Username Password Remember me Forgot password?

Wanna join? Sign up

Find movies you'll love

CinemaRian Blog

Gran Torino (2008, USA, Clint Eastwood) ***

0 out of 1 people found this review helpful. [What do you think?]

Under discussion:

Gran Torino (2008)

Do you remember that guy on your street who people referred to as “Old Man Hastings” or what ever his last name was? The kind of guy the kids in the neighborhood never played around, because he would get so scary if anyone touched a blade of grass on his lawn?

The greatest strength of Gran Torino is Clint Eastwood’s sheer embodiment of that guy we all knew, the guy who seemed to be about 68 for the last thirty years. Eastwood’s character has all of the attributes you would expect from That Guy- he’s tough, racially insensitive (if not a sheer racist), set in his ways and frequently uses the phrase “Get off my lawn!”

In the movie, The Guy’s name is Walt Kowalski, and the picture opens at the funeral of his wife. Walt’s marriage was successful and one gets the sense that the departed was a bridge between him and his sons (Brian Haley and Brian Howe), who do not seem very close, or indeed, very able to communicate with each other very well. Walt is the last white left in his Detroit neighborhood, which consists almost entirely of Hmong immigrants and their children. A veteran of the Korean War, Walt does not like Asians (although he doesn’t have much nice to say about African Americans and Latinos, either). Next door, teenager Thao Vang Lor (Bee Vang) is being pressured by a gang to join them, and eventually the harassment spills over onto Walt’s lawn. Motivated more his love of his property than altruism, Walt uses his rifle to rescue Thao, and unintentionally becomes a hero to the neighborhood.

I am not giving anything away if I state the unsurprising character development that Walt slowly begins to lose his racism. In fact, there is a lot in the movie that is not surprising. If you have seen the trailer, Gran Torino is pretty much the movie you would expect it to be, except for the climax, which is unsuspected though not satisfying.

I have consistently argued that I have found Eastwood’s recent series of critically acclaimed films (Mystic River, Million Dollar Baby, Flags of Our Fathers, Letters from Iwo Jima and Changeling) to be overrated, and I still feel that I way about Gran Torino. Like Baby and Iwo Jima, it’s a good movie, but not a great one, and not a film that’s particularly deep, either. Perhaps the greatest weakness of Eastwood’s film as a director has been the fact the films seem more serious or profound than the actually are (Unforgiven being an exception that actually is deep). But Gran Torino is more entertaining than any of the films listed above, merely because Eastwood’s character is so much fun to watch. Even as we see the screenplay’s manipulations, the actor is a great screen presence.

I am not sure, however, that this is a “great” performance, though Eastwood is considered to be the front runner for the Best Actor Oscar. It’s more like a version of a movie stars persona than an actual “actorly” role, which Eastwood is capable of doing (as in The Beguiled, for example). Still, the lead performance is clearly the best thing about the movie. It is occasionally ridiculous, and usually predictable, but Gran Torino gives you a sold night of entertainment at the movies.

Posted Sunday, January 18, 2009 3:03 AM by CinemaRian | with 0 comments

Changeling (2008, USA, Clint Eastwood) Zero stars

Was this review helpful? [Be the first to tell us!]

Under discussion:

Changeling (2008)

Often, it’s a sign of a movie’s greatness when you are unable to move once credits roll. You sometimes need to sit and collect your emotions before you leave. I had to do that with Changeling, as the movie had a profound effect on me, but the anger I felt was not directed towards the films antagonists but towards the filmmaker. I was disgusted and offended.

I should point out, that of course, I am in the minority here. The movie came within three votes of being voted the Best Film of the Cannes Film Festival, and it has ended up on many critics Ten Best lists. With the exception of Unforgiven, I am not a fan of Clint Eastwood as a director, and I know that a whole lot of people are. So you should probably take what I am about say with a grain of salt, but feelings from deep within me told me that something about the film was deathly wrong.

The movie is based on a true, tragic story of a Los Angeles woman named Christine Collins (Angelina Jolie), a single mother whose son Walter (Gattlin Griffith) was kidnapped in 1928. The LAPD waited 24 hours before beginning an investigation and the story developed into a national story at a time when the police department was under fire from various sources, including Presbyterian minister Gustav Briegleb (John Malkovitch) for incompetence and corruption. After five months, they inform that they have located her son in Illinois, but the reunion is not heartfelt- the child (Devon Conti) is not her boy. Spoilers ahead. She tells this to the detective on her case, J.J. Jones (Jeffery Donovan) but he wants the case wrapped up, so he commits the totally sane woman to a mental institution where she tortured. This is not even the first of many unlikely but true things that occur in the movie.

Okay, I get that all of the terrible things portrayed here happened. But like another film about abuse and suffering in recent years, The Magdalene Sisters, I felt that the filmmakers lacked any kind of sensitivity about how to treat this material. On three separate occasions in my life, I have been emotionally scarred by inappropriate actions of police officers, two times severely. Watching this movie brought those memories back, but I felt like I was being manipulated by cheap dramatic ploys. Was the entire LAPD bad? If so, how did they get that way? The implicit argument that Eastwood is making in this movie is that pretty much everyone was guilty of horrid and callous insensitivity. Even the “sympathetic” cop, Detective Ybarra (Michael Kelly) at one point orders a child to do something so abusive that it was difficult to think about. I have no doubt that there are bad people on every police force, and that sometimes even good cops do bad things, but I knew that already. WHY, damnit?! The only reason they abuse Christine and the other characters in this film is to get a rise in us, the audience. It’s wrong for Eastwood and screenwriter J. Michael Straczynski (infamous for creating the worst TV show I have ever seen, Babylon 5) to bring up these serious issues and then treat them in such a cavalier, manipulative way.

The worst scene in the movie takes place shortly after Christine is involuntary committed to the mental institution. She is stripped naked, sprayed with a fire hose and then made to spread her legs, in full view of three people, while a nurse checks her for syphilis. What I saw on the screen was not a melodramatic moment. Jolie plays the scene so bravely and convincingly that I saw an actual person, suffering and being humiliated. I do not like to see people suffer, and I especially do not like to see women suffer. Sometimes, as in a movie like May, it is okay for a director to show pain on this level, to remind us that such things exist in the real world and it’s our call to do something about it. I saw no evidence of that goal in this film. Christine Collins was being humiliated on the screen, in 1928, and I could do nothing but sit in the audience, unable to help or comfort her. I was showed this and made to feel awful for no good reason, perhaps no reason at all, as there is no reason for this movie to exist. I hate this film.

Posted Thursday, January 15, 2009 3:29 AM by CinemaRian | with 0 comments

Frost/Nixon (2008, USA, Ron Howard) ***1\2

0 out of 1 people found this review helpful. [What do you think?]

Under discussion:

Frost/Nixon (2008)

Ron Howard’s achievement must be acknowledged- more than perhaps any other filmmaker, he has found the ultimate cinematic style to con people into thinking there watching an important movie. His films are rarely boring, and are often very good, but are never really profound, or important, or even memorable. He’s caused me to give Frost/Nixon a three and half star rating, pretty impressive for a film I have contempt for.

This is a film that pretends to be important, that states that it is about a subject and then discusses the topic hardly all. The subject in question is the role of the media in politics, specifically, the 1977 serious of interviews between British journalist Sir David Frost (Michael Sheen) and disgraced U.S. President Richard Nixon (Frank Langella).

The thin plot of the film regards Nixon and his aids believing that Frost will be an easy mark for the former President to rehabilitate his reputation as a statesmen. Since the trailer gives away the climax of the movie, I don’t think I’m giving much away when I reveal that for the most part, Nixon failed.

The movie, written by Peter Morgan, who adapted his own stage play, spends far too much time with Frost, who the picture makes out to be a somewhat hapless, Barbara Walters-like journalist, neglecting the fact that he had in fact interviewed several major political figures before Nixon. Michael Sheen also chooses to play Frost as a lightweight who is in over his head. Sheen’s performance is a major flaw of the movie- he doesn’t look or sound much like the real Frost and his character comes off as such a dimwit that it’s hard to care what happens to him.

Frank Langella’s Nixon, on the other hand, is another story. This is one of the best performances of the year, perhaps the best. Langella seems to become Nixon before our eyes. He looks like Nixon, he speaks like Nixon, and for all intents and purposes he is Nixon. Comparing him to Sir Anthony Hopkins performance in Oliver Stone’s 1995 film and the difference is like night and day. Hopkins did a good job, but you were always aware that he was acting. Here, you just believe that you are looking at the 37th President, who somehow wandered into a movie.

But all the insight comes from Langella, not Howard. Because the movie is supposedly historically accurate, Howard occasionally uses a documentary style in which characters speak as though they are being interviewed on 16mm. Is this supposed to make us think the movie is "real"?

And besides, what is the point of any of this? There are other and better films about politics and the media (Network and Good Night, and Good Luck come to mind). Those films actually bother to take a position on their subject. But Howard is so set on pleasing everyone, of offering no offense to only the most sycophantic Nixon supporter that the movie says very little at all. It is not boring and technically flawless, but it lacks one element crucial to great art- daring. If you want to see a well made, perfectly safe movie that appears to be about something but really isn’t, with one brilliant performance, Frost/Nixon is the movie for you.

Frost/Nixon (2008)

Posted Tuesday, January 13, 2009 5:42 PM by CinemaRian | with 0 comments

The Stepford Wives (2004, USA, Frank Oz) ***1\2

Was this review helpful? [Be the first to tell us!]

Under discussion:

The Stepford Wives (2004)

Based on its reputation, you’d think that Frank Oz’s remake of The Stepford Wives is a major disappointment. You’d be wrong. The movie appears to be a satire on chauvinistic men, but it’s actually a quite clever satire on the original movie, popular ideas about feminism, and many of the flaws and logical contradictions in such things.

Those of you who have read my reviews on a regular basis will remember that I was not a fan of the original Stepford Wives, noting that it was directed by a man, Brian Forbes, and it in many ways seemed like a sympathetic liberal male’s idea of feminism. The movie had a sort of reverse discrimination, where every single male character appeared to be a total schlep or asshole. I suppose that the idea of the film is that all men want women to be subservient, silent sex objects, but the film was not wise enough to realize that that its argument was not true and the such beliefs hurt men almost as much as women.

Based on the trailer, Oz’s film appears to be about the same topic, but a close look reveals that the director comments on many of Forbes’ clichés and arguments. This picture opens as TV executive Joanna Eberhardt (Nicole Kidman) takes time off from her stressful job (where she is stalked by a former contestant on a reality show she produced) and moves decides to move with her husband Walter (Matthew Broderick) to the small town of Stepford, Connecticut. Of, course there are some strange things going on there, such as the fact that most of the women seem to be as dull as the average robot (I wonder why) and that the men seem to enjoy hanging out with Mike Wellington (Christopher Walken) a genuinely creepy guy.

Whereas the first movie was heavy handed in the extreme, in this picture, the lighter tone allows it to get many of its points in without it seemingly the cinematic equivalent of eating asparagus. The heart of the film is a genuinely effective and moving relationship between Joanna and Walter, who go through many of the problems of a real married couple. The film is in many ways about their choices, which are thought provoking.

I also haven’t yet pointed out that the movie is also quite funny. Although Broderick has had his experience with light comedy, you don’t genuinely think of Kidman as an experience comedienne, but she is perfect in her role and carries the picture easily.

The down side to the film is that there are some awkward tonal shifts at times, and some of the plot points, particularly in the middle of the film, seem to come out of nowhere, implying that there were editing problems or hasty reshoots. But The Stepford Wives is smarter and funnier than 90% of the movie comedies out there, and if you’ve seen the original, very wise as well.

Posted Tuesday, January 13, 2009 5:38 PM by CinemaRian | with 0 comments

The Mark of Zorro (1920, USA, Fred Niblo) ***1\2

Was this review helpful? [Be the first to tell us!]

Under discussion:

The Mark of Zorro (1920)

Irony of ironies- what was once a standard, big budget Hollywood blockbuster now seems a bit more like an art movie. The Mark of Zorro was an action adventures spectacle, and was received as such, but today there’s no doubt that no many audiences would have a problem with the movie’s leisurely pace. Aside from an impressive action sequence towards the end, no one seems to be in much of a hurry to get anywhere in this movie. Show this to the average action movie audience today and its likely that there would be large numbers of snores, in addition to a few snickers when Zorro is introduced as “The Gay Blade”.

However, an audience of movie fans will probably find much to love in this picture. The fact that the movie is slow means that the picture draws us into its world at its own pace, and the intent in a picture like this seems to be not as much to get us super excited as it is too look at the evocation of California in the 1840’s.

I sometimes think that silent films have there own type of beauty that was never seen since, perhaps because the intent is not a setting for actors to say their dialogue in but a painterly visual composition where the actors exist along the world the exist in. So much information is conveyed by the costumes, art direction and cinematography that at times it’s hard to believe that this was a star vehicle for Douglas Fairbanks, except when he’s on the screen, and dominates everything.

Fairbanks produced and co-wrote the film, adapted from the first Zorro novella, The Curse of Capistrano , published only the year before. With the exception of The Scarlet Pimpernel, audiences had never seen a character like Zorro- a Batman type character who performed his heroics while masked, with a secret identity. There could not have been a better choice for the character, as Fairbanks is a hero to ten year old boys of all ages. With an athletic physical presence and devil-may-care attitude, combined with an absolute knowledge of moral clarity, his Zorro is a hero for the ages, really, all superhero movies might in some owe something to this movie.

Despite the slow pace, the movie knows its audience well enough not to add too much unnecessary romance (isn’t kissing disgusting?) the film is pretty economical in its story telling. If doesn’t say too much about the human condition, well, I should point out that I wasn’t interested that much in that type of thing when I was ten either. The Mask of Zorro spoke the part of me that refuses to grow up, and so few movies acknowledge any kind of innocence that I kind of loved it for doing so.

Posted Tuesday, January 13, 2009 5:13 PM by CinemaRian | with 0 comments

Cheyenne Autumn (1964, USA, John Ford) ***

Was this review helpful? [Be the first to tell us!]

Under discussion:

Cheyenne Autumn (1964)

Cheyenne Autumn is often remembered as John Ford’s apology to Native Americans, and that’s an accurate assessment, for 1964. It is about as liberal as any mainstream film of that era on the (mis)treatment of Indians, although seen from a modern perspective, the movie doesn’t go anywhere far enough.

For one thing, the picture follows the time-old Hollywood tradition of having a white protagonist in a film about race relations, which unfortatley continues today. For another, the main Indian characters are played by Ricardo Montalban and Gilbert Rowland, neither of whom are Native Americans, a practice that thankfully has mostly stopped (Antonio Banderas as an Arab in The 13^th Warrior is a very unfortunate exception).

According to historian Joseph McBride on the DVD’s commentary track, Ford had wanted to cast real Native Americans in the role but the studio wanted name actors. That choice did not work out in the film’s advantage.

Cheyenne Autumn is based on a real incident in American history, when after years of mistreatment on a reservation, a group Cheyenne simply left to return to their homeland, which of course had been taken from them by US government. The movie stars Richard Widmark as Captain Thomas Archer, the head of the expedition sent to stop the Cheyenne. Archer just happens to be in love with Deborah Wright (Caroll Baker), a Quaker schoolteacher who is trying to teach the Indians English, and perhaps by extension, to be white (the movie never really deals with implications of her character). Archer proposes to Wright the night before the Indians leave on their supposedly illegal trek, and she goes with them, so he has more than one reason for catching up to the group.

On the plus side, Cheyenne Autumn is gorgeously photographed at Ford’s favorite Western location- Monument Valley, on the Utah..Arizona border. Some of shots of this movie are jaw-droppingly beautiful, and the art direction and costumes give a strong sense of atmosphere. Unlike many of Ford’s Westerns, at times we really feel like we are back in time in the Old West, the money was well spent here.

Unfortanley, even setting aside some of the above problems with the theme of this well-intentioned movie, the characters are mostly flat (though Widmark does a good job with what he’s given) the Native Americans are mostly interchangeable, and Ford’s attempted at character development is cheesy and lame. There is also a much maligned comedy interlude that appears in the middle of the film, in which Jimmy Stewart appears as Wyatt Earp in Dodge City, Kansas that is completely unrelated to the rest of the picture and sticks out jarringly with sudden change in tone. This might be excusable if the sequence was funny, but it’s not. Ford’s attempts at comic relief were always the weakest part of his movies and this seemingly endless sequence could easily be cut with no detriment to the rest of the film.

Cheyenne Autumn is not the last statement on the Western or White..Indian relations as it wanted to be, but setting aside the Dodge City sequence, it works on the fundamental level of Hollywood epic. It looks great and shows us a time that has past, so it merits a recommendation.