Gran Torino

[mike]

http://www.apple.com/trailers/wb/grantorino/

This looks like 10 kinds of awesome. Nice to see Eastwood do this kind of thing again.

[BennyProfane]

Hah, Dirty Harry in retirement...

[Marcus]

Looks good.

I was expecting an orangutan in the front seat of that truck though. Too bad :(

[Machfive]

Alot of this was shot in my backyard (IE, the Metro-Detroit area). Always love seeing if I can spot any familiar places when movies snag some film locally.

[Rywill]

Eastwood is great as an actor, and good as a director except for the fact that he gets lousy performances from the other actors. The kid is particularly bad. The script is pretty formulaic but still really works as far as I'm concerned. All in all, definite thumbs-up for this one, despite some really ham-handed moments and not being very original. It literally has Clint Eastwood telling a bunch of punk kids "Get off my lawn!", and there are several shots where someone does something irritating and they cut to a close-up of Eastwood just scowling and going "mrrrrrrrgh!" like some sort of wizened male Marge Simpson. But for all of that, it still works. And Eastwood's performance is really pretty great.

[Tom Chick]

I had pretty much the exact opposite of Rywill's reaction. I don't think any of it worked. Eastwood felt to me like he was coasting. He was basically re-doing Bill Munny, but in a context that made zero sense and didn't fit the tone of the movie. The priest is also awful, which is a shame, because it was a cool part. Only the young Hmong girl was passable, but barely. She turned in the kind of comfortable performance that would have worked opposite a stronger actor or better material.

But the attempts to give the movie bite all sank without a trace beneath the waves of Eastwood schmaltz. It's the gruff guy learning to love and the beleaguered Minority Youth learning Respect and Values and the Work Ethic and cultures coming together and Understanding Each Other. Gran Torino is a framed "Can't we all just get along?" needlepoint wall-hanging in your grandparents' house. It's an After School Special with a touch of misplaced rascalliness like some guy who thinks it's still cool to muss your hair after you've grown up.

There's a scene with a Coen brothers tone where Eastwood's son and daughter-in-law are showing him brochures for a rest home. He growls and scowls and glares and grimaces and then there's a shot as the camera literally dollies in towards him before cutting to a shot of the son and daughter-in-law being thrown out of the house. So wacky! Whee! The only thing missing are two jets of steam positioned behind Eastwood's head so they look like they're shooting out of his ears. Maybe he could have said, "And stay out of the Woolworths!"

I'll tell you the one moment I thought maybe the movie was going to have a little heft. Clint Eastwood confronts three black gang banbers early in the movie. He calls them "spooks", which is really close to the N-word. It's a pretty tense scene because you're not sure how it's going to play out. But if you want to pack some punch and have a movie about an intolerant racist Korean War vet, then go ahead and roll out the N-word. Do it. I dare you. Have some balls, for Pete's sake.

I was talking to my friend Dingus tonight and he pointed out that this and The Visitor are basically telling the same stories, except that one is terrible and missing even the slightest ring of authenticity, told from the perspective of a really old out-of-touch guy trying sadly to be relevant. The other is The Visitor.

-Tom

[Woolen Horde]

According to a New York Times article last week, Clint only spent about 30 days filming this in Detroit; he cast a lot of people who had never acted before.

He's directed more movies than Spielberg, yet he's still considered more of an actor than director.

[Bill Dungsroman]

I had pretty much the exact opposite of Rywill's reaction. I don't think any of it worked. Eastwood felt to me like he was coasting. He was basically re-doing Bill Munny, but in a context that made zero sense and didn't fit the tone of the movie. The priest is also awful, which is a shame, because it was a cool part. Only the young Hmong girl was passable, but barely. She turned in the kind of comfortable performance that would have worked opposite a stronger actor or better material.

But the attempts to give the movie bite all sank without a trace beneath the waves of Eastwood schmaltz. It's the gruff guy learning to love and the beleaguered Minority Youth learning Respect and Values and the Work Ethic and cultures coming together and Understanding Each Other. Gran Torino is a framed "Can't we all just get along?" needlepoint wall-hanging in your grandparents' house. It's an After School Special with a touch of misplaced rascalliness like some guy who thinks it's still cool to muss your hair after you've grown up.

There's a scene with a Coen brothers tone where Eastwood's son and daughter-in-law are showing him brochures for a rest home. He growls and scowls and glares and grimaces and then there's a shot as the camera literally dollies in towards him before cutting to a shot of the son and daughter-in-law being thrown out of the house. So wacky! Whee! The only thing missing are two jets of steam positioned behind Eastwood's head so they look like they're shooting out of his ears. Maybe he could have said, "And stay out of the Woolworths!"

I'll tell you the one moment I thought maybe the movie was going to have a little heft. Clint Eastwood confronts three black gang banbers early in the movie. He calls them "spooks", which is really close to the N-word. It's a pretty tense scene because you're not sure how it's going to play out. But if you want to pack some punch and have a movie about an intolerant racist Korean War vet, then go ahead and roll out the N-word. Do it. I dare you. Have some balls, for Pete's sake.

I was talking to my friend Dingus tonight and he pointed out that this and The Visitor are basically telling the same stories, except that one is terrible and missing even the slightest ring of authenticity, told from the perspective of a really old out-of-touch guy trying sadly to be relevant. The other is The Visitor.

-Tom

Aw, fuck.

[rrmorton]

There's a scene with a Coen brothers tone where Eastwood's son and daughter-in-law are showing him brochures for a rest home. He growls and scowls and glares and grimaces and then there's a shot as the camera literally dollies in towards him before cutting to a shot of the son and daughter-in-law being thrown out of the house.
Blurg.

That sounds ridiculous.

[Hudson]

He can't overstate it. Like it's a dolly into his impossibly furrowed brows as he does his angry old man growl.

This movie used a lot of non-professional actors, and it showed. Bizarrely, the priest wasn't one of them, I was sure he was like the screenwriter or something.

[alexlitel]

This movie used a lot of non-professional actors, and it showed.Non-professional actors shouldn't necessarily be perogative, there is a litany of examples where they are effectively used.

[Tom Chick]

Non-professional actors shouldn't necessarily be perogative, there is a litany of examples where they are effectively used.

Absolutely (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0454792/), but I think you missed the point of Hudson's "and it showed" comment. It usually takes really strong material, a really good director, or some sort of raw talent to work with inexperienced actors.

Also, I think the word you're looking for is "pejorative". :)

-Tom

[Jeff Fries]

Absolutely (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0454792/), but I think you missed the point of Hudson's "and it showed" comment. It usually takes really strong material, a really good director, or some sort of raw talent to work with inexperienced actors.
Ah, so the director is not good enough, so you think Eastwood is not a great director, is this what you're saying sir?

[alexlitel]

Absolutely (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0454792/)I've never gotten the Bubble love, that film literally made me fall asleep - eleven or twelve minutes in.


Also, I think the word you're looking for is "pejorative". :)Seems plausible.

[Hanacker]

I definitely got more of the Tom impression than the mike impression from the trailer.

[madkevin]

I've never gotten the Bubble love, that film literally made me fall asleep - eleven or twelve minutes in.

For a film with great non-actors, try this one (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0040522/).

[Rywill]

The other actors were all uniformly bad to terrible (with the kid being the worst, unfortunately), but this:


Eastwood [...] was basically re-doing Bill Munny
is unfair. Although there are some obvious similarities between the characters because they both have regrets, they're really not that much alike. [Spoilers coming] Munny is a character who was unhinged as a young man but reformed in his old age because of his wife and kids, and at the start of the movie is now living a simple and peaceful life that he is comfortable with, and he remains that way for pretty much the whole film: he has a brief "back over the edge" moment at the end of the movie, but as soon as that's over it's back to regular, peaceful life with the family, and he lives out his old age in contentment. Kowalski is a character who is a "regular guy" (albeit an irascible racist) from beginning to end. He was never a crazy killin' fool. He was a factory worker. He lives with the regret of one single moment in the heat of passion during war, and rather than having put it aside and moved on, it ruins the rest of his life, then drives him to open up to the neighbor kid (for that subconscious shot at redemption) and eventually to suicide.

Strangely enough, I agree that the movie is ham-fisted and the script is pretty bad. The stuff with Kowalski's family is almost caricatured (same problem Eastwood had in "Million Dollar Baby") and the stuff with him learning to open his heart to his cross-cultural neighbors is like a paint-by-numbers thing from Heartwarming Growth Movies 101. But it worked for me because I liked and empathized with Kowalski the whole way through.

[Tom Chick]

Rywill, I think you're agreeing with me, but you cut out the rest of my sentence you quoted:

"He was basically re-doing Bill Munny, but in a context that made zero sense and didn't fit the tone of the movie."

You laid out the differences between the characters, and I completely agree. Which is why it made no sense to me that Eastwood was doing all that Munny-style squinting and growling. I thought it was a terrible performance, partly for that reason.

And a minor quibble:


He was never a crazy killin' fool.

One of us is misremembering his references to the war, because it seemed to me that's exactly what the movie implied he was in Korea. The stuff about "stacking bodies high" is crazy killin' fool talk if I ever heard it. The whole movie is a fake-out to make you think he's going to snap back into crazy killin' fool mode. Why else would they whip out the index finger gun? Twice, if I recall correctly.

Good call on the family stuff from Million Dollar Baby. Ugh, I'd forgotten about that. That's exactly what was going on in Gran Torino!

-Tom

[Hudson]

Bill Munny wasn't a psychopath, Rywill. What he did for money Walt did for his country. It wasn't one single moment, he killed at least 13 people. He badly regrets one of them, but the whole thing scared him.


Since we've spoilered the ending, the priest's behavior throughout was absurd. He somehow knew to stop by Walt's house after a bunch of important events, and he also somehow knew the location of Tao's cousin's house and that Walt's plan involved going there rather than confronting them anywhere else. He got the time wrong, but everything else in the movie is consistent with him being omniscient.
P.S. I'm not a practicing Catholic, but is making a profit a sin?

Why was Walt cleaning his gun in that final scene in the kitchen, by the way? That's the sort of artless audience misdirection that better directors don't need to stoop to. Really, if it wasn't for the involvement of Clint Eastwood, this whole movie stunk of a 4 figure budget student film.

[Hudson]

P.P.S. Also the gangsters at the end have a pretty good argument of self defense. Walt had previously assaulted the fat kid, with a gun no less, and he went into his jacket like he was drawing a gun.

[Bill Dungsroman]

Strangely enough, I agree that the movie is ham-fisted and the script is pretty bad. The stuff with Kowalski's family is almost caricatured (same problem Eastwood had in "Million Dollar Baby")

You know I never really thought about that until you mentioned it, Ry. I suppose I was still too busy reeling from the bait-and-switch the film pulled on me to notice but yeah, you're right.

[Bahimiron]

He was basically re-doing Bill Munny

I read this as 'Bill Murray' and seriously sat here for a good two minutes trying to figure out what you meant by it.

Then I saw it quoted later on and everything clicked into place.

Though there for a bit, you almost had me convinced to go see the movie just to figure out what about his performance evoked Bill Murray.

[Rywill]

You laid out the differences between the characters, and I completely agree. Which is why it made no sense to me that Eastwood was doing all that Munny-style squinting and growling. I thought it was a terrible performance, partly for that reason.
See, I didn't see them as being that similar. I mean, obviously Clint Eastwood has a pretty distinctive, gravelly voice. But Munny, the post-reform Munny that we see in "Unforgiven," doesn't growl and squint all the time. He's actually a really mild-mannered guy. People insult him, and he pretty much just blows it off. Even when provoked, he tends to just let things slide (until the end of the movie, of course). He's taciturn, soft-spoken when he does talk, and even kindly -- for example, the way he treats the whore with the scarred face, or even the way he lets the gutshot cowboy's friends take him water. In a movie full of hotheads who argue all the time reach for their guns at the slightest provocation, he's the most Zenlike and unassuming of the bunch. (Until he gets pushed over the edge.)

Kowalski, though, is an irritable asshole who is constantly in everyone's faces, insulting people, belittling them, etc., and he goes for his gun like ten times in the course of a couple days (and he's the one who doesn't live in the Wild West). He does a lot of scowling and growling, you're right, but Munny doesn't. Like or dislike the Kowalski performance, I don't think you can really say that it's just re-doing Bill Munny, either in a sensible context or not. Eastwood looks and sounds very unique, but in my mind the characters and the performances were really pretty different. If anything, Kowalski is too similar to his "Million Dollar Baby" boxing coach, whatever that guy's name was.


One of us is misremembering his references to the war, because it seemed to me that's exactly what the movie implied he was in Korea.
I didn't take it that way. He says he killed 12-13 people in the war, which didn't strike me as that outlandish, although I guess what do I know. The references to stacking bodies and whatnot, I took as the sort of "war is hell" stuff: not that Kowalski himself had killed hordes of enemies and stacked them like cordwood, but just that the war in general was dehumanizing and awful and these kids today have no idea how much worse stuff he's seen than their penny-ante gang terrorism. One thing I liked about the movie was the way he (Kowalski) gets his comeuppance towards the end. He swaggers around thinking he's the ultimate badass because he's been to Korea and kids today can't even conceive of the things he's seen, but what he doesn't realize is that he is the one who can't conceive of the difference in their world-views.

One thing I thought was interesting about Gran Torino is that I went through the movie wondering whether Kowalski could be a crazy killin' fool. He never does anything particularly impressive, and even when talking about the war he makes it sound like killing or dying, getting a silver star or going home in a bag, are all mostly matters of dumb luck. I thought there was going to be some vengeance sequence at the end and was genuinely wondering whether he would turn into a Bill Munny-style killing machine, or whether he would go out there and pull out his Korean War-era rifle and get cut down in two seconds by some gang-banger's Mac-10. When the movie ends, I think the viewer really doesn't know whether Kowalski would be any better in a fight than any other Tom, Dick or Harry.


Bill Munny wasn't a psychopath, Rywill. What he did for money Walt did for his country. It wasn't one single moment, he killed at least 13 people. He badly regrets one of them, but the whole thing scared him.
I think Bill Munny -- the younger one, I mean -- most definitely was a psychopath. He says himself that he doesn't even remember most of his youth, but from hearing people talk about it, it's pretty clear that he was a wild-eyed death factory, and that he often killed people for no real reason at all. I agree with you, though, that the older Bill Munny, the one we see in the movie, is no psychopath. And I agree that Kowalski is scarred by, and probably regrets, a lot of the stuff he saw and did in the war, but it seemed pretty clear to me that the main thing was the surrendering kid that he shot in the face. That's the one that hounds him, caused him to turn away from his family, and causes him to open up to Tao as a way of redeeming himself -- taking a kid who "hasn't got a chance" and giving him one, to make up for the other Asian kid who lost all his chances at the end of Kowalski's gun. He as much as says so, to the priest: that yeah, doing the stuff he was ordered to do in Korea was bad, but the thing he can't get away from is the one he wasn't ordered to do.


Why was Walt cleaning his gun in that final scene in the kitchen, by the way?
I think you (or whoever said it) are right that this is mostly there for audience misdirection. But I think the in-movie explanation is that Kowalski is planning on killing, or at least possibly killing, the gang, right up until the end. It's his natural reaction (it's everyone's), but out of all the characters in the movie he's the one who knows what killing a young kid is really like, and he wrestles with it -- plays it cagey with the priest, tells Tao to come back at 4:00, etc. I think that it isn't until after Tao gets there and is picking up the rifle in a bloodthirsty anger that Kowalski decides not to kill the gang after all, because it would mean more than just adding to his own guilt, it would mean putting the same burden on Tao that Kowalski has carried since Korea.

In other words, he's cleaning his guns because at that point he's at least seriously considering killing those guys.

[extarbags]

Gran Torino is a framed "Can't we all just get along?" needlepoint wall-hanging in your grandparents' house. It's an After School Special with a touch of misplaced rascalliness like some guy who thinks it's still cool to muss your hair after you've grown up.

It's... motel art?


He calls them "spooks", which is really close to the N-word. It's a pretty tense scene because you're not sure how it's going to play out. But if you want to pack some punch and have a movie about an intolerant racist Korean War vet, then go ahead and roll out the N-word. Do it. I dare you. Have some balls, for Pete's sake.

Maybe the idea was that he's so out of touch that he uses a slur that the recipients probably didn't even recognize? I don't know.


my friend Dingus

Seriously?

[Tom Chick]

Like or dislike the Kowalski performance, I don't think you can really say that it's just re-doing Bill Munny, either in a sensible context or not. Eastwood looks and sounds very unique, but in my mind the characters and the performances were really pretty different.

Nothing in the Gran Torino character felt authentic to me, so the point I was grasping at is that Eastwood just seemed to be doing the scowly mean Bill Munny stuff from the end of Unforgiven. But the comparison doesn't so justice to Unforgiven, so I'll gladly concede the point. I know Eastwood can turn in a great performance. But I'd never know it from watching Gran Torino.


If anything, Kowalski is too similar to his "Million Dollar Baby" boxing coach, whatever that guy's name was.

I don't think that character had a name. There was Old Boxing Coach, Magical Negro, Saintly Cripple with Spunk, and Cartoon Family.


One thing I liked about the movie was the way he (Kowalski) gets his comeuppance towards the end. He swaggers around thinking he's the ultimate badass because he's been to Korea and kids today can't even conceive of the things he's seen, but what he doesn't realize is that he is the one who can't conceive of the difference in their world-views.

Man, I have to say I think you've given the script far more credit than it deserves to come up with that kind of nuance. :)

Quick question: During the scene when the priest comes over to have a beer (ot two) with Eastwood, did you get the impression that the priest knew Eastwood was going to kill the gang banbers? And in fact was giving his tacit approval? Because I thought that's what the movie was leaning towards, and I actually thought that was pretty cool.

But then the priest tries to talk him out of it during the confession scene, and shows up with the police and the gang banber house for a while before they get bored and leave. I don't know if that was confusion on my part or more audience misdirection.


One thing I thought was interesting about Gran Torino is that I went through the movie wondering whether Kowalski could be a crazy killin' fool. He never does anything particularly impressive, and even when talking about the war he makes it sound like killing or dying, getting a silver star or going home in a bag, are all mostly matters of dumb luck.

He seems pretty handy with his guns. And he has no compunction about staring down the three "spooks". I don't think the movie intends any confusion about whether or not he's a bad ass who could kill these silly fool gang banbers if he felt like it. To me, it was clear on this point, which made it really manipulative but obvious to have him doing suicide-by-banber at the end.

-Tom

[Tom Chick]

Maybe the idea was that he's so out of touch that he uses a slur that the recipients probably didn't even recognize? I don't know.

No, no, the "spooks" definitely knew they'd been terribly slighted. They were all like, 'Whoa, what?'



Seriously?

Dingus isn't his real name, but it'll usually do.

-Tom

[extarbags]

No, no, the "spooks" definitely knew they'd been terribly slighted. They were all like, 'Whoa, what?'

Ah, ok. Then yeah, they might as well have gone for the gold... I don't see much point in having a character use a racial slur if you're going to hedge your bets and try to temper the audience's reaction to it. Worse, I really don't know how plausible it is that he'd get much of a reaction in modern times using a word like that.

[Rywill]

I heard someone else complain about "spooks" versus "niggers," but I don't see the point. I mean, the movie was pretty clearly not shy about tossing racial epithets around. I doubt that the screenwriter thought that slopes, kikes, etc. was fine, but nigger was a bridge too far, so he'd dial it back to the less-offensive spook. Although I guess who knows.


I don't think that character had a name. There was Old Boxing Coach, Magical Negro, Saintly Cripple with Spunk, and Cartoon Family.
That is pretty much how I remember them, actually. Also: weenie and bully.


Man, I have to say I think you've given the script far more credit than it deserves to come up with that kind of nuance. :)
I think that's for real, though. I really think they were going for that. Because all through the first half of the movie, I was like "What the fuck is this guy thinking? Does he realize what these gang-bangers are going to do if he keeps messing with them?" And the priest basically gives him the same warning. So I think it's intended -- that Kowalski vastly misapprehends what he's up against, and thinks he's the baddest ass around, and is forcefully disabused of that fantasy when the gang-bangers take their retaliation. That's why I was half-expecting him to go to their house for vengeance with his bolt-action rifle or whatever that was, only to get cut down in a hail of machinegun fire.


Quick question: During the scene when the priest comes over to have a beer (ot two) with Eastwood, did you get the impression that the priest knew Eastwood was going to kill the gang banbers?
Yeah I didn't understand that at all. Because I had the same idea you did, and the same confusion you did. All I could think was the priest was hoppin' mad at first but later cooled off and got his wits about him.


He seems pretty handy with his guns.
I didn't think so. His first I'm-so-bad moment, confronting Tao in the garage, he totally busts his ass on a chair or something and knocks his own tooth out or whatever. And then after that all he does is point guns at people, and at one point he beats up that one gangmember. But he never shoots a gun at all, for example, and never fights more than one person. He gives the impression of being a crazy old fuck who would just as soon shoot you as spit on you, but I was wondering whether he could actually back that up, or it was all just piss and vinegar.

Either way, though, I wasn't sure the ending worked. I don't think it does, really, but I see what they were going for.

[David Hellman]

Just saw this earlier tonight. I find myself conceding many of the criticisms in this thread, although I really enjoyed the movie. The audience was into it. I laughed many times. It's formulaic and even schmaltzy in many ways, the secondary actors are almost all weak, but Eastwood anchors things. Maybe I just found his constant racist one-liners hilarious. I dunno. I was on board.

[MonkeyPunky]

P.S. I'm not a practicing Catholic, but is making a profit a sin?

I think Kowalski felt his sin was not reporting the profit on his taxes, not the profit itself.

[MyNameIsWill]

I saw this movie yesterday and thought it was fantastic.

"Smoking is bad for you" "So is being in a gang, dipshit" LOL!

[Tyjenks]

Now that this thread has successfully dampened my enthusiasm about the movie, I have no where to go but up.

[Cubit]

Wow, just saw the movie. Very good. Very powerful, to me personally. I saw what Tom was talking about, but the scenes really didn't hit me the way it hit him. I loved the cast, Clint too. Thumbs up from me.

[awdougherty]

I thought I saw somewhere that Eastwood won a best actor from some critics circle out there and there was even some best director Oscar talk about this one. Then I see the trailer and think it's just another Eastwood steaming pile. Don't get me wrong, I love Unforgiven, but he's directed some real crap. Blood Work was completely phoned in, I hated Million Dollar Baby, Mystic River was intensely uneven... and it usually suffers the same problem (as does Unforgiven to a degree), solid to great lead performances with atrocious secondary performances. Eastwood tends to make movies really fast, I've heard he just lets his actors give the performance they want, I've heard he often just takes the first or second take. With Sean Penn, you're okay, with first time actors or secondary roles filled with caricatures, it becomes a mess. Gran Torino looks like another mess.

[Cubit]

Gran Torino looks like another mess.

I would hold your opinions until you've seen the movie. Its definitely not a mess, and has a tight focus that I find appealing. I wouldn't call any of the actor's performances oscar-worthy, but there is nothing wrong with that. They were believable, imo anyway.

[Desslock]

Big thumbs down from me. Eastwood has gotten so schmaltzy and heavy handed - the characters are all cartoons - the ending is telegraphed and unsatisfying. The contrived racism and moralizing - blah. 3/10.

[Ezdaar]

I saw the trailer for this and it looked like Clint Eastwood goes all Dirty Harry on some banbers. Finding out what the movie is actually about is very disappointing.

[Hanacker]

That was a pretty bad movie. I'll just agree with most of the complaints above. Entertaining at times, and the overt racism got a few cheap laughs from me. But so stupid and heavy-handed.


Only the young Hmong girl was passable, but barely. She turned in the kind of comfortable performance that would have worked opposite a stronger actor or better material.

The scene where she confronts the three black guys made me think she was a terrible actress. But as the movie went on I realized that the scene just had terrible dialogue and forgave her.


But if you want to pack some punch and have a movie about an intolerant racist Korean War vet, then go ahead and roll out the N-word. Do it. I dare you. Have some balls, for Pete's sake.

I dunno, there's a difference between your garden variety racial epithets and the N-word. It has a bit more implied hatred than the others. Walt was grumpy and insensitive, but not really hateful.


Quick question: During the scene when the priest comes over to have a beer (ot two) with Eastwood, did you get the impression that the priest knew Eastwood was going to kill the gang banbers? And in fact was giving his tacit approval? Because I thought that's what the movie was leaning towards, and I actually thought that was pretty cool.

Yes, but I got the impression that he changed his mind after the heat of the moment had worn off.

[MattN]

I don't understand all the hate for this movie, I thought it was really good apart from the shitty acting from the kids.

[Lloyd Heilbrunn]

This was like Bizarro World Karate Kid, but pretty good.....

[The Bird Flu]

Bah! I seriously don't understand the hate. The movie had me from start to finish and I'm very picky. I even sobbed at the end. Definitely one of my favorite films.

It was a beautiful urban fairy tale.

[blackmox]

Two thumbs up from me. Best movie I have seen since Ironman. Maybe I was just in the mood for it or something, but I really enjoyed it.

[Pogo]

I'm not sure what to think, really. On one hand I found it somewhat moving as the character came to learn about the culture on the other side of the fence ("I have more in common with these people than I do with my own family"), but on the other hand the terrible acting by everyone who wasn't Clint (or the barber) almost ruined the experience completely.

There were a lot of funny moments that probably shouldn't have been funny, though. It was almost all worth it just to hear what kind of racial shit would come out of Walt's mouth.

[Grifman]

P.P.S. Also the gangsters at the end have a pretty good argument of self defense. Walt had previously assaulted the fat kid, with a gun no less, and he went into his jacket like he was drawing a gun.

What evidence do they have? The testimony of a gangbanger? Who's going to believe an old man beat up a tough gangbanger? Would he even admit an old man beat him up?

[Omniscia]

I liked it. Not Eastwood's best, but certainly decent enough. A gruff, curmudgeonly paean to peace, love, understanding, and the bygone days of the US auto industry.

And I'm always a sucker for Eastwood's spare, naturalistic lighting.

[Tim James]

Sometimes I'll see a movie and then go read reviews about it to see what everyone thought. I couldn't get past the first one I clicked on, at sfgate, where they said Eastwood's character "happens to have an arsenal in his house."

I realized I don't need to know what stupid people think.

[Skipper]

I loved it. It gave me a chuckle both in reminding me of my grandfather, as well as the understanding of someone who has seen a neighborhood change around them and suddenly woken up to it.

Some of the lesser characters had some stilted dialogue, but there were many things to like. I wonder if the dialogue problems were actor based or script based, I'm assuming here it was the young actors chosen for the movie.

[Hoplite]

I have to say I disagree with most of the comments with regards to the character portrayed by Clint Eastwood in this movie. I have several uncles that fit the portrayal to a tee. Blue collar, hard drinking, gun loving, racists bastards that pretty much sit around thinking the world has gone to hell in a hand basket. Despite my considerable differences with them, they are probably the most dependable men I know I could turn to if I needed help or would offer help. Any of them or their friends could have been dropped right into the middle of the film perfectly. The general comments seem negative on Tao as well, but I again though he pulled off the "lost/no direction" teenager thing that I have witnessed among my friend's children. The only problem for me was actually the ending which I agree was telegraphed. I think it would have been better if the "gang bangers" had just disappeared with Walt back sitting on his porch, drinking his beer and dying in his chair ala Godfather III.

[Mark Asher]

1. The ending was ridiculous.

2. While Eastwood’s character is believable enough (who hasn’t met a grouchy, racially insensitive old person?), Eastwood himself didn’t bring much to the role.

3. The writing was lazy.

Despite all that, I was happy enough to see it. I’m easy. And it was a bit poignant walking out of the theater when it was over knowing that it was probably his last starring role. I wish it had been better – I wish it had been Unforgiven better -- but the guy is 78. At least he’s not going out in some buddy movie where the buddy is an orangutan.

[JPR]

I'm not sure what to think, really. On one hand I found it somewhat moving as the character came to learn about the culture on the other side of the fence ("I have more in common with these people than I do with my own family"),

It was "gooks". "I have more in common with these gooks that I do with my own family." It kinda matters.


My friend and I saw this last night and thought it was okay. I liked it more than he did, but we agreed that the dialog was mostly awful, that the cartoonish nature of Walt's family was out of place and lessened the impact of his character, that the growling was silly, and that most of the secondary actors were pretty bad.

Also, is "banber" a word that I have never heard before or a typo of "banger"? It's been said like 6 times in this thread, mostly by Tom.

[Rywill]

It's one of those Qt3 inside jokes. Originally a typo, now a running gag. Like "domed."

[Adam Altmann]

Saw this last night. The poor acting really killed it for me, especially the 'Toad' kid. I did laugh at several points, and thought some scenes were pretty good, but the acting...ugh. The corny formulaic story didn't help things either. I'd say the movie is worth a rental, or maybe matinee prices. Overhearing conversations afterward, most of the people in the theatre with me seemed to love it...so take that for what it's worth.

[JPR]

It's one of those Qt3 inside jokes. Originally a typo, now a running gag. Like "domed."

Interesting. I guess I missed that one.

[malkav11]

I didn't completely buy Walt's "transformation" (such as it was), and I agree that the lead kid was pretty dreadful (especially in the scene where he's locked into the basement. Yeesh.) but overall I liked it quite a bit.

As for the cleaning the guns thing - it's possible he was originally intending to go shoot some people, I suppose. But he was putting all his affairs in order that day, and to someone like him I think cleaning the guns would be part of that.

[robsam]

and I agree that the lead kid was pretty dreadful (especially in the scene where he's locked into the basement. Yeesh.) but overall I liked it quite a bit.



The locked in the basement scene of Tao was dreadful. Almost killed the whole movie. Everything he did there was wrong, expressions, voice, weak ass pounding on a metal-mesh door.

Still, I really enjoyed this movie, and while I appreciate a lot of the criticism in this thread, and understand where it comes from, I think it was far better than some of you give it credit for.

[lesslucid]

Just saw this. Basically agree with the critics; I thought the Hmong girl did a very good job, but otherwise most of the acting was bad. In the case of the priest and Tao, painfully so. Plus, a lot of it felt very manipulative and thin, with weak writing and cardboard cutouts for characters. The scene where Eastwood reads the horoscope to the dog, telling you what's going to happen in the rest of the movie, felt like a stupid attempt to look clever. Eastwood has a kind of mythic "glow" around him because of the amazing film history he's been part of, and I loved "Unforgiven", but this was just a bad film.

[Rimbo]

Got this through Netflix. I'm only 40 minutes into the movie, and I must say that it has already greatly exceeded the total amount of awesome I expected from it.

[Rimbo]

"What did she say?"
"She says welcome to our home."
"No she didn't. She hates me."
"Umm... yeah, she didn't say that."

[Rimbo]

"I don't have a girlfriend, a car, or a job!"
"Jesus, I shoulda blown his head off when I had the chance."

[Rimbo]

So, the only time the acting really bugged me was when Tao was locked in the basement.

The ending didn't really work so well for me.

The portrayal of the family wasn't so much cartoonish as one-sided.

I'm glad I saw the movie before I read Tom's review.

[unbongwah]

Finally saw this tonight. I don't get the hate - clearly this is Eastwood's funniest film in ages. The overt caricatures, the potty-mouthed racism (which is more Archie Bunker than Dennis Leary), the hammy acting, the predictable cross-cultural misunderstandings, the clumsy surrogate-father-son dynamic, the way Eastwood takes time to explain what's going on just in case you couldn't figure it out, the Surprise Twist Ending which basically amounts to punkin' the punks (and the audience) - way more laughs than "Million Dollar Baby" or those lame Wayans Bros films. Now this is how to do a parody!

...shit, I wasn't supposed to be taking it seriously, was I?

Honestly, I don't know if Eastwood intended this film to be as deadpan-funny as I found it, but I chortled quite a bit. That may say more about me than him, though.

To briefly address a few old points:

The racial epithets: while I'm no linguistic expert, my guess is the point here is not just that Walt is an old racist, but an old-school racist. Thus he uses dated epithets like gook, spook, mick, etc. rather than chink, nigger, and so forth. So he isn't pulling his punches as Tom alleges, IMHO; it's just "hey, that's the way old folks curse - how quaint!"

The priest's nigh-omniscience: at one point he mentions that he "works with some of the Hmong gangs." While I don't know why these gang members would trust an Irish Catholic priest enough to tell him squat, the point is that he's sufficiently connected to have at least some idea what's going on in the community. This is the sort of crime drama where everyone in the community knows what's going on, but is too scared or too insular to go to the police for help. So if you can accept the priest has earned enough trust to learn what's going on, too, then it's not that hard to believe he knows who's responsible as well. [For me the sticking point is that he, as a white outsider, was let into an insular community at all.]

The final showdown / "surprise twist" ending - while I agree the gun-cleaning scene was audience misdirection, for me the first clue as to where the ending was going is the scene where he's getting fitted for a suit ("my first time"), but he doesn't go back for it or wear it before the showdown. Why? Because he's picking out his own funeral attire. A man who thinks he might die in a shootout would try to put his affairs in order (i.e., getting a shave, going to confession); but only a man who plans to die would pick out the clothes he wants to be buried in (IMHO).

In hindsight, then, cleaning his guns is another part of getting his affairs in order; when it comes to certain things - the things he really cares about - Walt's actually quite meticulous. E.g., notice how clean and well-organized his garage is: that's usually a sign of a man who either likes to keep his work-space tidy or never uses it in the first place; and Walt comes across as someone who regularly fixes things, which makes me think he's the former sort. [My father's like that: his office is a complete mess, but he has all his tools in his garage and workshop neatly organized. The man's even got labels on his wall hooks, for cryin' out loud!]

So for me, the only really implausible thing about the ending is the fact the gang members apparently waited patiently for the police to show up and arrest all of them rather than - I dunno - go on the run, maybe?

Anyway, I enjoyed it, if not necessarily in the manner Eastwood intended.

[Tom Chick]

...the first clue as to where the ending was going is the scene where he's getting fitted for a suit ("my first time"), but he doesn't go back for it or wear it before the showdown. Why? Because he's picking out his own funeral attire. A man who thinks he might die in a shootout would try to put his affairs in order (i.e., getting a shave, going to confession); but only a man who plans to die would pick out the clothes he wants to be buried in (IMHO)...

In hindsight, then, cleaning his guns is another part of getting his affairs in order; when it comes to certain things - the things he really cares about - Walt's actually quite meticulous.

These are very good points. The movie is still a big fat dud in my book, but good catches, unbong.

-Tom

[Pogo]

Yeah those are good points that I hadn't really thought about.

[Soma]

Hey I saw the ending coming from Jupiter's orbit, I still cried like a baby when it hit me.