Poll

What's your favorite film by Clint Eastwood?

haven't seen any
0 (0%)
don't like any
1 (2.3%)
Play Misty for Me (1971)
0 (0%)
High Plains Drifter (1973)
2 (4.7%)
Breezy (1973)
0 (0%)
The Eiger Sanction (1975)
0 (0%)
The Outlaw Josey Wales (1976)
4 (9.3%)
The Gauntlet (1977)
0 (0%)
Bronco Billy (1980)
0 (0%)
Firefox (1982)
0 (0%)
Honkytonk Man (1982)
0 (0%)
Sudden Impact (1983)
0 (0%)
Pale Rider (1985)
0 (0%)
Heartbreak Ridge (1986)
0 (0%)
Bird (1988)
0 (0%)
White Hunter Black Heart (1990)
0 (0%)
The Rookie (1990)
0 (0%)
Unforgiven (1992)
24 (55.8%)
A Perfect World (1993)
0 (0%)
The Bridges of Madison County (1995)
1 (2.3%)
Absolute Power (1997)
0 (0%)
Midnight in the Garden of Good and Evil (1997)
1 (2.3%)
True Crime (1999)
0 (0%)
Space Cowboys (2000)
0 (0%)
Blood Work (2002)
0 (0%)
Mystic River (2003)
3 (7%)
Million Dollar Baby (2004)
1 (2.3%)
Flags of Our Fathers (2006)
0 (0%)
Letters from Iwo Jima (2006)
5 (11.6%)
Changeling (2008)
1 (2.3%)
Gran Torino (2008)
0 (0%)
Invictus (2009)
0 (0%)
Hereafter (2010)
0 (0%)
J. Edgar (2011)
0 (0%)
Jersey Boys (2014)
0 (0%)
American Sniper (2014)
0 (0%)
Sully (2016)
0 (0%)
The Mule (2018)
0 (0%)
The 15:17 to Paris (2018)
0 (0%)
Richard Jewell (2019)
0 (0%)
Cry Macho (2021)
0 (0%)

Total Members Voted: 43

Author Topic: Eastwood, Clint  (Read 10868 times)

1SO

  • Moderator
  • Objectively Awesome
  • ******
  • Posts: 36128
  • Marathon Man
Re: Eastwood, Clint
« Reply #70 on: February 01, 2016, 10:07:28 AM »
Is the trailer for Play Misty on YouTube in any way representative for the movie?
No. As I figured, the trailer crammed all the horror bits together and makes it look like a grindhouse film. The movie is much more what you would expected from something directed by Eastwood. I couldn't find the best example, but this is a good representation...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s2B325_-dAY


Most of all, I'm curious how you define an Essential and if it is an open list or a fixed numbers list?!
Right now it's a rough order list, which is why I'm doing the re-watches. I prefer fixed number lists and want to have that when this is through. An 'Essential' is ever film (feature and short) I've rated * * * 1/2 or better, because that rating always indicated a film I think you Should See and * * * * means it's a Must See.

Knocked Out Loaded

  • Elite Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1914
  • I might remember it all differently tomorrow.
Re: Eastwood, Clint
« Reply #71 on: February 01, 2016, 11:48:26 AM »
Is the trailer for Play Misty on YouTube in any way representative for the movie?
No. As I figured, the trailer crammed all the horror bits together and makes it look like a grindhouse film. The movie is much more what you would expected from something directed by Eastwood. I couldn't find the best example, but this is a good representation...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s2B325_-dAY


Most of all, I'm curious how you define an Essential and if it is an open list or a fixed numbers list?!
Right now it's a rough order list, which is why I'm doing the re-watches. I prefer fixed number lists and want to have that when this is through. An 'Essential' is ever film (feature and short) I've rated * * * 1/2 or better, because that rating always indicated a film I think you Should See and * * * * means it's a Must See.

That clip shure seems more reasonable than the trailer does!

Thanks for clarifying. Any idea how big the final list will be!?
Extraordinary (81-100˚) | Very good (61-80˚) | Good (41-60˚) | Fair (21-40˚) | Poor (0-20˚)

1SO

  • Moderator
  • Objectively Awesome
  • ******
  • Posts: 36128
  • Marathon Man
Re: Eastwood, Clint
« Reply #72 on: February 01, 2016, 02:18:38 PM »
Thanks for clarifying. Any idea how big the final list will be!?
My hope is that all 628 titles would stay on the list, but I know that won't happen. Normally, I would start a Marathon thread for this, but I don't know how many films I'll want to write about. If/When this is complete I'll certainly post the final list (which is currently in Private on Letterboxd).

Corndog

  • Objectively Awesome
  • ******
  • Posts: 17025
  • Oo-da-lolly, Oo-da-lolly, golly what a day!
    • Corndog Chats
Re: Eastwood, Clint
« Reply #73 on: March 29, 2016, 02:48:00 PM »
1. Unforgiven (3.5)
2. Letters from Iwo Jima (3.5)
3. Million Dollar Baby (3.5)
4. Mystic River (3.5)
5. Space Cowboys (3.5)
6. A Perfect World (3.5)
7. Invictus (3)
8. The Bridges of Madison County (3)
9. Hereafter (3)
10. Changeling (3)
11. Gran Torino (3)
12. American Sniper (2.5)
13. J. Edgar (2.5)
"Time is the speed at which the past decays."

roujin

  • Moderator
  • Objectively Awesome
  • ******
  • Posts: 15508
  • it's all research
Re: Eastwood, Clint
« Reply #74 on: September 15, 2016, 09:21:56 AM »
I enjoyed Sully, even if it's pretty easy to spot Eastwood's conservative bonafides shining through (even more than American Sniper, to be honest). The shuffled narrative structure is key here as it shows the collective response to the event, which the film takes pains to point out is also hugely responsible for there not being loss of life. It's another portrait of a man being uncomfortable with the status of a hero; he sees himself on television, has drinks named after him, strangers hug him on the street. But the doubts, the nightmares, do not go away, until his actions are validated. Which again goes back to Eastwood's conservative bonafides. Still, there's something undeniably moving about the film, about Hanks not willing to stop until he hears the final count ("155"), and the film's ending. Hanks and Eckhart go off by themselves after listening to the black box recordings, knowing that they've done their duty as professionals, and congratulate each other. The film's final punchline is literally something out of a 40's studio picture, the tension completely deflated.

Teproc

  • Elite Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 3529
Re: Eastwood, Clint
« Reply #75 on: December 01, 2017, 06:54:42 PM »
Unforgiven
Sully
Invictus
American Sniper
Mystic River
Gran Torino


I like that the worst film of his I've seen is "what if I remade my best film, but made it almost entirely terrible this time around ?".
« Last Edit: June 03, 2018, 02:16:55 PM by Teproc »
Legend: All-Time Favorite | Great  |  Very Good  |  Good  |  Poor  |  Bad

Letterbox'd

1SO

  • Moderator
  • Objectively Awesome
  • ******
  • Posts: 36128
  • Marathon Man
Re: Eastwood, Clint
« Reply #76 on: May 08, 2021, 09:11:07 PM »
Updated Ranking


Breezy (1973)
★ ★ ★ - Okay
This should’ve been terrible. Romance between old, withdrawn businessman (William Holden) and young hippie (Kay Lenz) is problematic at its foundation. Eastwood doesn’t back off from or dance around the problem, giving Breezy enough life to not be a manic pixie dream girl. Holden is in top form and Lenz easily matches him here in terms of star quality.


The Eiger Sanction (1975)
★ ★
If your character is supposed to be an irresistible sex machine, it might play better if you don’t direct it. Eastwood can deflect and downplay as much as he wants, but there’s a required level of desirability and every time he plays into it it’s a major ego trip and/or monumentally embarrassing to stand before the camera as an alpha male. Add to that, Eastwood is playing an expert mountain climber, which also evokes a lot of masculine confidence.

The film is constantly problematic, such as the flirtation with a black woman named Jemimah Brown that trades racial humor as foreplay. (She makes a rape joke before jumping him.) There’s a gay character whose dog is named a homophobic slur. See it’s supposed to be okay because of context, but these moments pack too much cringe into the otherwise sharp dialogue. There’s a good espionage film here, but here are the early signs of Eastwood making obvious, critical blunders.


Bird (1988)
★ ★
The slog I was fearing. Perhaps if I was interested in Charlie Parker or Jazz music, but this isn’t made to bring in outsiders. It’s a celebration by a fan that avoids the biopic trap of connecting the music to the man. The two just happen to coexist. I was more engaged by Parker’s wife Chan (Diane Venora) who led a richer, complicated life that Parker was a part of.


Midnight in the Garden of Good and Evil (1997)
★ ★ ½
A very different Eastwood from the troublesome Eiger Sanction. Here he seems to not understand the moral outsiders, but he allows them to exist in a way where we laugh with them and not at them. Unsuccessful in a number of ways – and I’m not going to pull Kevin Spacey into such a short opinion – but it has the delicious vibe of an eccentric murder mystery brought off by a campy cast that I’m often fond of. Special shout out to Australian actor Jack Thompson, who never got such a substantial role in an American film.


Hereafter (2010)
★ ★
This is why I gave up on Eastwood. A fantastical tale with sweeping emotions told in such a minimalist, unadorned style that I spent much of the time wondering what the point was. What am I supposed to be feeling about these people? About this journey? Eastwood seems more concerned with coming in on time and budget than giving the script the direction it’s thirsty for.

Hereafter put me off wanting to continue, with two films to go. I started J. Edgar and DiCaprio’s performance was fake inside and out. What’s left is that and Jersey Boys, and I’d rather get into some other projects this month.

pixote

  • Administrator
  • Objectively Awesome
  • ******
  • Posts: 34237
  • Up with generosity!
    • yet more inanities!
Re: Eastwood, Clint
« Reply #77 on: May 09, 2021, 01:00:53 AM »
This is why I gave up on Eastwood.

<youhavechosenwisely.gif>

pixote
Great  |  Near Great  |  Very Good  |  Good  |  Fair  |  Mixed  |  Middling  |  Bad

Eric/E.T.

  • Elite Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 3830
Re: Eastwood, Clint
« Reply #78 on: May 09, 2021, 07:50:54 PM »
I think this is the sole case where I hold so much contempt for one individual that I can't bring myself to think about their work for too long. Gran Torino is possibly my all-time most hated film (right there with Waiting for Superman). American Sniper is my most hated of any film that I haven't seen. I can't watch it. I've read enough on it. I know what it is. I will never watch it. For most people in Hollywood who have made blunders in terms of race, gender, etc., I generally don't think they are overtly racist (or sexist, etc.), just more insensitive and blind to cultural realities. That doesn't take away their culpability in their blunders, but anyway, I don't give Eastwood the same charity. I think he's a monster.
A witty saying proves nothing. - Voltaire

roujin

  • Moderator
  • Objectively Awesome
  • ******
  • Posts: 15508
  • it's all research
Re: Eastwood, Clint
« Reply #79 on: January 22, 2022, 02:15:15 PM »
Is Hereafter the best film of the 2010s? It's hard to say.

 

love