WB Burying Clint Eastwood's JUROR NO. 2

[AndyDursin]

Another dud from WB apparently though the movie was initially intended for streamimg, which is where it is undoubtedly going in the very near future.

[TaranofPrydain]

Eastwood had a film that he directed to a Best Picture nomination 10 years ago.

He had a film which got an acting nomination as recently as 5 years ago.

And, with only about 3 or 4 exceptions, almost every film he made since 1976 was made at WB.

So, why are they dumping it so much? It stinks.

[Monterey Jack]

Eastwood has generated more than two BILLION for WB over the last fifty years. This is shameful.

[AndyDursin]

He's not in it so most people won't really care. THE MULE was enough of a fizzle that they shouldn't feel that they owe him anything. Good on them for even hiring him to direct at that age!

[Paul MacLean]

Eastwood has generated more than two BILLION for WB over the last fifty years. This is shameful.

Of course the new regime at Warners (and every studio really) is far-removed from that of the old. I doubt they care about anyone's creative legacy...unless of course it's generating a profit.

I remember reading an article way back in the late 80s about studio executives, one of whom responded to the mention of Sid Caesar's name with "I'm not familiar with his work. Can you send me a tape?"

[TaranofPrydain]

Clint partially just received vindication. The reviews for the film are overwhelmingly positive, meaning that Warner just cost themselves what could have been a formidable awards player.

[Monterey Jack]

Thankfully the AMC in Boston Common is getting it, so I'll report back.

[AndyDursin]

Since when did movies that rate 6's and '7s out of 10, and 2.5 stars, count as being "fresh" on the almighty Tomato Meter? No wonder the movie is sitting at 96% "positive".

For example, these are all counted as "fresh":

"Juror #2 is perhaps most frustrating because of how close it is to working quite well. It's a film about truth and justice that ironically stumbles because it simply doesn't ring true. 6/10"

"The story is involving enough but doesn’t know exactly where to go by its end, settling as a decent film with an inviting hook that can’t quite pull it off in an equally enticing way. 6/10"

"Suspense is kept on a low flame. 3/5"

I mean...that doesn't sound like an awards contender. Seems like half of these reviews for this movie are grandstanding critics just trying to "stick it to the studio" by carping this didn't get a wide theatrical run. And his "best late career movie"? What does that even mean after THE MULE and THE TROUBLE WITH THE CURVE?

I'm sure it's a sufficiently diverting courtroom drama -- but I can watch Kathy Bates in MATLOCK for free on CBS too.

[Monterey Jack]

[Monterey Jack]

THE MULE was enough of a fizzle that they shouldn't feel that they owe him anything.

Just looked it up...it grossed $174 million on a $50 mil budget. That ain't chicken feed, especially in an era where "adults don't go to movies". Hell, I saw it with my dad and my older brother, which is probably the only movie we all saw together aside from The Force Awakens.

[AndyDursin]

I was talking more about the film being ridiculous because of his age. It made $$ because it was his last hurrah as an actor but it was already pushing the boundaries with him as a believable leading man.

The difference is he's not acting here so there's no way this movie was ever going to make anywhere near that amount of money.

[Monterey Jack]

I was talking more about the film being ridiculous because of his age. It made $$ because it was his last hurrah as an actor but it was already pushing the boundaries with him as a believable leading man.

Eastwood was two years YOUNGER than the real-life character he was playing.

https://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/15/maga ... -mule.html