News: Having trouble registering?  Please feel free to contact us at help[at]clinteastwood.org.  We will help you get an account set up.


0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this board.
« previous next »
Pages: [1] 2 Go Down Print
Author Topic: Who saw RICHARD JEWELL? Members' Comments (NO SPOILERS, PLEASE)  (Read 14768 times)
KC
Administrator
Member Extraordinaire
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 32408


Control ...


View Profile WWW Email
« on: December 13, 2019, 01:33:49 AM »

Richard Jewell opens in the US today, so it's time to get our traditional "members' comments" threads started.

We welcome all thoughts and comments and even full-fledged reviews of the film, but please... NO SPOILERS IN THIS THREAD. If you feel that what you want to say about the film may spoil it for those who haven't yet seen it, then please post in our SPOILERS thread for Richard Jewell:

http://www.clinteastwood.org/forums/index.php?topic=10915.0
Logged
honkytonkman
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 116


View Profile Email
« Reply #1 on: December 13, 2019, 04:25:18 AM »

It won't be possible for me to see "Richard Jewell" until January 22nd , the date of its Belgian release, and therefore I will be delighted to read your first impressions here and see if you think or confirm, like some reviews I have read, that 'This is Eastwood's best movie since' Letters from Iwo-Jima '...

Logged
exit00
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 489


Dying ain't much of a livin'


View Profile Email
« Reply #2 on: December 13, 2019, 12:52:06 PM »

Watched this at a 11:30 screening with a pretty good crowd of 30-40 people.  I liked this a lot and maybe more than any other Eastwood "true-life" films.  The tension during the bombing scene was typical great Eastwood direction.  Rockwell is very good as the lawyer but Hauser as Jewell is so terrific.... I hope he isn't skipped over during Oscar time.... he so effectively makes us feel the pain of what Jewell had to go thru as an innocent guy.   I wouldn't say it was the "best" movie Eastwood has made since Letters From Iwo-Jima (I would have to put Gran Torino in that spot) but it's certainly a very good, well crafted movie.
Logged
Matt
Global Moderator
Member Extraordinaire
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 14881



View Profile WWW Email
« 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 Offline

Posts: 5200



View Profile Email
« Reply #4 on: December 15, 2019, 10:37:30 AM »

I complain about movies Clint directs but doesn’t star in, but I’ll be checking this out soon.  If anything, I’m looking forward to redemption for The 15:17 To Paris. 

The subject matter does look interesting and from what I’ve seen in the trailers thus far, appears to be an entertaining, thought-provoking film.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Logged

“Eyuh.”
Rawhide7
Member Extraordinaire
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1274



View Profile Email
« Reply #5 on: December 16, 2019, 06:22:27 PM »

Really good movie. Acting in this movie was awesome by everyone. Reflection on Eastwoods great directing.  Highly recommend everyone see this film.
Logged
Perry
Member Extraordinaire
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1119


I'm a llama!


View Profile Email
« Reply #6 on: December 18, 2019, 03:39:08 PM »




        Which is the main reason most people wont see it. It doesn't have special effects, comic book characters or a robot.
Logged
Rawhide7
Member Extraordinaire
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1274



View Profile Email
« Reply #7 on: December 18, 2019, 09:24:54 PM »

I know right Perry. It's sad. But you are right. I've never been much into all the special effects. Not a huge fan of the marvel hero type movies. With the exception of Batman. I like 1989 Batman movie and The Dark Knight. But that's pretty much it. I like just a good movie with a good plot/storyline good atmosphere, and great acting. The Mule was a great movie to me. I've always preferred movies that Eastwood acts in over direct only movies. But the man is a great director.
Logged
Jed Cooper
Classic Member
Member Extraordinaire
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5200



View Profile Email
« 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.”
Perry
Member Extraordinaire
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1119


I'm a llama!


View Profile Email
« Reply #9 on: December 19, 2019, 01:19:34 PM »


  Well, Rawhide7 ,there really hasn't been much to be persuaded to go see in the movie theatres on a consistent basis for many years and I don't think it has anything to do with the fact I'm older. I remember being dragged to go see Star Wars in 1977 as a kid and saying to myself, " What is this s--t?" I knew even then the movie industry would never be the same. Eventually I'll go see the Jewell movie, but like many in this forum I'm tired of the Biography movies Eastwood has done over the years.
Logged
AKA23
Classic Member
Member Extraordinaire
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3546



View Profile Email
« 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
exit00
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 489


Dying ain't much of a livin'


View Profile Email
« Reply #11 on: December 26, 2019, 05:48:47 PM »

AKA23 - Im pretty much on the same page with all that you wrote.  Yeah, it does seem that Clint loves these stories about ordinary people becoming true heroes in some way.  And I also feel that I lose something watching a movie when I already know what the story is... where there is no surprises along the way... thus those movies aren't as powerful to me, no matter how well done they are.   I was also thinking earlier about a comparison between this movie and Dirty Harry... in the way many critics didn't "get it" and focused on some theme or agenda that wasn't the intent.  I remember words like "fascist" and "vigilante" being used when Dirty Harry came out where the real message I believe was just that Harry had enough of the usual bureaucracy that let the bad guys go free or innocent people die.  Likewise, critics are focusing too much on the negative view of an FBI agent and a newspaper reporter instead of the main story of how a rush to judgment by law enforcement and news media can really damage innocent people... which is even more pronounced in today's world it seems.  I don't know if the book said anything about the reporter and the FBI guy but I'm assuming that the script had it.  And we know that there was a most definite rush to judgment to name a suspect and how it so damaged the life of Jewell... and I think this is what drew Clint to make the film
Logged
AKA23
Classic Member
Member Extraordinaire
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3546



View Profile Email
« Reply #12 on: December 27, 2019, 11:05:02 AM »

I don't know how I forgot to mention this earlier, but Kathy Bates was definitely a stand out as Bobbi Jewell. She was perfectly cast as well, and played off nicely with Paul Walter Hauser.

Exit, I agree with you. I actually don't think that Clint's primary motivation for making "Richard Jewell," or any of the other films that I mentioned, was to push a conservative agenda, but taken together, they definitely are of a piece and do seem to promote those viewpoints or communicate admiration for persons who are admired by conservatives and criticism for institutions that are not. I thought that might generate some interesting discussion on the board about whether others also perceive that in Eastwood's recent work  and that some may have thoughts as to why that might be.
Logged
-satu-
Member Extraordinaire
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1717



View Profile Email
« Reply #13 on: January 09, 2020, 04:58:01 AM »

Have to wait until 21st Feb to see this when it comes out here. Luckily, Santa brought me a gift card for our movie theatre so I’m all set and ready to go when the time comes ;D
Logged

Could anyone else have seen the beauty of it?
KC
Administrator
Member Extraordinaire
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 32408


Control ...


View Profile WWW Email
« Reply #14 on: January 09, 2020, 08:33:30 AM »

We'll be looking forward to your report, satu! Always nice to hear from you. :)
Logged
antonis
Member Extraordinaire
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1565


I'm afraid you have misjudged me...


View Profile Email
« Reply #15 on: January 17, 2020, 08:58:54 AM »

The film premiered in Greece yesterday.As always for the past 28 years (since Unforgiven) I had to see it during its opening day. And so did I :)

I liked this one better than his previous "real life" efforts . Not a masterpiece but a solid good movie, with excellent performances from the whole cast .
The man made a -at least- watchable film out of nothing and with no professional actors a couple of years ago (15:17 ...) so this was an easier effort, which makes me wonder if he has become lazy. Apart from the lack of originality of his recently told stories all the films are common suburb dramas. No action here. Even the explotion scene is underplayed , as was the train attack in 15:17 or the plain crash in Sully. Perhaps this style echoes the director's approach . He doesn't care for the act but, for its consequences.

8/10

 
Logged

a MAN has got to know his public's expectations...
KC
Administrator
Member Extraordinaire
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 32408


Control ...


View Profile WWW Email
« Reply #16 on: January 18, 2020, 07:53:04 AM »

"He doesn't care for the act but, for its consequences." I think you've hit on something there, antonis.
Logged
palooka
Member Extraordinaire
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 573



View Profile Email
« Reply #17 on: February 04, 2020, 01:55:28 AM »

I enjoyed it much more than I thought I would. A very solid film which was interesting from start to finish. Performances were excellent. Looking forward to a second viewing with Mrs Palooka.
Logged

You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
The Schofield Kid
Global Moderator
Member Extraordinaire
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 24956


All on account of pulling a trigger.


View Profile Email
« Reply #18 on: February 04, 2020, 02:17:27 AM »

I enjoyed it much more than I thought I would. A very solid film which was interesting from start to finish. Performances were excellent. Looking forward to a second viewing with Mrs Palooka.

No cameo in this one palooka?
Logged

"Winners are simply willing to do what losers won't."
palooka
Member Extraordinaire
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 573



View Profile Email
« Reply #19 on: February 06, 2020, 12:57:11 AM »

No cameo in this one palooka?

Sadly not this time Schofield.
Logged

You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
Pages: [1] 2 Go Up Print 
 




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