Eastwood's Changeling

[Watashi]

Trailer (http://playlist.yahoo.com/makeplaylist.dll?sid=71447440&sdm=web&pt=rd)

Eh. I'm actually anticipating Eastwood's other film more.

[Ezee E]

Looks pretty great.

[dreamdead]

Woah, a DeKalb, Illinois shout-out. :eek:

I would like to see Eastwood work with a wider color palette at some point, as the hues have become standard now, and the story looks like an abbreviated version of other legal/anti-authoritarian films, but Malkovich might get me to see it at some point.

[Amnesiac]

I've been intrigued by this film ever since I read the synopsis. There is just something nefarious and downright creepy about the whole concept.

[transmogrifier]

Woah, a DeKalb, Illinois shout-out. :eek:

I would like to see Eastwood work with a wider color palette at some point, as the hues have become standard now, and the story looks like an abbreviated version of other legal/anti-authoritarian films, but Malkovich might get me to see it at some point.

Malkovich almost seems to be speaking at half speed in that trailer - it's like a parody of Malkovich done by a drunk guy underwater.

[NickGlass]

I would like to see Eastwood work with a wider color palette at some point, as the hues have become standard now.

Indeed.

That's a fairly dull trailer. Angelina Jolie goes "psychopathic" (again)? Good career move.

[The Mike]

This would be cooler were it a remake of the horror flick.

Anyway, she'll win an Oscar. Whoopdie-do.

[Malickfan]

JJ Strazinski (spelling?) wrote the screenplay so I'm intrigued by that. But I couldn't care less about Eastwood as director.

[Grouchy]

This would be cooler were it a remake of the horror flick.

Anyway, she'll win an Oscar. Whoopdie-do.
Man, I remember seeing The Changeling as a kid and being actually scared by it. I watched it again last year and despised it.

One of the few childhood favorites where that's happened to me. Robocop, First Blood and Ghostbusters still stand the test of time.

[The Mike]

Man, I remember seeing The Changeling as a kid and being actually scared by it. I watched it again last year and despised it.

I haven't seen it in a few years, but remember it being uneven. Wouldn't say I despised it, but that the interesting scenes weren't as frequent as I remembered.

Hence, they should remake it into a pop-culture horror flick, so the original is good again in comparison.

[number8]

The title really doesn't fit. It does make it sound like a horror film. The original title, The Exchange, is awfully generic, but at least fits the movie better.

[The Mike]

Maybe the title should be Changelina!

[number8]

I vote for That Baby Ain't Mine.

[Malickfan]

Would it be too much to ask Eastwood to write his own script?

[Raiders]

Would it be too much to ask Eastwood to write his own script?

Why should he? What does that have to do with anything?

[Malickfan]

I'd respect him more. I watch his films and I'm never blown away. I never go, "Oh yeah, that's trademark Eastwood."

I think he gets more acclaim due to who he is. Just like when Robert Redford directs something. Give us a longstanding popular acting career and we'll love you forever.

[Raiders]

I'd respect him more. I watch his films and I'm never blown away. I never go, "Oh yeah, that's trademark Eastwood."

I think he gets more acclaim due to who he is. Just like when Robert Redford directs something. Give us a longstanding popular acting career and we'll love you forever.

I think his directing efforts, mostly of late anyway, are pretty distinctive in terms of tone and muted palette. Plus, I still don't see what that matters.

Eastwood has also been directing for a long, long time. It isn't like he was some Hollywood legend before going behind the camera.

Do you respect Hitchcock, Spielberg, Hawks and so on with other directors who rarely received any screenplay credit for their films?

[Malickfan]

I respect Hitchcock since Vertigo's in my top 5 and Rear Window and North By Northwest are pretty good. How many directors back then got to write their own material? In Hollywood I mean.

I've only seen Rio Bravo so I can't give too much of an opinion on Hawks.

Spielberg? Nope. I don't respect him one bit.

[Raiders]

I respect Hitchcock since Vertigo's in my top 5 and Rear Window and North By Northwest are pretty good. How many directors back then got to write their own material? In Hollywood I mean.

How many big, Hollywood directors today write their own material? These are, by and large, men working for a studio hired to direct a screenplay.


Spielberg? Nope. I don't respect him one bit.

Sad.

[Malickfan]

How many big, Hollywood directors today write their own material? These are, by and large, men working for a studio hired to direct a screenplay.



Sad.

There's more now than there used to be. Did John Ford ever write anything?

And Spielberg? Take a risk. Stop trying to please the general public every single time. How much money do you have? A ton? Then do a film that comes from YOU. What do you have to prove now? Also his favorite curseword is "rats". That is so lame.

[soitgoes...]

Yay! More Eastwood bashing. Ho hum. :rolleyes:

[Winston*]

Should probably alert you to this, Malickfan, before it gets too far down the line; here at Match Cut, we don't really do the whole "auterism" thing.

[Malickfan]

Should probably alert you to this, Malickfan, before it gets too far down the line; here at Match Cut, we don't really do the whole "auterism" thing.

That's cool.

But Spielberg's still a hack.

[number8]

And Spielberg? Take a risk. Stop trying to please the general public every single time. How much money do you have? A ton? Then do a film that comes from YOU. What do you have to prove now? Also his favorite curseword is "rats". That is so lame.

Man, I'm not a Spielberg fan either, but what does that have to do with anything? Maybe what's "him" is his love for Sci-Fi pulp and adventure stories. I don't think Raiders of the Lost Ark and Close Encounters could be any more from his heart. So he entertains a lot of people and make a load of money along the way. Good for him. When did that become a bad thing?

[Malickfan]

It's just that he's already proven himself. He's made a ton of money. Has a lot of power. Doesn't he have anything in his head? Anything at all? To challenge himself? When Dreamworks came to be, he could do anything without needing someone's permission. And nothing really changed.

Same with Eastwood. Paint by numbers. That's what they do.

[Raiders]

It's just that he's already proven himself. He's made a ton of money. Has a lot of power. Doesn't he have anything in his head? Anything at all? To challenge himself? When Dreamworks came to be, he could do anything without needing someone's permission. And nothing really changed.

Why should it have changed? He was making great films before and has continued since. Sorry you don't like him, but what reason should he have for changing? And really, in a world with Ron Howard, I can't imagine Spielberg being considered a studio hack.

[Malickfan]

Yeah, Howard's in the same group.

[soitgoes...]

It's like CSC came back to the fold.

[number8]

It's just that he's already proven himself. He's made a ton of money. Has a lot of power. Doesn't he have anything in his head? Anything at all? To challenge himself? When Dreamworks came to be, he could do anything without needing someone's permission. And nothing really changed.

What exactly constitutes this "challenge"? What kind of movies from him would you like to see?

[Barty]

It's just that he's already proven himself. He's made a ton of money. Has a lot of power. Doesn't he have anything in his head? Anything at all? To challenge himself? When Dreamworks came to be, he could do anything without needing someone's permission. And nothing really changed.

Same with Eastwood. Paint by numbers. That's what they do.

Yeah! Why doesn't Malick challenge himself to stop with those damn lingering shots on nature. Why can't he make a film with an average cut of less than 2 seconds, and try something new, like action movies. Why can't he make a big blockbuster that actually makes money, dammit Malick, do something different!

In short, I pet my cat every day and it's always the the same. She's still has the same fluffiness, cuteness, and adorable purr. And yet I continue to pet her everyday, because it rules.

[Malickfan]

Well when he did Schindler's List, he said he directed it differently than any other movie he's done. And Schindler's List is far and away his best film. Continue along that same track. Or the first 30 minutes to Saving Private Ryan.

[Malickfan]

Yeah! Why doesn't Malick challenge himself to stop with those damn lingering shots on nature. Why can't he make a film with an average cut of less than 2 seconds, and try something new, like action movies. Why can't he make a big blockbuster that actually makes money, dammit Malick, do something different!

In short, I pet my cat every day and it's always the the same. She's still has the same fluffiness, cuteness, and adorable purr. And yet I continue to pet her everyday, because it rules.

That's great.

[Watashi]

A.I. and Munich are pretty damn risky movies if you ask me.

[Ezee E]

A.I. and Munich are pretty damn risky movies if you ask me.
You stole my line.

Hell, even The Terminal, a comedy, isn't something you wouldn't think would come from Spielberg. He's picked a nice set of projects this decade that most people would never have the chance of taking.

Eastwood clearly has a style with the way he uses darkness over people's eyes. Iwo Jima, Mystic River, and Million Dollar Baby all have it. It started with Bird from what I've noticed.

[Ezee E]

Oh, and malickfan has officially made his welcome.

Perhaps he's the next generation Match Cut version of Kurosawa Fan?

[Malickfan]

Don't you guys have a welcome thread somewhere on this board?

I don't mean to cause a riot. I'll take Eastwood and Spielberg over Brett Rattner. Truce?

[DavidSeven]

I don't think Malickfan is saying anything especially inflammatory. Since when did Spielberg become a sacred cow here? He's considered a "non-auteur" and even a "hack" in many film circles.

I think he's had his ups and downs, and he's certainly made great films, but Munich was his first attempt at an "adult" movie in a three decade career. His follow up? The Indiana Jones sequel. A little disappointing.

[DavidSeven]

Re: Eastwood

I like his style (and he certainly has one), but he does seem overly slavish to the screenplays for his films. He usually elevates the material, but he's also too attached to it. I'd guess it has a lot to do with how little time he spends in both development and post-production. It appears he never bothers to address glaring problems in the scripts he works with (Maggie's family in MDB, generic police procedural elements in Mystic River, and the overall awfulness of Flags of Our Fathers).

As cliche as it sounds, Eastwood really might only be as good as his scripts allow him to be. Again, I concede that he usually elevates the material. However, the work of outside screenwriters definitely seems to have a noticeable impact on how good his films really end up being. This makes it difficult to judge where he really lands in the whole "authorship" discussion.

[Malickfan]

I read that he went with the 1st draft of the script. Strazinski is on fire now. This...The Silver Surfer screenplay and World War Z as well.

Read that Changeling almost won the Palme D'or. But a couple judges didn't believe the story. Didn't think that this could really happen.

[Watashi]

I don't think Malickfan is saying anything especially inflammatory. Since when did Spielberg become a sacred cow here? He's considered a "non-auteur" and even a "hack" in many film circles.

I think he's had his ups and downs, and he's certainly made great films, but Munich was his first attempt at an "adult" movie in a three decade career. His follow up? The Indiana Jones sequel. A little disappointing.
Schindler's List isn't an adult movie?

[Raiders]

Who gives a crap about "adult" movies, as though that has some signifier of quality built in to it. Pixar makes only "family films" and I would argue theirs are some of the most artistically rewarding and thematically interesting films coming out of the Hollywood.

[Malickfan]

Who gives a crap about "adult" movies

(raises hand) I do.

[Raiders]

(raises hand) I do.

And I care more about quality than a filmmaker pandering to notions that somehow a film with curse words and adult situations is a more mature and "serious" effort.

[Malickfan]

I enjoy a "good" popcorn movie every now and then when done well, The Dark Knight for example. But far too many popcorn movies are shit.

[number8]

The insistence to distinct movies into "mature" and "pop corn" is truly what's gone wrong with film criticism.

[Malickfan]

what's gone wrong with film criticism.

So when did this happen? Was it as soon as Jaws/Star Wars came out or did it evolve later?

[number8]

I don't think Malickfan is saying anything especially inflammatory. Since when did Spielberg become a sacred cow here? He's considered a "non-auteur" and even a "hack" in many film circles.

He's no sacred cow with me. I certainly have my own beef with him, namely that I find his movies to be unimaginative and often misguided, but I'm always up to challenge anyone who likens crowd-pleasing to lack of quality. I honestly don't give a shit if he makes a movie for himself or for an audience, all I care about is that it's good and it gives me something to work with. He's certainly NOT a hack by the definition of the word.

Fuck Schindler's List, fuck Munich, fuck Saving Private Ryan, fuck every time Spielberg tries to do these so-called serious, adult movies and ends up boring me to death (except Sugarland Express--I love that movie). His strength is and has always been with child-like wonders and fantasy, and there is absolutely nothing wrong with that. He should stick to stuff like Jaws and E.T.

[number8]

So when did this happen? Was it as soon as Jaws/Star Wars came out or did it evolve later?

Probably. Doesn't matter. I'm talking about today.

[Malickfan]

The studios think that the American movie going public is dumb. Glad that you agree.

[Raiders]

The studios think that the American movie going public is dumb.

I wouldn't argue with this, but it doesn't really translate into what we're talking about. You act as though all movies with large budgets created for more than a limited audience are automatically "popcorn" and therefore cannot be "mature" efforts. They are not mutually exclusive and such generalizations are ridiculous.

[number8]

The studios think that the American movie going public is dumb. Glad that you agree.

...

Okay, what?

[DavidSeven]

Schindler's List isn't an adult movie?

In terms of its graphic nature it is. However, it still presents a pretty simplistic view of morality, good vs. evil, wrong vs. right, etc. It has mature content, but it doesn't really wrestle with mature themes. You can show Schindler's List in a high school classroom. You wouldn't show Munich. It's the ideas that separate the two, and this is what I was getting at.

Edit: This distinction between "popcorn" and "serious" really isn't what I was getting at.

[Malickfan]

If it has a huge budget, fine. But does anyone in the front office actually read the scripts that they give most green lights to?

[number8]

I don't think this discussion is moving in a linear fashion.

[Malickfan]

I don't think this discussion is moving in a linear fashion.

I'm sorry. Guillermo Arriaga is whispering in my ear.

[Mysterious Dude]

A.I. and Munich are pretty damn risky movies if you ask me.
Spielberg is physically incapable of taking risks. No matter how bad his next movie flops, he will still be a billionaire.

[Grouchy]

This debate is boring.

And Eastwood is a pretty interesting director, filled with good ideas. It's funny how people fail to notice that he has only directed 4 Westerns out of 30 feature films, and that those four are a progressively mature dissection and analysis of his cold, killing gunslinger persona, starting with High Plains Drifter and ending with Unforgiven.

I might not be a fan of everything he makes (Million Dollar Baby just sucks) but there's no reason to compare him to an inept star-turned-filmmaker scenario like Redford. Also, I don't think writing his own scripts would benefit his filmography in any way.

[Watashi]

Spielberg is physically incapable of taking risks. No matter how bad his next movie flops, he will still be a billionaire.
Ok.

Wait.... what?

[Malickfan]

I might not be a fan of everything he makes (Million Dollar Baby just sucks) but there's no reason to compare him to an inept star-turned-filmmaker scenario like Redford. Also, I don't think writing his own scripts would benefit his filmography in any way.

But he is Redford. He's just older and more badass.

[Grouchy]

But he is Redford. He's just older and more badass.
No.

You make me laugh. A tiny wee sad, too, but mostly you put a smirk on my face.

[Malickfan]

No.

You make me laugh. A tiny wee sad, too, but mostly you put a smirk on my face.

I got that going for me then.

[Ezee E]

Ok.

Wait.... what?
Yeah. That doesn't make sense.

[Sven]

Antoine's comment makes sense if you're thinking in terms of economy: Spielberg pretty much doesn't have to worry about being "ruined" at this point, particularly not with one risky movie. And you could probably make a case for that security infiltrating his artistic choices.

[Grouchy]

Antoine's comment makes sense if you're thinking in terms of economy: Spielberg pretty much doesn't have to worry about being "ruined" at this point, particularly not with one risky movie. And you could probably make a case for that security infiltrating his artistic choices.
Yes, that's how I understood it as well. That in Spielberg's case, practically no movie would be "risky". If he went all John Waters on us, the masses would still see it because it's fucking Steven Spielberg.

Right? Right?

[Malickfan]

If he can get Tom Cruise to eat a turd, I'd see it.

[DavidSeven]

I'm pretty sure Antoine meant exactly what was said.


No matter how bad his next movie flops, he will still be a billionaire.

Don't know why it needs further clarification beyond that statement. In relative terms, financial "risks" don't exist to him.

[Watashi]

I'm pretty sure Antoine meant exactly what was said.



Don't know why it needs further clarification beyond that statement. In relative terms, financial "risks" don't exist to him.
I wasn't talking about finacial risks. I'm pretty sure Spielberg is beyond the point where he cares about profit.

[Sven]

I'm pretty sure Spielberg is beyond the point where he cares about profit.

Most baseless assumption of all time?

[Mysterious Dude]

I wasn't talking about finacial risks. I'm pretty sure Spielberg is beyond the point where he cares about profit.
Then in what sense was Spielberg taking "risks" with A.I. and Munich? What did he stand to lose?

[Raiders]

Then in what sense was Spielberg taking "risks" with A.I. and Munich? What did he stand to lose?

So whenever someone says a director or film "takes a risk," they are speaking only financially?

[Amnesiac]

Then in what sense was Spielberg taking "risks" with A.I. and Munich? What did he stand to lose?

Something like artistic integrity, I imagine.

[DavidSeven]

There's also a "professional" risk, which Spielberg is invulnerable to as well. Most of the time when a director makes a flop, they risk jeopardizing their career or at least the options they'll have in the immediate future. Spielberg could green light any idea he has for the rest of his life regardless of how unsuccessful the projects end up being.

But yeah, everyone has the "artistic integrity" and "legacy" risk regardless of their wealth and influence. I'd presume that he doesn't want to be regarded the in the same way as his colleague, George Lucas.

[Raiders]

But yeah, everyone has the "artistic integrity" and "legacy" risk regardless of their wealth and influence. I'd presume that he doesn't want to be regarded the in the same way as his colleague, George Lucas.

I don't remember who, but I remember reading a reviewer who said that 2005 forever showed which of the two was an actual artist and which was a corporate buffoon. While Spielberg made War of the Worlds (disliked by many, but certainly a big-budget film with more on its mind than spectacle) and Munich (a raw, "adult"-oriented film) and Lucas finished his now mega-empire with the vacuous Revenge of the Sith.

I think they had it right. Spielberg doesn't necessarily take chances or risks, and it would be damn near impossible for him to, but he continually looks to make intriguing projects, ones that are far from just being an excuse to eat up a budget. I mean, in the 21st century alone he has made AI, Minority Report, War of the Worlds and Munich. I think in their respective years it would be difficult to find many high-profile Hollywood films with as much conceptual ingenuity as these.

He's certainly got a maudlin streak about him and he often makes as many lame, misguided films as he does great ones, but I think in many film circles he is undervalued as a great valuer of humanity. In a time when so many soulless Hollywood films get produced focused solely on bombast and labyrinthine plots where characters are almost always secondary, I think more ought to appreciate Spielberg's constant sentimental vision of the human race and of the family unit. I mean, how can we group a film like War of the Worlds with something like Independence Day when it is so evident that the former places life and the human suffering at frontal display and the other shields actual emotion with dumb spectacle and Will Smith?

[Wryan]

He should stick to stuff like Jaws and E.T.

And Hook?

[number8]

And Hook?

Don't be a smartass.

[Wryan]

Don't be a smartass.

:pritch:

[Amnesiac]

I mean, in the 21st century alone he has made AI, Minority Report, War of the Worlds and Munich. I think in their respective years it would be difficult to find many high-profile Hollywood films with as much conceptual ingenuity as these.

War of the Worlds containing conceptual ingenuity? There's a rare assertion. I really like the movie so I'm all too aware of all the incessant flack and criticism it gets. You'd likely get eaten alive for talking so kindly of it on a less amiable forum.

Or, at the very least, you'd get a knee-jerk lecture on why the son sub-plot is a complete and utter travesty which dilutes any merits the film may ostensibly hold.

Good to see some fans of the movie actually do exist. :)

[soitgoes...]

War of the Worlds containing conceptual ingenuity? There's a rare assertion. I really like the movie so I'm all too aware of all the incessant flack and criticism it gets. You'd likely get eaten alive for talking so kindly of it on a less amiable forum.

Or, at the very least, you'd get a knee-jerk lecture on why the son sub-plot is a complete and utter travesty which dilutes any merits the film may ostensibly hold.

Good to see some fans of the movie actually do exist. :)Welcome to Match-Cut. :crazy:

[Amnesiac]

Welcome to Match-Cut. :crazy:

Hey, I didn't say it was a paragon of exquisite and important filmmaking. It was, however, quite good in many respects. Dakota Fanning's perpetual screams and the much harped-upon 'son resolution', aside. It's not without it's problems, sure, but it also has some really admirable virtues.

So, yeah. Thanks for the welcome. :P

[Ezee E]

While the movie follows true events, it certainly has the convenient feeling of events happening at the last second before... You understand.

A bit overlong, and filled with eye-rolling moments, I get here, what many get from the talked-about trailer trash scenes in Million Dollar Baby, a much better movie.

That's not to say that there isn't good in this movie, because there is. Amy Adams is extremely good in her one-two scenes that she gets, foreshadowing a scene that becomes all the more effective because of her performance.

And then there's Angelina Jolie, who mostly cries and cries for the middle of the film. She does a fine job of it. That's not what I'm getting at though. The first twenty minutes, and the latter part of the film show talent that I've never seen from Jolie, or an actress for quite some time. She has an amazing grace, especially when she is with her son, that made me think I was seeing a masterful performance. Even when she's riding on rollerskates (something I'd like to know a little more about), she's in a certain zone that most actresses can never achieve.

Eastwood may have reached the tip of this era as a director, but I don't want him to stop making movies. As mentioned in the previous paragraph, there is some great work that he does here.

[Sxottlan]

This was good, not great.

The asylum scenes, while possibly being accurate to what happened, still had that feeling of been there, done that from previous asylum films.

Also seemed like the whole charade should have fallen apart even faster than it did here. What, did the kid never speak at all? Five sentences out of his mouth and it should have been obvious that it wasn't her son.

Then again, I guess that wasn't the point. The point being that they thought a woman wouldn't put up any kind of fight. Really seemed to reduced the conflict down to that of a fight against sexism instead of a fight against wide-spread police corruption.

By the way, terrible poster for this movie. It looks like Angelina is going to eat her child.

[Raiders]

Just a milquetoast film all around. A few hours later, and all that really sticks with me is Jolie's ability to cry with conviction. Rather poorly structured and lacking much in the way of impetus; the LAPD is a characterless villain, the mother-son relationship is stunted, the film's focus annoyingly wavers and lacks conviction in its study of sexist qualities in the 1920s, the asylum scenes a grab bag of previous cinematic concoctions, and so on. Eastwood just seems mismatched here, unable to really give the film the gritty determinism to match Jolie's fierceness, instead content as most Eastwood films to coast on a slow, muted and jazzy tone, which works for his more thoughtful and spiritual works, but here just seems to undermine the ferocity with which he asks Jolie to play the role. An unfortunate "Oscar" film, taking a serious and real life event and injecting it with stale "prestige." Yawn.

[Ezee E]

I don't see this getting anything more than a Jolie nomination, and perhaps something like Art Direction.

[Sxottlan]

I don't see this getting anything more than a Jolie nomination, and perhaps something like Art Direction.

I'd say Jolie most likely, but the art direction really wasn't anything memorable save for the ranch and her workplace.

[KK2.0]

If he can get Tom Cruise to eat a turd, I'd see it.

it would be a blockbuster.

[Watashi]

Very good movie. I liked it better than Million Dollar Baby. It's a really frightening commentary on how things haven't really changed a bit in our law department. It's an Eastwood movie through and through, and I don't have a problem with the manipulative strings Eastwood tried to pull. The mise-en-scene is truly remarkable along with Jolie's already praised performance (she tones down the crying from her performance in A Mighty Heart).

[Ezee E]

Very good movie. I liked it better than Million Dollar Baby. It's a really frightening commentary on how things haven't really changed a bit in our law department. It's an Eastwood movie through and through, and I don't have a problem with the manipulative strings Eastwood tried to pull. The mise-en-scene is truly remarkable along with Jolie's already praised performance (she tones down the crying from her performance in A Mighty Heart).
She tones it down?

Good Lord.

[Silencio]

Very good movie. I liked it better than Million Dollar Baby. It's a really frightening commentary on how things haven't really changed a bit in our law department. It's an Eastwood movie through and through, and I don't have a problem with the manipulative strings Eastwood tried to pull. The mise-en-scene is truly remarkable along with Jolie's already praised performance (she tones down the crying from her performance in A Mighty Heart).Er, Jolie barely cried in that movie, until the near end. The only crying that was done prior to that is short and handled nearly offscreen. She definitely ups it in Changeling, with Eastwood concentrating in on her at every chance possible. Both are good performances though, in different ways.

[Cult]

I actually thought this was really bad. I was with it for about the first 20 minutes, and then it just got messier and cheesier and more overwrought. It had a lot of the elements I didn't like about Mystic River. Sometimes Eastwood just tends to play a scene so histrionically that it becomes laughable. It also felt like at least four different movies crammed into one (child-loss drama, asylum drama, courtroom drama, crime scene investigation drama, etc). Aside from Jolie and maybe the serial killer, the majority of the performances were quite crappy. Especially the head of the police department guy. Then again, they didn't have much to work with. I hate when movies are completely, utterly ridiculous and think they can get away with it by stating that it's a "true story" first.

Overall, I felt myself cringing a lot and wondering if it would ever end. Too bad it fell apart so early and so massively.

[Boner M]

THIS MOVIE IS HORRIBLE.

[Watashi]

THIS MOVIE IS HORRIBLE.
No.

This is much better than Gran Torino.

[Mal]

THIS MOVIE IS HORRIBLE.

Oui.

[Ezee E]

No.

This is much better than Gran Torino.
Close enough to where I don't see one sticking out in particular.

[Boner M]

The Oscar pool scene near the end is 2008's biggest 'are you fucking kidding me' moment, rivalled only by the ash falling in slo-mo from the cop's cigarette after the child's confession. I never thought it was possible to make the mass murder of 20 children seem weightless, but Clint managed it in that one shot. This is completely freeze-dried filmmaking, utterly lifeless to the point of kitsch. Kinda surprised it dodged a best picture nod, really.