Clint Eastwood's Juror #2 Should Be A Box Office Hit – And WB Is Making A Big Mistake

It was an exceptionally quiet weekend at the box office. The only major new release was Robert Zemeckis' experimental drama "Here," which had a muted $5 million opening. So, holdovers like "Venom: The Last Dance," "The Wild Robot," and "Conclave" were responsible for holding down the fort, resulting in a weekend where the domestic box office totaled less than $75 million. That's not great. Clearly, there was room for more. Specifically, Warner Bros. may well have missed an opportunity here with Clint Eastwood's "Juror #2."

Readers would be forgiven for not knowing that Eastwood, a legend both as an actor and director, has a new movie in theaters, seeing as "Juror #2" was released in roughly 50 theaters in the U.S. this past weekend, with no expansion planned. WB is, essentially, only releasing the movie in theaters at all so that it can qualify for the Oscars later this year. At this time, it's unclear how much of an awards season push the studio is even going to give the film anyhow. In short? WB is pretty much burying Eastwood's movie, which begs the question: Why? The more one looks at it, the less sense it all makes.

For one, this film has earned Eastwood the best reviews he's gotten in years as a director. Jeremy Mathai labeled the film "one of the best and most invigorating theatrical experiences of the year" in his 8 out of 10 review of "Juror #2" for /Film. Critics largely agree with him, as the film currently holds a stellar 91% critical approval rating on Rotten Tomatoes. It's a widely-acclaimed movie from a legend whose name matters. Not only that, but this is also being billed as potentially Eastwood's final movie. Therein lies a slam-dunk marketing opportunity. And yet, here we are.

"Juror #2" follows a family man named Justin Kemp (Nicholas Hoult) who is serving as a juror in a high-profile murder trial, only to end up struggling with a serious moral dilemma that could sway the jury to potentially convict — or free — the accused killer. Toni Collette ("Knives Out"), J.K. Simmons ("Whiplash"), Chris Messina ("Air"), Zoey Deutch ("The Politician"), and Kiefer Sutherland ("Designated Survivor.") also star.

For what it's worth, "Juror #2" did well overseas in its debut, pulling in an estimated $5 million in six markets, playing on a grand total of $1,348 screens. That makes for a damn decent per-screen average north of $3,700. WB is not reporting grosses in North America so we, unfortunately, have no Earthly idea how well the film did on those measly 50 screens. This all suggests that the studio simply had no faith in Eastwood's film and is essentially writing it off as a streaming play for VOD and, eventually, the Max streaming service, which is looking like a really bad move right now. It also runs counter to everything Warner Bros. Discovery CEO Davi Zaslav tends to say.

"In theaters, the value of the content and the overall viewing experience is elevated," Zaslav said in 2022, claiming that Warner Bros. was going to return to a more regular, theatrical release model. "When the same content moves to PVOD, and then streaming is elevated again. As films move from one window to the next, their overall value is elevated."

Indeed, as we've seen time and time again, even when a movie isn't necessarily a hit in theaters, the mere presence of that movie in theaters boosts its profile. It then makes more money on VOD, does better on streaming, sells more DVDs, etc. Zaslav has been vocal in his belief that direct-to-streaming movies largely don't make sense. So, why give an acclaimed movie made by Eastwood, the man behind classics such as "Unforgiven" and "Mystic River," such a minimal theatrical rollout in the U.S.? It's tough to make sense out of.

This isn't like Netflix only giving "Glass Onion: A Knives Out Mystery" a limited theatrical release. Netflix has made it clear time and time again that it isn't in the business of competing at the box office. Conversely, Warner Bros. has billed itself as a filmmaker-friendly studio that is deeply committed to theatrical. This entire situation runs counter to the company's talking points. Then again, this is the same studio that scrapped movies like "Batgirl" and "Coyote vs. Acme," which were already finished.

"Juror #2" carries a reported $35 million budget. It's very reasonable and it's the kind of money that can be recouped on VOD, streaming, etc., even if a movie doesn't quite find its audience in theaters. But given the critical response and the lack of competition in the marketplace right now, it seems as though "Juror #2" would have had a real shot at selling a meaningful number of tickets. Yes, original adult dramas are risky in the pandemic era, but the Pope drama "Conclave" has made $15.2 million domestically (and counting). One imagines a film form Eastwood could best that number with ease.

Maybe this goes back to 2021's "Cry Macho," a Western that Eastwood directed and also starred in. The movie was released on HBO Max and theaters on the same day, ultimately becoming a pretty big commercial disappointment. Zaslav once reportedly questioned why the movie even got made, and the Warner Bros. executives in the room reminded the CEO of the many hits that Eastwood delivered the studio over the years. "It's not show friends, it's show business," Zaslaz apparently said in response. That's who we're dealing with.

Under Zaslav's watch, WBD's stock price has fallen sharply and the company is saddled with lots of debt. It's also suffered some high-profile flops recently, most notably "Joker: Folie à Deux." Maybe that why it's being especially risk averse and didn't want to invest in a pricey marketing campaign for this one. Then again, why make this movie in the first place if the studio wasn't going to try and give it the best shot at making its money back? Again, it's all hard to make sense of.

Two things are true. First and foremost, Eastwood, if this truly is his final film, deserved an awful lot better than this release afforded him. Beyond that, Warner Bros. doesn't have to stick with the current strategy. It can still give this movie a wider release and grant audiences a chance to vote with their dollars. There are quite possibly a sizable number of people out there who would shell out to see this acclaimed courtroom drama. Why not let them?

"Juror #2" is in select theaters now.