criterionforum.org

lacritfan wrote: Opens the door for Wall-E and Dark Knight.

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?

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

GringoTex wrote:

jackford wrote: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.

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.

Gator wrote: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.

domino harvey wrote:

Gator wrote: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?

domino harvey wrote: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?

Antoine Doinel wrote:The Razzie sweep is now complete with Clint Eastwood singing the theme song.

tavernier wrote:Manohla sucks off Clint... again.

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

King Prendergast wrote:

tavernier wrote: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.

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

Gator wrote:

King Prendergast wrote:

tavernier wrote: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.