News: Now showing in theaters: CRY MACHO, directed by and starring Clint Eastwood!

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 - bigdai

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 6
Eastwood News / Re: HEREAFTER: Production Information and News
« on: August 17, 2010, 09:59:59 AM »
I don't know if this has ben postd before but may interest some of you:

Eastwood News / Re: Who saw INVICTUS? Members' Comments
« on: August 09, 2010, 01:02:06 PM »
OK - a great film about Rugby Union is 'Old Scores'. I can't believe it is nearly twenty years old. If anyone has a passing interest in the game or just likes a good comedy this is for you. Rugby scenes aren't amazing but it is made by people who understand the game. This is the imdb link: .

If Rugby League is your fancy try 'This Sporting Life'. More serious but rugby as the vehicle delivers the story. It stars Richard Harris who before the drink was himself a very accomplished player.

Eastwood News / Re: Who saw INVICTUS? Members' Comments
« on: August 09, 2010, 12:54:25 PM »
Being a history teacher and rugby fan I was really looking forward to seeing Invictus but sadly it lived up to my expectations. I was laughing to myself reading through the thread especailly the comments about how rugby players nearly kill each other during games. Sadly there have been instances of deaths but this applies to most physcial contact sports. In the late 1990s the then Wales rugby captain sustained a serious spinal injury from which he has never fully recovered and I know of friends who have had near misses and serious concussions and broken bones. Someone said that rugby players don't take cheap shots which is rubbish. I remember my first ever match in senior school against a local school rival when one of your players fly-kicked an opponent in the head. While the rest of us 12years old stopped in horror our teacher (who also refereed the game) shouted "thats the spirit son - I want to see the rest f you show some of that". Terrifying at the time but funny years later. There are constantly players being cited (banned) for throwing punches, eye gauging and the like. It is interesting that while football (soccer) suffers from hooliganism but no violence on the field, rugby fans freely drink and mix during and after games with no violence and laugh about the match they have seen. Rugby is a gentleman's game played by thugs. There is also real concern at the moment about the threat to players health in the long and short term. Wales centre Jamie Roberts was in a clash with an Australian counter-part last year and cracked his skull during a game - after a bit of water from a sponge he finished the game - scary!

The reason I bring these things up is that unfortunately it is the big problem with the film. Clint just doesn't get the game. I understand that it is the story that is important but the vehicle to tell the tale needs to be done well. I can excuse the clunky, explanatory dialogue for the US audience but the action scenes need to be realistic. Rugby is violent, aggressive and fast. In Invictus the rugby scenes looked like something from a high school soap-opera.  I'm sure if members look on youtube they will find some quality videos of players tackling. Type in 'Scott Gibbs tackle' and you are sure to find something to compare Clint's action sequences to.

I also like Matt Damon as an actor but he was sadly mis-cast. Pienaar is huge, the casting director should have hired someone who was over six foot - possibly an unknown South African? Likewise for Jonah Lomu. I remember laughing my behind off when he trampled England (especially Mike Catt) during the World Cup but the film just didn't do him justice. He played for Cardiff Blues towards the end of his career and while his pace had gone and he wasn't the same player after serious illness, he was still a physical monster with a massive aura about him. Sadly, Clint got this all wrong.

There are other issues with the film as well but I think that most of these have been mentioned elsewhere. I am trying to remember the name of a good rugby film that was made about 10 years ago and will post if I remember it.

Off-Topic Discussion / Re: When Will KC Reach 20,000 Posts?
« on: August 08, 2010, 01:08:28 AM »
Has anyone got the software to start an online book  O0. My bet would be 27th August at 16.23 and 15 seconds.

Off-Topic Discussion / Re: It's been a while...
« on: August 08, 2010, 01:06:12 AM »
Thanks folks. I'll check out those threads.

The only film i've not seen is the Changeling which is mainly due to the terrible trailer with Angelina Jolie constantly over-acting and screaming for her baby - however, I need to get over that. I wasn't impressed by Invictus. The dialogue was really clunky as they had to describe the rules of rugby for the American audience and the rugby scenes were awful - but then I am a welshman. If anyone wants to see a really good film about rugby let me know and I will try and think of the title of one I know. It is the story of a Wales v New Zealand match which is replayed after about 25years due to a dodgy result. I think it was a BBC production.

Off-Topic Discussion / It's been a while...
« on: August 07, 2010, 11:40:36 AM »
Wow, i can't believe its been 7 years since I last posted on here! Its going to take a while to catch up with the news and see whats going on. I was wondering who from them ol' days is still on here and who is left from the old site (RIP). Over the past 84ish months i've got a new career, new wife and new child so its all been going on. I've still been watching Eastwood films so its not been a complete abandonment. To save me some time I was wondering if we can have a list of the top stories from the past 7 years. Perhaps people can submit their top five threads for me to look through.

berst wishes to all and hope to be joining in forums again from now on.


Nice one Sir.  You truly are the guvnor of cinema.  THE legend of the screen.

Off-Topic Discussion / Re: Quentin Tarantino
« on: November 13, 2004, 09:38:59 AM »
I thought the Kill Bills were ok although nowhere near Tarantino on top form.  

Lets hope he shows good bouncebackability with Glorious Bastards. ;D

What's the UK release date?

Eastwood News / Re:Eastwood to direct WWII drama for Spielberg
« on: November 05, 2004, 06:03:06 AM »
only trouble with band of brothers was it became a bit repetitive

its not really a critism - rather an observation - because of its length  - sometimes it was on 2 times a week

probably be better getting them on dvd

This is the problem directors have.  It is difficult to include all information that historians would like to see in a two hour film.   They often do not have the time to include historically important but to a film complimentary information.  They have to concentrate more of their efforts on story, pace and characters.  

I have not seen Band of Brothers but as a mini-series I am guessing that there was more time to dedicate to this accuracy and relevance.  This makes the film less interesting to a historically passive viewer who is more interested in the spectacle.  Imagine if Private Ryan had been 2 and 1/2 hours of the battle at the beginning without the story that was the spine of the film.  People would soon become bored of the film if they didn't know the characters or cared whether they lived or died.  It seems to be a question of balance to me.  I'm not sure that people would have minded Pearl Harbor if it had had a different name.  The fact that it was called Pearl Harbor led people to believe it was about the attack.  If it was called something else to do with the romantic triangle, i'm sure there wouldn't have been such a critical attack.  Due to it's name however, it should have been based far more on history.

There aren't just viewer concerns though there are other dimensions such as financial backers, audience projections, intended rating (Pearl Harbor was a 12) etc etc.  These all determine what the content of a film will be, historical or not.

Eastwood News / Re:Eastwood to direct WWII drama for Spielberg
« on: November 03, 2004, 04:06:27 PM »
I think that wombat makes some good points on the historical accuracy that directors show towards films based on history.  I know that this is a discussion that has been partially covered before on the old and this board. However, as a historian and obviously a film fan myself I think it is worth discussing again and believe that diectors have a certain responsibilty to recreate an interpretation of the truth rather than a 'movie' based on the truth.  How many kids today think that Pearl Harbor was a stalemate if not an American victory due to two pilots played by Josh Hartnett and Ben Affleck.

I also think that we can pre-judge directors/procuders (i'm not confusing the terms by the way) based on their previous work.  In this instance not Clint due to his portfolio but certainly Spielberg due to his.  He may have had nothing to do with Pearl Harbor but he was key in the production of films such as Private Ryan and Schindler's List.  Both films came under fire from certain groups  for their accuracy.  I'm not saying we should judge Flags of Our Fathers before we see it but there is nothing wrong with expecting a certain kind of film from some personalities whether good or bad.   Eg - we all look forward to a Clint film on this site because we have some expectation based on previous experience.  Those of a reasonable outlook are often very pleased with his procuct or disappointed.  There is nothing wrong with having an expectation of a Spielberg influenced film and being pleasantly suprised, which I hope I will be and judging by Clint's previous work in other genre, I look forward to being.

I just hope that Flags of our Fathers will be a film that does not  live in infamy which the non-Spielberg influenced Pearl Harbor clearly is.

General Discussion / Re:Britt's give Clint a #9
« on: November 02, 2004, 05:12:55 AM »
I've nothing against Roger Moore, I thought he was a reasonable James Bond.  However, he hasn't done too much film work of quality.  Dirty Rotten Scoundrals, Boat Trip.... Hmmmm

He would definately be in my top 5 James Bonds though. ;)

General Discussion / Re:Britt's give Clint a #9
« on: November 01, 2004, 03:03:22 PM »
If that's the case sorry - it was only a joke though ;).

What is it at the moment with people spelling Brit or Britain with two Ts?

General Discussion / Re:Britt's give Clint a #9
« on: November 01, 2004, 01:50:21 PM »
Vik, I never get worried when an American calls the Brits stupid! ;) ;D ;)

Going back to the recent film thing I agree that Analyse That/This - whatever - were not great but I wouldn't consider Unforgiven a recent film any more at 12 years old.  I used that as an example of a good older Clint film and was why I compared it to a similarly aged De Niro classic such as Goodfellas (1990) [or Heat (1995)] in the same way as Dirty Harry (1971) to Godfather Part 2 (1974?).  Pacino is still making a higher ratio of good films than both if we want to bring him into the equation - though I am not saying they are amongst his best films or that all could be critically acclaimed.

As allycat and I have both said it may just come down to the profile of the actors and taste of the public in Britain compared to America.  As a matter of interest is there a magazine in the US that has done a similar recent poll?.

and yet again -  Roger Moore? It's a shame I don't know how to insert a smilie with a shaking head. ;D

General Discussion / Re:Britt's give Clint a #9
« on: October 31, 2004, 09:18:15 AM »
You are not seriously suggesting that Roger Moore deserves to be in the top 5 because of James Bond  ;D.  I cannot even justify that comment with a critical response.  Laughable, ha, ha, ha, ha!!!

I think Empire's readership is widely dispersed across the age ranges although you would have to check with the magazine for details.  However, I think that most very young readers would probably not be voting for actors over the age of fifty anyway.  I don't think you can classify De Niro and Pacino as appealling just to a young audience after all they both began starring in their own films in the late 1960s and reached international fame in the early 1970s.  That is only 7/8 years after Clint first came to real international fame in the dollars trilogy - therefore I would say they are in a similar age bracket for appeal.  

Without getting into a major debate about te quality of the above mentioned actors output over recent years it's fair to say that with the exception of Mystic River Clint hasn't exactly been on top form recently.  For instance Space Cowboys was no Unforgiven or Dirty Harry in the same way that De Niro's The Score was no Goodfellas or Godfather part 2.

I'm not sure that those arguments stand up as reasons for Clint not climbing higher - I think it may be down to differing national tastes in film styles and genres.  As I said in a previous post I would have had Clint as the leading 'God Among Us' but am think of reasons why he wasn't rather than saying 'stupid Brits'.

Eastwood News / Flags of Our Fathers
« on: October 30, 2004, 04:51:08 AM »
I've just noticed on IMDb that there has been a new Clint helmed film announced called Flags of Our Fathers which is set during the Pacific war.   I couldn't see a discussion about this on the site.  Does anyone know anything more about this film?

General Discussion / Re:Britt's give Clint a #9
« on: October 30, 2004, 04:27:40 AM »
To be fair to the excellent, informative generally and Godlike Empire magazine the poll was not the opinion of the magazine but of it's readers who voted.  Also Clint was finally placed 8th after Brando stopped being a living legend.  

Personally I would have placed Clint number 1 as a living legend and 'God Among Us' but would not have placed him in the top five as an actor.

As for viks comment of stupid Brits - how can we seriously take on board the opinion of someone who has Roger Moore in their top 5!!!  ;)

I think the reason Clint placed lower than he deserves was due to the fact that his most famous films probably don't resonate quite as strongly with British filmgoers as they do with an American audience.  Horse operas are a good example where they will naturally appeal more to the country whose history they are loosely based on.

Trivia Games / Re:Degrees of Separation
« on: July 14, 2004, 01:18:50 AM »
Ok. Nobody has posted a new name so i'll start it off again.

What about:

Gary Oldman

I don't know if we've done him before but who cares.

Trivia Games / Re:Degrees of Separation
« on: July 12, 2004, 01:46:04 PM »
So are we getting a link or what?  ??? ;)

Trivia Games / Re:Degrees of Separation
« on: July 08, 2004, 06:53:28 AM »
 :-[ :-[ :-[ :-[ :-[

It's a good point, well made.

I totally forgot.  I'm a bit busy at the moment KC so you can do another for me while I hide away in embarrassement.  ;)

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 6

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