DHP Review: Gran Torino
Posted by Dirty Harry on Monday, December 15th, 2008
Clint Eastwood’s hinted that Gran Torino might be his last turn in front of the camera. If that’s true, he could not have chose for himself a more fitting farewell. Without a hint of the self-referential, Torino touches on the many iconic moments of both his best genre pictures and more serious fare. Most of all, he’s masterfully blended both into a hard-hitting, supremely satisfying story that carries big themes with a deft gentleness.
Working from a superb script by relative newcomer Nick Schenk, Gran Torino opens in just the kind of Catholic church you expect to see in an old Detroit suburb. Walt Kowalski (Eastwood) is there to bury his beloved wife and to disapprove of the rest of his family. Having toughed his way through as a soldier in Korea and decades on the Ford assembly line, the strongest emotion he can summon for his spoiled kin is sarcastic disapproval with a side order of contempt.
Walt growls. Not figuratively, literally. He growls at the belly-pierced granddaughter who queries him on what he’ll leave her in his will, he growls at his son (Brian Haley) who thinks he’s outgrown the old, simple man who is his father, and he growls at Father Janovich (Christopher Carley), a baby-faced Priest who refuses to go away because he promised a dying wife he’d get Walt to agree to take confession.
At 78 (Eastwood plays his real age), Walt can live with this. He may not have made peace with his demons, but he is used to them and keeps life’s pleasures simple. Retired with a big old yellow dog for company, all Walt wants from life is his morning coffee, afternoon Pabst Blue Ribbon, a pack of filterless smokes, and a quiet porch to enjoy them on.
Walt’s neighborhood, at least the one outside the time capsule Walt calls home, is changing. The area’s poorer, the street gangs cruise by, and Hmong immigrants and refugees — or as Walt casually refers to them: gooks, fish heads, chinks – are moving in, including a large extended family right next door. So many that Walt wonders how all the ”zipperheads” fit. The only relationship Walt wants with his new neighbors is the one where he growls epithet’s under his breath and they cuss him out in their native tongue. “She hates me,” Walt says to himself with genuine dismay as the old grandmother lashes out in more of a fury than usual.
It’s a merciless Asian gang that changes Walt’s comfortable neighbor-dynmic. For a gang initiation, Thao — the quiet teenage boy who lives next door — attempts to steal Walt’s prized possession: a cherry, 1972 Gran Torino. Thao isn’t interested or cut out for ganglife, but he is easily bullied and soon Walt grudgingly becomes both his and his family’s protector, mentor, and friend. But the gang’s not just going to go away and so they’re always there, a presence undermining the harmony – circling, waiting, willing to take this as far as they must to get what they want.
Many have compared Torino to Dirty Harry (1971), but The Outlaw Josey Wales (1976) is more like it. Like Josey, Walt is a widower driven to violence, determined to remain alone, but in the end saddled with a ragtag family that humanizes him as he protects them. Better yet, like Josey, Walt likes to spit a little tobacco before letting things get “real f***ing ugly.” Torino’s themes of faith, mentoring, and an everyday man coming to terms with the winter of his years, however, are straight out of Million Dollar Baby (2004), and handled with the same beautiful and touching precision.
Most of the middle of Torino is taken up with Walt getting to know his Hmong neighbors and the taking of Thao under his wing. The pace is leisurely and pure Eastwood, but the script and Eastwood’s performance are so good that this is just as much fun as the tough stuff. And thankfully the film avoids political correctness like a plague. Certainly Walt changes, but not in a moment of false enlightenment after some heavy-handed lecture, but through the normal, human process of getting to know another. Walt’s words never change but the meaning behind them change completely.
Eastwood’s nothing short of marvelous playing this deceptively complicated and deep character. As an actor, he takes real chances with Walt’s growls and assorted tics. The characterization is performed on a knife edge. One degree this way or that and Eastwood’s making a fool of himself. But it never happens. Clint holds the line like a pro and creates a rarity on film anymore: a convincing, human character who’s larger-than-life.
Great films bring everything together in a final moment. When done right, the story, subplots, and themes stay true for the climax but also surprise. This is where Torino most shines. After two hours your investment in the characters is complete, and in keeping with both the pulpier aspects of the genre and the story’s bigger ideas, Eastwood the performer and filmmaker brings together a perfect moment that lingers for days.
But if this is truly Eastwood’s last act that moment is bigger than just the climax of a superb film. That moment is Clint Eastwood; the blend of hero, anti-hero, and explorer of the dark human condition always within the grasp of salvation. For those of us who have never known life without the promise of another Clint Eastwood film, Gran Torino makes for a suitably tough and touching farewell.
Somewhere near the middle of the second act there’s a brief shot of Walt on his porch lighting a cigarette. Anyone whose seen A Fistful of Dollars – the film that started it all and made Eastwood an international superstar in 1964 – will recognize Eastwood’s pose.
I know I did.
Filed in Movie Reviews |
Emilyon 15 Dec 2008 at 9:24 pm 1I’m so upset this is rated R. I really wanted to see it. At least I can go to The Curious Case of Benjamin Button.
Max Poweron 15 Dec 2008 at 9:52 pm 2How old are you Emily?
Max Poweron 15 Dec 2008 at 9:53 pm 3Sorry, that sounds creepy, I assume you are old enough to see it. So what if there is a little swearing, it his last film!
David Marcoeon 15 Dec 2008 at 9:56 pm 4I’m so upset this is rated R. I really wanted to see it. At least I can go to The Curious Case of Benjamin Button.
It’s not hyper-violent or overly sexual. I would imagine the “R” rating comes from all the racial language.
Mr24pon 15 Dec 2008 at 9:59 pm 5I was a little iffy about this film but your review has convinced me I need to see this.
Emilyon 15 Dec 2008 at 10:02 pm 6Ha. I’m 15 and Mormon. It’ll be on TV eventually though.
Kensingtonon 15 Dec 2008 at 10:11 pm 7Emily, does being Mormon have anything to do with why you can’t see this film, or is it just a matter of age. You understand that kids your age are allowed to see R-rated films as long as you’re with a parent or guardian, right?
Emilyon 15 Dec 2008 at 10:19 pm 8Kensington,
Of course I know that. It’s in my church teachings not to view R-rated movies. It doesn’t really bother me, except everything is rated R these days.
Kensingtonon 15 Dec 2008 at 10:22 pm 9Emily,
I don’t really understand much about Mormonism, so my curiosity was piqued. You mentioned that this film would be on TV eventually, does that mean that Mormons can watch R-rated films that have been edited for television, then?
Sorry, Harry; I realize this is off topic. As a Catholic, I’m just fascinated by the standards of other religions.
Emilyon 15 Dec 2008 at 10:27 pm 10Kensington,
I understand, Catholicism fascinates me! I really don’t understand anything about it. To answer your question though, I’ve never heard anyone address it, but since they edit out most of the language and sex, it basically becomes PG-13 rated, so why not watch it.
Kensingtonon 15 Dec 2008 at 10:35 pm 11Emily, I find your reasoning sound and convincing, and I honor your convictions!
Sorry again for the OT Harry! I’ll hit Google to learn more about Mormonism. Thanks, Emily!
Keiraon 15 Dec 2008 at 10:39 pm 12R-rated films (like non-coffee but still caffeinated beverages) are what I like to refer to “theological gray areas”.
It’s not a hard and fast rule in the faith but depending on household would be practiced with more or less strictness. My in-laws are as thoroughly practicing as I am but guzzle diet-Coke like it’s going out of style and have no problem catching an R-rated flick from time to time (these are matters of personal choice but generally discouraged).
I usually wait for the edited version on TV but, for instance, had no problem bending my rule for a movie like “Schindler’s List”. So, if it is a movie that warrants it (as to theme and subject) I’ll go.
That answer the question?
Emilyon 15 Dec 2008 at 10:43 pm 13No problem! You may want to try our offical websites though, like lds.org.
Emilyon 15 Dec 2008 at 10:45 pm 14Lol! At least I’ll know to deflect all faith-related questions to Keira in the future. She explains much better than me.
benon 15 Dec 2008 at 10:58 pm 15Speaking of R-rated movies… my dad took my sister and I to “Quest for Fire” when I was 10 and she was 11. I thought it was awesome. I saw it again as an adult not too long ago. I was blown away. There was a TON of caveman canoodling, and all of it had gone right over my head when I was 10. Weird.
WasatchManon 15 Dec 2008 at 11:16 pm 16I’ve never had any problem seeing R-rated movies, and neither have many of my friends, and we consider ourselves Mormons in good standing. The counsel about avoiding R-rated movies is at least 30 years old and comes from some of the relatively more conservative church leaders. It’s not a hard and fast commandment like the prohibition of tobacco and alcohol. (I know all this sounds weird to outsiders, but making these distinctions is quite natural when you have faith in a religion.)
wpdunn71901on 15 Dec 2008 at 11:23 pm 17I admire your convictions Emily, cheers for the season
Eric Kendallon 15 Dec 2008 at 11:29 pm 18Emily’s comments put me in a mind to recollect the first R-rated film that I ever saw in a movie theater without parental accompaniment. The year was 1978. The film was “National Lampoon’s Animal House.” I was 13 years old.
I went to see the film with several friends of the exact same age. We just walked right up to the ticket window, bought tickets and went right in to the theater without any difficulty whatsoever. And mind you, this was not a multiplex, but an older, single-screen theater. There were still plenty of those around when I was a kid. Anyway, on the way to the show, I wondered if we would be turned away when we tried to get in. Perhaps we might even get into some kind of trouble for making the attempt? Afterwards, I remember feeling rather silly and foolish for having been worried about it.
Nor was that the first R-rated film I’d ever seen. I actually saw Mel Brook’s “Blazing Saddles” in the theater with my father in 1974. I was 9 years old. And yes, I remember that very fondly.
[IMH]on 15 Dec 2008 at 11:29 pm 19One of my blog-buddies is Mormon, and reviews B movies every week (Cold Fusion Video Reviews), many of which are extremely R-rated. And this guy is seriously Mormon. So yeah, R-rated thing probably isn’t a hard and fast rule.
Michael Hutchisonon 15 Dec 2008 at 11:31 pm 20My parents just plain ol’ hate hearing the F-word…and aren’t too keen on a bunch of others. In most movies where it’s so unnecessary, they inevitably complain about it afterward…and it’s why they hate going to movies these days. (Too many PG-13 films have F-words in them, which always baffled me. Either you don’t want to hear such language, or you don’t have a problem with it…so why is it that one occurrence is OK and 10 makes it Rated R?)
joefrogon 15 Dec 2008 at 11:42 pm 21I have never before read comments about a movie review and felt like a heathen. Thanks guys.
That being said, I can’t wait to see this film.
Adhering to your faith is an admirable thing. I like the religious discussion, maybe someday an open thread? Or maybe a thread on religion in film?
Oh and DH, your reviews are so well done you make the “pros” look like hacks. Keep up the good work.
USS Benon 16 Dec 2008 at 2:45 am 22Man, I gotta see this flick!
Thanks for the great review, Harry!
whiskeyon 16 Dec 2008 at 3:26 am 23There’s R and then there is R. I found the Die Hard films not to be too bad, in terms of being embarrassed watching them. I’ve had uncomfortable moments, though, watching other stuff. Language does not bother me. Other things do though, excessive gore, violence, and particularly icky sex.
DH — I’ve read other reviews that take Eastwood apart on this movie on basic craftsmanship: boom mikes in the top of shots, mis-matches in basic continuity, bad sound, lighting, etc. Along with poor to non-existent acting by the non-professional cast, and what some have said is a phoned-in performance by Eastwood.
I’ve never been a fan of Eastwood, his entire persona was ripped off from Mifune, who did it first and better, and his atrocious Letters from Iwo Jima and the other movie (trashing the Marines, praising the Imperial Japanese Army) is fitting from a guy who never served a day in his life in actual, real combat but saw fit to trash those who did, and sacrificed so much.
This sounds like a movie filled with PC nonsense, and one I’ll gladly miss.
But what about the non-professional, “Clint phoned it in” comments. Did you see the boom mike in the one shot? Eastwood is famous for shooting like Allen (quick, to a schedule, one take) but the criticism of that method (fast, cheap) is that it produces lots of bad craftsmanship, obvious mistakes don’t get fixed because of time constraints, failing performances don’t get redirected, stuff that just isn’t working from script to shot does not get addressed and fixed on the spot.
I have never been impressed with Eastwood’s directorial efforts, to me they have all been … lazy. Lacking the energy to get it “right” and nail things down. I can well believe that Eastwood simply did not bother to make a film of quality, instead a film designed to get him another PC award.
HARRY HERE: The Hmomg actors are a little weak, noticed no boom, but Eastwood’s absolutely marvelous. People also need to keep in mind that this is a grinder flick at heart — a genre, revenge piece. “Lazy” is unfair. In my mind The Changeling qualifies as lazy because the script was such a mess. TORINO is longish but I didn’t want it to end. Gimme a good story and I’ll forgive amateur acting. Just give me a good, damn story.
Blast Hardcheeseon 16 Dec 2008 at 3:51 am 24If iGran Torino anything like The Outlaw Josey Wales, I’m there. That’s probably my favorite of the Eastwood westerns, in particular for one of the ending scenes:
SPOILER
Josey is riding away from his home and ‘family’, after convincing himself he’s happier by himself. From out of the trees ahead of him come the Redleg cavalry that’s been chasing him throughout the film. He’s facing dire odds, the head bad guy smirks and says “You’re all alone, Wales”…
And from the house behind Wales,a dozen rifles point out the window. Cue epic gun battle.
END SPOILER
Growltigeron 16 Dec 2008 at 5:46 am 25“Of course I know that. It’s in my church teachings not to view R-rated movies. It doesn’t really bother me, except everything is rated R these days.”
Seems to me some enterprising Mormon
could
make a lot of money
by
opening a studio (in Utah so he/she could avoid the labor costs) with good scripts (no scripts by committee please)
stars like Caviazel, Woods, Sinise, Davi, Vought — all good actors with integrity and no political propaganda to sell — making PG movies or R movies without the language. If the film needs a female looker, try Angie Harmon. (Why is it most of the women in Ho’wood are robotic Lefties? Don’t any have brains of their own?)
People are hungry for good, well written, well acted films that don’t insult their ideology or their integrity.
Blancon 16 Dec 2008 at 6:38 am 26Emily,
Thanks for starting an interesting conversation. I, like you, do not see R-rated movies. I am a little bit older than you so I can’t claim the teenage defense!
I understand that the rating system is pretty abitrary and not always reliable, but I figure if a bunch of Hollywood denizens say there is enough objectionable things in a movie to restrict who views it that certainly includes me and my family. I understand that people take differing views of the parent-child relationship, but I just figure it works out better if, after telling my kids that they can’t see R-rated movies that I kind of toe the line I set.
And yeah, I love genre movies, action flicks and other types that are often R-rated and say the same thing that Emily said… “I’ll catch it when it comes on TV and they take out the ‘R’ stuff”.
As to the Eastwood movie, being a native Detroiter and an Eastwood fan, well, I’ll catch it when it comes on TV.
Stephanieon 16 Dec 2008 at 6:41 am 27This is the first Eastwood movie I have wanted to see in a long time. Awesome.
Stickwick Staperson 16 Dec 2008 at 7:26 am 28… my dad took my sister and I to “Quest for Fire” when I was 10 and she was 11 …
As said sister, I have to say that QfF freaked me out. Dad took us to too many scary R movies, and I didn’t enjoy them. The sex mostly went past me, but the extreme violence disturbed me to the point that the images stuck for years — Tyrell getting his head crushed in Blade Runner (thankfully removed from the director’s cut) and that guy getting mauled by a bear in QfF.
Keep that in mind if you’re planning to take your kids to R movies at that age — your son will probably be OK with them, but your daughter might not be.
Stephanieon 16 Dec 2008 at 7:29 am 29Eh if I did everything the Catholic Church told me to, I’d never leave the house. I don’t believe this movie would be so bad. And you won’t hurt yourself if you see it. Thats just my two cents. I know of one rated R movie that deserved its R rating or more Strange Days…..Emily you will never see that movie. Its a good one but HOLY MOLEY! Thats a movie that deserved its rating. The rape scene alone deserved worse. Still trying to figure out how Catherine Bigalow could film that.
Brandonon 16 Dec 2008 at 7:32 am 30I don’t really conside a movie R Rated based on violence i use the “Parent Factor”, by in I judge a film based on how uncomfortable would I be if my Mom was in the room. So Rambo cutting a bad guy in half in the comically hyper violent last Rambo movie is okay. Conversely Mickey Rourke whipping Kim Bassinger with a belt while she crawls on all fours picking up dollars with her teeth in 9 1/2 Weeks, not okay. I think this is how movies should be rated.
As for Gran Torino this is a solid wait for DVD for me. With the cost of tickets now unless it’s something that will look impressive on a big screen (ala Transformers) I wait. Even still it’s nice to hear Clint might have pulled the flower out of the gun barrell for his last film. I’m sure Hollywood will hate it.
Plissken79on 16 Dec 2008 at 7:45 am 31My first “R” was Patriot Games back in 1992, in a movie theatre, anyway.
This film looks great, I hope when I am 78 I still have the energy and creative drive of Eastwood, with two films coming out in just three months
Wayfareron 16 Dec 2008 at 8:02 am 32Wow. I love how off topic threads can get.
Anyway, I really want to see this movie. Thanks for the review DH!
Luthienon 16 Dec 2008 at 8:08 am 33Just saw this movie myself and am really saddened that this might be his last movie that he is actually acting, rather than just directing. I really enjoyed this movie and was stoked to see it from the previews alone. I normally don’t like to watch movies more than once, but I would certainly make an exception for this one.
Carolynon 16 Dec 2008 at 8:11 am 34Wow, this is an incredible thread! Thanks!
DH - I kneel down and pray you will keep making these awesome reviews at your new site. Please, please, please.
Everyone else - it’s great reading your religious discussions. All of you are giving me such insight and I thank you.
benon 16 Dec 2008 at 8:34 am 35What happened to your star ranking at the end of reviews? I always liked that quick summary.
Kiton 16 Dec 2008 at 10:03 am 36Getting away from the Mormon debate, this sounds like an (to be totally 80s) AWESOME MOVIE!!!
I’m going to watch THE GOOD, THE BAD, AND THE UGLY before seeing it. (Never seen it before. I know, I’m pitiful.)
Carrieon 16 Dec 2008 at 10:20 am 37Don’t get me wrong - I can’t wait to see this movie, but I’m still waiting for the day where they do a film about an uber-liberal college professor who moves to an Evangelical midwestern town (maybe to take care of his dying parents or something), is totally disrespectful and mocking of everything these “Creationist”, “anti-reason”, “Bible-tumping,” “anti-choice” “homophobic” “hate mongers” flyovers believe in, only to find out that heck, they’re nice reasonable people with the same hopes and dreams and intelligence as the professor.
Kensingtonon 16 Dec 2008 at 10:24 am 38To defend Clint Eastwood for a moment re the boom mike, as I understand it, visible boom mikes are the fault of the projectionist. Boom mikes are routinely visible in final prints if films are not framed properly in the screening room. The projectionist is given framing guidelines that would, if properly implemented, eliminate any such visible booms.
That’s what I’ve always understood.
John McClainon 16 Dec 2008 at 11:01 am 39“There was a TON of caveman canoodling, and all of it had gone right over my head”
LOL - canoodling, gotta write that down.
Die Hard Fan
Jaredon 16 Dec 2008 at 11:02 am 40Well I’m convinced. I gotta see it before Christmas break is over.
Stickwick Staperson 16 Dec 2008 at 11:05 am 41Carrie,
I’m still waiting for the day where they do a film about an uber-liberal college professor who moves to an Evangelical midwestern town (maybe to take care of his dying parents or something), is totally disrespectful and mocking of everything these “Creationist”, “anti-reason”, “Bible-tumping,” “anti-choice” “homophobic” “hate mongers” flyovers believe in, only to find out that heck, they’re nice reasonable people with the same hopes and dreams and intelligence as the professor.
Are you kidding? Hollywood hasn’t made a good fantasy film in years.
John McClainon 16 Dec 2008 at 11:12 am 42Good review DH, I was not real jazzed for this movie based on some of his recent work. This is vintage Eastwood and I don’t mind the pun.
Die Hard Fan
JC Loopholeon 16 Dec 2008 at 11:52 am 43Saw the flick today.
IT. WAS. AWESOME.
JC Loopholeon 16 Dec 2008 at 11:57 am 44By the way there are so many great scenes and lines, but one of my favorites was when Walt finally shows up at the church for confession. When the priests asks what he wants and then Walt tells him, the priest says.
“Lord God what have you done?”
Kiton 16 Dec 2008 at 11:58 am 45“Just give me a good, damn story.”
Agreed!
Full Metal Deer Platoonon 16 Dec 2008 at 12:03 pm 46My first R-rated movie was Rambo: First Blood Part II. I convinced my parents to let me see it because it was “patriotic.” I miss the 80s.
Kiton 16 Dec 2008 at 12:05 pm 47My 2 cents re R-rated films:
The following are MY opinions, and I do not address them as if they were facts.
While I can see the points of the people who decide to wait to see the film on tv, where it is edited, some films, like SCHINDLER’S LIST, should not be seen edited, as I feel it takes away from the experience of the film. Now there are films (like certain Adam Sandler’s pics), which editing is not only, in my opinion, okay, but necessary.
But that is just my opinion.
Kiton 16 Dec 2008 at 12:06 pm 48My first R-rated film was SAVING PRIVATE RYAN, by the way. But not in theatres (on VHS).
PerfectTommyon 16 Dec 2008 at 12:08 pm 49This made the American Film Institute’s Top Ten This Year:
AFI’S 10 BEST MOVIES OF 2008
“The Curious Case of Benjamin Button”
“The Dark Knight”
“Frost/Nixon”
“Frozen River”
“Gran Torino”
“Iron Man”
“Milk”
“Wall-E”
“Wendy and Lucy”
“The Wrestler”
A relatively respectable list this time around.
PerfectTommyon 16 Dec 2008 at 12:10 pm 50First R-rated film - “Marathon Man” in Junior High.
I do find the hypocrisy of film makers amusing in their lawsuits against video stores that try to rent edited versions to people who have moral qualms about language, sex and violence, but raise no objection about taking paychecks when the films are edited for the airlines or TV.
CCW1970on 16 Dec 2008 at 12:13 pm 51Kensington -
You’re correct about boom mikes. They sometimes turn up on home video as well, when the transfer wasn’t supervised properly.
Plus, I’ve watched a number of Eastwood’s films repeatedly, both in theaters and on DVD, and find it hard to believe any serious filmgoer can call his craftsmanship bad.
I vigorously disagree that Eastwood’s films have the problems whisky describes. Perhaps there’s a handful of mistakes here and there in the vast number of Eastwood’s films (as happens in many films). But, the idea that he lets bad performances or mistakes through is nonsense. Granted, there may be acting and directing choices that a viewer disagrees with. But, there is nothing in Eastwood’s body of work to suggest he’s a lazy filmmaker.
JC Loopholeon 16 Dec 2008 at 12:15 pm 52One more comment
I thought the ending was so true to the film, to the characters, and the story it was building up to - it wasn’t necessarily what you may have wanted as a viewer- but it was what was true to the story.
I think with a year with The Dark Knight, Iron Man and Gran Torino- and how well they have done (or will do) - do you think that demonstrates that people are really eager to see people doing the hard things, the tough things- to get the job done, to make things right, no matter the consequences and damn political correctness? I’m tired of the plastic characters that some film makers think we should be and accept as real.
Emilyon 16 Dec 2008 at 3:03 pm 53Well, I guess since I started this whole thing, I should tell my first (and according to my mom, last) R-rated movie. It was The Silence of the Lambs. I pestered, begged, and harassed my Mom for months to let me rent it telling her that since I’d already read the book I knew everything that happened, etc. And then she finally cracked. It was an awesome movie.
Templaron 16 Dec 2008 at 4:41 pm 54Kit:
My first R-rated film was SAVING PRIVATE RYAN, by the way. But not in theatres (on VHS).
Same here.
elizabetheon 16 Dec 2008 at 5:20 pm 55Fun thread.
I’m not sure what my first R-rated film was, but it was definitely a high school movie they put on TV. I remember my best friend vigorously defending the necessity of me watching this movie to my mom because there was a scene where a girl demonstrates how to do something unmentionable on a carrot for her friend while they’re in the school cafeteria and that I would need this information so as not to be embarrassed by ignorance should the topic ever come up in casual conversation. (Was it Fast Times at Ridgemont High? Maybe Valley Girl? one of those).
At this point in my life, I wish my mother had been more strict.
I’m not necessarily an Eastwood fan, but, man, I want to see this movie. It makes me think of my grandfather, who overcame years of racial prejudice when a mixed-race married couple moved in next door and he became good friends with them — but to his dying day, he wouldn’t let any of his children buy any Japanese or German cars — he had been a POW of the Japanese in WWII.
Tangoon 16 Dec 2008 at 5:59 pm 56Ok, i’ll show my age…first R rated flick was old blue eyes in The Detective in 1968. Dad & I in the city for the day and out of the blue he said, “We’re goin to see Sinatra’s latest”, somewhere in mid-town. A great flick & a great time. Gotta hold onto those memories, boys & girls!
Tangoon 16 Dec 2008 at 6:00 pm 57Fast Times, Liz.
David A.on 16 Dec 2008 at 6:47 pm 58Two points.
First goes to whiskey regarding Eastwood v. Mifune.
As much as I love Eastwood, Mifune as the original “Man with No Name” blows Eastwood away. Yojimbo is the original much, much better version of “A Fistful of Dollars–the last line of which is killer!
And Mifune was the much better actor.
But, I’m not so sure that the comparison to Mifune is particularly accurate, despite Eastwood’s remake of Yojimbo. Their careers took different paths from what they had in common.
And the performances in Yojimbo and A Fistful of Dollars are different, even if they are both taciturn. Mifune’s had an earthiness and humor to it, which is summed up in the last line, whereas Eastwood’s was one of detachment altogether.
But, I would say that they are both great.
Yet, even though I love Eastwood, Mifune in Yojimbo is just one of those oh so terribly cool roles that not much compares.
As to Blast Hardcheese’s comment regarding The Outlaw Josey Wales being the best of the Eastwood westerns, I am wavering as of late, but during the 90’s, after having seen Unforgiven and then TOJW, I found TOJW the better movie.
But, perhaps out of familiarity–the movie pops up on cable more often than TOJW and so it’s become something of a comfort food.
Because of that, I’d have to see them both again, but I used to believe that Unforgiven was a bit strained with the revisionism–the sheriff is the bad guy while the bad guy is fairly good because of his redemption, of sorts–even if the movie is still a very good one.
I just thought that there weren’t any flaws, really, in the TOJW.
I was bothered by the end of Unforgiven, in the sense that it seemed that the writer wanted to have it both ways: make Eastwood a bad guy but have us get our dose of Eastwood violence. I suppose one can say that it was a provocative moment, but I didn’t think so way back in 1993 when I saw it (I think I saw it on a re-release just at the end of 1992, for Oscar consideration.)
Still, there is something kickass about Clint taking down everyone in the bar at the end of “Unforgiven,” even if I had qualms about it at the time.
I’m going to have to watch TOJW again to see if things have changed.
steevyon 16 Dec 2008 at 6:56 pm 59Violence in films never bothered my parents.Nudity was another story.A still painful memory of mine is seeing “Death Wish 2″with my aunt and mother(I was about 10).They expected violence but the rape scene was a different story.Couple years later I suffered the ignominy of having my eyes covered by my mother while my friend sat in the theater with us.The was during the sex scene in “The Terminator”.
texacaliroseon 16 Dec 2008 at 7:34 pm 60Regarding movie ratings: this site is owned by a Morman & today’s newsletter included the following:
http://www.dvo.com/clear-play1.html?CID=clearplay_msg
texacaliroseon 16 Dec 2008 at 7:37 pm 61And spaeking of boom mikes, there was one scene in American Gangster (I loved that movie) where the boom mikes were floating around the entire time like bats in cave.
PerfectTommyon 16 Dec 2008 at 8:34 pm 62Yojimbo>A Fistfull of Dollars>Last Man Standing
Ronsonicon 17 Dec 2008 at 10:39 am 63JC Loopholeon
By the way there are so many great scenes and lines, but one of my favorites was when Walt finally shows up at the church for confession. When the priests asks what he wants and then Walt tells him, the priest says.
“Lord God what have you done?”
THAT is brilliant. I gotta see this.
NeoConJedion 17 Dec 2008 at 12:14 pm 64I have to agree with whiskey’s post (No. 23).
It’s exactly the way I’ve always felt about Eastwood’s work as a director.
And PC nonsense screamed out at me from the trailer for Gran Torino.
MövìZ KìÐon 28 Dec 2008 at 1:05 pm 65Gran Torino is one of the best movies i have ever seen especially with Clint Eastwood in his ever serious roles, Ahney Her looks very beautiful ….`Clint Eastwood must not quit as an actor so quickly as he planned to…. i want more of his movies.
meon 20 Feb 2009 at 6:10 pm 66it should be rated R because there is a rape scene in it. it shoulc also be rated R specifically for “sexual violence” not just “violence” because many women have been raped (as many as one in four) and should know that they could be triggered when seeing this movie. there are some things that shouldnt even be on the screen without serious care.