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 - AKA23

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 170
J.K. Simmons (Whiplash) has joined the cast. I'm a fan of his, so I'm happy about this. He will be playing a juror.

Also, this film is still in production and they are filming in Atlanta, per the article.

Off-Topic Discussion / Re: Actors/Movies you've changed your mind about
« on: December 03, 2023, 07:30:59 AM »
Interesting topic. Outside of Clint Eastwood movies this really doesn't happen to me though. The reason for that is because if I don't like a movie the first time, I almost never watch it again, unless there is a compelling reason to revisit it, which I usually don't have. I also can't think of an actor that I strongly disliked that I have changed my mind about later.

What causes this for us? Why do we choose to rewatch a movie that you didn't like the first time? Also, if you do, what factors motivate you to re-appraise either a film or an actor you used to dislike that you later decide you now enjoy?

Actually, I remember that I read an interview in which Clint said that Frankie may have committed suicide but he was not absolutely positive about that possibility. He said that it is up to the beholders to imagine Frankie destiny.

Are you sure about this? Do you have a link? I do not remember Clint saying that.

Hocine is right, Christopher. There are two schools of thought regarding the ending. One is that he committed suicide, because he had two syringes and more than he needed to kill Maggie in his bag, and who would that be for if not for himself? The second theory is that he left boxing, but decided to buy the pie place in tribute to her, or as a way to chart a new, more fulfilling life, given their conversation earlier on in the film. In my opinion, the movie doesn't fully answer this question either way, which is why it's an open debate among many who see the film, similar to the ending of "Mystic River". I remember discussion about this at the time of release. Does anyone know if the movie includes any narration at the end about when Morgan Freeman's character is writing the letter to his daughter and how long it had been since he had been last seen? Another option that occurs to me is that he may just have taken a break to grieve, but may have been planning to return and resume his life? I don't remember the movie including this timeframe, but like others here, haven't seen this in many years.

I don't think he committed suicide. I'm not sure whether he bought the pie place or not or where his life journey took him, but I think it was inconsistent with both his religious beliefs as well as his own personal character, resilience, and perseverance to end his own life. What are others thoughts?

I still have so many questions about Juror #2. I think the John Grisham comparison is spot-on, and I wonder why Clint chose this project in particular for what could be his last film. At surface level, it doesn't strike me as very personal; whereas in the case of Clint's biopics or even Cry Macho, these films could be interpreted as deconstructions of classic Hollywood characters, we are yet to see how Juror #2 connects to that. What does Eastwood have in common with a juror who realizes he's guilty of the crime he's supposed to make a decision on? Some statement about reserving judgement? A commentary being a part of the Hollywood culture? A feeling of repressed guilt? Who knows.

This is a good question. I'm not sure this movie connects in any deep way thematically for Eastwood on a personal level. Based on the synopsis it does seem to be another where the system does not work as intended to produce a just result, the wrong person is being prosecuted for a crime he did not commit, and it needs to be subverted to right that wrong, so it may connect in that way with previous films. It also seems to be a bit of a redemption story because the juror is seeking to atone for his own role in the killing. I think that Eastwood is likely doing this movie not for any particularly deep reason but because "Cry Macho" was poorly received, and if this is the last film, he doesn't want to end his career on a bad film. Something to understand about Eastwood is that he is an instinctual, rather than an introspective, filmmaker, so I think as fans we likely think a lot more about the themes of his films and the deeper meanings behind his choices than he does. I wouldn't be surprised if he were making this for no other reason beyond him liking the story and taking advantage of an opportunity to do a film that was hopefully better than "Cry Macho" and that has a greater opportunity of being well received. I think the only time Eastwood really thought deeply about his legacy and how he would be thought of historically is when he made "Unforgiven" which is the main reason it has remained the last western for Eastwood for the past 30 years.


Unless something has changed recently, I don't think this is accurate. The agency that does the extras casting had dates up to at least 12/8 for filming, and that just includes any filming in the Savannah area, so it could be done then. Or, alternatively, could go on even longer. I thought they were also planning on potentially filming in Los Angeles, based on articles about the film.


Moreover, nicholas-hoult has been cast as Lex Luther, main villain, for Superman Legacy (dir: James Gunn), DC's most anticipated project in years.


We have a different definition of this. Nicolas Hoult is not a name that everyone knows with a long record of successful movies that would draw people to see a movie on his name alone. That's what A-list actor means to me. That's Clint Eastwood, but no one else that's part of this, outside of potentially Kiefer Sutherland, but he's known more for tv rather than movies. Clint is reportedly not acting in this. It is true that Nicolas Hoult is getting a lot of roles and if this new role is commercially successful, in Superman, it may help him to break out and become an A-list actor in the future, but he's not there yet. For example, I watch a lot of movies and I've never seen him in anything noteworthy outside of "About a Boy" when he was a child. He's also not known for being a particularly accomplished  actor, another indicator of an A-list actor, more of an up and coming one, though I'm hoping "Juror #2" is a good role for him and with the Superman casting, that could change.

Do you think that Juror #2 could be a crowd pleaser, despite the lack of A-list stars ?

This story strikes me as the kind of movie that would have been made in the 1990's, around the time that John Grisham's novels were being turned into films, "The Client", "The Firm", "The Rainmaker", etc. These kinds of courtroom dramas really are not made much anymore, so I don't know. I think this is part of the reason that Eastwood may be considering retiring, if the reports about this film are true. This script is about 15 years old, so the films that appeal to him are not necessarily the same films as those that have mass appeal anymore. So much is now focused on diversity, equity and inclusion and themes around that, for reasons that are in part understandable, Hollywood is trying to turn the page, but none of that appeals to Eastwood. He's interested in stripped down, old fashioned, well told, character driven, not message driven, stories.

I think the film would have a better chance of being a crowd pleaser if it had more of an A-list cast, which it doesn't have. Kiefer Sutherland is the most well known, but even within his own family, Donald Sutherland, his father, is a much bigger star, so even he is not a household name or one that will necessarily draw droves of viewers to head to the theaters. If it is really well done, and has a good critical reception, and Warners markets this as the last film of Eastwood's career, that may increase the chances that it will do well, but I think that chance would have been better if the film were starring Eastwood, in a role that was similar to other popular films of his, which this is not. That's one of the reasons that "The Mule" did so well. It was starring Eastwood in a role that people really wanted to see him in, that of a drug mule. I think they marketed it in a way that made it seem like it would be a grittier drama and that the role Eastwood played would be much more similar to Walt Kowalski and the tone of"Gran Torino" than it was, which is why I think a lot of people might not have loved it as much as they expected to when they saw it, but it still drew people to theaters. This film doesn't really have the same ingredients that made "The Mule" a success, so we'll have to see. I'm hoping for good things, both for the quality of the film, as well as for its reception. 

Think they have 3 weeks left of shooting, so this movie should be edited and done by later in the spring and then could likely come out this summer. This movie doesn't sound to me like an Oscar film, so there's no real reason to hold this until the Fall, and the studios are going to need films to release due to the long, recently resolved strike. Given how fast Clint works, the summer fits to me.


Chris Messina has joined the cast. No mention of Eastwood having a role. Really don't think he is going to be in this, which makes me sad. I was looking forward to seeing a final performance, assuming "this is the last one so help me God!" Also, wish that line was actually in "The Mule" and not just in the trailer!

Off-Topic Discussion / Re: Favorite Current TV Shows
« on: November 13, 2023, 03:13:29 PM »
One show that is pretty recent that I really enjoyed was "Line of Duty". It's a show from the UK that centers around a team of police offers that investigate and root out corruption. I thought it was one of the best cop shows that I've ever seen, and certainly the best that delves into that subject matter. If you haven't already seen that, you may enjoy it, Gant. I think most Eastwood fans probably would.

Off-Topic Discussion / Re: Favorite Current TV Shows
« on: November 13, 2023, 03:11:17 PM »
Young Sheldon anyone ?

I don't watch "Young Sheldon". I liked the "Big Bang Theory" in the earlier seasons, which that is a prequel spin off of for those that don't know. As the show progressed, in my opinion, it turned into more of a relationship show with a goal to show growth of the characters and them progressing into successful romantic relationships, and the show lost much of the original focus, which I didn't like, and characters changed. I thought the series finale was well done. I find that this happens a lot. When shows become successful they often seek to show that the characters have changed, grown, become better people, etc. and sometimes the central storyline gets lost and the show becomes something different and moves away from what it was originally about. I think one of the reasons that "Seinfeld" was so popular and successful is that they didn't do that. People liked the characters the way they were, and they really never significantly changed.

General Discussion / Re: What was the last Eastwood film you watched?
« on: November 08, 2023, 02:36:13 PM »
I liked Penn in his role, I thought it was a very powerful performance, one of his best..

He did win an Oscar for his performance, so you are in good company! Sean Penn's scene when he discovered her daughter had been murdered was quite powerful. I think there were many performances in "Mystic River" that were quite showy, and by that I mean like they felt much more like performances, and less natural and subtle. Tim Robbins, Sean Penn, Laura Linney's Lady Macbeth-like scene at the end of the film are all examples of this. It stood out to me in "Mystic River" that it didn't really have the understated, more naturalistic acting style to the performances that Eastwood is known for. I do think that Kevin Bacon's performance was more typical of Eastwood's style, and I agree that he did well in the role, although I think I would have liked to have seen what Michael Keaton could have done. I also liked Laurence Fishburne, but would have liked to have seen Forrest Whitaker reteam with Eastwood. I think were it earlier in his career and Eastwood was age appropriate for the role he may have been interested in playing Bacon's role himself.

General Discussion / Re: What was the last Eastwood film you watched?
« on: November 07, 2023, 09:42:03 AM »
I do not know if that is true but I recently read something about the casting of Mystic River: Tim Robbins would have replaced actor Michael Keaton, who would have been the initial choice for the role of Dave Boyle. Michael Keaton would have quit the project due to artistic divergences with Clint.

I've also read this, but think it was Sean Devine, Kevin Bacon's character, who Michael Keaton was the original choice for, who was the police officer, not Dave Boyle.

I agree with Gant. "Mystic River" is one of Eastwood's better director-only films, though I have not read the book. I think I would have liked it better if the acting were a but more subtle. "Mystic River" stands out to me as a bit unusual in Eastwood's filmography, as it has some pretty showy scenes and performances, particularly from Sean Penn, as an example, and Eastwood is known for much more understated acting and direction.

Agree with everyone here. Very interesting article. Good job.

I note that Richard Tuggle was also the screen writer of "Tightrope" and the official director of the film as well. Did you discuss that film with Tuggle? Do you know why, from his perspective, he came to be afforded with the opportunity to direct "Tightrope," and why he was removed as director by Eastwood, who largely directed the film himself. This is the understanding of many Eastwood fans. What was his perspective on that, either from an interview you may have done with him, or from your research that you may have done on him in advance of deciding to write about him?

Off-Topic Discussion / Re: Happy birthday, Schofield Kid!
« on: October 17, 2023, 05:47:05 AM »
Hope that you had a great day and best wishes to you for a wonderful upcoming year!  O0

Clint Eastwood is no longer listed as part of the cast in the IMBD listing for "Juror #2".

This project was stopped due to the actors strike, not the writers strike. While this is a positive sign that the studios are willing to resolve some of these issues, they still need to resolve the issues with the SAG before filming can be resumed.

Eastwood News / Re: Eastwood Symphonic
« on: September 22, 2023, 03:30:54 PM »
Is this an interview with Clint and Kyle for 90 minutes? Because that would be a cool thing to see!

Unfortunately, I don't appear able to see it. It seems blocked. Does anyone know a way to get around this without using a VPN, which I don't have?

Are there any highlights from the interview that you can share for us, since I suspect U.S. citizens won't be able to watch this.

General Discussion / Re: Clint Eastwood As Brand
« on: September 12, 2023, 08:09:53 PM »
This is a very thought provoking topic. It seems like your questions related more to how Eastwood has used himself as a brand in his personal life rather than the movies he chooses to make. I've thought about this and I just don't know or have a frame of reference to judge. I think to know why he chose to make certain advertisements or why he chose to leverage his brand, you'd have to know his personal reasons regarding why he did what he did. This is information that we just don't have access to. For example, after decades of never endorsing a political candidate, in 2012, he chose to endorse Mitt Romney and speak at the Republican convention. I don't know why he did that. Was there something in particular about President Obama's presidency that he reacted strongly against? What was the root of that decision? We just don't know. Why did he decide to make the Pale Rider Ale, given that, as you note, he really isn't a big drinker, or invest in the Hogs Breath Inn? We can't know. Perhaps he had a friend who needed an investment? I think at times, he's done movies to help people in his life out that he likely wouldn't have done otherwise, such as "Trouble with the Curve" and "Cry Macho". Does this extend to causes or charities he supports as well, or investments that he makes?

Some aspects of how he has leveraged his financial resources I think make a lot of sense, because he's spoken about them, like why he chose to buy the Mission Ranch hotel and the Tehama properties, and that is because of his strong desire to preserve land from development, but environmentalism really isn't a strong focus of Eastwood's characters or his movies. Similarly, we know he's an animal lover, so he's been supportive of his daughters animal charity, but again, that's in more of a personal capacity than it is reflective of his brand as an actor or a director. Alternatively, there are times when he has chosen to protect his brand in other ways, not by supporting causes, but instead by fighting against them, such as recent lawsuits he filed, and won, against a manufacturer of marijuana products when they claimed he had endorsed them when he had not. Why did he choose to fight this, but he chose not to fight others who may have used his brand without his permission as well? Does he have a particular disdain for marijuana, or drug use in general? Why did he run for mayor of Carmel? Some speculate it was partly because the bureaucracy in Carmel had denied construction for one of his business properties. I think so much of what Eastwood chooses to do, both as a filmmaker, as well as in his personal life, through charity work and the like, is shrouded in mystery, in large part because he chooses not to be very public about it or explain his rationale or his criteria for when he chooses to lend his name to support a cause. However, I think in order to answer your very good questions, we'd need to know this information.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 170

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