Why did Warner Bros. decide to bury Clint Eastwood’s latest directorial effort, “Juror No. 2”? It feels less like a Hollywood debut and more like a field test for moving cemetery plots.
First off, let’s talk about the film’s theatrical release scenario. It kicked off in the cinematic equivalent of a few archaeological digs—28 cinemas scattered nationwide. Really? If this was any smaller, it would have required a magnifying glass to find. Given Eastwood’s long-standing stature and a cast boasting the talents of Nicholas Hoult, Toni Collette, and J.K. Simmons, you’d think they would give it a broader launch. Or maybe they’ve reserved the DVD releases for tiki parties in someone’s garage.
To add to the drama, the box office results rolled in looking a bit like crumpled receipts from a sad, microwaved dinner—only $5 million internationally, and we all know that’s barely enough to cover the coffee (decaf, naturally) for everyone who worked on the film. Just as enigmatic is Warner Bros. choosing not to disclose domestic box office figures. Why? Because transparency is so last season and only goes so well with their financial bravado under CEO David Zaslav. You’d have better luck gauging the temperature on Jupiter than figuring out why Zaslav decided to go boardroom minimalism on this release; it reeks of a classic bad investment in Hollywood. The empirical evidence right now reads “nutritious dumpster fire.”
After barely a week in theaters, this flick will saunter to the outskirts of Palm Springs for paid video-on-demand, which feels less like a cinematic evolution and more akin to cinematic exile. Sure, it could spur a cult following, but let’s be real; no one held a seance for “Cry Macho.” Why suddenly induce guilt with “Juror No. 2” now?
Eastwood’s recent health concerns complicate the matter further. Amidst whispers of concerns during production obligations due to the ongoing battle of aging gracefully (which can be hit or miss), there’s chatter surrounding whether this may be his last directorial outing. Important stuff considering he’s not a dewy-eyed newcomer rattling off flashbulb-filled selfies on Instagram.
The studio’s decisions reflect a larger malaise in the industry. Their risk-averse mentality is screaming “NO” in various dialects — perhaps an adaptation to a boardroom Feng Shui revolution under Zaslav. Veteran filmmakers face the double-edged sword that is financial practicality versus artistic pedigree, which alienates invaluable voices against the backdrop of capsizing streaming giants and the comic book sequel explosion. It’s like tossing a wise philosopher into a weightlifter’s competition.
Curiously, Eastwood hasn’t voiced any public concern over his film’s fate. Perhaps he nudged directly into “they’ll figure it out” mode, accepting that his legacy is likely swirling like a gentle smoke ring just outside this particular movie event journey. The man’s quiet confidence makes you wonder: has he paid heed to the blurred lines between his contributions and critical consensus?
Cast members have audibly wished for success and acclaim, none more so than Phil Biedron, who desperately craves recognition akin to cult folktales. Hey, you can’t fault them for trying; wouldn’t it be nice to relegate Friday the 13th tragedies toward eulogies of sad little cinematic releases every now and then?
We should discuss the disappointment head-on. “Juror No. 2” could very well shove itself deep into the Netflix hellscape sooner rather than later, clashing casserole-style with other regrettable electronic chords and annoyingly vague recommendations. Yet, I can’t help but wonder if it still holds that slight glimmer waiting to break free from its Warner Bros.-ahem-crypt. Time will decide—possibly much more dramatically than the actual plot, of which I genuinely know too little.
Warner Bros. apparently found a more effective way to excise the riches of Clint Eastwood’s project than a quick budget meeting: a full burial. Was it the unholy combo of courtroom drama and existential dread that terrified executives, or do they just have something against giving the Oscar-winning titan a fair shake? Sound off in the comments with your theories—you might just unearth a nugget of reason in this studio graveyard. And if you’re parched for more cinematic gossip, dive into our other Movie News stories.
image source
