Clint Eastwood returns to cowboy country in Cry Macho
The 91-year-old writer-director revisits the Western after a nearly 30-year absence
Film Reviews Eastwood
The Macho in the title of Clint Eastwood’s latest, Cry Macho, refers to the name of a prize fighting rooster owned by a 13-year-old Mexican boy, as well as the machismo the rooster represents. It’s 1980, and the boy, Rafa (Eduardo Minett), is traveling north to meet the American father he barely knows at the border, accompanied by an elderly Texas cowboy, Mike (Eastwood), who’s carrying out what’s technically a kidnapping as a favor to the dad. The rooster is along for the ride, much to Mike’s annoyance. The symbolism is that of the passage to manhood and its attendant false idols, though as with Eastwood’s last starring vehicle, The Mule, there’s less journeying here than stopping and detouring.
To an Eastwood fan, much of Cry Macho will feel like a minor-key variation on familiar motifs, with the sentiment laid on thick. Though he is forever enshrined as Harry Callahan and the Man With No Name, the actor-director has at this point spent decades deconstructing the iconography that made him a star, making movies that tell us, in one way or another, that heroism is momentary while regret tends to be a lifelong affair, and that those who hide behind toughened exteriors end up looking back on emptiness.
Here, at the age of 91, almost 30 years since he parted ways with the Western genre in Unforgiven, he once again dons the wide-brimmed hat, and even briefly saddles up a horse (though it’s definitely a stunt double that’s doing the riding). Stooped, shaky, and no longer so tall, he is nonetheless a familiar Eastwood figure, afflicted with could-have-beens. Long ago he lost his rodeo stardom to a broken back and his family to a car accident; more recently, he’s lost his job as a horse trainer to booze and old age. The man who fired him is Rafa’s dad, Howard (Dwight Yoakam), who claims that unspecified “legal issues” prevent him from setting foot in Mexico. As we soon learn, Mike is actually the third man he’s sent to retrieve the boy.
The plot, however, is purely secondary, with the stakes a distant third; the emphasis is on what might be called the vibes. If Eastwood has anything to say about the cowboy archetype, it’s that he can still be a role model, provided we accept his imperfections. Driving the moody, delinquent Rafa from Mexico City to the border, Mike teaches mostly by example. From him, we learn that a cowboy must cook (“Cowboys always cook—it’s kind of our deal”), love animals, value the open air, and know how to fix a jukebox.
One has to wonder if Eastwood, through Mike, is addressing the younger audience that probably won’t see the film, the older audience that will, or his own status as a living cultural memory. The bond between Mike and Rafa is never remotely convincing (Eastwood’s style remains merciless to young and inexperienced actors), but it’s hard not to be moved by the sight of this wizened old man choking up and crying under the deep shadow of his hat brim.
Eventually, the cowboy and the kid find themselves lying low in a pleasant little village, where Mike catches the eye of Marta (Natalia Traven), a widow who runs a local restaurant, leading to scattered sweet moments as well as agonizing longueurs. As with Eastwood’s other late works, one has to expect bum notes, a certain crankiness and creakiness, awkward pacing, and stereotypes in the minor roles. Some peculiarities of The Mule have carried over—namely Eastwood’s predilection for driving montages and his insistence on portraying his character as irresistible to assorted younger women. Whether or not a viewer finds these charming probably depends on how invested they are in interpreting Cry Macho as an Eastwood text.
The fact is that, as a movie, Cry Macho is slow and sometimes dull. But as a statement by Hollywood’s oldest leading man and working director, it offers its share of gleaming low-key insights. As in The Mule (to which it really is a companion piece), Eastwood is out to remind us that a lot of life just consists of going to bed and eating different kinds of sandwiches; one better get used to it, and try to enjoy it. Just in case we don’t get the message, he rasps it out at the end: “This macho thing is overrated.”
140 Comments
MACHO!!!!!!!
NACHO!!!!!!
I’ve only seen the commercials for this in passing, not paying attention, didn’t realize it was an actual movie. So I genuinely thought it was a Taco Bell Nacho Fries commercial somehow and was wondering how the hell they got Clint Eastwood.
Clint Eastwood IS Macho Man Randy Savage, OOOH, YEAH! I wonder what Clint’s stance on cream is….
“I don’t think I’ll ever be over Cry Macho.”
Those wounds run pretty deep.
The review does say that Eastwood’s character has a drinking problem.
What do the boys on the board have to say about the movie?
Elaine: Why don’t we drive up the coast to that little seafood place, and… what’s the matter?
Ted: My orders came through. My squadron ships out tomorrow. We’re bombing the storage depots at Daquiri at 1800 hours. We’re coming in from the north, below their radar.
Elaine: When will you be back?
Ted: I can’t tell you that. It’s classified.
Ted: Because of my mistake, six men didn’t return from that raid.
Elaine: Seven. Lieutenant Zip died this morning.
We’ll probably have to wait for the Blu-Ray for Cry Macho Grande. And what then?
CAMACHO!
I remember when he got his ass handed to him by Julio Cesar Chavez. He was a fun fighter to watch though.
If I were a boxer, I hope my nickname was “The Sissy”, because I don’t like pressure and prefer to under-promise and over-deliver.
Murry ‘Not in the Face!’ Chang would be my nickname. Make ‘em think twice I bet!
“Why I think I’ll hit him precisely in the face!” -Soda Popinski
Oddly enough, gladiators often had feminine sounding names. I don’t blame them. I don’t imagine a gladiator with a name such as Bonecrusher Brutus would last very long in the arena.
I would likely be nicknamed: Ow! My Face!”
NYC “Knockout” Paul…he delivers every time!
There’s something sort of noble about Eastwood letting himself age on screen like this. A lot of actors quit, or slow down a lot, around the time they turn 70. That’s probably a function of a few things: fewer offers, feeling like there’s nothing left to prove, but I think vanity has a lot to do with it also. And Eastwood seems to have no problem making us face our own mortality. “Yeah, I used to be a sex symbol, but look at me now. And it’ll happen to you too!” We’re practically watching him slowly die on screen, in real time. I have to sort of respect that.
yeah but there’s also a quiet ‘fuck you i’m 91 and i can still do this, too’ which i also love.
I may be entirely off base, but I imagine most senior actors would LOVE to have roles, they just don’t have the luxury of casting themselves in movies they are directing.
I’m made to understand he directed himself having TWO threesomes in The Mule, so I’m not so sure he’s gracefully and steadfastly refusing to justify his existence as a man.
I’d agree with you, if he didn’t have two threesomes in The Mule.
I didn’t say there was no vanity involved
Clint is slamming crackers like Shaquille, sh*t is real. He’s gonna get into a fight with a chair.
“insistence on portraying his character as irresistible to assorted younger women”I don’t know about irresistible, but the man looks amazing for 91.
Are we looking at the same person? He looks like a tissue paper thin piece of skin that has bee. stretched across a skull and stapled in the back. Which is fine, he’s old as shit, but I sure wouldn’t call that “amazing” for any age.
He’s still doing better than every single one of my grandparents, none of whom made it to 91.
I have several blind spots in my film watching history, and I don’t think I’ve ever watched a single film that stars Eastwood. I’ve watched movies he’s directed in the last couple decades, but none that he’s starred in himself. Recommendations?
Bronco Billy, The Man with No Name trilogy, Dirty Harry…those are the essentials, but he’s made a lot more great ones too like that In The Line of Fire movie.
Any of the Fistful of Dollars trilogy, particularly The Good, the Bad and the Ugly.
Cannot agree with this enough. GB&U is really a great movie all the way through. It highlights some of the most keynote practices in movie-making that just don’t seem to be used as much anymore (ie: the long drawn out pauses in dialogue, extreme close-ups on the actors’ faces). Any one of the Dollars Trilogy movies are fantastic for these very reasons.What I think is the most disappointing aspect to GB&U’s place in history is that it’s often relegated to being referred to simply as a Clint Eastwood film.
When in actuality it is a fantastic culmination of three amazing actors at the height of their talent (Clint Eastwood, Lee Van Cleef, and Eli Wallach), a brilliant director who really worked at the ground floor of what’s been described as the “gritty” movie genre (Sergio Leone), and an iconic score by Ennio Morricone that threatens to steal the show from the very actors at almost every turn.The last thirty minutes of the movie really hit a crescendo in the plot, the acting, the cinematography, and the score. Easily one of the most memorable moments from any movie.I’m obviously biased, but I totally recommend any of the Dollars Trilogy movies for a first foray into Eastwood’s films. Especially GB&U. For a Few Dollars More is also fantastic, if only for the fact that it lets Van Cleef and Eastwood chew up the dialogue to a greater extent. Either way, you can’t go wrong.
I’d argue For A Few Dollars More is the best of the Man With No Name trilogy. Dirty Harry’s probably the best Dirty Harry movie. Pale Rider, High Plains Drifter or Josey Wales if you want a taste of his other Westerns. Unforgiven for definite. In The Line Of Fire if you want to see him do his best Harrison Ford impersonation. Bridges of Madison County deserves its praise, even if you’re not into romances. And Million Dollar Baby has some stunning work in it.
That’s probably all that’s needed. The rest is either Clint looking for a paycheck or luxuriating in his being an old crank. Out of the remainder, Space Cowboys is the most notable for being both, but still amiable enough to fold laundry to.
I’d add “Thunderbolt and Lightfoot” (1974) to this list, made even better by the presence of a very young Jeff Bridges.
I’d say these are some decent flicks that fall outside of those areas that are worth a watch:Play Misty for Me
The Eiger SanctionAny Which Way But LooseEscape from AlcatrazWhere Eagles DareThe BeguiledKelly’s HeroesThunderbolt and Lightfoot
Absolutely second In the Line of Fire. Everyone knows the westerns and Dirty Harrys, but gotta recommends some other under the radar pics. I’d also recommend Escape from Alcatraz, Absolute Power, Space Cowboys and Bloodwork.
I was discussing this the other day. Few Dollars More is definitely the best and it’s because Van Cleef is such a great foil for Clint. The final duel with the pocket watches is just…ughh…so good.
I would add to the list his Dirty Harry movies, Where Eagles Dare, Play Misty For Me, Escape From Alcatraz, Firefox. I don’t agree with his politics but the man is an institution. I basically like all of his movies.
Absolute Power is dumb fun if you don’t think too hard about it
Up-voted for ranking For a Few Dollars More as the best of those three. Typically, the argument for the best seems to be between the first and the third. I find the middle is truly the “happy medium” in terms of style and sweep.
I give the top prize to GB&U but definitely prefer More to Fistful.
My ‘cook to’ = your ‘fold laundry to’.
Unforgiven is a top 10 movie for me.
“Hell, even I thought I was dead. Turned out I was just in Nebraska.”
I watched it and was shocked by how truly good it is.
I love how they set up a character to be the Big Bad, and then that character promptly gets his ass handed to him.
The Duck of Death.
I really loved ‘Gran Torino’. He’s already older here and it’s a great little movie.
Nah it was racist
Thunderbolt and Lightfoot for one of his warmer performances (and also some of Jeff Bridges’ best work ever).
Unforgiven is a masterwork. Mystic River is amazing.
I loved Unforgiven, but I could have lived without several fewer instances of him pointing out how he doesn’t want to kill people anymore. He might as well turn toward the camera and shout the movie’s central concept, Spike Lee-style. Just so everybody gets it.
As everybody stated, the Man with No Name Trilogy and Unforgiven are pure essentials though, if you aren’t familiar with classic westerns, I would recommend watching a couple first to see what the Clint Eastwood westerns are deconstructing.
After that, I would recommend Play Misty for Me, his 70’s westerns (High Plains Drifter and the Outlaw Josey Wales), and his Don Siegel movies (the first Dirty Harry and Escape from Alcatraz)
Lastly, even though he doesn’t “star” so much as give supporting roles, I would recommend Million Dollar Baby and A Perfect World. Both are smart and deeply human while the later is criminally overlooked.
Play Misty for me is particularly poignant these days because the love interest is a young Jessica Walter (Lucille Bluth and Mallory Archer to modern audiences) whom we lost in March.
I can’t abide everyone else here leaving out Two Mules for Sister Sara, because Shirley MacClaine is very good opposite Clint.
I’ve never watched a movie he’s starred in… no wait, I saw Gran Torino, but I did enjoy Letters From Iwo Jima.
As far as his directorial work, I’ve seen plenty of his movies and never found any of them to be remarkable. I thought Million Dollar Baby was awful, but the rest were just fine. I don’t really get the acclaim for his work.So I say feel free to skip em! haha
He’s no Scorsese, but he’s done some fine directorial work. He’s a workman like Don Siegel or Walter Hill, not an artiste. A story I heard somewhere was where he was directing a scene (I think in Bronco Billy) where a car is overheating and steam is billowing out from under the hood. They had dry ice, and the first time they tried it, there was barely any steam visible. They tried another take, and this time so much steam was billowing out that you couldn’t see the car. They tried less, and this time you could barely see it again. Eastwood said, “Alright, that’s good enough. We’re not making a movie about a car overheating.”
His directorial style is basically asking the actors “Did you we think we got it?….OK, let’s move on.” He’s very adamant about not being one of those 100-take studios, which is great for studios and talent alike because he can crank out a movie more efficiently than just about anyone even at his Gandalf-worthy age.
But he’s so fucking slow. Scenes just drag on forever in too many of his movies. And I’m not somebody who expects everything to move 100 mph. It might be nice, though, if he could average at least 40 mph.
Aren’t we already over the auteur/workman classicism? It’s a distinction as rancid to me as high/low culture
Then I guess you’re over it.
Yep. He’s a workmanlike director. Came out of the Studio Contract era, and still thinks that way. I think many of his directed films are so so, but he’s still a pillar of the old school filmmakers.
pretty crazy that noone has mentioned ‘the bridges of madison county’edit: i see now that my brain was merely waiting until i wrote this comment to register the fact that it has been mentioned.
Jump around in genres: that is my recommendation. Check one of his spaghetti with Leone, one of his thrillers, one of his Americana dramas, and personally I think most of his heart can be seen in the flawed, fun, Heartbreak Ridge. My favourite is still the Philip kaufman almost remake of good bad ugly, “the outlaw josey Wales”
Everyone seems to have forgotten his riveting performance as “Old Man Talks to a Chair” during the 2012 Republican National Convention. Definitely on the Must-See list. In all seriousness, Eiger Sanction, and Heartbreak Ridge are two of the lesser-known films that I would recommend, plus of course Unforgiven. I was never a huge fan of the Sergio Leone spaghetti westerns but I know they are considered #Iconic so give them a whirl.
Heartbreak Ridge is a favorite of mine.
If you only have time for one, go for Unforgiven. It’s his best, both as a star and a director. In my opinion.
Once you’ve watched the Dollar trilogy, you need to see ‘Once Upon a Time in the West’. It’s sort of the fourth movie with the same Eastwood character except they cast Charles Bronson. This time Leone had a budget and American actors, so it is beautiful and doesn’t struggle as much with the rough over dubbing the trilogy had. Also Henry Fonda as the villain is amazing. And Morricone’s score is his best. Warning: there is a decent chance you won’t like it the first time you see it, I didn’t, but there is a reason why critics and filmmakers will list it as one of the best if not the best movie ever made. In fact, I didn’t even have to watch it again before I realized how much I liked it. The movie just sat there rattling around in my brain for a couple days as I worked through what I just saw.
If you’re into Cinema, the Dollars Trilogy is seminal.
If you’re not into Cinema, the Dollars Trilogy is seminal.
Play Misty for Me, definitely. Not your typical Eastwood film (it was his first directing) but beautifully shot.
The Clint spans generations and “none” covers a lot of movies. I suspect recommendations are associated with era because we had sixty years to climb on board.
I checked his endless titles and I was surprised that my favourite memories were outside his tough and silent stereotype as much as within, while acknowledging the spaghetti westerns and rogue detective that made him famous.
It’s still squinting Clint, but I’ll recommend The Eiger Sanction and Kelly’s Heroes to show how he wore different hats without really changing much. I think you should start with Rawhide to see his incubation period—after previous appearances that were all over the map as rookies will do—then watch Fistful/Few/GBU for pure entertainment and his stereotype firming up. Follow that with Kelly and Eiger to show how great he was on autopilot, then skip to the end with Unforgiven that should have been his retirement bow, an acknowledgement and rejection of the macho past he iconified. According to IMDb that’s seven out of seventy-two, and it’s so easy to get caught up in thisandthisandthis writing about his career.
All his actor titles are watchable but variants of those milestones. Thirty years of post-unforgivens lost their edge and were redundant or derivative as the article describes. Even the titles I’d rather forget are memorable, like the orangutan or the wife casting that I associate with drive-in pablum. Feeling a little nostalgic today after learning Norm Macdonald is gone.
Unforgiven.
In addition to all the recommendations you’ve received, 2000’s Space Cowboys with him, Tommy Lee Jones, Donald Sutherland, and James Garner, which is as fun as that quartet sounds, as well as a very oddball starring/directing outing for him as a sci-fi comedy/Apollo-13-style space nailbiter.
UnforgivenAnything from the “Man with No Name” trilogyDirty HarryThe Outlaw Josey WalesHang ‘em HighAny of these are extremely watchable.
I have watched The Good The Bad and The Ugly 30 times. It’s a great movie. I wonder how it plays to today’s viewer just getting in to Eastwood, though.The Outlaw Josey Wales is hugely quotable and a great western more grounded in reality.He did a great heist movie called Thunderbolt and Lightfoot with a VERY young Jeff Bridges. That’s a good one.
The Good, The Bad, And The Ugly is one of the great epics – and it really is epic.
Dirty Harry is well worth it. It’s a blunt, ugly, mean action movie. No lessons are taught. Thunderbolt & Lightfoot may be my favorite of all his movies, though. He and (a very young) Jeff Bridges have real chemistry in it.
The lesson of Dirty Harry is play stupid games, win stupid prizes. He’s pretty much the prototype for every loose cannon, gets results detective.
I finally watched the Dirty Harry sequels and they ain’t so bad, especially Magnum Force, the plot of a secret Police order was significant for today, you would think Dirty Harry would’ve sided with them. And watching them back to back its funny how his partners always follow a similar red shirt fate. of course I hate how they portray progressive laws as being soft on criminals so these films can be a hard to watch but as someone who is obsessed with San Francisco on film, it’s great to see how much SF has changed since the 1970s as all these were filmed on location in SF.(IF you’re a SF Giants fan (I am not BTW, Dodgers all the way) there is a nice sequence in The Enforcer where they cut from the mayor at a Giants game at Candlestick to one of the baddies at the Lefty O’Doul Bridge and you can clearly see old warehouses behind her which would eventually become the site of Oracle Park).
They aren’t bad, but you’re right- having Harry fight fascism is a bit of a stretch.
Unforgiven is probably the final word on the myth of the American west and the western film genre. It’s a perfect movie.But honestly I wouldn’t start there, because much of its power comes from the fact that Eastwood was instrumental for decades in building that image. The Man with No Name trilogy (Good, Bad, Ugly the best known) is among the most pure of his western adventures; High Plains Drifter, Outlaw Josey Wales and Pale Rider all show signs of what would culminate in Unforgiven.
Seemingly forgotten, HIGHLY entertaining Eastwood: In the Line of Sight. Plays the last active Secret Service agent who was in the service when Kennedy was shot. Amazing John Malkovich performance, and peak Renee Russo as kickers. Young Dylan McDermott Mulroney as well.
Where Eagles Dare. Richard Burton gets more screen time, but Clint Eastwood is great in this. Also, just a really great war/spy movie.
Unforgiven is a classic and one of my five favorite films. And it’s modern enough to not feel very dated, unlike much of his early work (which I also generally love). So I’d suggest to start there. It’s beautiful, atmospheric, and intelligent—a very rich text even if you don’t get the (overstated) extent of its Western deconstruction. The real theme of it is the brutality of American capitalism, which is arguably more relevant today than when it was made, even.
After that, the Man With No Name trilogy are three of the five or six best spaghetti Westerns, directed by one of the all-time great directors. Fistful of Dollars is fun and lean, but For a Few Dollars More and The Good, the Bad… are the better two movies IMO. And as it’s a very loose trilogy with no through story, you can skip the first and come back to it later if you want.
Dirty Harry should be seen simply for its place in film history. I don’t think it’s a great movie but it’s an iconic and influential one.That’s where I’d start. Lots of other movies named here are worthy but those four are the ones I’d show almost anyone who was even remotely interested in movies.
A lot of good suggestions in this list. I would definitely recommend The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly, The Outlaw Josey Wales, Pale Rider and Unforgiven for a taste of his westerns (and how they changed over time, as that covers the 60s, 70s, 80s and 90s). Play Misty for Me and Dirty Harry for his 70s dramas, and (since I haven’t seen it mentioned) Firefox for a good, early-80s Cold War techno-thriller. Throw in one of his 80s Harry movies and a comedy (Any Which Way but Loose) and you have his career as an actor well covered.
Once you get past the classics everyone is listing, I like Play Misty for Me (the prototype for the Crazy Spurned Woman movie), The Beguiled , and Thunderbolt and Lightfoot. Eastwood often selects roles where his character is kind of shifty, or messed-up, or a straight-up louse, and I find that refreshing when most actors go for roles that show them at their best. I like that he isn’t afraid to come off like a creep.
Unforgiven is my favorite. Gran Torino is really good from his more recent work.
Michael Cimino’s “Thunderbolt and Lightfoot” is an overlooked gem. A super fun “caper” flick with gorgeous cinematography. It’s got an amazing cast too.
Rec: The Outlaw Josey Wales
Play Misty For Me.
Unforgiven. The Outlaw Josey Wales. The Eiger Sanction.
How many more of these old white guy morality plays do we have to watch. I mean, the ones he decides to star in are getting progressively more embarrassing. 90 year old men can’t fight, shoot they can’t even drive. I also don’t think the old racist who lives on the corner or in car has anything of value to teach me or anyone. And then when he decides to just direct some passion project he makes some mealy mouth crap like The Sniper which pays tribute to one of the worst human beings ever
Dear god, this so much. I was struggling to put what I wanted to say into words, but “How many more of these old white guy morality plays do we have to watch?” sums it up perfectly. It’s been a good 15 years since I’ve felt like Eastwood’s variations on a theme re: white men felt even remotely fresh, and that was mostly because Hilary Swank did the heavy lifting in Million Dollar Baby. His work in the last 15 years is so tiresome in its dogged insistence upon elevating a certain kind of white man, and it’s just enough. Enough.
I want Eastwood to just throw us a curveball and star in some period drama. And I want him to give a tour de force performance. I want to hear people say “Wow, who knew this man who has played cops and cowboys his entire career could give such a riveting performance as Edward Longshanks?!”
He didn’t star in it, but Changeling was a period piece set before he was born which he directed.
Ah, I forgot about that movie. Though when I say “period piece”, I want it to be when men wore tights, eiderdowns, doublets, etc. lol. Or alternatively, I want him to star in one of those British films Eddie Hazard talks about, which are very subdued. “What is it, Sebastian? I’m arranging matches.”“Oh…I….ohh. I think I better go.”“Yes, I think you better have.”Ahhhhhh…..
I think those are called “costume dramas”.
“What are ya doin’ with the f***in’ matches! Always in here with the f***in’ …
Clint Eastwood IS Crazy Eddie in “A Rackfull Of Babies”. I just realized that autocorrect turned Eddie Izzard into Eddie Hazzard, and now I think that should be Eastwood’s character name.
I want to see Eastwood play Henry VIII—’’Mr. Pope! I’m gonna marry my first wife, then I’m gonna divorce her. Now, I know what you’re gonna say, but stick with me. My story gets better.’’
Clint Eastwood IS Henry VIII IN “Dirty Henry”. “All right Pope, now did I marry six wives or two?”.
Eddie mocks Brit films, but he was cracking as the Home Guard officer Captain Waggett in the Whisky Galore! remake.
Man, I was about to call you on that one. I honestly don’t remember that that movie existed AT ALL.
I never saw it myself, I just recall Blank Check discussing it as still fitting into his interests because it’s about a woman who got RAILROADED!
He DID do a very weird gothic horror movie in the 70s. It’s called The Beguiled and is largely forgotten. Try that one.
Ooh, I think I will.
The Beguiled is awesome, especially compared to the rest of his filmography
I liked the Eiger Sanction, the movie you’re talking about they did a remake with Colin Farrell
You don’t “have” to watch any of them. No one’s making you.
What makes you think you have to watch it?
So maybe it ain’t for you. That’s cool.The thing is, though, they are always gonna be making more movies for “old white guys” because there are always gonna BE “old white guys”. It’s just how time works. People get old. The guys who were 50 and feeling at their prime a decade ago are now 60 and feeling their mortality a bit. And they still wanna watch movies, so people are gonna make movies for em.
I think you’re missing the point
He’s a known misogynistic, cheating asshole, who, for instance, ruined Jean Seberg’s life after having one of two simultaneous affairs with her on the set of ’Paint Your Wagon’, as well as sabotaging his ex-lover Sondra Locke’s acting career out of pure spite. Besides that, and his right-wing ramblings to empty chairs, he simply is not a very good actor – the term ‘one-note’ fits perfectly. As far as his directing career is concerned, I can’t stand any of his movies except for ‘Play Misty For Me’ and ‘Unforgiven’ – out of 45 credits, that’s not exactly a high score. Even of you disagree with me regarding his talent, you’d be hard-pressed to convince me that this guy has any right to tell any moralistic tales whatsoever.
You literally don’t have to watch any of them.
Well, you don’t have to watch any of them. But Eastwood’s interesting because most of the films where he stars and directs are some sort of examination of his earlier work, or at least acknowledge the faults of old white guys (racism and sexism first and foremost). His characters are not the kindly old man across the street.
How many more of these old white guy morality plays do we have to watch?Just ignore them, they’ll go away. I mean they have to eventually, right? It’s not like there’s a lot of 91-year-old Clint Eastwoods out there making movies.
But they can have multiple threesomes with partners decades younger!
These movies have gone from attempts to humanize some questionable targets, which is at least provokes interesting conversations, to old man fantasy camp, which I can’t imagine people under retirement age really enjoying.
I can’t believe they let white people be in movies either.
the best argument against this film, including the kind of film and what it signifies is…this film…which is completely terrible.
Ugh, agree. And it’s not so much “I personally won’t watch it then” and more “and no one should watch this because it’s just brain poison for the next generation of white guys.” We still have to live in a world with the people who like this horseshit even if WE don’t watch it. And that suuuuucks.
and his insistence on portraying his character as irresistible to assorted younger women. Yeah, dude needed to stop with that decades ago already.
The movies Eastwood directs, with a few happy exceptions, tend to be slow as hell, sentimental, and damn-near tedious. That said, there has never been, in the history of movies, an actor with a longer viable career. There are still millions of movie fans who go, “Oh, look- a new Clint Eastwood movie” when he has a new one coming out. People are still interested. The first movie he ever appeared in was…”Revenge of the Creature” in 1955!! That’s almost 70 years ago! It’s nuts. More power to him, boring or not.
Is ‘Sully’ one of those exceptions? Because I found that to be refreshingly brisk and relatively unembellished.
Probably because it’s a pretty short story. The flight was only 6 minutes long.
Although the real Captain Sully didn’t like how the movie made it sound like he resented the FAA investigation. He didn’t. He knew that they had to understand everything about what happened, up to and including investigating whether his “miracle” landing was really worth the risk.
The rooster is along for the ride, much to Mike’s annoyance. The symbolism is that of the passage to manhoodSsometimes, a cock is just a cock.
It means HE AIN’T GONNA DIIIIEEE… NOOOONOOONOOO, y’know he ai’t gonna diiiieee….
It’s so not fair that, because Unforgiven is so goddamned exquisite, I can’t take another Eastwood western seriously. It just needs to end there, for all of our sakes.
is this the old guy who yells at chairs?
So is he game to play Old Man Bruce Wayne in Batman Beyond yet? Time is ticking…
I don’t think Clint Eastwood cares much about superhero bullshit, lol.Also, if you gonna cast an old man to play Bruce in Batman Beyond, you cast Michael Keaton, period. Especially considering he’s 70 years old now.
Jesus, he’s 91?He doesn’t look a day over 90.
Eastwood is out to remind us that a lot of life just consists of going to bed and eating different kinds of sandwichesOnly if you’re doin’ it right.
Wait, does A Perfect World not count as a western? Or was Eastwood’s role too much of a supporting effort?Or is it just the presence of horses?
Clint Eastwood is so old that he doesn’t even look like Clint Eastwood anymore.
“Eastwood is out to remind us that a lot of life just consists of going to bed and eating different kinds of sandwiches” That one cuts deep.
I haven’t seen a Clint-directed movie since Gran Torino, and his addled, empty-chair-bit at the 2012 Republican convention made me question his cognitive function and only reinforced that I hadn’t missed out on anything good.This looks mawkish as hell, and there ain’t no way a 52-year-old woman is going to fall for a 91-year-old codger unless he is loaded with dough.
Eastwood’s predilection for driving montages and his insistence on portraying his character as irresistible to assorted younger womenThe only thing less plausible is the scene where he knocks that guy out. Pretty sure he’d break every bone in his hand if that actually happened.
At the end of the film, after which my viewing companion remarked “Well, that was truly terrible” I said “You would think having a movie that is essentially a two-hander where one of the two just can’t act would have been its biggest problem, but in the end I’m not sure I’d put that in the top three.”What a piece of crap.
> his insistence on portraying his character as irresistible to assorted younger womenyou younguns’ don’t understand. it depends on what those women are looking for in a man. you deal with them city women looking for a Picasso. the country women are looking for a paint by numbers landscape, a warm body who reminds them of the guy she fell in love with at 16, but won’t break their heart