News: Having trouble registering?  Please feel free to contact us at help[at]  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.

Messages - Matt

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 602

I thought the three leads themselves were also fine. Their dialogue however was not. A terrible script in my opinion and it was the words they said, not how they said it, which came across so poorly.

As I was watching, I kept thinking it was just awful dialogue. But it really made me wonder if professional actors wouldn't have made that awful dialogue sound believable and natural.

I just finally saw this tonight. Honestly, I didn't like it. When it comes to the trio of movies that Cint has made recently about ordinary American men in extraordinary circumstances doing heroic things, this was a much lessor effort than Sully and American Sniper. I'm going to agree with Perry that this feels like an HBO movie, or a Netflix original. Too bad, but now at least it's good to know we have something else to look forward to with The Mule.

Rating:  4/10.  Best part:  The Venetian restaurant scenery. I want to go there now. Worst:  The endless selfies, just ridiculous. 

Eastwood News / Re: THE MULE: Production Information and News
« on: May 20, 2018, 12:17:16 AM »
Yes, mules factor in prominantly in his career, even so-called mules (actually, The Mule is a so-called mule as well).  ;)

Eastwood News / Re: THE MULE: Production Information and News
« on: May 19, 2018, 08:13:21 PM »
I notice that the logline which is provided that describes the film states that Eastwood will be playing Earl Stone and not, as thought before, Leo Sharp. So although this film may be based on Sharp's experiences, it sounds like this may be heavily fictionalized, which may give them more creative freedom and allow for this to feel more like an original rather than an entirely fact-based story.

I'm getting more enthused about this project. It's a pretty cool bookend to Clint's first starring role, which also featured a mule in what might be the scene that kicked off his career. Of course, that's only if this winds up being Clint's last performance. And, Clint isn't showing signs of slowing down yet.

I guess I can agree with that. I think Pacino does these types of characters as well as Clint does his types of characters.

Weighing in on True Crime, I actually really love this performance and film. And Clint wasn't too old to be a womanizer -- that's something you don't grow out of (so I hear) ;).  And Bob's wife wasn't into Everett anyway -- she was just trying to get Bob's attention. So it works.

Looking good, Jed.  I haven't traveled anywhere lately to do any special photography. But, there's so much to photograph without even leaving town. I photographed the birds in my front porch nest every morning to see the changes each day brings. They left the nest this morning. I had just taken this last one yesterday -- testing the wings.

Now that they're gone, I was going to pull the nest down and clean that area. But, a friend said the breeding Finches may not be done for the season, so I'll hold off until Fall.

Serious question -- is Clint considered a "mediocre actor" by these people who we're talking about?  Is Tommy Lee Jones really considered a better actor?  I'd say Pacino and Nicholson may be a little more respected as actors overall, but maybe they'd be considered more First Tier, and Clint might be First Tier or Second Tier to most people, but "mediocre" is a whole Tier or two below that.  Nicholson has really wide range. Pacino wasn't always bombastic, was he? I think he was more nuanced before Scent of a Woman. I enjoy the hell out of Pacino performances though.

As for the rest of your post, I agree with it, and you've managed to put into words pretty well how I feel.

So, let me get this straight, Matt, part of your strategy to convince this person that they were wrong and that Clint Eastwood is a better actor than they think is to agree with their statement. Boy, how I wish I had you as my opponent when I was doing my speech and debate tournaments years ago!

Well, there is an Eastwood-type character. So there is some truth to that, and it's dishonest to pretend that it's not true. So, if I was debating, I would give in on that point. But, I'd add (which I think I did) that it's not because he can't do other roles, it's because he's been more attracted to these types of roles. I think when Clint steps out of the mold and does the other types of characters, that he's been great. So I think that debunks the argument that he can't do other characters, or that he hasn't done other types of characters. So I think that's how I'd answer that in an actual debate-- not that he can't do other roles, just that he is more attracted to these certain types of roles.

General Discussion / Re: CLINT PICS!
« on: May 17, 2018, 03:50:53 PM »
He hung out with Clint for 20 minutes talking movies.  :o

Clint is very good at the roles he chooses to do, but his roles with few exceptions are similar characters. He's the rugged, dry humored tough guy who often fights against an injustice that is brought upon a weaker person or populance. He's not usually a white-collar professional, and hasn't done the lawyer or doctor roles. He's never an out-and-out bad guy -- Will Munny would be closest to that, but he's still the likable, rugged, dry humored tough guy there, fighting against an injustice.... (see above). He's done comedies, but I think with the exception of Bronco Billy that they're his weakest films and performaces.  I think there's some truth to this opinion, because there is such a thing as a Clint Eastwood type character.  The biggest stretch he took away from a "Clint Eastwood character" was The Bridges of Madison County. So I'd put that on the list of three. Also, I think his performance in In The Line of Fire is very good and slightly less "Clint Eastwood-like". And I'd say White Hunter Black Heart would round it out.

I'm not going with the other great performances that I love the most, such as  Unforgiven, Dirty Harry, High Plains Drifter etc. because it sounds like these are movies the person would have already seen that helped to form their opinion. If they hadn't seen Unforgiven, I'd add that and remove In The Line of Fire.

Trivia Games / Re: Clint's Clothing
« on: May 10, 2018, 05:33:49 PM »
Is it Heartbreak Ridge?  (Would have gone with Kelly's Heroes, but that was a 70's film.)

This House Finch family has built their nest on the top of one of the columns on my front porch. This spot houses a nest every Spring, but this is the first time the birds haven't been too skittish for photos at feeding time.

Off-Topic Discussion / Re: THE ENDLESS, POINTLESS thread
« on: May 01, 2018, 03:06:10 PM »
I learned today that wild turkeys can fly. I know this because my dog chased one, which literally gobble-gobble-gobbled as it was running full speed, then like an airplane on a runway, it lifted up and was off!

General Discussion / Re: 3 films to recommend Clint to new viewers
« on: April 26, 2018, 01:02:20 AM »
Good choices! Though I'm reminded that I became an Eastwood fan within 5 minutes of Hang 'em High, on a snowy UHF channel on a 1970's model RCA television. If they're meant to be an Eastwood fan, you'll have them by the end of the mule scene. ;)

General Discussion / Re: 3 films to recommend Clint to new viewers
« on: April 25, 2018, 09:08:06 AM »
I agree with both of your choices, and yet.... I wonder if GBU would be better than A Fistful of Dollars.  Attention spans aren't what they used to be, so maybe a less-than-two-hour runtime on a tight and ultra cool Western might sit a bit better for a first timer.  I think I'd start with A Fistful of Dollars, and let them know... this is the start of everything. If you love this, we have a lot more to watch!

And then, Dirty Harry and then...

Maybe Gran Torino.  They get to see his first, and one of his last... and that leaves a lot to discover inbetween. I think it would really get the point across how impressive his career is, and to want more.

Trivia Games / Re: Clint's Clothing
« on: April 23, 2018, 08:38:30 PM »
2500 ppsts and Im still not considered an active member, Matt? Whats your judging criteria?

You're less active than most of us posting in this thread.  2550 posts in 16 YEARS.... and if I had to guess, most of the 2550 posts were made in the first 8 years of switching to this "new" board.  How many posts did you have on the old board? Where's Stats when we need him?

Trivia Games / Re: Clint's Clothing
« on: April 23, 2018, 06:56:44 PM »
I had been hoping that one of our less active members may have wanted to jump in, so Im ok with waiting.

You ARE one of our less active members. Shocker.  :o

Go ahead, AKA... solve it for us!

He really resembles George Clooney. But, sure -- he's very good in the part. But, I would have enjoyed Volonte being in the cast again.

God's creations are always perfect, and GBU is no different. But, if it was me, working with God, Leone, Eastwood and Morricone on this... I would put in Gian Maria Volonte as the Captain.

Just because I would have liked to see him in all three films, and since Leone didn't think he was humorous enough to be Tuco (he was right) -- this would have been a good role for him.

(But Clint's character is only called Manco in For a Few Dollars More.)

 :-X  My bad. You'll have to mark this up.

The three Man With No Name films are all so perfect that I'd rate each of them a 10/10. For Clint to travel halfway across the world to make a severely low budget western in Italy, and transition from the Rowdy Yates character (a wide-eyed naive cowplunk sidekick on a TV western), to perhaps the most iconic figure ever created on film, is remarkable. Where'd that come from? Leone didn't envision Manco that way -- we know this since Clint took the script and removed most of his dialogue, and put together the iconic wardrobe himself. A Fistful of Dollars is lean, making every moment count. The score -- woah. It was magic.  Eastwood, Leone and Morricone would come from virtual obscurity to be among the world's greatest actors, directors, and composers by creating this monumental film that's as significant as A Trip to the Moon, and the first talkies.

Then, they take the magic to the next level....  For a Few Dollars More.  They add in another second complex anti-hero in Mortimer.  It's another epic film, just slightly more epic than the last.  The hat scene not only provides some comic relief, but it builds the mythology between these two characters, and their scenes would inspire films for the next 60+ years. But it's not enough to have two iconic characters in one film, they needed a villain.  So they bring in Indio... how can they make evil look so cool?  How are they able to create a shred of sympathy over a rapist murderer?  Had Westerns ever provided so much character development prior to this film?

But... when we get to the third film ... there's no other explanation.  In God-time, 1966 was the 8th day, and He brought us The Good, The Bad and The Ugly.  God saw the script, and wanting to add a little dash of His humor (He had just had a bit of fun creating Giraffes and Squid and was still in a humorous state of mind), He added this:

TUCO: God is with us because he hates the Yanks too! Hurrah!

BLONDIE: God is not on our side 'cause he hates idiots also.

And then He saw it was good, and Earth was complete.  If you mute GBU anywhere along the course of the film, and you strain hard enough, you can hear a heavenly choir singing Hallelujah. God is Great.

So I have to go with God on this one... the best Leone film is obviously The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly8)

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 602

C L I N T E A S T W O O D . N E T