New Warner Bros. CEO Might Axe 50-Year Partnership With Clint Eastwood

[LB13]

I don't think most people thought The Irishman was a piece of crap. Of course, I'm a fan of that movie, so I'm not exactly impartial, but review aggregators (which I think are horrendous when it comes to judging whether the movie is actually good or bad, but they give a pretty good idea of what people think) say otherwise -- audience score on Rotten Tomatoes is 86% and IMDb is 7.8/10. And that's just the audience -- professional reviews were even more in favor.

[AKA23]

I disagree that the "Irishman" is a piece of crap movie as well, but it was objectively far too long, at 3.5 hours. It also had an extremely slow pace, which combined with its 3.5 hour runtime, made it feel even slower. It should have been a maximum of 2.5 hours. There was also comparatively very little action that moved the plot forward during the film, another reason the film should have been much shorter. Additionally, there was absolutely no reason to spend $200 million on it. The digital de-aging technology was not convincing. The actors appeared younger, in an artificial way, but the body movements were consistent with a much older person, so watching it felt distracting. It would have been much cheaper, and made for a better film, had younger actors been chosen to play the characters in their younger years, while having Robert DeNiro, Al Pacino, etc portray the characters in scenes which were closer to their own age. I think the film was well made for the most part, but it could have been a much better movie given the talent behind it.

[Perry]

Whats a professional review?.....gimme a break....

[Hocine]

Ironically, some French critics thought that The Irishman is in many ways, an Eastwoodian film, because of his slow pace, his subject, the fact that the main character is an old man at the end of his life, who thinks about his past, his regrets, his mistakes and his sins. The Irishman seems to represent for Martin Scorsese, the conclusion of his gangsters films. I have to see The Irishman again: the first and only time I saw it, I was not that focused. At least, I was glad that Al Pacino worked with Martin Scorsese. Scorsese next film, The Killers of the Flower Moon, will be released next November, I think.

[Perry]

     The Killers of the Flower Moon was a great book that I urge everyone to read. That's the type of movie Eastwood should be doing, not Cry Macho which the WB exec has a 100% valid point.

[batfunk2]

I disagree that the "Irishman" is a piece of crap movie as well, but it was objectively far too long, at 3.5 hours. It also had an extremely slow pace, which combined with its 3.5 hour runtime, made it feel even slower. It should have been a maximum of 2.5 hours. There was also comparatively very little action that moved the plot forward during the film, another reason the film should have been much shorter. Additionally, there was absolutely no reason to spend $200 million on it. The digital de-aging technology was not convincing. The actors appeared younger, in an artificial way, but the body movements were consistent with a much older person, so watching it felt distracting. It would have been much cheaper, and made for a better film, had younger actors been chosen to play the characters in their younger years, while having Robert DeNiro, Al Pacino, etc portray the characters in scenes which were closer to their own age. I think the film was well made for the most part, but it could have been a much better movie given the talent behind it.

I agree with your criticism about Irish Man, even if i liked it a lot. I think it's a perfect conclusion to Scorcese mafia movies as Unforgiven was for Eastwood westerns.
If WB wants to reduce box office risks with Eastwood movies, they Just have to reduce its budget. I always thought that Clint movies are better with a simple and effective script. He always be happy to direct movies, even small ones.
But please, let him keep making adult movies, not Marvel ones or silly blockbusters.,he's not Kenneth Brannagh... Lol

[exit00]

Just to add a little to this discussion, for decades I've repeatedly have read articles that mention that so many of Eastwood's films have made incredible amount of money for Warners, that the studio usually had no problem letting him make a much smaller, personal, intimate movie that by all accounts would not have huge box office.  Maybe in this day of excessive greed ruling everything from movies to sports, Warners will have a different opinion. I always think of two prime Eastwood examples where the studio didn't want to proceed with his projects.... Every Which Way But Loose and Million Dollar Baby.  Wonder how they did?

And for the record, I personally love Honkytonk Man. 

[Gant]

Well said? and agreed