|
|
|
|
|
|
Matt
Global Moderator
Member Extraordinaire
 Offline
Posts: 14885
|
 |
« Reply #3 on: December 13, 2019, 06:51:33 PM » |
|
I saw this at the 4:00 showing today. Clint has a loyal base here in Tennessee. I remember being surprised to get the last tickets to see The Mule on opening day when I waited until the last minute to buy them, and this happened again for Richard Jewell. The later showings were sold out, but there were a couple of seats left for the matinee. So, we got to see this in a packed theater filled to the gills with senior citizens and definite Trump supporters (you could tell by their reactions to certain jokes regarding the press and FBI).
As for the movie -- I liked it a lot. Clint's style is almost dated, but in a good way. He tells an enthralling story that's dialogue and character-focused with little action -- and that in itself is what I mean by "dated". The pacing isn't rushed, and at times it feels a bit slow, but only because newer movies have a faster pace and you can easily forget what it's like to just relax and watch a more leisurely paced film. The acting was good across the board, but as pointed out, Paul Walter Hauser is the best of the cast in the title role. But, it's my opinion that he won't win an Oscar for the performance. I would be surprised if Richard Jewell wins anything (or is even nominated) at the Oscar's, but that doesn't take away from the enjoyable experience of seeing the film. It just didn't feel like award-winning material. But, I'm glad Clint made it -- it was a worthwhile subject and a really good movie. I can't quite give it an 8/10, so I'll settle with a grade of 7.5/10. It's a thumbs-up either way!
|
|
|
|
Logged |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Jed Cooper
Classic Member
Member Extraordinaire
Offline
Posts: 5248
|
|
« Reply #8 on: December 19, 2019, 01:12:05 PM » |
|
Very well done! This movie held my interest from beginning to end. I haven’t enjoyed an Eastwood directed, non-starring film this much since Mystic River. As I was leaving the theater with Uncle Andy, I noticed a couple of elderly ladies still sitting as the credits rolled. I couldn’t resist good-naturedly saying to them, “I still want one more Clint Eastwood western!” They smiled and agreed. I asked Andy what he thought of us flying to California to convince Mr. Eastwood to star in one more western. Maybe we’d get bit parts, dress up in cowboy outfits and ride horses! At 89, if anybody can make a good western at that age, it’s Clint Eastwood! Ok, back on track with Richard Jewell. For me, it succeeded where The 15:17 To Paris failed. I can’t pinpoint why. The only major difference is that professional actors weren’t used in the principal roles so perhaps that’s it. One trend I notice with his movies he only directs is that the subject matter IS always interesting. Selfishly, I’d rather see him direct an action movie or western but it’s not my career. My indifference was washed away with satisfaction with this latest installment in Clint’s singularly, long-lasting and iconic career. Regardless of box office performance and how many awards it may or may not win, this is a winner to me.  Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk |
|
|
« Last Edit: December 19, 2019, 01:13:53 PM by Jed Cooper »
|
Logged |
“Eyuh.”
|
|
|
|
|
AKA23
Classic Member
Member Extraordinaire
Offline
Posts: 3646
|
|
« Reply #10 on: December 26, 2019, 01:04:32 PM » |
|
I saw this. Like many of Eastwood's recent true life story pictures, this isn't a movie that I would have made. There just isn't that much story to cover, and since I remembered the events of the film, I knew the way it would all end. For me, part of the appeal of watching movies is the surprise and the suspense that can only be generated when watching a story that I am not already familiar with.
However, like "Sully," I think this is the best possible version of this story that Eastwood could have made. Paul Walter Hauser, from the perspective of the quality of the movie and not its commercial prospects, was definitely the right choice for Richard Jewell. He looks so much like him, and his mannerisms and voice were well matched to Jewell's. The principal roles are very well cast overall. Sam Rockwell was also a good choice for Jewell's lawyer, and Olivia Wilde also seemed to fit the character to me. One thing I did notice was that the portrayal of Kathy Scruggs did not make her look very good, and it wasn't just the sex for tips scene that gave that impression. I have no idea whether the character as depicted in the movie was true to life or not, but she came across as erratic, lacking empathy, manipulative, and a bit chaotic. The film did not make her look like a very professional reporter. If not true to life, this portrayal is an odd take on the character. The film is also edited and directed nicely, and unlike some of Eastwood's more recent films, I thought this had a pretty tight and well written script.
It covers a lot of the same ground as "Sully," so in the back of my mind, while watching it, I wondered what drew Eastwood to this particular story beyond wanting to honor Richard Jewell as a person. Sully did his job as he was trained and was initially hailed as a hero as a result. Subsequent to those actions, his actions were questioned, and the government bodies responsible for investigating the incident made it seem like he had done the wrong thing. These are the same themes as "Richard Jewell" where the F.B.I. and the media stand in for the NTSB.
Another thing that struck me while watching it is a lack of understanding for what has caused Clint to become such a right-wing filmmaker in recent years and why he seems to be making movies, at least in part, for reasons other than the belief that they would result in really entertaining movies."Sully," American Sniper," "The 15:17 to Paris," and now this film were clearly all made to honor their subjects and promote conservative viewpoints. I think "J. Edgar" partly also fits into this category since it was clearly made to humanize rather than to cast a more objective, critical eye on his place in history. "Gran Torino" and "The Mule" also have some pretty clear conservative tones underlying them as well. Many of these films also clearly cast aspersions on either the institutions of society or more liberal thinkers who, for example, may not view someone like Chris Kyle in a rarified light, or who may have more respect for the government or the media than these films suggest we should.
Unlike many reviewers who were unwilling to look past their own preconceived ideas about the agenda the film pushes, I was able to look past some of these impulses and view the film as its own entity. On that basis, its a well done film, but I also understand why some see a consistent desire in Eastwood's recent films to promote those more conservative viewpoints, and I'm not sure why, since that hasn't been a hallmark of much of Eastwood's other work. "Dirty Harry" had some of these impulses as well, but Eastwood's filmography as a whole is much more balanced than his recent work would suggest, in my opinion.
What does everyone else think?
|
|
|
« Last Edit: December 26, 2019, 02:59:05 PM by AKA23 »
|
Logged |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Clint Eastwood Forums
Author