Clint Eastwood

..and why not?
User avatar
Muskrat
World's Foremost Authority
Posts: 21141
Joined: 17 Jul 2003, 01:05
Location: Next to the park; across the street from the college; and the freeway at my back
Contact:

Postby Muskrat » 02 Mar 2006, 21:46

Matt Wilson wrote:
beenieman wrote: He hasn't done anything great since Unforgiven has he?


Mystic River.



Some of the most hambone acting I've ever seen in a generally-acclaimed picture. Kevin Bacon pretty much walked away with it, for me, with his relative underplaying.
Things that a fella can't forget...

Mike Boom wrote:It is brilliant of course, probably the best of the complete Thick as a Brick boots.

User avatar
beenieman
Posts: 15400
Joined: 20 Jul 2003, 21:43

Postby beenieman » 02 Mar 2006, 21:58

Matt Wilson wrote:
beenieman wrote:
django wrote:The irony is that shortly after the critical consensus changed, the quality of his movies took a real dive: Absolute Power, True Crime, Blood Work are all pretty forgettable stuff. Even Million Dollar Baby is massively overrated, remove the A-list cast and it would be the kind of movie you'd find on Channel 5 on a weekday afternoon.


Agreed on all counts. He hasn't done anything great since Unforgiven has he?


Mystic River.

Despite the opinions expressed on this thread I like his boxing movie too.
In the Line of Fire was entertaining as well, and his performance in Bridges of Madison County surprised a lot of people (Clint cries!)


I haven't seen Mystic River - another to rent. I've read the book which was great & I'd expect the movie to be good.

I'm with the majority here on Million Dollar Baby. Not very good.

Line of fire was about the same time as Unforgiven wasn't it? Or a year or two later? Regardless - a great movie. I'd forgotten it.

Madison County I've always passed on but I'll look at it one day.

MAKE SOME MORE WESTERNS CLINT!!!

User avatar
The Write Profile
2017 BCB Cup Champ
Posts: 14755
Joined: 15 Sep 2003, 10:55
Location: Today, Tomorrow, Timaru
Contact:

Postby The Write Profile » 22 May 2006, 07:30

Just thinking about this, but wasn't his partnership with Don Siegel one of the oddest in 70s cinema? Really, a lot of their films seem to be B-pictures with aspirations to art, not least the Beguiled or even the stark minimalism of Escape from Alcatraz, which is, essentially an action film. And the colour-scheme that these films use- all those muted browns and washed-out blues. In fact, so many 70s films have that scheme.
It's before my time but I've been told, he never came back from Karangahape Road.

User avatar
beenieman
Posts: 15400
Joined: 20 Jul 2003, 21:43

Postby beenieman » 22 May 2006, 08:25

The Right Scarfie Profile wrote:Just thinking about this, but wasn't his partnership with Don Siegel one of the oddest in 70s cinema? Really, a lot of their films seem to be B-pictures with aspirations to art, not least the Beguiled or even the stark minimalism of Escape from Alcatraz, which is, essentially an action film. And the colour-scheme that these films use- all those muted browns and washed-out blues. In fact, so many 70s films have that scheme.


I've always thought Clint's pictures were always 'art pictures' but the critics did not realise this till 20-30 years later.

The public knew.

The critics usually define art from their past experiences, the public recognise new 'art' much more readily.

Rap is another good example, from music, where a whole generation of critics basically missed the point.

User avatar
The Write Profile
2017 BCB Cup Champ
Posts: 14755
Joined: 15 Sep 2003, 10:55
Location: Today, Tomorrow, Timaru
Contact:

Postby The Write Profile » 22 May 2006, 08:31

beenieman wrote:
The Right Scarfie Profile wrote:Just thinking about this, but wasn't his partnership with Don Siegel one of the oddest in 70s cinema? Really, a lot of their films seem to be B-pictures with aspirations to art, not least the Beguiled or even the stark minimalism of Escape from Alcatraz, which is, essentially an action film. And the colour-scheme that these films use- all those muted browns and washed-out blues. In fact, so many 70s films have that scheme.


I've always thought Clint's pictures were always 'art pictures' but the critics did not realise this till 20-30 years later.

The public knew.

The critics usually define art from their past experiences, the public recognise new 'art' much more readily.

Rap is another good example, from music, where a whole generation of critics basically missed the point.


Well, to be fair, not all critics ragged on Clint- just enough of them to make a noise. I'm pretty sure Roger Ebert and Pauline Kael were fairweather fans of his work, and they weren't exactly obscure. Then again, I'm only going from old anthologies of stuff, so I'm not exactly an authority or anything

But yeah, you're right- it's funny how these things workout sometimes, and how the populist becomes art, only to- a generation later- be ignored by the public and loved by the critics. See Douglas Sirk's melodramas (Written in the Wind, All that Heaven Allows, etc)- huge successes at the time, panned by the critics, only for cinema-minded journals like Cahiers Du Cinema to champion them a decade later when the public no longer cared about the films.

Where were we? Oh yeah, Clint (with the help of others, including Don Siegel) made a helluva a lot of great films in the 70s. Actually, I'm in the minority it seems about Million Dollar Baby (at least on this board)- I understand why people hate it but I found it really gripping and harrowing, if hackneyed, but that was mainly down to the directing and acting. Strange really because if you listed all its faults, I'd probably agree with most of them, yet I still liked it (although it's hardly perfect).
It's before my time but I've been told, he never came back from Karangahape Road.

User avatar
James R
the grocer of despair
Posts: 9914
Joined: 17 Jul 2003, 03:53
Location: seated sultanically among the moons of Saturn
Contact:

Postby James R » 25 May 2006, 08:37

beenieman wrote:
django wrote:The irony is that shortly after the critical consensus changed, the quality of his movies took a real dive: Absolute Power, True Crime, Blood Work are all pretty forgettable stuff. Even Million Dollar Baby is massively overrated, remove the A-list cast and it would be the kind of movie you'd find on Channel 5 on a weekday afternoon.


Agreed on all counts. He hasn't done anything great since Unforgiven has he?


It may or may not be coincidental, but he also hasn't acted in a film for any other director since then apart from In The Line Of Fire (Wolfgang Peterson). All of his acting appearances since 1990 have otherwise been in his own directorial efforts.
pcqgod wrote:I like how Liebling progresses from a rotting, animated corpse living in his parents' basement to a slightly more life-affirming walking corpse by the end of the movie.

Goat Boy wrote:I recall a midget with large tits dancing.

User avatar
KeithPratt
Arsehole all Erect
Posts: 23735
Joined: 28 Jul 2003, 23:13
Contact:

Postby KeithPratt » 25 May 2006, 12:40

Fools!

Image

User avatar
nathan
submitted for your approval
Posts: 8036
Joined: 18 Nov 2003, 23:32
Location: Minneapolis
Contact:

Postby nathan » 25 May 2006, 19:05

Mr. Maps wrote: don't care for the Dirty Harry stuff, hate the monkey movie stuff,

You really have been making me cry a lot lately.

User avatar
Snarfyguy
Dominated by the Obscure
Posts: 53439
Joined: 21 Jul 2003, 19:04
Location: New York

Postby Snarfyguy » 25 May 2006, 19:48

But he's really not a talented actor in terms of range, is he?

I mean, he basically plays the same guy in all of his movies. And he speaks in a monotone.
GoogaMooga wrote: The further away from home you go, the greater the risk of getting stuck there.

K

Postby K » 25 May 2006, 19:49

The Right Scarfie Profile wrote:And the colour-scheme that these films use- all those muted browns and washed-out blues. In fact, so many 70s films have that scheme.


Wonderful spot!!
One of the things I love about 70s movies is the cinematography. Long, long scenes with few edits are a wonderful, washed out colour scheme.

User avatar
Clippernolan
Maya's Prop
Posts: 12289
Joined: 16 Jul 2003, 18:55
Location: The mangy BC hills
Contact:

Postby Clippernolan » 25 May 2006, 20:02

Joan Collins wrote:But he's really not a talented actor in terms of range, is he?

I mean, he basically plays the same guy in all of his movies. And he speaks in a monotone.


Y'know, I think range is something that is not necessarily the be-all and end all of movie acting. Perhaps it should be for the stage, or something- I dunno, I'm not an actor. But what Eastwood has is screen presence, and in movies, that is the key currency for a leading man. Most of the major actors who fulfill the same sorts of roles - John Wayne, Steve McQueen, et al - aren't necessarily known as having a wide range in terms of technique. But they all had screen presence in spades. So does Eastwood, and that's what makes him watchable.

My Favourite Eastwood Western is Outlaw Josey Wales just because there are so many things going on character-wise. He's an efficient killer, but also a grieving widower and father. You're rooting for him to kick ass, but you're also pulled in by the pathos and hope that he can get back to a place of peace in his life. It makes for a great viewing experience

Favourite Eastwood cop movie - the aforementioned The Gauntlet , which is kind of like a hard-boiled novel without all of the noirish trappings; a guy with a strict moral code in a world that's basically corrupt and wants to kill him because he isn't. Also, his character is deeply flawed. He's not a superhero like Dirty Harry. Despite his forthright stance, there are all kinds of insecurities that begin to emerge as the film goes on - the fact that he knows he's viewed as a fuck-up by his colleagues, and that he's trying to prove to himself that he isn't by taking on the assignment he knows may well lead to his death. It's fascinating.

Favourite Eastwood guilty pleasure - The Rookie, a fantastically over-the-top movie on nearly every front. And Raul Julia is a great villian.
Read my blog - The Delete Bin

User avatar
Snarfyguy
Dominated by the Obscure
Posts: 53439
Joined: 21 Jul 2003, 19:04
Location: New York

Postby Snarfyguy » 25 May 2006, 20:15

Clippernolan wrote:
Joan Collins wrote:But he's really not a talented actor in terms of range, is he?

I mean, he basically plays the same guy in all of his movies. And he speaks in a monotone.


Y'know, I think range is something that is not necessarily the be-all and end all of movie acting. Perhaps it should be for the stage, or something- I dunno, I'm not an actor. But what Eastwood has is screen presence, and in movies, that is the key currency for a leading man. Most of the major actors who fulfill the same sorts of roles - John Wayne, Steve McQueen, et al - aren't necessarily known as having a wide range in terms of technique. But they all had screen presence in spades. So does Eastwood, and that's what makes him watchable.


You're not wrong.

It's just that I would file Eastwood, along with Wayne, McQueen, et al under B-list actors. Not that there's anything wrong with that category.

Actually, I can't stand John Wayne at all, but that's neither here nor there.
GoogaMooga wrote: The further away from home you go, the greater the risk of getting stuck there.

DQ

Postby DQ » 25 May 2006, 20:17

.....the bridges of Maddison County.......aaaaahhhhhhhh

User avatar
Clippernolan
Maya's Prop
Posts: 12289
Joined: 16 Jul 2003, 18:55
Location: The mangy BC hills
Contact:

Postby Clippernolan » 25 May 2006, 20:19

Joan Collins wrote:
Clippernolan wrote:
Joan Collins wrote:But he's really not a talented actor in terms of range, is he?

I mean, he basically plays the same guy in all of his movies. And he speaks in a monotone.


Y'know, I think range is something that is not necessarily the be-all and end all of movie acting. Perhaps it should be for the stage, or something- I dunno, I'm not an actor. But what Eastwood has is screen presence, and in movies, that is the key currency for a leading man. Most of the major actors who fulfill the same sorts of roles - John Wayne, Steve McQueen, et al - aren't necessarily known as having a wide range in terms of technique. But they all had screen presence in spades. So does Eastwood, and that's what makes him watchable.


You're not wrong.

It's just that I would file Eastwood, along with Wayne, McQueen, et al under B-list actors. Not that there's anything wrong with that category.

Actually, I can't stand John Wayne at all, but that's neither here nor there.


I would say Eastwood is a better actor than the others I've listed. There are subtleties at work in the best of his performances, such as the Schocklee character in The Gauntlet, which I blathered on about above.

Many people don't like John Wayne, which is fair enough. But, if you've not seen The Shootist, you probably should, just to make sure you think he's a crap actor.
Read my blog - The Delete Bin

K

Postby K » 25 May 2006, 20:27

Clippernolan wrote:
Joan Collins wrote:
Clippernolan wrote:
Joan Collins wrote:But he's really not a talented actor in terms of range, is he?

I mean, he basically plays the same guy in all of his movies. And he speaks in a monotone.


Y'know, I think range is something that is not necessarily the be-all and end all of movie acting. Perhaps it should be for the stage, or something- I dunno, I'm not an actor. But what Eastwood has is screen presence, and in movies, that is the key currency for a leading man. Most of the major actors who fulfill the same sorts of roles - John Wayne, Steve McQueen, et al - aren't necessarily known as having a wide range in terms of technique. But they all had screen presence in spades. So does Eastwood, and that's what makes him watchable.


You're not wrong.

It's just that I would file Eastwood, along with Wayne, McQueen, et al under B-list actors. Not that there's anything wrong with that category.

Actually, I can't stand John Wayne at all, but that's neither here nor there.


I would say Eastwood is a better actor than the others I've listed. There are subtleties at work in the best of his performances, such as the Schocklee character in The Gauntlet, which I blathered on about above.

Many people don't like John Wayne, which is fair enough. But, if you've not seen The Shootist, you probably should, just to make sure you think he's a crap actor.



And The Searchers

Bungo the Mungo

Postby Bungo the Mungo » 25 May 2006, 20:33

Joan Collins wrote:But he's really not a talented actor in terms of range, is he?

I mean, he basically plays the same guy in all of his movies. And he speaks in a monotone.


Exactly. The Black Sabbath comparison is perfectly apt, by the way.

The most underrated overrated actor around. Or the most overrated underrated! - beating even the dire Michael Caine.

'Thunderbolt and Lightfoot' and 'In The Line of Fire' are solid entertainment, and Eastwood does a great job. In everything else I've seen (admittedly only around 4 or 5 films, including 'Dirty Harry') he's dull at best, utterly objectionable at worst.

It does strike me at times that with films and music, we've reached a strange kind of 'crisis' point, with intelligent fan-type people scrabbling desperately in the mud to find 'underrated' actors/bands from the past few decades, as there's nothing much happening now. It started with reassessments of worthy but resolutely second-tier acts like The Kinks, say, or Burt Reynolds. And now we've arrived at Clint Eastwood. Hm.

I salute your diligence, but I'll leave this one, thanks.

DQ

Postby DQ » 25 May 2006, 20:33

The searchers....now that was a disturbing film....ones imagination being more disturbing than anything that the latex llamas could ever come up with.

User avatar
Clippernolan
Maya's Prop
Posts: 12289
Joined: 16 Jul 2003, 18:55
Location: The mangy BC hills
Contact:

Postby Clippernolan » 25 May 2006, 20:37

Sir John Coan wrote:
Joan Collins wrote:But he's really not a talented actor in terms of range, is he?

I mean, he basically plays the same guy in all of his movies. And he speaks in a monotone.


Exactly. The Black Sabbath comparison is perfectly apt, by the way.

The most underrated overrated actor around. Or the most overrated underrated! - beating even the dire Michael Caine.

'Thunderbolt and Lightfoot' and 'In The Line of Fire' are solid entertainment, and Eastwood does a great job. In everything else I've seen (admittedly only around 4 or 5 films, including 'Dirty Harry') he's dull at best, utterly objectionable at worst.

It does strike me at times that with films and music, we've reached a strange kind of 'crisis' point, with intelligent fan-type people scrabbling desperately in the mud to find 'underrated' actors/bands from the past few decades, as there's nothing much happening now. It started with reassessments of worthy but resolutely second-tier acts like The Kinks, say, or Burt Reynolds. And now we've arrived at Clint Eastwood. Hm.

I salute your diligence, but I'll leave this one, thanks.


I've always liked Eastwood. Does that make me a bad person?
Read my blog - The Delete Bin

Bungo the Mungo

Postby Bungo the Mungo » 25 May 2006, 20:38

Clippernolan wrote:
Sir John Coan wrote:
Joan Collins wrote:But he's really not a talented actor in terms of range, is he?

I mean, he basically plays the same guy in all of his movies. And he speaks in a monotone.


Exactly. The Black Sabbath comparison is perfectly apt, by the way.

The most underrated overrated actor around. Or the most overrated underrated! - beating even the dire Michael Caine.

'Thunderbolt and Lightfoot' and 'In The Line of Fire' are solid entertainment, and Eastwood does a great job. In everything else I've seen (admittedly only around 4 or 5 films, including 'Dirty Harry') he's dull at best, utterly objectionable at worst.

It does strike me at times that with films and music, we've reached a strange kind of 'crisis' point, with intelligent fan-type people scrabbling desperately in the mud to find 'underrated' actors/bands from the past few decades, as there's nothing much happening now. It started with reassessments of worthy but resolutely second-tier acts like The Kinks, say, or Burt Reynolds. And now we've arrived at Clint Eastwood. Hm.

I salute your diligence, but I'll leave this one, thanks.


I've always liked Eastwood. Does that make me a bad person?


No. But 'great actor'? I don't know, really. I really don't know.

User avatar
Clippernolan
Maya's Prop
Posts: 12289
Joined: 16 Jul 2003, 18:55
Location: The mangy BC hills
Contact:

Postby Clippernolan » 25 May 2006, 20:42

Sir John Coan wrote:
Clippernolan wrote:
Sir John Coan wrote:
Joan Collins wrote:But he's really not a talented actor in terms of range, is he?

I mean, he basically plays the same guy in all of his movies. And he speaks in a monotone.


Exactly. The Black Sabbath comparison is perfectly apt, by the way.

The most underrated overrated actor around. Or the most overrated underrated! - beating even the dire Michael Caine.

'Thunderbolt and Lightfoot' and 'In The Line of Fire' are solid entertainment, and Eastwood does a great job. In everything else I've seen (admittedly only around 4 or 5 films, including 'Dirty Harry') he's dull at best, utterly objectionable at worst.

It does strike me at times that with films and music, we've reached a strange kind of 'crisis' point, with intelligent fan-type people scrabbling desperately in the mud to find 'underrated' actors/bands from the past few decades, as there's nothing much happening now. It started with reassessments of worthy but resolutely second-tier acts like The Kinks, say, or Burt Reynolds. And now we've arrived at Clint Eastwood. Hm.

I salute your diligence, but I'll leave this one, thanks.


I've always liked Eastwood. Does that make me a bad person?


No. But 'great actor'? I don't know, really. I really don't know.


It could be that I have lower standards than you :lol: Or, just different ones.
Read my blog - The Delete Bin