1
Off-Topic Discussion / Re: CEWB Annual Season's Greeting Thread 2019/20.
« on: Today at 12:32:15 AM »
Higashimori, it is nice to hear from you again! Happy New Year to you! 
DISCUSSION BOARD AND COMMUNITY - EST. 1996
| |
| News: Having trouble registering? Please feel free to contact us at help[at]clinteastwood.org. We will help you get an account set up. | |
Show Posts
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
2
General Discussion / Re: Your Favorite Decade Of Eastwood Films
« on: January 19, 2020, 10:42:26 AM »
It's the 1990s for me. I can't remember how I voted before, but I would guess it was the same.
3
General Discussion / Re: Two Mules For Sister Sara & Kelly’s Heroes 50 Year Anniversaries
« on: January 18, 2020, 07:54:25 AM »
From previous discussion on this board, I think it has been established that that footage doesn't exist.
4
Eastwood News / Re: Who saw RICHARD JEWELL? Members' Comments (NO SPOILERS, PLEASE)
« on: January 18, 2020, 07:53:04 AM »
"He doesn't care for the act but, for its consequences." I think you've hit on something there, antonis.
5
Questions & Answers / Re: Correction ?
« on: January 18, 2020, 07:51:43 AM »
Nowadays that would be considered a "spoiler," and I think that applies to older films as well. Lots of people catch up on them years or decades later.
That part of the website is generally not being updated, so I don't think the summaries for the two older films will be corrected either.
That part of the website is generally not being updated, so I don't think the summaries for the two older films will be corrected either.
6
Eastwood News / Re: Clint Cameo in Joker
« on: January 16, 2020, 10:15:09 PM »I didn't know Clint did a cocaine PSA years ago.
7
Off-Topic Discussion / Re: 2019 Movie Discussion
« on: January 13, 2020, 10:46:29 PM »I think scores definitely can be intrusive, but I really didn't notice 1917's like that.
Might have been the sound system in the theater where I saw it ... though I've always been especially sensitive to that sort of thing. It's one reason why I took to Clint's films.
8
Off-Topic Discussion / Re: 2019 Movie Discussion
« on: January 13, 2020, 10:45:02 PM »I've read reviews that the film is quite difficult to follow with what seems to be a disjointed, non-linear structure. I've never seen any version of "Little Women," so for anyone that has seen this version, I'd be interested in what you thought of that.
I didn't find it at all difficult to follow (and I've never read the book, and if I've ever seen another version I don't recall it). It is non-linear, but one scene flows naturally into the next and I never had any uncertainty about where in the narrative we were.
It may remind you somewhat of Bird, or (to take a 2019 example) Almodóvar's Pain and Glory. In particular a detail about the ending reminded me of Pain and Glory, and I think it worked equally brilliantly in both places. (Pain and Glory is not to be confused with Paths of Glory!
)Gant, I mostly agree with your comments about 1917, particularly the bit about how the scene with the woman "felt shoehorned in." You can almost hear them saying, "Wait, wait, can't we fit a woman into this thing somehow? Can't have a whole movie without a single woman!"
As for Little Women being "possibly a superior war film" ... you may have something there!
9
Off-Topic Discussion / Re: 2019 Movie Discussion
« on: January 13, 2020, 08:27:39 AM »
Afterwards, you can have Mrs Gant take you to see Little Women!
10
Eastwood News / Re: RICHARD JEWELL: Awards and accolades news, rumors, etc.
« on: January 13, 2020, 08:26:05 AM »
Well, it's a crumb. Can't imagine she'll win, though.
11
Off-Topic Discussion / Re: 2019 Movie Discussion
« on: January 12, 2020, 07:50:35 PM »
Good comments, AKA. Yes, aside from the "gimmick" most reviews are focusing on, the cinematography was wonderful. And of course ... The audience badly wants the "mission" to succeed, since we've invested nearly two hours of our time in rooting for this end! It's only cynics like me who can't help thinking, "Will the serum get to Nome, Alaska, in time? Well, of course it will, or there would be rioting in the theater!"
There is a particularly touching scene about halfway through that I didn't see coming, and that packs an especially strong emotional wallop.
There is a particularly touching scene about halfway through that I didn't see coming, and that packs an especially strong emotional wallop.
12
Off-Topic Discussion / Re: 2019 Movie Discussion
« on: January 12, 2020, 07:42:31 PM »I would say there's something "a little different" about this one. The way it's shot is almost an immersive experience.
The music isn't minimalist like an Eastwood movie, but I'm fine with that. In fact there was one sequence when I thought how I really liked the music that was being played there (and I don't remember what sequence that was).
Yes, for many "the way it's shot" alone would make it worth seeing. The only reason to avoid it would be if you've seen one World War I movie too many, but there haven't been that many in recent years (with up-to-date special effects).
Christopher and I will have to agree to disagree about intrusive scores. They always make me think of that great scene from Blazing Saddles ...
13
Off-Topic Discussion / Re: The Celebrity Obituary Thread
« on: January 12, 2020, 11:04:01 AM »
Gant will probably be especially interested in this New York Times obituary of Neil Pert:
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/10/arts/music/neil-peart-dead.html
R.I.P.
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/10/arts/music/neil-peart-dead.html
Quote
“His drumming was songwriting,” Foo Fighters’ drummer, Taylor Hawkins, said during Rush’s induction into the Rock & Roll Hall of Fame in 2013. “It was just as musical, just as melodic, as any other instrument in the band.” He also noted that Mr. Peart had “spawned a generation of air drummers for decades to come.”
R.I.P.
14
Off-Topic Discussion / Re: 2019 Movie Discussion
« on: January 12, 2020, 10:53:51 AM »
Well, your results may be different! It is definitely worth seeing. The war scenes are highly realistic (well, except for the music), and I disagree with the author of the Film Comment review that it is "stylistically turgid." I liked the acting. I'd be curious to hear your reaction, Gant!
15
General Discussion / Re: Favorite Clint Eastwood Movies of the 2010s
« on: January 11, 2020, 08:44:47 PM »
Very good observations about all of those films, AKA!
16
Off-Topic Discussion / Re: 2019 Movie Discussion
« on: January 11, 2020, 08:41:51 PM »I saw 1917 today and it is very good. It was mentioned about this winning best drama at the Golden Globes, and I can definitely see this potentially winning Best Picture at the Oscars. Along with best director, cinematography, and probably a slew of technical awards.
Best cinematography, certainly. It's a tour de force, even if much of the effect was achieved digitally.
Otherwise, though I enjoyed it, I had the feeling I had seen this movie before. It's the same basic generic World War I movie they've been making since All Quiet on the Western Front* (1930), with the extra feature that it's also a "Men on a Mission" movie. By this time, we're pretty certain how those are going to turn out, too.
I found the two young lead actors' performances credible and touching, and Benedict Cumberbatch should get an Oscar for "Best Cameo by a Star in a Movie Lacking Stars in Leading Roles." If there were such a thing.
One other thing: The score. It is incredibly intrusive and (at least where I saw it) very loud. You never forget for a moment, "It's only a movie ... hear all that movie music playing?"
This is not to say it WON'T get all the awards Christopher mentioned. What was that phrase I read in Film Comment? (The current issue, with the review, was in my mailbox when I came home from the theater.)
Quote
... Dig a millimeter beneath the surface of the ubiquitous art-directed grime of 1917 and you’ll catch the antiseptic smell of the Great Anglo-American Prestige Picture, never more emotionally tidy or stylistically turgid.https://www.filmcomment.com/article/the-big-screen-1917/
And "Great Anglo-American Prestige Pictures" ... they're what win Oscars, right?
*AQOTWF was based on a German novel and accordingly featured German soldiers, but part of the point of the generic World War I movie is that there wasn't much difference between the experience of soldiers on either side.
17
Off-Topic Discussion / Re: Happy Birthday Richard Earl
« on: January 11, 2020, 08:19:50 PM »
Thanks for stopping by, son!
Glad to hear you're doing well.
Glad to hear you're doing well.
18
General Discussion / Re: Favorite Clint Eastwood Movies of the 2010s
« on: January 11, 2020, 12:49:01 PM »Oh well... Here's to the next 10 years
After which he will be 100!
19
Eastwood News / Re: Who saw RICHARD JEWELL? Members' Comments (NO SPOILERS, PLEASE)
« on: January 09, 2020, 08:33:30 AM »
We'll be looking forward to your report, satu! Always nice to hear from you.
20
Eastwood News / Re: RICHARD JEWELL: Reviews, interviews, features in the media
« on: January 06, 2020, 11:05:14 PM »
Aline, thanks for providing the translation and the other links!
Very astutely observed:
Always great to hear from you, and thanks for the picture!
Very astutely observed:
Quote
Richard Jewell subtly connects with all these movies, especially with Sully and 3:17 pm. It exposes, examines and problematizes the culture of building heroes and then demolishes them without any ceremony. In the era of the war on terror, a misleading (or at least hasty) newspaper cover is enough for an idol to become a traitor.
Always great to hear from you, and thanks for the picture!
C L I N T E A S T W O O D . N E T