Quite possibly his last film and it's getting really good reviews, and they decide to dump it in only 50 theaters. Can't believe the disrespect.
shareI just found out about it 10 minutes ago. I'm surprised at how bad the marketing for this is, and what's up with the limited release? Such a weird move by WB.
shareIt's infuriating and disgraceful. Clint is a legend and, as you said, this is his last movie. WB frankly OWES him a wide release. Many of his last films have done a lot for that studio and, for that matter, this one is getting great reviews!
It never even occurred to me that Juror # 2 would not get a wide release. It wasn't a thought in my mind. I had totally planned to make this a big movie weekend and go see Juror #2 on Friday and Here on Saturday.
WB's decision is disappointing on multiple levels.
It IS disgraceful, but Eastwood himself said just a few years ago that movies "are dead." He's right. Every single movie theater is littered with endless horror movies, prequels, sequels, anime junk and Marvel crud. Everything aimed at 14 year-old boys. What was hinted at in the 20-teens has gotten even worse post-pandemic. Embarrassing, frankly. The last movie I went to was last year's "The Holdovers", which, while overrated, was at least a film aimed at adults. I'm sure it hasn't helped matters that Eastwood is a major right-winger in his 90s. Yes, total disrespect for a great, legendary artist at the the helm and such a shame for a talented cast.
Maybe if Spiderman had been juror 2, the film would've gotten a wider release.
I was shocked to find out that there actually was one theater in my area playing the film. I'm happy to say that I was able to see it. It's quite solid. If it is in fact Clint's last movie, it's a much, much, much better film to go out on than Cry Macho.
The auditorium was about 85% full as well. I had to sit in the second row from the front. It was great to see so many people there but I was sad that it was because it's the only theater for hundreds of miles around that is playing it. WB can go to hell for not giving it a wide release.
In regard to the points you've made, we're definitely seeing the death of the mid-budget drama in terms of theatrical distribution. That is now the realm of streaming. It's definitely unfortunate. The 80s and 90s, and even early 00s, were a much better time for films and film fans than the current era.
Cry Macho was a travesty - very poor showing from CE
shareOh, I suspect from Warner Bros' point of view, it's the exact opposite. They initially wanted the film to go straight to Max. But in order to make it award eligible and out of respect for Eastwood and their long-standing relationship, they've given it a limited release prior to that. I don't think they'd have done that for most directors.
Adult dramas like this -- even with big names attached -- are a risk at the box office in 2024. The business has changed. The bean counters will have felt it wasn't commercially viable for a general release, but compromised because it's Eastwood.
It's the CEO's right to choose how to release the movie. If a wide release will earn more money, they will select it. When a company doesn't earn money, it hits the CEO hardest, because their main salary is coming from stocks. Do you really think a drama like this can earn money in theaters? Even with big VFX scenes and famous IPs like The Flash and Joker 2 bombed in theaters.
shareIt's the old adage, "what came first, the chicken or the egg?"
The fact remains that the dumbing down of American taste has been in full force for decades. Of COURSE, WB would've gone for a full release if they thought the film would rake in a huge profit. But due the continual marketing to the simple-minded, who will pay outrageous prices for tickets and snacks, as long as the material they're viewing pierces their ears and numbs the senses, any film appealing to anyone over 35, requiring the use of gray matter won't get proper marketing or publicity.
Older people (40???!) have stopped going to the movie theaters for the reasons mentioned. Who's at fault? I guess everyone.
As for "movie executives", they're investment bankers, not movie makers. Jack Warner would never stop throwing up if he were alive and saw what "movies" are today. So sad.
Oh, and "Cry Macho" is a hell of a lot finer (and more interesting) than "Smile 2."
I didn't see 'Smile 2' but thought 'Cry Macho' was a bore. Eastwood's last good movie was 'Richard Jewell'.
share