Comments on: Gran Torino

By: Claire

Claire — Thu, 23 Jul 2009 13:49:57 +0000

Interesting review and comments, but i have to say i disagree with you Phillip, and as a whole i think Gran Torino is really worth watching. I do understand that some parts are a little cliché and that the acting of Bee Vang (thao) is not the greatest. But the film has a sense of “real” below the surface, as Sean says, it feels like a vivid portrait of a hidden reality, of human feelings and emotions that are not always visible on the first encounter, with the first impression. And that is what i think the film is about, at the end of the day. I found it different than the usual the-poor-minorities-in-america movie, more original, and much more subtle. And Eastwood reinvents himself in a new genre, in a flawless performance.

By: Sean Blueart

Sean Blueart — Mon, 15 Jun 2009 15:11:07 +0000

Nope, you missed it. I’m getting this film on a deeper level. The dialogue is consciously unreal (”this is the way men talk” – patently ficticious!) , and all that bullshit on the surface is intended to be just that, surface. Beneath it there’s a lot going on about fading traditions and fading respect, the eroding of an underlying societal structure that, when pulled away (beginning with his wife’s death), leaves an old man lost to the world.

So, if there’s anything weak about the film, despite the unfortunate choice not to have Tom Waits do the closing song, it’s that it all unfolded way to quickly. This is easily a three hour film, if not an extended HBO series ala ‘The Wire’.

By: coffee

coffee — Fri, 16 Jan 2009 23:05:45 +0000

Gran Torino looks like a potentially good flick for gun enthusiasts

By: Daniel

Daniel — Tue, 13 Jan 2009 16:52:25 +0000

With all due respect, Philip, I think a review of this movie that doesn’t mention Nick Schenk and/or the Hmong community is significantly lacking. The vision, characters, and story of this film were from Schenk’s head, admittedly unchanged during production by Eastwood. Now, the guy was a fruit truck driver while writing the screenplay longhand in a local bar here, so criticizing his amateur writing ability seems redundant.

Moreover, casting was specifically done through Hmong newspapers here last summer. Most of the cast is now back here, living and working as they were before. This is going to sound ludicrous, but from where I sit, in the same city where the story was born and meant to be set, Gran Torino portrays perhaps the most realistic characters I’ve seen on screen all year.

Now I’m not defending the acting or the writing, only explaining them. And I think in understanding their background, you might be able to appreciate the movie in a different way. It’s almost a documentary. I know, that sounds crazy – but this is how it is here, as I outline in my review. Sad, but true.

By: Phillip Johnston

Phillip Johnston — Mon, 12 Jan 2009 04:20:48 +0000

Thanks for the praise, Sam. Oddly, I had forgotten about Letters from Iwo Jima when I wrote this. I loved that film too (my favorite war film, probably) and also thought Flags of Our Fathers made some beautifully noble statements about the true nature of bravery and patriotism. And you're right: there's humor in Gran Torino for sure. I just can't escape the feeling that it's very miscalculated humor.

By: Sam Juliano

Sam Juliano — Mon, 12 Jan 2009 01:40:11 +0000

“It’s just a shame that everything about the film other than Eastwood the Actor has to be so bad. The script is an almost entirely laughable string of hackneyed racial, sexual, and political platitudes and it doesn’t help that Eastwood has surrounded himself by such profoundly inexperienced actors. Most of them lack any kind of emotion and sound and look clueless for the entire run time garnering no sympathy for their characters or any emotional resonance whatsoever for the film as a whole. Especially bad are the young male actors chosen to play the Asian gang. Complete with tank-tops, f-bombs, low-rise pants, plenty of swagger, and molester mustaches, the only threat they pose as they walk down the streets of Walt Kowalski’s neighborhood is that of being cliché. They succeed marvelously and the way in which they do nicely summarizes much of Gran Torino.”

And there you have it- Phillip’s two-star pan of the new Clint Eastwood film, GRAN TORINO. While I would not go that low myself on it, I can unbderstand the arguments in that above-featured stupendously-written and insightful paragraph. The cliches are there, but I find that “bad script” as you call it, rife with infectious guilty humor that is certainly part of a most entertaining (if not especially artful) movie. Eastwood’s performance was quite solid as well. In any case, you stated here that many consider THE UNFORGIVEN as Eastwood’s greatest film. I would have to state unequivocably that LETTERS FROM IWO JIMA, a masterpiece, was Eastwood’s greatest film.
Another Phillip Johnston “master class” review.

By: Filmmaking Workshop

Filmmaking Workshop — Sun, 11 Jan 2009 15:34:24 +0000

An interesting review Philip. Eastwood directed films are more popular, and they are good too.

Thanks for posting.
Jane.

By: Rick Olson

Rick Olson — Sun, 11 Jan 2009 01:49:46 +0000

A fine review, Phillip. It’s sad that Eastwood seems to have lost his way a bit, what with Changeling being so … meh … and now this one.

By: Sam Juliano

Sam Juliano — Sat, 10 Jan 2009 00:02:58 +0000

This looks great Phillip, I am leaving the house for a movie now (a second showing of THE READER) but i will be back to add my two cents……..

By: Phillip Johnston

Phillip Johnston — Fri, 09 Jan 2009 22:16:38 +0000

Thanks, Alexander. I’ve got to say — I’ve loved Eastwood’s work over the last 10 years. I thought Million Dollar Baby was beautiful and I was extremely moved by Mystic River (although the end threw me for a loop). Different strokes, I guess.

Thanks for the great comment and compliment.

By: Alexander Coleman

Alexander Coleman — Fri, 09 Jan 2009 21:46:51 +0000

Well, I liked Gran Torino for what it was. The screenplay is doughy and cliched, and a number of the actors whose names don’t end in “-wood” are literally unbelievable in their roles, but I thought it was an interesting film, and truer to Eastwood’s art than the Oscar-starved films he’s been churning out for most of this decade. It’s an “old man’s picture,” something not dissimilar in tone and temperament from late period Hawks or Ford.

And one of the more winning elements is its sense of humor. Like I state in my review, the film, under the screenplay and Eastwood’s guidance, seems to know how “unreal” it is. It relies on ample humor, and this helps soften the audience up for the more poignant final act.

Eastwood is also again critiquing–while relishing, one last time–the very machismo for which he became so globally famous.

SPOILER The scene where he starts punching his house up is one of the better portrayals of a man of violence coming to terms with its ineffectiveness in certain times. (Which can be read as a timely political message, for those who wish to read it as such.) END SPOILER

Again, it’s not perfect; but it feels more definitively like an Eastwood picture, both behind and (especially) before the camera, than his recent batch of labor-of-Oscar-love films to me, and I enjoyed it.

FINAL SPOILER And, I like that it can be so easily compared to the last John Wayne film, The Shootist. END FINAL SPOILER

Nevertheless, you make your case well, and quite clearly, Phillip. Good review.

By: Evan Derrick

Evan Derrick — Fri, 09 Jan 2009 16:40:11 +0000

Nailed it, Phillip. Eastwood is enjoyable; the rest of the film is laughable. After a while I lost so much respect for Eastwood the director that I began to lose respect for Eastwood the actor. What a horrid misstep. Combine this with Changeling and you have to wonder if he has another Unforgiven, or even a Mystic River left in him.