Clint Eastwood made a Saturday afternoon cable classic with Juror #2, and Warner Bros. Discovery reportedly always imagined it as such. Per The Hollywood Reporter, Juror #2 was always a streaming play meant for Max before cameras rolled and jury selection began. However, Warner Bros. Discovery also forgot to tell anyone that the paltry theatrical release was an awards-qualifying run, not a case of WBD trying to push a 94-year-old film icon out the door—at least that’s what The Hollywood Reporter’s anonymous sources say, so the studio may be just trying to save face. As a director, Eastwood’s films have grossed over a billion dollars, with three of his biggest hits coming out in the last decade. So when the nonagenarian filmmaker throws a heater like Juror #2, it’s curious why WBD doesn’t want to make money off it.
To that end, many needed clarification as to why Juror #2 was only landing in about 35 theaters in the U.S., while others needed clarification about what Juror #2 was. Some, including The Hollywood Reporter’s sister publication Variety, wondered why Warner Bros.’ was burying the film. No one’s parents have heard of Juror #2—even though they’d love it—because WBD always planned to drop the movie on Max over the holidays. They just didn’t want to tell anyone because it wouldn’t matter. Had Warner Bros. Discovery announced the plan, critics at rags like The A.V. Club probably would’ve complained about it anyway because, in the words of Quentin Tarantino, “it’s almost like [streaming movies] don’t even exist.”
Juror #2 still needs a release date on Max. Hell, it needs some advertising to let people know that it’s coming to Max. It will probably do well there if people know about it. While all movies are best enjoyed in a movie theater, a place to laugh, cry, and care, Juror #2 will make a fine holiday watch for the whole family, especially if they like compelling, straightforward legal dramas.
English (US) ·