A thriller about an American family terrorized by the rise of an authoritarian government that uses drone surveillance, militarized police and internet control to demand obedience opened in 800 theaters last weekend, but you probably didn’t know it.
“Anniversary,” with Diane Lane, Dylan O’Brien, Kyle Chandler and more other names as actors, was financed and distributed by Lionsgate. But with a storyline that may have felt too close to our political reality, it seems to have been buried by the studio in a political climate where government retaliation against the media has become commonplace.
The film had almost no market tracking awareness and earned a paltry $259,180 over the weekend, just $325 per theater.
“The film was buried because it’s incendiary,” said Frank Wuliger, a partner at Gersh who represents the director and was instrumental in getting the film made. “To me, it’s a sign of the world we live in.”
“I’ve never had a movie that we thought was really interesting that no one was aware of,” producer Nick Wechsler told TheWrap. “It’s hard to market a political film these days. People are afraid of them – they don’t know how it’s going to be received emotionally. It’s a strange time.”
Lionsgate declined to comment for this story.
“Anniversary,” by Polish director Jan Komasa (“Corpus Christi”), stars Lane as a Georgetown professor whose former student, played by Phoebe Dynevor (of “Bridgerton”), writes an anti-democratic political treatise called “The Change” that gains nationwide attention after it is published by a right-wing organization that takes power. She also marries Lane’s son, who becomes part of the dominant political apparatus and swings from struggling writer to arrogant power player. As democratic norms disappear, Lane and her husband (Chandler) and grown children—played by Zoey Deutsch, Madeline Brewer, and McKenna Grace—first resist and then cave to the crushing power of the state.
Much of the film’s emotional core happens around the family dinner table for birthdays, anniversaries and Thanksgiving, as political beliefs clash between liberal views and those who favor a (never explained) one-party system. Scenes including government census workers demanding intimate details about the family, or neighbors pressuring the family to show their loyalty to “The Change” with the new American flag, play especially close to our current reality.
“The events unfolding over the course of five years in Jan Komasa’s film would have been dismissed as sleaze only a year or two ago, but now sound an awfully bigger alarm than anything else in ‘A House of Dynamite,'” wrote Sheri Linden in her review for The Hollywood Reporter.
“Diane Lane leads the cast in dystopian political thriller that feels a little too close for comfort in Trump’s America,” read the headline of Pete Hammond’s review in Deadline, which reflects the mirror image the film holds up to reality.
But there were rare reviews from established stores. The film was not reviewed by The New York Times, Los Angeles Times or Washington Post or many other outlets, very unusual for a film with a significant theatrical release. (TheWrap’s critics were unable to screen the film in time for embargo lifting and did not review either.)
Only two actors besides Lane attended the premiere in October, discouraged by their agents and publicists from being associated with the project, according to people close to the film. And exhibitors were hardly interested in supporting the film. In the cinemas where the film was booked, there were precious few screenings. On the west side of LA, it showed mid-afternoon at AMC Century City and 10pm in Marina del Rey.
A studio insider said the film had a $3 million marketing budget and was always meant to be a small release with a bigger life on streaming. The film will play on Hulu, Lionsgate’s streaming partner.
The insider also pointed fingers at the talent for failing to show up for the film, suggesting that the political content was a deterrent. “With the exception of the lead actor, they were largely absent from the campaign,” the insider said.
Representatives for Lane declined to comment for this story. But people close to the actress said she was deeply disappointed by the studio’s lack of support for the film, and recently questioned why the film was not yet on the Academy’s website for award consideration.
At Lionsgate, “they don’t know how to release these kinds of movies,” said a person close to the actor. “I don’t know if it was a Trump thing.”
But “Anniversary” feels like a sign of the times. Entertainment and media have been under constant attack by the Trump administration, with lawsuits over television interviews at ABC and CBS News, and federal DEI investigations at Disney and Comcast. Hollywood has moved noticeably to the right, not just under government pressure but in response to the cultural and political pendulum swing.
Nor is it the first project to get caught up in Hollywood’s fear of Trump — the premiere date for Apple’s political thriller series “The Savant” was postponed in September in the wake of Charlie Kirk’s death, as the show follows a woman who infiltrates online hate groups to prevent mass shootings. The show still hasn’t been put back on Apple’s release calendar, a decision star/producer Jessica Chastain made public said she disagreed.
With “Jubilee,” it would hardly be surprising if Lionsgate made a calculated decision to avoid drawing attention to Trump and the right-wing attack machine.
The film was made in 2023, when then-President Biden was expected to win. It was shot for $7 million in Dublin and held up for release after Trump won. Lionsgate shelved the drama again for the fall, aiming to release the film before the Nov. 4 election and market it as a thriller.
But when right-wing activist Kirk was murdered, the studio became even more cautious about releasing “Anniversary.”
Still, the film needed to be released on 800 screens to meet the terms of the studio’s production deal with Hulu, insiders said. Hence an almost sneaky release.
Wuliger said he was deeply disappointed to see the film held up for its initial release, but understand why Lionsgate likely lowered the film’s profile.
“Do I want this movie to be on Trump’s radar and have him attack this movie from the podium? … I have sympathy for Lionsgate here,” he said. “They buried it. They could have buried it worse. But they made the movie, and it’s impressive.”
