Great film with a few issues.
The film centers around a binary moral dilemma where the Juror (Kemp) believes the suspect (Sythe) might be innocent because the Juror may have been the culprit to begin with.
This is a great premise. But where they went wrong is nobody had any facts in the film. The prosecutor didn’t have facts of Sythes involvement.
The Juror didn’t even have the facts of his own involvement.
At the end the prosecutor also did not have the facts of Kemp's involvement. The evidence that could have been used was now over a year old (the car). So everyone was speculating.
Meanwhile we are made to believe that it must be Kemp or Sythe.
One must burn, make your choice.
But this was not the case. Kemp just needed to state that the prosecution did not have the evidence sufficient for him to give a guilty verdict to Sythe. This was the truth. In fact this was the only truth.
And there was no moral dilemma for Kemp to bring himself into it considering that his belief in his own (possible) involvement was also just more speculation. He never saw a body or blood or any evidence. He just felt a thump in his car one year prior.
Had Kemp been clued into his own involvement pre body shop repairs and covered his tracks by weaving a web of lies, this could have been a very different film with much higher stakes. But in this film I was a bit puzzled about what Kemp was so worried about. He (nor anyone else) had any evidence that he was involved. His main focus should have just been doing his job with a level head and convincing the jurors that there was not sufficient evidence for a Guilty verdict. He never would have had to stray from the truth.
That said, I think Eastwood can tell an engaging story. I enjoy the economical filmmaking, the reserved style, and the wonderful performances from the entire cast. Its worth a watch.