Lifestyle
'Juror #2' is a thorny legal thriller — and possibly Clint Eastwood's last film
Nicholas Hoult (front row, center) plays Justin Kemp in Juror #2.
Warner Bros.
hide caption
toggle caption
Warner Bros.
Last week, Warner Bros. opened Juror #2 in limited release, with minimal fanfare, and no plans to report the film’s domestic box office. It’s not the typical treatment for a Clint Eastwood movie, especially one that some think might be the last Clint Eastwood movie. I hope they’re wrong. Either way, the fact that Eastwood’s longtime studio would bury his latest speaks to the various crises that have befallen the industry in general and Warner Bros. in particular. At 94, Eastwood seems ever more like an anomaly in American filmmaking: a Hollywood legend with nothing left to prove, still cranking out his unfussy, mid-budget dramas for a grown-up audience that the major studios have all but abandoned.

Juror #2 is actually one of his better-directed efforts of late, certainly compared with recent disappointments like Cry Macho and The Mule. There’s a little old-school John Grisham in this movie’s legal-thriller DNA, even though it features an original screenplay, by Jonathan Abrams.
Nicholas Hoult stars as Justin Kemp, a Georgia-based magazine writer who’s expecting a baby with his wife, played by Zoey Deutch. It’s a high-risk pregnancy, and so the timing isn’t ideal when Justin gets selected as a juror in a major murder trial.
The defendant, James Sythe, stands accused of killing his girlfriend, Kendall Carter, after the two had a heated argument in a bar one night. As the facts of the case emerge, Justin, who is recovering from alcoholism, realizes that he was at that same bar on the very night in question — and that he hit something he had assumed was a deer while driving home.

Suddenly alarmed that he could be more involved in Kendall’s death than he thought, Justin seeks advice from his AA sponsor, Larry, who also happens to be a lawyer. Larry, played by Kiefer Sutherland, advises Justin to keep quiet, lest he face serious prison time. But Justin, worried that his silence could send an innocent man to prison, tries to plead Sythe’s case during deliberations, which quickly turn contentious.
There’s a creakiness to the writing here; the bickering sounds forced, and some of the jurors veer toward cultural stereotypes. But others are more sharply drawn: J.K. Simmons brings his hard-nosed intelligence to the role of one of Justin’s few allies, while Cedric Yarbrough finds the simmering tension in every line as a juror convinced of the defendant’s guilt.
It all plays like a barbed riff on 12 Angry Men, where one man seeks to sway his fellow jurors, not to bring about justice so much as assuage his own conscience. But Justin isn’t the only character held up for moral scrutiny. The courtroom’s most compelling figure is the prosecutor, Faith, played with terrific nuance by Toni Collette. Faith does her job with skill, integrity and a great deal of ambition; she’s running for district attorney, and she knows that securing a conviction could help her chances.

Collette and Hoult played a mother and son in the 2002 comedy About a Boy. And while the actors don’t share too much screen time in Juror #2, beyond one doozy of a late scene, it’s still a pleasure to see them reunited more than 20 years later. Hoult is especially strong as a man wrestling quietly with past demons and present dilemmas, and whose response is to rationalize like crazy. After all, maybe Sythe, a man known for his rough past, really did kill his girlfriend. And even if he didn’t, how can Justin turn himself in, just as he and his wife are about to start a family?

Eastwood may take his characters to task, but he also sees the bigger picture. He’s long had a skeptical view of institutions and their failings, whether it’s a corrupt police force in Changeling or the manipulations of the media in movies like Sully and Richard Jewell. In Juror #2, he takes measured aim at the American justice system, from the dogged attorneys muddling their way through the evidence to the exhausted jurors who just want to deliver a quick verdict to the procedural fault lines and blind spots that can make the truth seem so elusive.
It’s a thorny, thoughtful film, and I wish its own studio had more confidence in it. If Eastwood does make another one, I wouldn’t mind seeing him take on another broken American system rife with cynicism, self-interest and compromise — and that, of course, is Hollywood itself.
Lifestyle
‘How to Rule the World’ explores education and power at Stanford University
Students walk on the Stanford University campus on March 14, 2019, in Stanford, Calif.
Ben Margot/AP
hide caption
toggle caption
Ben Margot/AP
When Theo Baker arrived at Stanford University a few years ago, he joined the student newspaper, following the path of his journalist parents, Peter Baker, a White House correspondent for The New York Times, and Susan Glasser, a writer for The New Yorker.
Through his reporting as a student journalist, he eventually broke a story about manipulated data in Stanford President Marc Tessier-Lavigne’s neuroscience research that helped lead to the university president’s resignation.
Theo Baker’s book, How to Rule the World: An Education in Power at Stanford University was released May 19. In it, Baker describes Stanford as a place where proximity to Silicon Valley gives rise to a parallel system of influence, recruitment and money, with investors looking to identify promising students almost as soon as they arrive on campus.
He told Morning Edition host Steve Inskeep there was “a sort of Stanford inside Stanford,” where elite students are drawn into an “alternate reality” of excess and access to cut corners.
In the interview, he discusses how Stanford is not just a university but also a pipeline where status and power can matter as much as ideas.
We reached out to Stanford University for comment and have not heard back.
Listen to the interview by clicking play on the blue box above.
Lifestyle
OTB Takes Full Control of Viktor & Rolf
Lifestyle
How having zero points in tennis — or ‘love’ — came to sound so sweet
The scoreboard shows the results of the women’s singles final match between Iga Swiatek of Poland and Amanda Anisimova of the U.S. at the Wimbledon Tennis Championships in London, Saturday, July 12, 2025.
Kirsty Wigglesworth/AP
hide caption
toggle caption
Kirsty Wigglesworth/AP
Fifteen points in tennis? Nice. Thirty, 40 — even better. Advantage — that sounds good. “Love” — that also must be great, right? Well, not quite.
As the French Open rolls on and Serena Williams has announced her return to the sport, maybe you’ve been paying a little more attention to tennis. The sport’s scoring system is notably distinct, and can sometimes be hard to grasp for newcomers. But even tennis aficionados might not know why, or how, “love” became the unmistakable callout for zero points. For this installment of NPR’s Word of the Week, we’re exploring how a word that signifies trailing behind got such a sweet name.
“Love” comes from the heart — or an egg?
It’s hard to pinpoint when the first tennis ball went over the net. Tennis is a derivative of lots of other sports, such as “jeu de paume,” a handball game played in France, said JT Buzanga, the collections manager at the International Tennis Hall of Fame museum.

But tennis became a patented, official sport in 1874, said Steve Flink, a journalist whose tennis coverage got him inducted into the International Tennis Hall of Fame. It has retained its unique, mysterious scoring system ever since.
“By and large, the original system has held up almost entirely,” Flink said.
The use of “love” goes back to the late 18th century, said Jesse Sheidlower, a lexicographer. But it was used earlier than that in card games such as whist and bridge. Before the term made its way to tennis, the sport favored plain old “nothing,” or “nil,” he said.
Why love in the first place, though? Historians don’t really know for sure, but there are a few theories.
The French could have something to do with it. Some historians believe “love” derives from “l’oeuf,” which means “the egg” in French. Because eggs are shaped like zeros, terms such as “goose egg” and “duck’s egg” have been used in other contexts to mean zero, Sheidlower said.
It’s also possible English speakers mispronounced l’oeuf as “love.” But Sheidlower isn’t convinced that’s the answer.
“It’s the French equivalent of an English expression. But since that expression doesn’t appear in French, the French word wouldn’t have been used,” he said.
To be sure, France has had a lot of influence on tennis culture, Buzanga said. For example, “deuce” or a game tied at 40 points, comes from the French word for “two”: “deux.” But he prefers another prominent theory: that “love” comes from the idiom “for the love of the game.” Even if a player hasn’t scored, it doesn’t matter, because their heart is in it. It’s the theory Sheidlower said is the most plausible, because the idiom was used by the English before tennis was popularized.

Another variation of the “love of the game” theory is that the word could have come from the Dutch “lof,” or “honor” — or the Latin “amare,” meaning “to love,” Flink said.
But if tennis’ “love” doesn’t come from a French word, the theory at least has a French sensibility.
“I think the ‘for the love of the game’ is kind of romantic,” Buzanga said.
“Love” probably isn’t going anywhere
Tennis used to be a sport of leisure. The style of play has changed a lot over the years; players are more athletic and competitive, for instance, Flink said. But the rules of the sport are more steadfast, he said.
“There’s this incredible, enduring respect for tradition in tennis,” he said. “Changes are not made easily.”
There has been one major change in modern history: the tie-break. Matches can go on and on because players have to score two consecutive points to break a deuce, or by two games to break a tied set. But the onset of television meant matches would have to get shorter if the sport wanted to capture a larger audience, Flink said.

Change even came for “love.” An alternative sprouted up in the 1970s, and is still used today: “bagel,” named for its zero shape, Sheidlower said. Novices may say “zero,” and insiders will understand what they mean, but they “will needle them about it,” Flink said.
But “love” still prevails.
“People kind of like it,” Flink said. “It’s different. Why say zero when you can say love?”
-
Los Angeles, Ca2 minutes ago'Top Gun: Maverick' actor identified as victim stabbed to death in Tarzana
-
Detroit, MI24 minutes agoStorm chances return, which could impact Motor City Pride, graduations this weekend across Metro Detroit
-
San Francisco, CA32 minutes agoHilton campaigns in San Francisco as California primary votes still being counted
-
Dallas, TX39 minutes agoCrews cover up AT&T branding as stadium becomes
-
Miami, FL42 minutes agoMiami leaders gather for FIFA World Cup Host Committee Gala
-
Boston, MA47 minutes agoPackage fire outside Boston’s Museum of African American History under investigation
-
Denver, CO54 minutes agoRockies beat reporter Patrick Saunders to leave Denver Post
-
Seattle, WA56 minutes agoSeattle granted NFL Franchise on this day 52 years ago