment in their pursuit of the world’s first ‘test tube baby,’ Louise Joy Brown.

With several competing plot threads and perspectives, Ben Taylor’s directorial debut (but not without plenty of prior experience working on television), Joy – the story of the first-ever baby birthed through IVF (in vitro fertilization) methods – overcomes such a scattershot narrative through sincerity and a pair of winning, affecting performances from a conflicted, sacrificial, and determined Thomasin McKenzie a nuanced Bill Nighy.

From a script by Jack Thorne (seemingly a screenwriting journeyman, having dabbled in television, other Netflix originals such as Enola Holmes, and other period pieces centered on life-changing accomplishments like The Aeronauts) with story contributions from Emma Gordon, Rachel Mason, and Shaun Topp, there is a case to be made that this inspirational story could have benefited from the limited series treatment given how much these filmmakers are trying to tackle.

Rather than stick to scientific research and problem-solving (while also using interactions with test subjects to break down scientific babble for the average viewer with a light and amusing touch), the film admirably cares about the life of nurse Jean Purdy (Thomasin McKenzie), her reasons for getting involved with IVF research, and how that cuts her off from a disapproving, conservative mother played by Joanna Scanlan. The film is also interested in depicting how she became close to the numerous human test subjects, bonding over their personal lives and taking the occasional field trip.

Front and center of the research is Bob Edwards (James Norton), who also becomes the public face, trying to push back against conservative media, public, and medical boards that don’t see finding a way to give infertile women a choice as important science. This typically blows up in his face, as he is unable to sway minds and earn additional funding, something that gradually begins to wear him down mentally. Meanwhile, outstanding surgeon Patrick Steptoe (Bill Nighy) is convinced to join them, also serving as a source of wisdom for Jean and Bob, each going through personal and professional strife. His incisions and various surgeries are also sensitively and educationally captured without bordering on gratuity.  

There is a moment where Jean, moderately religious, also has to look inside at the other side of that choice, abortion, which her coworkers also perform and is a procedure that initially makes her uncomfortable. A large part of this is also due to her mother threatening to never talk to her again if she continues working with these “heathens,” but this mostly goes underexplored. The mother-daughter estrangement is also unconvincingly resolved, eventually playing to a sappy beat.

Similar issues persist throughout Joy, which is simply trying to broadly do too much with too many characters, meaning that plenty of it doesn’t feel as emotionally involving as it should be. There is an entire romantic subplot involving Jean and a coworker, there to convey something important about who she is, but it’s also servicing the plot without adding characterization. Some test subjects are also revealed to have some dark backstories that tie into a greater understanding of how infertility can destroy personal lives and marriages, but also frustratingly gloss over those people as characters here.

However, the decade-encompassing story (despite none of these characters actually aging) is remarkable and affecting; Joy is a slice of history one is happy to have learned more about, wrapped up in a film that might have worked better off in another format or as a documentary. Regardless, Thomasin McKenzie elevates the material, especially in some of her final scenes, as succeeding in this research is also personal to her.

Flickering Myth Rating – Film: ★ ★ ★ / Movie: ★ ★ ★

Robert Kojder is a member of the Chicago Film Critics Association and the Critics Choice Association. He is also the Flickering Myth Reviews Editor. Check here for new reviews, follow my Twitter or Letterboxd, or email me at MetalGearSolid719@gmail.com

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=embed/playlist