Gran Torino (Clint Eastwood, 2008)

[domino harvey]

Opens the door for Wall-E and Dark Knight.

I actually wouldn't be surprised at this point!

[essrog]

Glenn Kenny digs it.

Does it give too much away to say that Gran Torino, which Eastwood stars in and directed, represents, for this critic at least, the final film in a trilogy that began with Unforgiven and continued with A Perfect World?

[domino harvey]

So I guess someone gets shot. Could it be Eastwood, just as he's learned to love someone different than him? Or will it be that different young man, whose death will inspire that crusty old man's heart to finally open? Oh so many possibilities (2)!

[Joe Buck]

Maybe I'm sick, but I was genuinely intrigued by the trailer I saw on TV and look forward to seeing this one.

[jackford]

Intrestingly, Gran Torino just won the best actor and best screenplay awards in the National Board of Review awards.

[GringoTex]

Intrestingly, Gran Torino just won the best actor and best screenplay awards in the National Board of Review awards.

I guess the forum's rush to condemnation based on the opinions of two obscure reviewers was a bit premature.

[Gator]

Intrestingly, Gran Torino just won the best actor and best screenplay awards in the National Board of Review awards.

I guess the forum's rush to condemnation based on the opinions of two obscure reviewers was a bit premature.

Not to worry. Just the usual Eastwood hating kiddies trying to put the poison in by citing whatever obscure but negative blog review they can find. It's the same schtick they try with every new Eastwood release. Doesn't help them any but it never stops them from trying. Anyway a real reviewer finally weighed in earlier today.

Here's a snippet from Todd McCarthy's rave Variety review:

At 78, perhaps the only actor in the history of American cinema to convincingly kick the butt of a guy 60 years his junior, the hard-headed, snarly mouthed Clint Eastwood of the 1970s comes growling back to life in "Gran Torino." Centered on a cantankerous curmudgeon who can fairly be described as Archie Bunker fully loaded (with beer and guns), the actor-director's second release of the season is his most stripped-down, unadorned picture in many a year, even as it continues his long preoccupation with race in American society. Highlighted by the star's vastly entertaining performance, this funny, broad but ultimately serious-minded drama about an old-timer driven to put things right in his deteriorating neighborhood looks to be a big audience-pleaser with mainstream viewers of all ages.

[domino harvey]

Not to worry. Just the usual Eastwood hating kiddies trying to put the poison in by citing whatever obscure but negative blog review they can find. It's the same schtick they try with every new Eastwood release. Doesn't help them any but it never stops them from trying. Anyway a real reviewer finally weighed in earlier today.

Did you even read this thread? Who are the "they" you are referring to? What evidence do you have to support your assertion that people who, based on all available information, think this film looks awful must also therefore hate all Eastwood films and be nursing some sort of grudge?

[aox]

Not to worry. Just the usual Eastwood hating kiddies trying to put the poison in by citing whatever obscure but negative blog review they can find. It's the same schtick they try with every new Eastwood release. Doesn't help them any but it never stops them from trying. Anyway a real reviewer finally weighed in earlier today.

Did you even read this thread? Who are the "they" you are referring to? What evidence do you have to support your assertion that people who, based on all available information, think this film looks awful must also therefore hate all Eastwood films and be nursing some sort of grudge?

Use your imagination, people!

[Jeff]

Did you even read this thread? Who are the "they" you are referring to? What evidence do you have to support your assertion that people who, based on all available information, think this film looks awful must also therefore hate all Eastwood films and be nursing some sort of grudge?

I can't figure that out either. It's not the first time that Gator has snapped at someone whom he thought might be disparaging Eastwood.

I'm the one who pointed out the early negative reviews, but I'm an Eastwood fan. I started this thread, and three of Eastwood's last five films have figured prominently in my year-end top tens.

While I'm not part of an imaginary posse of "Eastwood Haters," I'm also not a blind apologist for anything he might direct. I started getting a little concerned when I read the studio's synopsis, and my concern was compounded when the trailer pointed to a maudlin and didactic piece on racial "tolerance." I'm not a big fan of Eastwood-as-composer, and the title track is fingernails on a chalkboard (literally an accurate aural facsimilie). I was not surprised when a few bloggers (Oscar pundits by profession more than critics, and nobody ever claimed otherwise) gave it a drubbing. It looks like it's ultimately going to be as critically divisive as most of his work.

[lacritfan]

The Razzie sweep is now complete with Clint Eastwood singing the theme song.

Golden Globes nominated it for Best Song

[tavernier]

Manohla sucks off Clint... again.

[King Prendergast]

Manohla sucks off Clint... again.

That first reader's review is much better. It deserves to be quoted in full:

For Eastwood Devotees ONLY

As filmmaker, Eastwood enjoys an impressive reputation given his inconsistent work. His fans seem to want to re-live film history, supporting Clint in a way similar to how the giants of American film were once supported by cineastes from France while being dismissed as out-of-date (particularly for their later films) by journalist/reviewers. Eastwood fans seem to be saying: Clint’s a giant, and we’re on the side of the cineastes. And, so, those fans admire everything Clint does—and I mean, no matter what.

But the question persists: is Eastwood a director of comparable quality and if not, why do his fanatics support him so avidly? Certainly, he makes some decent films. He seems to direct in one of two modes: the close-to-the-ground, small scale films that express real feeling for the underclass or oppressed (Million Dollar Baby) and the large-scale “important” works (Flags of Our Fathers) that come across as poorly structured and out of control. Like many directors who don’t write themselves, Eastwood is sometimes the victim of weak scripts that he doesn’t know how, or doesn't care, to fix. Occasionally, these two types of films conflate and we get one of the Big films like “Mystic River,” where there is a sincere effort to depict the working class, but the structure of the film becomes unwieldy.

So what about “Gran Torino?” It’s one of Eastwood’s small projects. He plays an older version of “Dirty Harry.” His character takes no guff and is willing to commit more violent acts in the name of his own brand of justice than any old man ever. The grim aspect is that there will be no sequel for this character, and in that sense this is certainly a late work in the oeuvre. No question, the character grows on one, despite the fact that the movie goes awry in portraying the social context. Like one of those late films from the directors of the Golden Age set in the contemporary world (instead of a more timeless genre, such as a Western), “Gran Torino” isn’t quite right about the society it depicts. Also, it’s burdened with a simplistic, by-the-numbers script. So, even though Clint’s character is appealing, the movie doesn’t really click. “Million Dollar Baby,” arguably Eastwood’s best film, set in a timeless generic mode, touched just enough on present reality (the woman athlete) to create something fresh despite the dated genre. But “Gran Torino” is out-of-sync and something to be concerned by if Eastwood’s next film takes a similar sized step toward the anachronistic.

But those Eastwood fans won’t stop— amazingly, the National Review named Clint as Best Actor for this film. Even for those who’ve admired the memorable galaxy of starring characters he’s embodied for the last half century, both in his own films and those of other notable directors, it’s difficult to feel positive about the adulation, or to think that the idolators are doing Eastwood any favors by making him believe that as a Director he doesn’t need to try harder.
- garydrucker

You can see a similar blinding idolatry at play in Rosenbaum, for example, vis-a-vis the late films of the Cahiers-cum-Sarris pantheon.

[Gator]

Manohla sucks off Clint... again.

That first reader's review is much better. It deserves to be quoted in full:

For Eastwood Devotees ONLY

- garydrucker

You can see a similar blinding idolatry at play in Rosenbaum, for example, vis-a-vis the late films of the Cahiers-cum-Sarris pantheon.

Thanks for proving my point. A bitter, spiteful, condescending Eastwood hater who'll be no more successful with this sort of stuff than any of the other ranting dismissals about Eastwood we've heard. What IS it with these ghastly college kids/20-somethings & their loathing for Eastwood? Has the comic book junk Hollywood's been churning out over the last two decades so rotted the brains of that generation that they can no longer appreciate the art of storytelling? Is the incoherent, shallow, flashy garbage of Christopher Nolan the 'highest' standard that these little cretins aspire too? Or is it that a thudding mediocrity like The Aviator from the terminally overrated Martin Scorsese lost to Million Dollar Baby - whose themes they can barely comprehend - at the 2004 Oscars that infuriates them the most?

You kids out there who write this bitter nonsense about one of America's greatest living filmmakers - you're a joke. Infants posturing as adults & you know NOTHING.

[swo17]

Um, disliking Eastwood's latest films is not necessarily synonymous with a) not comprehending them, b) being young, or c) liking Batman. You are more likely to convince people of your opinions on Eastwood by sharing what you feel makes him "one of America's greatest filmmakers" as opposed to condescending to anyone who would disagree with you.

[Jeff]

You kids out there who write this bitter nonsense about one of America's greatest living filmmakers - you're a joke. Infants posturing as adults & you know NOTHING.

In the event that you are not just trolling for attention (as your digs at Scorsese and Nolan would indicate), or confused and thinking you are at the IMDb forums, let me reiterate: No one has made any negative comments about Eastwood as a man or a filmmaker. It is perfectly reasonable for people to think that this, or any, film does not look good, and to say so here. Continued comments like the one quoted above may result in the removal of your posts and/or the deletion of your account.

[fiddlesticks]

Um, disliking Eastwood's latest films is not necessarily synonymous with a) not comprehending them, b) being young, or c) liking Batman.

And by the same token, liking Eastwood's latest films is not necessarily synonymous with a) fellatio or b) blind idolatry.

[tavernier]

In the case of Dargis it is.

[HypnoHelioStaticStasis]

To be fair, Dargis heartily (and in my opinion, justifiably) dismissed Changeling in her report from Cannes.

[tavernier]

Lisa Schwartzbaum sucks off Clint... again. (She also loved Changeling.)

[King Prendergast]

Perhaps it is time for a thorough-going project to separate the Eastwoodian wheat (Josie Wales, Bird, Million Dollar) from the chaff (Flags, Changeling) instead of the popular characterization of him as the second coming of John Ford, with every film praised by rote.

[Adam]

Manohla sucks off Clint... again.

That first reader's review is much better. It deserves to be quoted in full:

For Eastwood Devotees ONLY

- garydrucker

You can see a similar blinding idolatry at play in Rosenbaum, for example, vis-a-vis the late films of the Cahiers-cum-Sarris pantheon.

Thanks for proving my point. A bitter, spiteful, condescending Eastwood hater who'll be no more successful with this sort of stuff than any of the other ranting dismissals about Eastwood we've heard. What IS it with these ghastly college kids/20-somethings & their loathing for Eastwood? Has the comic book junk Hollywood's been churning out over the last two decades so rotted the brains of that generation that they can no longer appreciate the art of storytelling? Is the incoherent, shallow, flashy garbage of Christopher Nolan the 'highest' standard that these little cretins aspire too? Or is it that a thudding mediocrity like The Aviator from the terminally overrated Martin Scorsese lost to Million Dollar Baby - whose themes they can barely comprehend - at the 2004 Oscars that infuriates them the most?

You kids out there who write this bitter nonsense about one of America's greatest living filmmakers - you're a joke. Infants posturing as adults & you know NOTHING.

Actually, I think more critics blindly praise everything Eastwood does than condemn him. Your words make it sound as though you are as guilty as those your condemn, except in the opposite direction. It's not a useful way to make an argument. I think it's generally true in life as well - people often criticize those for the same faults that they themselves are guilty of.

Personally I think Eastwood makes some good films and not some others. Like most people. Haven't seen the two new ones yet, so I won't comment on those. Let me ask, have you seen Gran Torino yet?

[John Cope]

Well, I've seen it and I thought it was excellent. I am an admirer of Eastwood, so I should probably confess that straight off. Still, I don't unconditionally love or even like all of his films as director. And my tastes are not necessarily the conventional ones (I thought Flags, for instance, was infinitely superior to, say, Mystic River which I didn't like at all).

Anyway, I certainly can say that this one does indeed function well in tandem with Unforgiven and Perfect World. I don't necessarily think it's as good as either of those but it is pretty damn good in its own right. And though there are obvious similarities in respect to the notion of bonding with and protecting the innocent as well as living with the results of a violent life, what should be emphasized is the fact that this film completes an arc of sorts; a carefully developed consideration of what the proper response to violent acts should be and how that response may be seen to bestow a kind of respectability or even nobility. The final choices made here resonate in direct comparison to the acts at the end of Unforgiven, in which a capitulation to violence is depicted as the only conceivable means to meet and negate opposing violence. There may also be elements in these films, too, which are meant to chart the specificity of social or cultural response; what is made available as possible action as a direct result of specific context.

What is most remarkable about Gran Torino, though, is that it feels like, even while watching it, not much more (on a scene by scene basis anyway) than a blatant catalogue of cliches. How in the world Eastwood manages to ground all these rote mechanics and give them life is an elusive and wondrous thing. Because he does. It's moving when it means to be and funny (very funny) when it means to be and none of this feels lazy or uninspired. Eastwood's committed presence obviously helps but it has to do, ultimately I think, with the way in which he takes these cliches seriously, seeing their underlying truth, at least in so far as they represent attitudes we recognize and are familiar with--the first response attitudes that shape all our other responses. And those who hated Crash may be assured that by "taking it seriously" I don't mean to infer that Eastwood is overly pious about his message here. The "message", for lack of a better word, is actually very subtle and steadily arrived at.

Don't be surprised at all if this is the film that ends up picking up steam with Oscar voters. I don't know that it should really win Best Picture but it wouldn't surprise me and, frankly, it deserves it.

[jackford]

Saw this last night, teriffic film. However, I think this has very little thematic similarities with Unforgiven or A Perfect World. Rather, I agree with Manhola Dargis's review where she states that this is about one generation of Americans making way for the next. While some of the performances may be a little iffy, Tao's in particular, this is still a very powerful film. This may be a mild spoiler, but I feel when we see Tao's face in the last two shots of the film, we're actually looking at the future of America, the children of the immigrants.

[tavernier]

Armond doesn't suck off Clint... so, um, maybe it's good?