50/50 Review #2: Dirty Harry.

During the 60/60 List, I discovered that the 1970s was equally my favorite and least favorite decade of film. Strangely, the first movie of the 50/50 has a 70s vibe, while this second is actually from 71. And so far, there's been nothing to make my dislike the 70s this year.

Dirty Harry Callahan (Clint Eastwood) is so nicknamed because he's given the 'dirty' jobs that nobody else will (or can) do. So of course he's on the case when a new serial killer called the Scorpio Killer (Andrew Robinson) shows up. He's partnered up with Chico Gonzalez (Reni Santoni) to find this man and take him down, but it's not as easy as it sounds.

I've been meaning to see this one for a long time, so I'm glad I've finally gotten around to it. What really makes this film is Eastwood. The character of Dirty Harry is great. He's smooth, cool, and badass. The epic scene near the beginning where he foils a bank robbery (leading to the first use of the classic line) is fantastic. It really showcases what kind of person he is. The same goes for a scene where he talks to a guy trying to commit suicide. I enjoyed the fact that we saw other situations he had to deal with besides just the serial killer. It made it feel more realistic.

Unfortunately, I did have a negative. It's only one thing, but I couldn't help but be bothered by it. I know he's supposed to be totally insane, but the bad guy in this film was too much for me. He was way too over-the-top and silly. And there was just something about the way he talked in general that rubbed me the wrong way. So yeah, I really didn't care for the portrayal of the villain in the movie.

But you can tell so much was inspired by this film. I've seen plot lines in TV shows and movies that are taken directly from events that happen in this movie. I'm no expert so I can't say anything about similar films that came out before this one, but as far as I know, this is the earliest I've seen the "run from phone to phone around town with a time limit" bit done.

Anyway, if you haven't seen this yet, I do recommend it for Eastwood and his character alone. The film is really entertaining, and you can tell it has inspired a lot of other things in its genre. The villain might be over-the-top, but it didn't ruin the movie for me or anything. The music, also, is very 70s, so be prepared for that. Otherwise, it's a fun flick, and I recommend it.


A Keanu 'Whoa'

(P.S. Well, that's my first month on this project. I know it was only 2 flicks, and they were my own picks, but it was more transition period than anything. Getting back into the zone! It was an OK month. I wasn't over-the-moon about either movies, but I liked them well enough. Now... on to Travis' Month!)

60/60 Review #7: The Good, The Bad, And The Ugly.

There are two kinds of westerns in this world: the fast-paced actioners and the slow-burns that last for 3 damn hours. When you look at the western, this one is basically the quintessential film. For the unacquainted, the film introduces us to "the ugly," a bandit named Tuco (Eli Wallach) with very few morals; "the bad," a professional assassin named Angel Eyes (Lee Van Cleef) who never fails to complete a mission once paid; and "the good," a con artist known only as Blondie (Clint Eastwood) who captures a bounty and then frees the outlaw, only to capture and repeat the process. Blondie and Tuco are working together until things begin to derail between them. Angel Eyes is doing a job hunting down a man who has changed his name to Bill Carson. And all three venture through a Civil War-torn south to find buried treasure in a cemetery.

Like any good movie, this one can be split into three parts (but unlike most films, each part is an hour long instead of roughly 30 minutes). The first hour introduces us to the main three characters and how they interact with each other. This hour, despite its slowness, is good. The little segments introducing each character is fun, and the first 10 minutes don't even have dialogue. Still, it left me wondering if we were ever going to get to the point.

The second hour sets up the hidden treasure plot and has our characters together in an army camp. So we finally get to the point and the movie starts picking up a bit. However, whereas the first hour actually felt like a western, this hour starts giving it an overall war film feeling (which continues into the bulk of the next hour, too).

The final hour at first builds steam with a fun shoot-out and one of my favorite lines in the movie ("When you have to shoot, shoot. Don't talk." Just his delivery of the line is fantastic). But then the movie slams on its breaks for a mostly unnecessary bridge sequence that has Blondie and Tuco at another army camp. It wasn't a bad sequence--just unnecessary. The best part (besides the big explosion) is a very quiet moment when Blondie gives a dying soldier a puff of his cigar. It's such a fantastic moment. After the nearly 30-minute detour, we have our grand finale at the cemetery. The whole cemetery sequence is very well done, of course. Really good stuff.

The acting was solid. Clint Eastwood, who I had yet to see act well, does a really good job here. And Eli Wallach does well, too. But the true star of the film, for me anyway, was Lee Van Cleef as Angel Eyes. I wanna see this guy in other stuff. He was menacing yet somehow elegant--the best kind of villain. And his distinct look really set him apart, too.

One thing I particularly liked was how, despite being labeled in a very black and white manner, the characters weren't black and white. Blondie wasn't all that "good." Angel Eyes might have been "bad," but he did follow a code of ethics. Tuco was really the only one who didn't walk a gray area. He was selfish and did what benefited him the most--in fact, at times, he was more "bad" than even Angel Eyes.

Anyway, I'll just get into my final notes now. The film's score is wonderful (and famous--despite not having seen the film before, I knew the main theme that plays throughout). The film was basically 2/3s dubbed over in English and 1/3 actually spoken in English. I thought that would get annoying, but you really don't notice it after a while. The film's biggest flaw is really its length. I could have easily done with about an hour or so less and wouldn't have been bothered any. Things did start feeling repetitive in the last half of the movie with all the Civil War stuff, so that could have been trimmed down a lot. I don't mind long movies, but as many people have said in the past--there needs to be a reason that it's that long. Here, there's no reason it needed to be 3 hours long. The pacing was mostly fine up until that last hour.

So that's it. I refrained from being cliche and doing this in a "good, bad, ugly" format (mostly because, honestly, there wasn't anything ugly/terrible about it). Would I go out and watch this again? Probably not--at least not for a good while. But am I glad I saw it? Definitely. Anyway, keep an eye out before next Wednesday for another 60/60 Extra that will help transition from this film into the Japanese western that is coming next (it's not exactly a classic, but it's too good of a transition to pass up). As for this film, however...


A Keanu 'Whoa'

60/60 Review #5: Unforgiven.

Warning: Mild spoilers ahoy.

--------------------

I've said it before, but I'm not a huge fan of westerns. Not that there's anything particularly wrong with them, but being a bit of a Texas rebel, I have an aversion to most things "country." I do, however, enjoy the idea of westerns (outlaws, shootouts, etc.). So I do enjoy some. The point I'm trying to make is that this month wasn't the most exciting one for me on this list. This film, though, has won Oscars and is supposedly the western that even non-western fans enjoy. Maybe that was slightly too much hype for me.

When a couple guys cut up a prostitute's face, the town sheriff, Little Bill (Gene Hackman) refuses to do much about it. This causes the other prostitutes to round up a thousand dollars and hire an assassin to knock off the attackers. This attracts the attention of a young man named Schofield (Jaimz Woolvett) to seek out retired outlaw Bill Munny (Clint Eastwood) in order to bring him along and take care of the men. Bill refuses at first, but decides he needs the money. Before heading off, he picks up his old partner, Ned Logan (Morgan Freeman), who goes along with him. Unfortunately, as is shown by another outlaw by the name of English Bob (Richard Harris), Little Bill's town is a no-gun zone, and anybody they even suspect as an outlaw or assassin will be beaten into submission.

I'm just gonna come straight out with my negative thoughts and get those out of the way. I'm not sure if it was the acting or the script or a mix of both, but the first 30 minutes of this movie (in my opinion) were so bad. I was watching like "Really? This is an Oscar-winning film?" And something that didn't really change throughout the film was its mostly flat characters. If I had to hear Eastwood mention how he used to be a bad person, how he doesn't drink anymore, and how his dead wife rehabilitated him, I was gonna scream. If I had to hear one more time how Morgan Freeman could shoot an eagle high up in the sky... or really any of the other dozen things that were constantly repeated throughout the film ad nauseum. It just got old pretty fast. It's like "OK, I get it already."

Of course, there are some obvious changes within the characters. For instance, you find out the over-the-top boasting young man who clearly hasn't killed a man in his life--gasp--has never killed a man in his life. You also find out that the sharpshooting partner can't shoot so sharp these days. And, of course, the bad-man-turned-good-who-doesn't-drink ends up drinking and become a good gunslinger again. It also bugged me with the running gag about how Eastwood couldn't get on his horse. I mean, the dude lives on a farm in the middle of nowhere and even admits having to go into town from time to time. How is it possible that he became so rusty in horse riding that it would take him 5 minutes just to climb on to the horse?

All that being said, I did end up really enjoying the movie overall. Once Richard Harris (almost unrecognizable to me without his Dumbledore beard) showed up as English Bob, the movie skyrocketed in quality. It's too bad his character wasn't explored more (or even served much of a purpose in the overall plot), because his was my favorite of the whole film. Gene Hackman's Little Bill was an interesting character, too. His was pretty much the only one whose qualities weren't shoved down your throat. In literary terms, he was given much more of an "indirect characterization" as opposed to everybody else's "direct characterization." I don't want to be told you used to be a cold-hearted bastard. Show me. And with Little Bill, we were given a conflicted character--one that wanted to keep peace in his little town, but at what cost? He has all the qualities of a hero, but he uses them in all the wrong ways, making him sometimes more of a villain than those who cut up the prostitute.

Of all the westerns I've watched--and there aren't many--this one falls somewhere in the middle. It wasn't horribly dull despite its gorgeous cinematography (Assassination of Jesse James...). It had some dull moments near the beginning, but they weren't long and drawn out. It also didn't have the most interesting cinematography, but it was good. On the flip side, its characters weren't totally introspective or all that complex within relatively constant action (3:10 to Yuma). They always spoke what they were thinking and they pretty much shoved it down our throats how we were supposed to perceive them.

So overall, the film was pretty good despite feeling repetitive. I actually fell asleep near the end for roughly 10 minutes--but unlike the other films on this list when that happened, I actually skipped back and finished watching it right then and there. That's how invested I was in it. Sure, it had its problems, and I'm probably going to get a lot of backlash from this review with comments like "Well, you just don't understand and/or appreciate the art of the western!" But whatever. I think "No Country For Old Men" would have been a good title for this movie--and more suiting than it was with the actual film--not to mention this had an infinitely better and more satisfying ending. Yup.


A Keanu 'Whoa'

(P.S. I wish I had a score between this one and the "McLovin." I would have scored this film with that one. But let's just say this is a pretty weak "Whoa." If I gave it a scoring out of 5, I'd say about a 3.7 or 3.8. I know, that's weird... whatever.)

GRAN TORINO.

What an ironic movie to be sitting right near a teenage girl who decides to text on her cell phone for the majority of the movie (including during the part at the beginning where Eastwood gets annoyed with his teenage granddaughter for texting at an inappropriate time). Gran Torino tells the story of the incredibly grumpy and racist Walt Kowalski (Clint Eastwood), a Korean War vet who lives in the past. After his wife passes away, he’s left alone with his dog in a ghetto filling up with Hmong families. But when his shy young neighbor Thao (Bee Vang) tries to steal his prized 1972 Gran Torino in order to fit in with his cousin’s gang and is later saved by Walt from the same gang, Walt’s relationship with the rest of the neighborhood begins to change, primarily with Thao and his sister Sue (Ahney Her). Also on Walt’s case is the young priest at his local church, Father Janovich (Christopher Carley).

Let me simply start out by giving the only real negative comment I have of the movie: the acting, for the most part, was pretty bad. The only two who give a pretty good performance are Eastwood and John Carroll Lynch as his barber (who is in all of two scenes), and even Eastwood’s performance is basically him flaunting his good ‘ol days to his Dirty Harry fans. I’ve read other negative comments on the film, such as it is no deeper than its surface level, and while that’s true, I’m not going to say that’s negative. Even if it is only surface deep, I still enjoyed it immensely for what it was. So let’s get on to the rest of the review.

This movie was so much funnier than I expected. I read that the character would make you laugh, but I didn’t expect how much. This movie should have been advertised more as a vulgar comedy than a gritty drama. And it is rather vulgar. I don’t think I’ve ever heard this many racial slurs in one movie, and that includes both American History X and Clerks 2 (the whole scene where Randall’s “bringin’ it back.”). It’s a very politically incorrect film, so if you’re easily offended, stay away.

I think the movie takes its time to get to its plot, but that didn’t really bother me, because the relationships between Walt and the other characters was equally entertaining as the one between Walt and Thao. Okay, so I lied. I did have one other small negative thing to say about the film. The transition for Walt seems slightly forced to me. To go from a lifetime of racism and hatred to eating barbeque and having a good time with his neighbors in such a short span, and only because he gave one of them a ride home? It seemed a bit far fetched. But I went with it anyway.

But anyway, I thought it was a really good film. It was highly entertaining, even if it made you shake your head while you were laughing at all the politically incorrectness. I don’t think it was the best film of the year as so many have said, but I don’t think it was as bad as some of the naysayers have said, either. With a little more polish and a much better cast (specifically for Thao and Sue), I think this movie could have been outstanding. But because of those few little clunks (wow, I almost made and incredibly accidental racial slip there), it fell just short. But still, it was a really, really good film overall.

A Keanu 'Whoa'

(P.S. What the hell was with that song at the end? Clint Eastwood needs to never... ever sing again, especially a song with lame lyrics).

CHANGELING.

I know this is normally a day for DVDs Or Death!... but I'm going to skip that this week in place of something magical. Yes... a movie review! I saw it last night... felt like sharing. So here you go!

---------------

When you have a Clint Eastwood-helmed picture, you know you’ll probably get at least two things out of it: great acting and depression (seriously, this man needs to make a comedy or something). Changeling is about a lot of things, but it starts when Christine Collins’ (Angelina Jolie) son, Walter (Gattlin Griffith), disappears. For months the LAPD looks for him and finally find him in a whole other state. Unfortunately, according to Christine, it’s not actually her son. And no matter what she says, neither Captain J.J. Jones (Jeffrey Donovan) or Chief Davis (Colm Feore) will do anything to help, and actually say that she’s crazy and making up lies. But when Detective Lester Ybarra (Michael Kelly) stumbles upon a seemingly unrelated case, things start to line up together and, with the help of Reverend Gustav Briegleb (John Malkovich), Christine will do anything in her power to get to the bottom of things and find her son (assuming he’s still alive).

Now this was a long movie, but it didn’t feel like it dragged at any point in time (except maybe the beginning, but that was needed to set everything up). It actually held my interest all the way through up until the Return of the King-style ending, wherein it felt like the movie just kept jumping further and further along, never wanting to quit. But in the end, it all added together for a really good (albeit slightly depressing) experience.

The best thing this movie had going for it was the acting. My goodness, was this movie acted well. From the big names of the film (Jolie and Malkovich), to the supporting roles (Donovan and Kelly), and even to the barely-in-it roles, this movie was acted phenomenally. Amy Ryan, despite the very few scenes she was in, stole every one of them. After the great job in Gone Baby Gone wherein she held a good chunk of a movie, to the great job she does in this, wherein she’s only in a few scenes, you can really tell she’s heading for the top.

The next thing to bring up would be the look/feel of the movie, all brought together by the direction of Clint Eastwood. The movie felt very 1920s, from the clothes and houses to the cars and speech styles. It was quite believable and done very well. The camera work also stood out to me, though there were a couple interesting choices that I might not have stuck with in the end (a few scenes where the camera was stuck behind John Malkovich’s head, leaving for an awkward angle/shot).

There really isn’t much else I feel I can say about the film. It’s one of Angelina’s best that she’s done, and I think one of Eastwood’s best, as I, for once, actually don’t feel it would be overrated. The only thing I might have done would to have changed the title, as the only thing the movie had to do with mythological Changelings was a switched child—and that whole plot of the movie wasn’t even the only focus. Halfway in, the movie changes completely with a new added plot, and it starts becoming more about something else entirely (but then brings it all back to the switched boy… but still). Great performances. Great story. Great film.

Royale With Cheese