The surprising, never-before-told tale of the indispensable yet unsung Casting Director - Iconoclasts whose keen eye, exquisite taste and gut instincts redefined Hollywood. From: IMDb.com
Directed by: Tom Donahue
Starring: Jeff Bridges, Robert De Niro, Robert Duvall and others
In my opinion it's definitely true that once you have seen one of those
'70's westerns, you have seen about 80% of them. They are all similar,
with both style and setup, which is probably part of the reason why
westerns never really have been my kind of thing. These type of movies
can still often distinct itself from the average genre attempt through
its main character and actor portraying them. This movie has Clint
Eastwood, so really, things couldn't had gone very wrong for this
movie.
And Eastwood doesn't just simply star in it, he also directed it,
making this his first directed western as well. He of course had lots
of experience as an actor in the genre already, so it wasn't a very big
surprise he turned to directing one as well, pretty early on in his
directing career.
I wouldn't exactly call this movie a genre great but it's definitely
still a good movie. It's simple with its setup and settings, which
makes this a pretty straightforward and easy and pleasant to watch
genre movie. It has very little distractions in it, which also means
that the movie isn't exactly being a very deep or involving one but it
does help to make this a pleasant viewing experience.
It definitely still has some missed opportunities in it, in my opinion.
It for instance could had done more with all of its townspeople, who
now instead all remain a bit too shallow and too much in the
background. It also felt somewhat uncomfortable to see what an
unpleasant character Eastwood was playing. He's not exactly a bad guy
himself but definitely not the sort of guy you would love to hang
around with.
The movie doesn't always follow the typical genre clichés in that
regard, which does of course helps to make this a somewhat more
original genre attempt. It shall please those who want to see something
different but at the same time it will also please those who expect a
more typical and genre cliché driven Eastwood western. It has something
for everybody in it really.
It's simply a good genre movie that I just wasn't very taken with all
of the time.
Without any of the big names involved, this movie would had most likely
never made it to cinemas. In it's core this movie is really being
nothing more but a run of the mill drama, that you normally expect to
go straight to DVD or TV.
This sounds harsh but it's not the same thing as saying this is a bad
movie as well, fore it really isn't. Problem is that it just isn't
anything special and not everything got handled in the best or most
original way.
This movie is being a bit of everything. It's not fully a
sports/baseball movie, it's not just a father-daughter drama and it's
not just a romantic movie. It tries to combine many different elements,
of which none however is all that involving or surprising. Really, it's
an as typical and predictable movie as they can get but I guess that
the lovers of these sort of more simplistic and easy to digest
dramas/feel good movies will have little to complain about. In that
regard this also really is still being a better than just average genre
attempt, also due to all of the talent involved with making this movie.
And I'm mostly talking about the cast of course, which still remains
the biggest draw for this movie. It's always good to watch Clint
Eastwood as a grumpy old guy and the movie has a pretty solid
supporting cast, with actors such as John Goodman, Bob Gunton, Justin
Timberlake, Matthew Lillard and Robert Patrick involved.
That doesn't mean they always interact convincing with each other as
well but this really for most part is also really because of its
written. The whole father/daughter relationship between Clint Eastwood
and Amy Adams felt too fabricated and I'm mostly referring to all of
the drama that goes down between them. There also was some poor
chemistry between Amy Adams and Justin Timberlake. It might sound
strange coming from a guy but Timerlake is just too good looking for
Adams and it felt far from convincingly that a guy like him would ever
fall for a girl like her.
All of the drama just feels a bit too convenient for the movie as well.
It's happening at weird moments and places, which doesn't make this the
most realistic genre movie to watch out there. So next to being very
typical and predictable, it also is being not realistic enough. But oh
well, all of this are only reasons as to why "Trouble with the Curve"
is a far from great movie but in all honesty, it's not a terrible
movie. A bit slow perhaps at places, yes but never anything truly bad
or annoying.
It's a watchable enough genre flick, as long as you don't expect any
Oscar material.
It was quite surprising to find that this second Dirty Harry movie even
beats the original. It's better written and even uses- and handles its
main character in a better and more intriguing way.
At first it really looks as if this movie is going to be nothing more
but just another rehash of the first movie. It seemed to feature a
similar type of plot and progressed in almost the exact same manner.
However, the further the movie progresses, the more starts to become
clear about the story and the direction it's heading at. You think this
is going to be yet another movie about a serial killer but there really
is far more to the story, as you'll find out.
I won't spoil anything but there are some nice twists and turns in the
movie, that shake things up. It even makes this a somewhat surprising
and also original genre movie.
It's really not necessary either to watch the first "Dirty Harry" movie
before you go and see this one. It's really a movie on its own, with a
new story and also mostly new characters in it. All of the events that
happened in the first movie are mostly irrelevant for this one and
you'll get into this movie and its main characters just as easily as
you would when you have already seen the first movie.
Compared to the first movie, which was great as well by the way, they
had improved on certain things. The character of Harry himself for
instance is given some depth and background this time around, making
him even more human like and likable. You get a better sense of the
character so to speak.
The movie also still feels very raw and straightforward. There is some
pretty graphic violence in the movie and the Clint Eastwood character
Harry Callahan of course isn't afraid to use his Magnum more than once
throughout the movie. There is some real good action and some nice
thrills in this movie, that all look and feel very typical for an '70's
genre production, which is a big compliment of course.
There really wasn't much that I didn't liked about the movie. It did
everything right, had a great genre story in and of course one iconic
main character, who lifts the movie even up to greater heights, also
mainly thanks to Eastwood's performance.
An absolute must see for the lovers of crime/cop movies.
In essence this is being a very typical detective story, in which a
tough cop has to stop a killer. "Dirty Harry" is of course a far from
typical movie though. There are several things about it that makes this
movie more special- and unlike any other genre attempt.
The first reason is also the most obvious one; its main character.
Clint Eastwood plays a classic character, in the same vein as for
instance a Steve McQueen- or Charles Bronson, in his best days, type of
character. A tough looking guy, who backs down for nobody or anything
and with an high sense for justice and righteousness. A good guy acting
and thinking as a bad guy. Really, these type of characters often have
more bad guy characteristics to them but yet they still work out really
well as good guys, since they 'fight' for the right causes and are on
the good side, even though they quite often break the law.
It's all very consistent with the raw and gritty style of the movie,
courtesy of director Don Siegel. It's the sort of movie that feels
realistic and is not just purely made to entertain. It has very little
exaggerated moments in the sense of moments that feel like they
couldn't ever happen in real life.
You could say that it's also being a slow moving- and not all that
spectacular movie because of that but I would mostly disagree. It's
fast paced with also plenty of excitement and action in it. Of course
when compared to modern genre movies it's nothing too spectacular but
it definitely has other qualities to it. It's rawness being one of
them, which makes this a very straightforward and effective movie
within its genre.
There really aren't too many distractions in this movie. It focuses
just on the Dirty Harry character and all he is concerned about is
getting the bad guy. So no other drama, no distracting love story, or
other sentimental ploys. The movie is what it is and it doesn't ever
pretend to be more than it truly is.
And the story as it is, is just fine. It has plenty of depth and good
developments in it, all driven by a good and interesting crime story.
It's not really being predictable in any way, which is also mainly due
to its villainous character, played by Andrew Robinson. He's a very
unpredictable and psychotic character, that no one is safe for. Not
every plot development is convincing but it helps to let the story move
along and to keep things fresh and interesting.
A great, gritty, cop movie, even still in today's perspective.
(Review originally written at 22 August 2009) Well, in all honesty the concept of this movie doesn't sound to likely or compelling. I mean an old tough and racist Korea war veteran who becomes friends with- and mild with his Korean neighbors sounds more like a sappy made for TV drama than a powerful and likely one. But Clint Eastwood has of course surprised us before in the past with his directing capacities and surprises yet again with "Gran Torino", in which he also plays the main character himself this time. The movie does mostly work out due to Clint Eastwood. Not just thanks to his directing skills but also not in the least thanks to his acting. He basically plays a character that he has played some many things throughout his career before, only difference is those characters were much younger and more fit. He makes the character and movie as a whole believable and also real compelling. He dares to show his age, like he had already also done before in the past, for instance like "In the Line of Fire". You really believe that this tough all American character gets more accessible and friendly, after he goes through a great ordeal of changes and tragedies himself. It makes the story and character and everything that happens within the movie all very easy to grasp. You can say that this movie is a character movie but it also works on so many more levels. The movie features lots of themes in it, such as violence and racism but also love. It makes "Gran Torino" a very broad, surprising and unexpected great movie to watch. This all comes together at the end of the movie, which was real suiting in my opinion, though some people find it a bit disappointing or have some other problems with it. The story and movie does a good job at finding its right balance. The movie never becomes too sappy, even though at times it shows some tendencies of becoming so, and it never becomes anything too unlikely but also not without some humor. It's an honest but also very straight-forward made movie that show things as they are and doesn't try to let things look better or worse . It's a very pure movie that also doesn't try to look fancy. Instead the movie is small and humble but close to life. A simple and pure movie that is just so very compelling and powerful! 8/10 Watch trailer
(Review originally written at 14 May 2009) Clint Eastwood is of course a true western-legend and with this movie he is paying tribute to the genre, as well as saying goodbye to it. Westerns now days are just not as popular anymore and besides, Eastwood was of course also an aging actor already at the time. This movie got made at the right time and is a great swansong for Eastwood within the genre that made him star. What "The Shootist" was for John Wayne, "Unforgiven" is for Clint Eastwood. Besides playing the main character, the movie also got directed by Eastwood himself. It was the movie that really launched his directing career and he even won an Oscar for it. He had already directed multiple movies prior to this one and also some quite good ones as well but for some reason he was never really taken serious enough as a director by the main-stream audience. Eastwood made this movie in the 'old fashioned' way, which no doubt he learned to do from working with Sergio Leone, to which this movie got also dedicated. The movie has all of the usual and right required western ingredients present in it but yet it also manage to give the movie a more of a fresh feeling and look over it. It's also really due to its approach and concept that this movie works out as a refreshing one. Even though it has lots of the westerns clichés present in it, the movie actually succeeds in it to turn things around. The line between the good and bad guys are being blurred and no one is a true gunslinging hero in this one, who blasts his way through town. It makes the characters of the movie work out outstandingly. The movie chooses to be more realistic but not without staying truthful to its genre. It's a western as well as an anti-western at the same time because it debunks so many of the usual western traditions. It's not necessarily a spectacular or exciting movie but the movie is being carried by its characters and its perfectly cast actors. Because of this the movie becomes a real compelling one. As expected, Clint Eastwood is really in his element as a reformed, aging, former tough gunslinger. He is being accompanied by actors such as Gene Hackman, Morgan Freeman and Richard Harris. Hackman also won an Oscar for his role in this movie, that is being regarded by some as one of the definitive Hackman roles. The movie got only shot in 39 days but this doesn't prevent the movie from being a good looking one, with nice cinematography, sets and costumes, which all fits the genre and time period it got set in. It's a truly fine crafted movie, that also features a nice little musical score, partly composed by Eastwood himself as well. A fine good bye for Eastwood to the genre, to which he owes basically his entire career. 8/10 Watch trailer
(Review originally written at 30 May 2008) It's not exactly as if this was the first spaghetti-western ever made but it was the movie that became the first mainstream success and pretty much marked the beginning of the success of a popular new genre. It was also the movie that launched Clint Eastwood's career as a leading man in movie roles. Before this he mostly played background characters in movies and had about 2 lines and he starred in a couple of TV-series, of which "Rawhide" is the best known example and is pretty much the reason who he got his role in this movie. I liked this movie a tad bit better than its first sequel of the 'dollar-trilogy'; "Per qualche dollaro in più" because the story had a bit more substance and the movie was less dark of tone. Of course it's not as good as its final sequel "Il Buono, il brutto, il cattivo" but then again, which western is? The movie does not has an original story do, since this movie is an unofficial remake of the Japanese Kurosawa movie "Yojimbo". Director Akira Kurosawa and writer Ryuzo Kikushima even successfully sued but luckily the movie still got its release. Imaging if this movie wouldn't had been around and it would had been canceled. It perhaps would had meant the end of Sergio Leone's career and definitely the end of the spaghetti-western's, even before the genre took off. It's a great story with some great genre characters in it, that basically is about the ancient theme of good versus evil, which really is the story in a nutshell. The movie is directed with lots of style but it also became apparent that director Sergio Leone had yet to perfect his style. There are some trademark elements present, mostly with its compositions and long shots of people's faces but it's not really completely the style yet he became so famous for. It's mostly Clint Eastwood that makes this movie. Can you even imaging this movie without him? Casting him in the lead role was like the best thing since the invention of the Internet. Seriously though, he acts superbly in this film and he fits his role like a glove. It marked for him the beginning of a great long career of acting in movies, of course mostly also western's. A great early genre example! 8/10 Watch trailer
This is a typical Sergio Leone western, with a style that made the spaghetti western one of THE genres of the '60's and redefined the western genre in general. "Per qualche dollaro in più" is the middle movie of the 'Dollar'-trilogy and although its not the best out of the trilogy it's of course still better than just your average kind of western!
It's a movie that's solidly written, with also some fine solid characters in it. But it of course is the directing and story-telling style of Sergio Leone that makes the movie work out so well. He takes his time to build up sequences and its excitement. This movie is really not halve as action filled as you perhaps would expect but it still is at least halve more exciting than most other westerns with lots of action in it. This says something about the effective directing approach of Leone. Of course his trademarks elements such as extreme close-ups of eyes, flashbacks, slow storytelling, gritty atmosphere and stand-offs are all present here.
Lee Van Cleef plays one of his very best roles. Gian Maria Volontè also did a really good job at playing the movie its real main villain, although of course I still prefer Eli Wallach. And Clint Eastwood does what he can do best in this movie; playing one tough but righteous character. It was also quite nice to see Klaus Kinski in this one!
And of course you can't get around Ennio Morricone's musical score. Wasn't he one of the first ever composes to give each character a main theme and motive throughout the movie, that gets featured prominently? His score for this movie is just great and it above all really serves a purpose within the movie, which makes the score really suit the movie its story as well as the overall atmosphere.
It's a movie that just gets better and better toward the ending, until it gets to its unavoidable stand-off sequence at the end, that is really exciting and memorable, once again not in the least thanks to Morricone's musical score, that actually plays a real important part during the sequence.
In my opinion this movie gets nowhere close to the brilliance of "Il Buono, il brutto, il cattivo", which is the 'follow-up' of this movie and the last part of the trilogy, but that of course doesn't mean that this movie is a bad one! Not at all!
(Review originally written at 13 July 2007) There never have been many movies concentrating on the Japanese side of WW II. It makes every movie regarding this subject per definition and interesting one. "Letters from Iwo Jima" is also such a movie that tells just like "Flags of Our Fathers" to story of the battle of Iwo Jima, only this time told from the Japanese side. On a positive note; the movie this time almost entirely focuses just on the battle. It makes the story far more interesting and intriguing to follow. on a negative note, the battle looks just as confusing as was the case in "Flags of Our Fathers". Hours literally goes by in minutes and it's hard to understand who is fighting were at the moment. In some cases it just doesn't ever bother to show some important events but instead use small parts of dialog, concerning the progress of the battle. This is the sort of approach normally a cheaply made movie would make in order to save money. You just don't expect this is a multi-million production. Again it shows that Clint Eastwood is better off sticking to 'small' drama's, it's obvious that his most talent lays there. Although admittedly the budget ($15,000,000) was a lot lower than usually would be the case with such a large scale production. Strangely enough the characters are for more interesting and easy to relate with than was the case in "Flags of Our Fathers". It's also one of the reasons why "Letters from Iwo Jima" works better out as a movie. It's more involving, more tense and more shocking as a war movie. You get a better sense of the madness and scale of the battle and war in general. Interesting, since the movie concentrates on an Axis power of WW II. Yet again the movie is great looking, with nice cinematography and good looking battle sequences, though the budget looks significantly lower than "Flags of Our Fathers". The story isn't as fast going as "Flags of Our Fathers" and the movie takes its time to set up things. It makes the whole build up to the battle and the actual battle itself work out way better on the screen. The pace is definitely slower but yet works out more effective. And wow, how great is Ken Watanabe in this? Too bad that in the middle he gets pushed way too much to the background. I wouldn't had mind another Oscar nomination for him. A great, though in-perfect, 2006 must-see! 8/10 Watch trailer
(Review originally written at 13 July 2007) No doubt that this is the biggest and most ambitious directing project of Clint Eastwood so far. People were already screaming for an Oscar win, before the movie was even being shot. Also not in the least because Steven Spielberg was producing and the story was being written by Oscar winner Paul Hagis. Eastwood + Spielberg + WW II seemed like real Oscar material. I won't go as far as calling "Flags of Our Fathers" a failure, since it's definitely a well made movie but it's also definitely a over-ambitious project that tried to capture too much into the movie with as a result that nothing really fully works out. The movie does not only focus on the large American invasion but also on its aftermath with the 3 surviving flag raisers of Iwo Jima, of whom the famous photograph was taken, returning back to the United States, to raise money for the war-cause. The contrast between the battlefield sequences and the one's back in America is too big and it doesn't blend in very well. It makes the movie unbalanced. On top of that the movie is told non-linear and keeps switching back between what happened during the battle of Iwo Jima to the main characters and the events involving them back in the United States. It makes the storytelling even more unbalanced. The mixture of war elements and serious drama in this movie unfortunately does simply not work out. Spielberg's hand is also definitely present. Obviously the landing sequence on Iwo Jima reminded very much of the one in "Saving Private Ryan" with its style but the movie is also filled with some typical Spielberg sentiments, which is not necessarily a positive thing. What also bothers me is that it nowhere in the movie fully gets explained why Iwo Jima was so important for the Americans to overtake and so important for the Japanese to defend. It also doesn't become clear in this movie why the battle of Iwo Jima is now know as such an important and well known one. So as a resource on the battle of Iwo Jima the movie just isn't much good. If you want to learn anything more about the battle of Iwo Jima this movie won't be the best resource for you. This movie made me realize that Clint Eastwood just isn't the best action director in the business, which is sort of ironic, considering his own acting past. All of the war sequences are impressive looking and the scale is large but it's mostly just 'impressive' looking instead of 'shocking' or anything of that sort. Not sure if this was the approach they had in mind. It's perhaps also a reason why you don't ever really feel involved with any of the main characters. The actual battle is also told in a very desultory way. You just don't know who is fighting were at the moment and for what. And apparently the battle lasted 35 days, in the movie it seems 2 days at most. The concept of the movie is great and intriguing. I mean, basically everyone in the world knows the famous photograph of the six soldiers raising the flag but few know the actual story around it. The photograph was back in the United States used as a symbol for hope and inspiration and to also show that the Allies were on the winning hand. This all very much to the displeasure of the surviving flag raisers, who were being shipped back to the United States to use their fame and reputation of 'heroes' to to raise money for the war-cause. The movie shows how one photograph can have an huge impact and change an entire countries perspective on WW II entirely, while in fact the symbol itself was a 'false' one. The main actors were obviously cast because they looked like the real actual persons. It's probably the reason why the supporting cast is also far more interesting and better, with actors such as Robert Patrick, Neal McDonough, Harve Presnell, Gordon Clapp Jamie Bell and Barry Pepper. But yes I probably make the movie sound worse than it actually is. "Flags of Our Fathers" is a good and interesting watch because of its concept. I however wish the execution of it all had been better, that way the movie would had been among the best of the year, no doubt. 7/10 Watch trailer
