News: Now showing in theaters: CRY MACHO, directed by and starring Clint Eastwood!


0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this board.
« previous next »
Pages: 1 ... 5 6 [7] 8 9 ... 11 Go Down Print
Author Topic: Eastwood to Direct Juror #2 for Warner Bros as Final Film  (Read 16884 times)
Hocine
Member Extraordinaire
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 527


View Profile Email
« Reply #120 on: November 15, 2023, 10:25:09 AM »

In the bmcsavannah Instagram account, it is stated that Juror #2 filming will resume mid-November through mid-December. BMC stand for Bill Marinella Casting.
Logged
AKA23
Classic Member
Member Extraordinaire
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3671



View Profile Email
« Reply #121 on: November 17, 2023, 01:02:35 PM »

https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/movies/movie-news/chris-messina-joins-clint-eastwood-juror-no-2-movie-exclusive-1235657462/

Chris Messina has joined the cast. No mention of Eastwood having a role. Really don't think he is going to be in this, which makes me sad. I was looking forward to seeing a final performance, assuming "this is the last one so help me God!" Also, wish that line was actually in "The Mule" and not just in the trailer!
Logged
Hocine
Member Extraordinaire
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 527


View Profile Email
« Reply #122 on: November 17, 2023, 03:45:06 PM »

https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/movies/movie-news/chris-messina-joins-clint-eastwood-juror-no-2-movie-exclusive-1235657462/

Chris Messina has joined the cast. No mention of Eastwood having a role. Really don't think he is going to be in this, which makes me sad. I was looking forward to seeing a final performance, assuming "this is the last one so help me God!" Also, wish that line was actually in "The Mule" and not just in the trailer!

If Clint is not going to be in Juror #2, then let us hope that this will not be his last film.
I also noticed that the line you quoted was not in The Mule but only in the trailer.

Below here is a picture supposed taken yesterday and posted on Twitter. Obviously, I do not know how reliable it is:

https://twitter.com/RealTheClint/status/1725631304853516676

Logged
AKA23
Classic Member
Member Extraordinaire
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3671



View Profile Email
« Reply #123 on: November 17, 2023, 04:06:16 PM »

Think they have 3 weeks left of shooting, so this movie should be edited and done by later in the spring and then could likely come out this summer. This movie doesn't sound to me like an Oscar film, so there's no real reason to hold this until the Fall, and the studios are going to need films to release due to the long, recently resolved strike. Given how fast Clint works, the summer fits to me.
Logged
Hocine
Member Extraordinaire
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 527


View Profile Email
« Reply #124 on: November 17, 2023, 05:16:35 PM »

You may be right. World of Reel website even thinks that it might go to the next Cannes Film Festival.
Do you think that Juror #2 could be a crowd pleaser, despite the lack of A-list stars ?
Logged
AKA23
Classic Member
Member Extraordinaire
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3671



View Profile Email
« Reply #125 on: November 18, 2023, 09:09:00 AM »

Do you think that Juror #2 could be a crowd pleaser, despite the lack of A-list stars ?

This story strikes me as the kind of movie that would have been made in the 1990's, around the time that John Grisham's novels were being turned into films, "The Client", "The Firm", "The Rainmaker", etc. These kinds of courtroom dramas really are not made much anymore, so I don't know. I think this is part of the reason that Eastwood may be considering retiring, if the reports about this film are true. This script is about 15 years old, so the films that appeal to him are not necessarily the same films as those that have mass appeal anymore. So much is now focused on diversity, equity and inclusion and themes around that, for reasons that are in part understandable, Hollywood is trying to turn the page, but none of that appeals to Eastwood. He's interested in stripped down, old fashioned, well told, character driven, not message driven, stories.

I think the film would have a better chance of being a crowd pleaser if it had more of an A-list cast, which it doesn't have. Kiefer Sutherland is the most well known, but even within his own family, Donald Sutherland, his father, is a much bigger star, so even he is not a household name or one that will necessarily draw droves of viewers to head to the theaters. If it is really well done, and has a good critical reception, and Warners markets this as the last film of Eastwood's career, that may increase the chances that it will do well, but I think that chance would have been better if the film were starring Eastwood, in a role that was similar to other popular films of his, which this is not. That's one of the reasons that "The Mule" did so well. It was starring Eastwood in a role that people really wanted to see him in, that of a drug mule. I think they marketed it in a way that made it seem like it would be a grittier drama and that the role Eastwood played would be much more similar to Walt Kowalski and the tone of"Gran Torino" than it was, which is why I think a lot of people might not have loved it as much as they expected to when they saw it, but it still drew people to theaters. This film doesn't really have the same ingredients that made "The Mule" a success, so we'll have to see. I'm hoping for good things, both for the quality of the film, as well as for its reception. 
Logged
Macpherson
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 170


View Profile Email
« Reply #126 on: November 21, 2023, 12:54:27 PM »

Logged
SamanMoradkhani
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 116


View Profile Email
« Reply #127 on: November 21, 2023, 11:07:39 PM »


Nice article with current photos from the British press...

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-12776431/Clint-Eastwood-Nicholas-Hoult-Toni-Collette-Georgia-Juror-No-2.html

 :)

it's just perfect and absolutely gorgeous. Top casting here also.
Logged
SamanMoradkhani
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 116


View Profile Email
« Reply #128 on: November 21, 2023, 11:10:15 PM »

https://deadline.com/2023/11/nicholas-hoult-superman-legacy-lex-luther-1235630393/

Moreover, nicholas-hoult has been cast as Lex Luther, main villain, for Superman Legacy (dir: James Gunn), DC's most anticipated project in years.

HERE IS YOUR A-LIST ACTOR.
Logged
AKA23
Classic Member
Member Extraordinaire
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3671



View Profile Email
« Reply #129 on: November 22, 2023, 11:11:20 AM »

https://deadline.com/2023/11/nicholas-hoult-superman-legacy-lex-luther-1235630393/

Moreover, nicholas-hoult has been cast as Lex Luther, main villain, for Superman Legacy (dir: James Gunn), DC's most anticipated project in years.

HERE IS YOUR A-LIST ACTOR.

We have a different definition of this. Nicolas Hoult is not a name that everyone knows with a long record of successful movies that would draw people to see a movie on his name alone. That's what A-list actor means to me. That's Clint Eastwood, but no one else that's part of this, outside of potentially Kiefer Sutherland, but he's known more for tv rather than movies. Clint is reportedly not acting in this. It is true that Nicolas Hoult is getting a lot of roles and if this new role is commercially successful, in Superman, it may help him to break out and become an A-list actor in the future, but he's not there yet. For example, I watch a lot of movies and I've never seen him in anything noteworthy outside of "About a Boy" when he was a child. He's also not known for being a particularly accomplished  actor, another indicator of an A-list actor, more of an up and coming one, though I'm hoping "Juror #2" is a good role for him and with the Superman casting, that could change.
Logged
SamanMoradkhani
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 116


View Profile Email
« Reply #130 on: November 22, 2023, 09:50:32 PM »

.
« Last Edit: November 22, 2023, 09:52:46 PM by SamanMoradkhani » Logged
SamanMoradkhani
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 116


View Profile Email
« Reply #131 on: November 22, 2023, 09:51:33 PM »

We have a different definition of this. Nicolas Hoult is not a name that everyone knows with a long record of successful movies that would draw people to see a movie on his name alone. That's what A-list actor means to me. That's Clint Eastwood, but no one else that's part of this, outside of potentially Kiefer Sutherland, but he's known more for tv rather than movies. Clint is reportedly not acting in this. It is true that Nicolas Hoult is getting a lot of roles and if this new role is commercially successful, in Superman, it may help him to break out and become an A-list actor in the future, but he's not there yet. For example, I watch a lot of movies and I've never seen him in anything noteworthy outside of "About a Boy" when he was a child. He's also not known for being a particularly accomplished  actor, another indicator of an A-list actor, more of an up and coming one, though I'm hoping "Juror #2" is a good role for him and with the Superman casting, that could change.

what draws people to the theaters to watch a particular film is not merely determined by actors name. yeah, that would've been a major factor and game changer in, let's say, 20 or 30 years ago. Regarding actors, Killers of the flower moon has the biggest names in the world, i.e. Leo DiCaprio, Bob De Niro and etc. AND with Martin Scorsese at the helm. but the movie totally bombed at the box-office and didn't resonate enough. let's not mention Tom Cruise's latest MI: Dead Reckoning. (Meanwhile, Oppenheimer got almost 1B bucks!) So, names don't make people to see a movie anymore. Marketing and social hype do though. if we worry more about the film's performance box-officewise, it may be legit, but if the concern is about the film's "acting" quality, and that's definitely where I do care about and not TikTok users' hype and opinions, it's not legit. Eastwood has got huge talents here who surely deliver his standards.

p.s. Nicholas Hoult had a memorable presence in Mad Max: Fury Road, and also in X-Men films and last year's crowd pleaser, The Menu.
Logged
Gant
Member Extraordinaire
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 6758


You gotta be durable...real durable. Most ain't


View Profile WWW Email
« Reply #132 on: November 23, 2023, 10:09:11 AM »

I?m not too bothered about A list actors, more the quality of the work involved..
Tom Hanks is A list but I thought Sully was just an ok film that could have been directed by almost anyone?
I do think Toni Collette is an excellent actor so that excites me more..
Of course it would be nice for Clint to have a sizeable hit with this, but personally I?d be more interested in a good
quality movie?. Bird and Honkytonk Man are personal faves of mine that I go back to often? but neither made a dime
at the box office..
Logged

Borderline burnout with questionable social skills
Hocine
Member Extraordinaire
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 527


View Profile Email
« Reply #133 on: November 23, 2023, 04:22:43 PM »

This is an interesting debate: what defines an A-list actor ?

About Nicholas Hoult, I agree with AKA23: he is definitely not an A-list actor. Not yet at least. But that could change with the opportunities offered to him. Although he certainly has a background as an actor, he would not be immediately recognizable by the average moviegoer. For instance, I have seen Mad Max: Fury Road and I remember the character he portrayed. But I do not remember the actor behind that character. In my mind, Tom Hardy and Charlize Theron are the stars of Mad Max: Fury Road. The same about Paul Walter Hauser: he was not an A-list actor when he was hired for Richard Jewell and I would not consider him as an A-list star today.

I agree with SamanMoradkhani about the fact that the star-system in Hollywood is not as powerful as it used to be in the twentieth century. Nowadays, many people (especially younger generations) who go to movies, do not care about the actors or the filmmakers. I mean they do not even have favorite actors or directors. They are not attracted by an actor in particular but more by a concept developed by a film. I think that James Cameron and Christopher Nolan understand that very well. Most of moviegoers just want to be entertained and to have fun above all. Generally, they choose to see the films which are the most talked in social medias, which are the modern word of mouth. For instance, all the moviegoers who have seen Barbie, have not necessarily seen Babylon or Amsterdam. Then, Margot Robbie is not the main reason of Barbie box office success, although she is an A-list actress today.

I also agree with Gant in many ways: being a good actor is not necessarily being an A-list actor and vice-versa. For instance, Dwayne Johnson is commercially an A-list actor: but is he praised by the critics for his acting performances ? He is an entertainer and a box-office attraction for sure. But that does not make him a gifted actor. He cannot be compared with Leonardo DiCaprio or Matt Damon.

When Clint was a box-office draw from the late 60s to the mid-80s, he was not considered as a good actor but more as an A-list actor, a superstar, a commercial and cultural phenomenon. The critics started to be interested in Clint as a director first, even if they were probably more fascinated by the star than they wanted to admit it.

I think that Gene Hackman, Morgan Freeman, Kevin Costner, Meryl Streep, Angelina Jolie, Matt Damon, Leonardo DiCaprio, Bradley Cooper and Tom Hanks are some of the real A-list actors that Clint has directed.

About Clint, he was a real box-office attraction until the mid-90s: In The Line of Fire was probably his last real box-office hit as an actor. Now, he is more considered as a director than as an actor. Of course, The Bridges Of Madison County, Space Cowboys, Million Dollar Baby, Gran Torino and The Mule did very well at the box-office. But not like In The Line of Fire or Unforgiven with adjusted inflation.

Anyway, I hope that Juror #2 will be a good film first and a decent success at the box-office, to encourage Clint making some other films after this one.

« Last Edit: November 23, 2023, 04:32:10 PM by Hocine » Logged
SamanMoradkhani
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 116


View Profile Email
« Reply #134 on: November 23, 2023, 11:43:34 PM »

This is an interesting debate: what defines an A-list actor ?

About Nicholas Hoult, I agree with AKA23: he is definitely not an A-list actor. Not yet at least. But that could change with the opportunities offered to him. Although he certainly has a background as an actor, he would not be immediately recognizable by the average moviegoer. For instance, I have seen Mad Max: Fury Road and I remember the character he portrayed. But I do not remember the actor behind that character. In my mind, Tom Hardy and Charlize Theron are the stars of Mad Max: Fury Road. The same about Paul Walter Hauser: he was not an A-list actor when he was hired for Richard Jewell and I would not consider him as an A-list star today.

I agree with SamanMoradkhani about the fact that the star-system in Hollywood is not as powerful as it used to be in the twentieth century. Nowadays, many people (especially younger generations) who go to movies, do not care about the actors or the filmmakers. I mean they do not even have favorite actors or directors. They are not attracted by an actor in particular but more by a concept developed by a film. I think that James Cameron and Christopher Nolan understand that very well. Most of moviegoers just want to be entertained and to have fun above all. Generally, they choose to see the films which are the most talked in social medias, which are the modern word of mouth. For instance, all the moviegoers who have seen Barbie, have not necessarily seen Babylon or Amsterdam. Then, Margot Robbie is not the main reason of Barbie box office success, although she is an A-list actress today.

I also agree with Gant in many ways: being a good actor is not necessarily being an A-list actor and vice-versa. For instance, Dwayne Johnson is commercially an A-list actor: but is he praised by the critics for his acting performances ? He is an entertainer and a box-office attraction for sure. But that does not make him a gifted actor. He cannot be compared with Leonardo DiCaprio or Matt Damon.

When Clint was a box-office draw from the late 60s to the mid-80s, he was not considered as a good actor but more as an A-list actor, a superstar, a commercial and cultural phenomenon. The critics started to be interested in Clint as a director first, even if they were probably more fascinated by the star than they wanted to admit it.

I think that Gene Hackman, Morgan Freeman, Kevin Costner, Meryl Streep, Angelina Jolie, Matt Damon, Leonardo DiCaprio, Bradley Cooper and Tom Hanks are some of the real A-list actors that Clint has directed.

About Clint, he was a real box-office attraction until the mid-90s: In The Line of Fire was probably his last real box-office hit as an actor. Now, he is more considered as a director than as an actor. Of course, The Bridges Of Madison County, Space Cowboys, Million Dollar Baby, Gran Torino and The Mule did very well at the box-office. But not like In The Line of Fire or Unforgiven with adjusted inflation.

Anyway, I hope that Juror #2 will be a good film first and a decent success at the box-office, to encourage Clint making some other films after this one.

Great argument and perfect conclusion Hocine. thank you.
although let's not forget to acknowledge a really bitter truth of these days in cultural, socio-economic world and particularly in entertainment industry. it's a different time we live in, time is changed, everything is changed, cinema and art are changed. to say the least, it seems that we truly live in "no country for old men" era, which is tragic and yet natural. it's clear that younger generations have different opinions and tendencies regarding sex, politics, social change, art, cinema and even storytelling. in recent years, seemingly, no major hollywood titan could've managed to attract the masses of people to see their films. moreover, some of them - Woody Allen and Roman Polanski, to mention two -or what many call them "old white men" have been canceled totally. many tried to cancel Eastwood too. and many did though. So, maybe this sounds a bit pessimistic, but no A-LIST actor, from Al Pacino and Leo DiCaprio to Tom Cruise or even John Wayne himself, could make younger generations, who are the majority of moviegoers, connect to Clint Eastwood as they connect to Nolan or Tarantino. the last time a movie by any of these "old white men" got to be on top of the box-office was almost 10 years ago. ever since they have made a bunch of films with huge stars and somehow the results were the same: not that good!
« Last Edit: November 23, 2023, 11:49:32 PM by SamanMoradkhani » Logged
Hocine
Member Extraordinaire
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 527


View Profile Email
« Reply #135 on: November 24, 2023, 06:39:30 PM »

Logged
AKA23
Classic Member
Member Extraordinaire
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3671



View Profile Email
« Reply #136 on: November 24, 2023, 08:55:02 PM »

https://www.worldofreel.com/blog/2023/11/24/wxk2ixfis8zcapkbyam2rf0oo66dy7

Unless something has changed recently, I don't think this is accurate. The agency that does the extras casting had dates up to at least 12/8 for filming, and that just includes any filming in the Savannah area, so it could be done then. Or, alternatively, could go on even longer. I thought they were also planning on potentially filming in Los Angeles, based on articles about the film.
Logged
Gant
Member Extraordinaire
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 6758


You gotta be durable...real durable. Most ain't


View Profile WWW Email
« Reply #137 on: November 25, 2023, 02:45:26 AM »

I recently read somewhere that Paul Walter Hauser was possibly going to have the lead part in Tarantino?s next film..
Logged

Borderline burnout with questionable social skills
LB13
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 81



View Profile Email
« Reply #138 on: November 26, 2023, 04:02:03 PM »

I think Paul Walter Hauser is a very talented actor, and between Richard Jewell and these rumors of him starring in Tarantino's The Movie Critic, I'm glad to see him getting more prominent roles.

I still have so many questions about Juror #2. I think the John Grisham comparison is spot-on, and I wonder why Clint chose this project in particular for what could be his last film. At surface level, it doesn't strike me as very personal; whereas in the case of Clint's biopics or even Cry Macho, these films could be interpreted as deconstructions of classic Hollywood characters, we are yet to see how Juror #2 connects to that. What does Eastwood have in common with a juror who realizes he's guilty of the crime he's supposed to make a decision on? Some statement about reserving judgement? A commentary being a part of the Hollywood culture? A feeling of repressed guilt? Who knows.

Also, I think this is the longest beard we've seen him wear in his lifetime. Man looks like Noam Chomsky.
Logged
SamanMoradkhani
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 116


View Profile Email
« Reply #139 on: November 26, 2023, 11:29:50 PM »

I think Paul Walter Hauser is a very talented actor, and between Richard Jewell and these rumors of him starring in Tarantino's The Movie Critic, I'm glad to see him getting more prominent roles.

I still have so many questions about Juror #2. I think the John Grisham comparison is spot-on, and I wonder why Clint chose this project in particular for what could be his last film. At surface level, it doesn't strike me as very personal; whereas in the case of Clint's biopics or even Cry Macho, these films could be interpreted as deconstructions of classic Hollywood characters, we are yet to see how Juror #2 connects to that. What does Eastwood have in common with a juror who realizes he's guilty of the crime he's supposed to make a decision on? Some statement about reserving judgement? A commentary being a part of the Hollywood culture? A feeling of repressed guilt? Who knows.

Also, I think this is the longest beard we've seen him wear in his lifetime. Man looks like Noam Chomsky.

Great questions LB13,
I do believe that the answer lies in Eastwood's filmography. Eastwood, despite being a truly modern filmmaker, belongs to the classic tradition of Hollywood. He is fascinated by the process of character study. and moreover, he tackles with morality all the time, in all his films, at least his finest ones. in other words, If there is a serious point of moral dilemma, Eastwood is ready to narrate it. we have these moral dilemmas in Unforgiven (whether to let the notorious past of you get hold of you), in Bridges of Madison County (whether she leaves her family for her new found love), in Million Dollar Baby (whether to help her and do what she asked you to do), in Gran Torino also, and so many more pictures of his. I believe this is his drive to do this film, and maybe he thinks Juror2 will be a worthy addition to these tradition of his films. I just hope Juror2 is as rich, complex and layered as his best films are. The Scripwriter is totally Unknown and hasn't done anything else in many years. I think we should just trust the old man's instincts.   

funny and good mention of Noam Chomsky :) my favorite.
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 5 6 [7] 8 9 ... 11 Go Up Print 
 




C L I N T E A S T W O O D . N E T