This movie was an After School Special with guns. SUCKED
Arend_Anton
· 10 months ago
Bob, I understand a lot of what you're saying. I'm very much an Eastwood fan, but I can see where you're coming from with your complaints. His one or two take style can either work for or against him, but I think that's what I love about him. The imperfections in his work are a refreshing break from the typical over-produced Hollywood fare. Sure, he sacrifices good performances on occasion. He also shoots with flawed scripts because he doesn't like to meddle with the writer's work.
You never quite know what you're going to get with an Eastwood movie, even if they follow a formula seen a thousand times. Unforgiven is one of my favorite movies, not because it's a new twist on the Clint formula but because of how earnest it is. I also like Gran Torino a lot, despite the numerous scripting and acting issues.
I think his recent "two movies a year" mantra has demonstrated what I'm saying. Flags and Changeling weren't very well received, while the movies he made almost as an afterthought (Letters and Gran Torino) were greeted with warmth. It's because his better films are the ones in which you don't quite know what to expect.
JonCummings
· 10 months ago
This is just brilliant.
To me, Gran Torino was a recitation of the themes of this essay, splayed out over two often-excruciating hours--like Clint's career, it starts out lean and (for me, overly) mean, before taking a sudden turn and barrelling headlong toward a too-obvious redemption. The difference, of course, is in the quality of the product--Clint's early career, which you love a lot more than I do, at least involved vision and myth and iconography, while the opening half of Gran Torino is about as hackneyed a portrait of supposedly excusable old-school racism as I've ever seen.
For the life of me, I can't figure out the grousing about Clint being denied an Oscar nomination. For half the movie I thought I was watching a rejected Sling Blade audition (and the similarities between the two films don't end with the inexplicable grunting). Even when he's using actual words, the script is a burlap sack that even a professional actor (much less the amateurs) couldn't act his way out of. Clint, legendary for creating characters of few words who express all they need to with...well...squints, talks to himself more than any ostensibly sane person I've ever seen in the movies.
One thing, though, Bob--get off The Reader. It's a fine film, and Hannah Schmitz is now and forever my all-time favorite NILF. If loving her is wrong, I don't wanna be right.
Elaine
· 10 months ago
Clint Eastwood actually was the catalyst for my moving from young avid moviegoer to cynical curmudgeon (when it comes to movies). At age 23, I saw Unforgiven, and thought it completely sucked. Then I watched him win Oscars and endless accolades for it. Made no sense at all. I began to question the whole scenario. Ever since then, I've rented or waited for films on movie channels more often than not. Then I had kids, and once in awhile I take them to Nemo or Wall-E. Generally speaking, I avoid adult movies now.. making fun of them or ignoring them. I turn Showtime and HBO on and off based on the seasons of original programming. It's sort of sad, now that I think about it.
BobCashill
· 10 months ago
Elaine, come back to the movies. There are some good ones. It's not all Clint's fault. :)
I remember dragging Jon to see Sudden Impact. I think it offended every bone in his body--but we had a good time, in the bad ol' days of Eastwood's career.
All Comments
You never quite know what you're going to get with an Eastwood movie, even if they follow a formula seen a thousand times. Unforgiven is one of my favorite movies, not because it's a new twist on the Clint formula but because of how earnest it is. I also like Gran Torino a lot, despite the numerous scripting and acting issues.
I think his recent "two movies a year" mantra has demonstrated what I'm saying. Flags and Changeling weren't very well received, while the movies he made almost as an afterthought (Letters and Gran Torino) were greeted with warmth. It's because his better films are the ones in which you don't quite know what to expect.
To me, Gran Torino was a recitation of the themes of this essay, splayed out over two often-excruciating hours--like Clint's career, it starts out lean and (for me, overly) mean, before taking a sudden turn and barrelling headlong toward a too-obvious redemption. The difference, of course, is in the quality of the product--Clint's early career, which you love a lot more than I do, at least involved vision and myth and iconography, while the opening half of Gran Torino is about as hackneyed a portrait of supposedly excusable old-school racism as I've ever seen.
For the life of me, I can't figure out the grousing about Clint being denied an Oscar nomination. For half the movie I thought I was watching a rejected Sling Blade audition (and the similarities between the two films don't end with the inexplicable grunting). Even when he's using actual words, the script is a burlap sack that even a professional actor (much less the amateurs) couldn't act his way out of. Clint, legendary for creating characters of few words who express all they need to with...well...squints, talks to himself more than any ostensibly sane person I've ever seen in the movies.
One thing, though, Bob--get off The Reader. It's a fine film, and Hannah Schmitz is now and forever my all-time favorite NILF. If loving her is wrong, I don't wanna be right.
I remember dragging Jon to see Sudden Impact. I think it offended every bone in his body--but we had a good time, in the bad ol' days of Eastwood's career.