Clint Eastwood's Hereafter

[Watashi]

Trailer. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0XvJwTYnKww&feature=player_embedded)

Jesus... is Eastwood turning into the new Woody Allen? He just keeps churning them out year after year and despite Tom Stern's trustworthy cinematography, they just don't have a huge affect me (though I do like Changeling and Gran Torino is good for a laugh).

It's interesting to see Eastwood doing a CGI (?) heavy film.

[Morris Schæffer]

Reminded me of Knowing with those seemingly random moments of disaster striking.

[Kurosawa Fan]

Looks terrible.

[Ezee E]

Looks terrible.

I didn't even stay through the trailer, and I usually support Eastwood. Never bothered with Invictus either.

[Irish]

This seems like the sort of movie that Matt Damon and Ben Affleck make fun of when they get drunk.

What is Damon doing? He's got the world by the tail and he's doing stuff like Invictus, Green Zone and now this?

Somebody needs to fire their agent.

[baby doll]

Jesus... is Eastwood turning into the new Woody Allen?Woody Allen is less uneven. Gran Torino is a masterpiece, but Million Dollar Baby, Flags of Our Fathers, Letters From Iwo Jima, and Invictus all sucked out loud.

[endingcredits]

Gah. That trailer is awful.

[Boner M]

I don't really hate Eastwood or think he's the last great classicist or whatever, but this looks giga-lame.

[megladon8]

This looks pretty bad.

I hope it's just a bad trailer.

[Grouchy]

Gran Torino is one of the best movies of the decade. "Good for a few laughs"? Shame on you Watashi.

[Ezee E]

I guess all the CGI stuff happens in the first ten minutes

[number8]

I have no idea what this movie is about.

[Henry Gale]

Gran Torino is one of the best movies of the decade. "Good for a few laughs"? Shame on you Watashi.

I'm not sure if you're kidding, but very few things confuse me more than the response that movie has had (#93 of all time on IMDb, 80% on RT, box office of $270 million worldwide) despite it being as hilariously conceited and over the top as it probably could have been.

Yes, I do realize there's some stuff in it that sets out to be intentionally funny, but there's just so much more that goes on in dramatic scenes that I can honestly not look at as anything but absurdly funny. First thing that pops into my head is the scene at the end where Eastwood locks the kid in the cage in his basement. The kid just screams "WAAAALT! WAAaAAaaAaaALT" in increasingly funny ways for about a full minute. Maybe the funniest thing I had seen that week. The acting, especially from the younger actors, is pretty horrible. The guy from Zodiac and The Drew Carey Show who plays the barber is probably the only performance I could say was pretty good.

And without getting to trivial with complaints, it also really disappointed (or at least passively pissed off) a couple of my closest friends, who just happen to be Asian. They had similar complaints to me, but they were also sure that anybody could have done a better job in the role of the main kid, but also were just kind of miffed at the thought that it was probably one of the few times there would be a big movie with a cast made up mostly of oriental North Americans for a while, and that it happened to be as one-dimensional as it was.

In a decade of a a few less-than-great films from him, I definitely think it was the worst film Eastwood did in the '00s. Mind you, I never saw Space Cowboys.

[transmogrifier]

Gran Torino is a monumentally stupid, shallow film. Space Cowboys kicks its arse.

[Grouchy]

No, I'm not kidding. I've seen Gran Torino a few times and I think it's a near perfect film. I disagree with everything you said. Over the top? Well, maybe, but I can't imagine how being subtler would do the film any damn good.

Many performances other than the barber are flat-out great. Eastwood is as good as ever, as is whoever plays the priest. As for your friends, whatever floats their boat. But, if they're Korean American, I'd like you to ask them how accurate are the customs as showed by Eastwood because I'm genuinely curious about that. I don't give a shit about their opinion otherwise.

If I was a teacher in a scriptwriting class, I'd use this film constantly as an example.

[transmogrifier]

I'd especially like to be in class on the day you defend the line "I've got more in common with these gooks than my own family".

[Grouchy]

I'd especially like to be in class on the day you defend the line "I've got more in common with these gooks than my own family".
I don't understand. What's there to defend?

[transmogrifier]

I don't understand. What's there to defend?

The literalizing of an idea that was blatantly obvious the second the cartoonish family walked into their first scene, and a sentiment that the film then beats into the ground every single time his family reappears.

But, just in case all if that was missed, they then have the main character spell it out in a line of dialogue that also has the added function of reminding us "Hey, Uncle Clint is still kind of a racist because he uses the word gook!"

In other words, the screenplay is desperately amateurish and poor, and has no place in any sort of class.

[Grouchy]

In other words, the screenplay is desperately amateurish and poor, and has no place in any sort of class.
Disagree. It's an incredibly effective screenplay. Sure, it's not subtle and it doesn't need to be.

[MacGuffin]

I had no problem with the screenplay for Gran Torino, it was the child actors that ruined most of the scenes they were in.

[megladon8]

I had no problem with the screenplay for Gran Torino, it was the child actors that ruined most of the scenes they were in.


Agreed.

[number8]

Oh, it's sooooo easy to pick apart Gran Torino to point out its flaws, but the sum of its parts is monumentally amazing. The screenplay is direct, the acting is amateurish and the directorial choices barren, but together they make up one of the best movies of that year (I hesitate to go for the decade). It's the Mach 1 iron Man suit of film.

[Kurosawa Fan]

I had problems with the Gran Torino's script and the performances, Clint included. That movie was junk.

[baby doll]

Okay, the line where he says that he has more in common with the "gooks" than his own (upwardly mobile middle-class) offspring is pretty on the nose, but you could find similar examples in any Eastwood movie. (The guy's not a subtle filmmaker, and I find most of his movies pretty half-assed in much the same manner as late Woody Allen.) That said, the remaining 119 minutes or so are awesome, almost a modern-day Sam Fuller movie. It's at once a satisfying genre exercise, with Clint (deliberately) playing his Dirty Harry persona for laughs (the birthday party his son throws him is hilarious), and an up-to-the-minute portrait of life in a working class neighborhood in Detroit.

Then again, I also liked Whatever Works, which is essentially the same movie.

[D_Davis]

I haven't seen an Eastwood-directed film since Unforgiven. So I can't participate in this conversation.

:(

[Sxottlan]

Tsunami!

Makes me pine for the days of the old RT photoshop threads.


Never bothered with Invictus either.

Next to no one did.

[transmogrifier]

I haven't seen an Eastwood-directed film since Unforgiven. So I can't participate in this conversation.

:(

These ones are worth your time:

A Perfect World
Space Cowboys
Mystic River

[number8]

A Perfect World ties with Unforgiven as my favorite Eastwood.

[Morris Schæffer]

Firefox is where it's at guys! Okay, maybe not, but I like it nonetheless. I'd go with Unforgiven I think, or Million Dollar Baby.

[Rowland]

How about Changeling? I didn't get the love that one received from many quarters. Yeah, the true story was outrageous and stuff, but Eastwood didn't seem to have any idea what he was trying to express with the film. It was just kinda there.

[transmogrifier]

It was just kinda there.

This describes so many Eastwood-directed movies.

[Bosco B Thug]

Oof. Eastwood's mortality woes piece. Well, he livened up his after school special with something, maybe he's got something up his sleeve for his Sunday school special.


Oh, it's sooooo easy to pick apart Gran Torino to point out its flaws, but the sum of its parts is monumentally amazing. The screenplay is direct, the acting is amateurish and the directorial choices barren, but together they make up one of the best movies of that year (I hesitate to go for the decade). It's the Mach 1 iron Man suit of film. Your published review is pretty helpful in unpacking the film, if you don't mind me saying so. http://www.justpressplay.net/movie-reviews/40-reviews/4491-Gran-Torino.html

GT is one of those high-novelty films that caused most reviews to be really circumlocutory, and reading through them very repetitive. Most get hung up waxing retrospective about Eastwood's geriatry.

[number8]

I don't mind. I remember writing that review and having to constantly resist the urge to go into detail with the film's flaws, because there are so many that that would make the review come off as too negative. It's better to encapsulate the bigger picture, which elicited a positive reaction from me.

[Morris Schæffer]

The bit with the wave is likely to be from Cécile de France's segment as a woman who survived the 2004 tsunamis that struck Thailand and other areas. So it seems grounded in reality rather than Eastwood going all Emmerich on us.

[Dukefrukem]

Can I take back the bet I made about Inception winning best screenplay?

[Ezee E]

Can I take back the bet I made about Inception winning best screenplay?
No.

[Pop Trash]

I kept expecting Kirk Cameron to show up in that trailer. Or at least Will Smith.

[Morris Schæffer]

Ahahaha. Kirk Cameron in Tribulation IV: Jesus goes to Hell.

[baby doll]

Ebert loved it, but then, he loves every Eastwood movie, so that's not saying a whole lot.

[Dillard]

Anyone going to move this over to the "General Film Discussion" and comment on this? Should we see it? Yes or no? Why?

[Sxottlan]

This was pretty terrible. Main actors are game, but the direction and script have major failings. The film is just a complete bore and predictable.

I think I'm done with Eastwood films.

As an aside, I was in San Francisco on vacation this week and the bar where Damon and Mohr had their scene discussing restarting his psychic business was right down the street from my motel. I went down there to watch the end of Game 1 Wednesday night.

[jamaul]

I did not think this was nearly as terrible as the trailer suggested, nor did I feel it was quite as bad as the critical consensus made it out to be. My biggest issue with this film was its pace, surprisingly enough. While the trailers hinted at a saccharine, almost puke-worthy mortality film (from a director closer to the brink than his prime), much of it was subtle and down-played with austerity that was never too heavy-handed. It was in the middle of act two that I felt the film became terribly repetitive: a slow, meandering progression to an unsatisfying payoff.

Bummer, because I'm usually a fan of Eastwood's directorial efforts.