“Jury #2” in MAX: this effective judicial and moral drama would be Clint Eastwood's last film | REVIEW | JUROR 2 | SKIP-ENTER

Only time will tell if, indeed, “Jury #2″was the last film directed by Clint Eastwood. The 94-year-old filmmaker has not yet officially confirmed whether the film, which arrives on the MAX platform this December 20, is his farewell to a profession that has kept him at the top of the industry for decades.

Because it is under his unique way of understanding human existence that millions have approached the big screen. Some to be shocked, as with “American Sniper”, others to be surprised, as with “Letters from Iwo Jima” and, sometimes, to also be moved, as with “Gran Torino”.

The winding path ofJury #2″However, it has not been exactly fair for the possible closure of a career worthy of its creator. The film had a lukewarm approach to some American theaters a couple of months ago, and the studios in charge of it (Warner Bros) quickly assigned it to the streaming. There, certainly, you run the risk of getting lost among so much release and canning, however, it is well worth stopping to analyze a little more not only what counts, but fundamentally how you tell it.

MIRA: “Disco, Ibiza, Locomía”: the light and unambitious portrait of one of the sensation groups of the 90s

“Jury #2″ presents the story of Justin Kemp (Nicholas Hoult), a freelance editor who sees his stage of preparation for fatherhood interrupted when he is chosen as a member of the popular jury that will decide on the strange (and violent) death of a woman in a town in Georgia, United States.

Based on a script written by Jonathan A. Abrams, Eastwood's film shows the cards quickly. So, just a few minutes have passed and we already have our protagonist 'overcoming' the evidence that would lead him to be chosen as jury number 2 of the dozen that will decide on the aforementioned case.

Legal troubles are by no means new to the American film and television industry. The presence of courts made up of ordinary citizens is also not unknown. An unbeatable example of all this is “Law and Order”, the format created by Dick Wolf that since 1990 has hooked millions of viewers, including with spinoffs like “Special Victims” (with a whopping 26 seasons), among others. .

If this program created in the 'Dick Wolf Universe' is not unique, because the industry has opted multiple times for stories linked to law, order and criminals, what leads Abrams and Eastwood to try their luck in a story of this type? The answer, it seems, is linked to focus.

As we said above, our protagonist is about to become a father. At home, his wife, Allison Crewson (an underutilized Zoey Deutch) reflects the fragility of a woman who has just lost her son and, once again pregnant, has not only expectations, but fundamentally fear and a lot of pressure to 'not commit anything.' error' that triggers another loss. With that burden on him, Justin faces a transcendental truth: when he begins to recount what happened in the accident that motivated the trial, his memories begin to appear, one by one. There is something behind.

“Jury #2″ Among its main virtues is the game it plays with memory and its inevitable cracks. Using flashbacks, the character played by British actor Nicholas Hoult begins to come face to face with a truth that suffocates him. And isn't 10 guilty people free better than one innocent prisoner? The future father of the family fails in all his attempts to be expelled from the jury. Around him, no one notices that he is hiding something. And time begins to run.

Abrams and Eastwood have supported Justin very well. Here it would be time to mention the other members of the jury, from Harold (played by the always brilliant JK Simmons), a retired police officer who does not 'swallow the prosecutor's story easily, to Marcus (Cedric Yarbrough), an African-American who He loses his temper very easily while trying to explain his position, going through Yolanda (Adrienne C. Moore), a mother from a family with guns, or even the brilliant Brody (Drew Scheid), a young man who seems free of pressure to say the right thing. that believe.

This melting pot of personalities locked under the same room deciding the fate of a defendant for several days is in itself another aspect very well captured by Eastwood and company. Because in the twelve voices that first go in chorus towards yes, and then deviate towards 'no' or maybe, the viewer will surely see reflected all the stereotypes, fears and prejudices that he would have if faced with the possibility of integrating a jury as such. It is those dozen people of 'flesh and blood' who can give justice, or perpetrate the opposite.

But if we talk about Justin's companions, we cannot leave aside the prosecutor, Faith Killerbrew (Toni Collette), a woman who zigzags between her routine daily work and her political intentions in the district. In the midst of that he will surely lose perspective and suffer the natural loss of his 'smell'. Leading him, first, are James Michael Sythe (a very unexpressive and useful Gabriel Basso), as the boyfriend and alleged murderer, and then his lawyer, Eric Resnick (Chris Messina), who must fight against time to avoid a conviction. , before an almost always undaunted Judge Thelma Hollub (Amy Aquino).

At the beginning of this note we said that Eastwood reveals the letters from the beginning. In that sense, knowing the truth about Justin, for more than an hour and a half we will witness the lamentations and reproaches of a man who knows he is guilty, but deep down – as if it were an instinct – he will do everything possible to fulfill his wife's wish to “not leave her alone” in this new attempt to become a family. To what extent is a man capable of remaining silent to be happy? What are the deepest corners of guilt? Does it hurt to wake up next to your loved one while hiding a transcendental truth from them? These are some of the questions left by this drama full of looks and silences, an audiovisual proposal that, beyond its weaknesses, clearly fulfills its central objective: to challenge us.