Movie Review Invictus

Invictus (2009) 

Directed by Clint Eastwood 

Written by Anthony Peckham

Starring Matt Damon, Morgan Freeman, Scott Eastwood 

Release Date December 11th, 2009 

Published December 10th, 2009

Streaming Rental on Amazon Prime 

In 1994 the world heralded the ascendancy of Nelson Mandela to the Presidency of South Africa, just three years after his release from Robben Island Prison where he was a political prisoner for nearly 30 years. Mandela and the man who freed him, then President F.W De Klerk were awarded jointly the Nobel Peace Prize as the political system called Apartheid was brought to an end.

Outsiders were aware that Mandela's election was not without strife but how close Mandela came to losing his country to racial, civil war is a story stirringly brought to light for the first time on the big screen in Clint Eastwood's “Invictus.” On the surface you might assume Invictus is a sports movie, rugby after all takes a major role, but the real story is about a leader, a politician and a legend.

The Rugby World Cup was less than a decade old when it came to South Africa for the first time. It wasn't really to be all that notable for the South African national team known as Springboks, the team wasn't supposed to go far. Then something extraordinary happened. One afternoon the captain of the team, Francois Pienaar (Matt Damon) received an invitation to tea with President Mandela.

It was at tea in the Presidential palace that Mandela asked for Pienaar's help in uniting the country. How could he do that? Win the Rugby World Cup. From there these two very different men were bound on a journey neither could have expected with Rugby becoming a unifying cause in a country on the verge of being torn apart forever.

Is that dramatic enough for you? Director Clint Eastwood's great achievement in “Invictus” is giving weight to Mandela's decision to make Rugby a political cause. In 1993-1994 Rugby remained a sport beloved only to whites. Mandela made the calculated decision to relate to the white population through Springboks, a decision not at all welcomed by black South Africans who had hoped the team and its green and yellow colors would be banished to history.

Pienaar's challenge is no less dramatic. Mandela made quite clear to Pienaar all that was at stake in this victory and what might happen if their gambit failed. Damon plays the conflict with humble determination. It's wonderfully subtle yet powerful work from the chameleonic Damon whose last role was a pudgy corn company executive.

As one might expect, Morgan Freeman perfectly embodies the man he has been destined to play, Nelson Mandela. As Roger Ebert and numerous others have pointed out, Freeman has been linked to a number of Mandela biopics over the years. Freeman has met and befriended Mandela and that pays off in “Invictus.” Freeman loses himself in Mandela's accent and manner from moment one, easily conveying the charm, savvy and cool of Mandela.

The real challenge for both Freeman and director Eastwood was not deifying Mandela. That has been the tendency of the handful of previous Mandela movies and they have mostly failed for it. Audiences generally agree with Mandela's greatness, his achievements speak for themselves, but the overly reverent approach puts audiences to sleep.

Freeman's take and Eastwood's direction focus on Mandela's humane charms. The soft voice, his frail health, Mandela suffered from exhaustion amongst other ailments from day one of his Presidency. These are not the outsized traits of a deity but the feel of a real, if exceptional, human being. Freeman's performance is so clever and charming that it may seem too small for some, especially those expecting something more sweeping and dramatic.

Sweeping, epic drama is not what you get in “Invictus.” This is not a film that pauses to marvel at its own dramatic importance. “Invictus” deepens and becomes important when we consider what Mandela and Pienaar accomplished. “Invictus” works by letting us weigh the historic importance while the movie focuses on the story at hand. It’s a remarkable work from a remarkable group of filmmakers and one of the best films of 2009.

Movie Review J Edgar

J. Edgar (2011)

Directed by Clint Eastwood

Written by Dustin Lance Black

Starring Leonardo DiCaprio, Armie Hammer, Naomi Watts, Josh Lucas, Judi Dench 

Release Date November 9th, 2011 

Published November 7th, 2011

J. Edgar Hoover's place in American history is remarkable. From the 1919 Anarchist Bombings to the Lindbergh baby to every famous gangster taken down by arrest or death, Hoover was there. When John F. Kennedy was killed; it was Hoover who informed Bobby Kennedy of the President's death with a terse phone call.

Hoover's place in American history is unquestionable regardless of his unethical, even treasonous acts. J. Edgar Hoover is a towering figure casting a shadow across the 20th century that touched everything from Al Capone to the Cold War to Kennedy's assassination to the beginning of Nixon's downfall.

A Fitting Tribute

The movie "J. Edgar," directed by Clint Eastwood and starring Leonardo DiCaprio, is a fitting tribute to the man. J. Edgar captures the best and the worst of the man who coined the phrase G-Man and revolutionized law enforcement while becoming infamous for his abuse of power and his private struggles with his sexuality.

The story of J. Edgar begins with an elderly J. Edgar Hoover (DiCaprio) dictating his memoirs. We begin with the origins of the Red Scare, the 1919 Anarchist Bombings. Hoover, at the behest of the Attorney General, a target of an assassins in the bombings, giving Hoover the authority to investigate the bombings with new, broader law enforcement powers.

Anarchist Bombings Raid

The Hoover led raid on a suspected communist labor headquarters was a debacle. While it could be proven that leaflets found at the scene of the bombing of the Attorney General's home were printed in this location there was no evidence that the people inside the supposed communist outpost had taken part in acts of terror.

Everyone, aside from Hoover, including the Attorney General lost their jobs because of the raid Hoover organized. With the infrastructure of the then Bureau of Investigations, the Federal moniker would be added later, and the job of director fell to Hoover as the last man standing. He would stay in the position for more than 40 years.

Three Important People

In his time as the head of the FBI J. Edgar Hoover had only three people close to him, his mother (Judi Dench), his secretary for 40+ years, Helen Gandy (Naomi Watts) and Hoover's right hand man, Clyde Tolson (Armie Hammer). The relationship between Hoover and Tolson has been the topic of great conjecture for many years.

The movie "J. Edgar" treats the romance between J. Edgar Hoover and Clyde Tolson with respect and care. Keeping in mind the times in which these men lived, a repressed era when homosexuals faced grave persecution, it makes sense that the relationship is very reserved. That said, "J. Edgar" is not without passion as DiCaprio and Armie Hammer demonstrate remarkable chemistry.

Private Punchline

J.Edgar Hoover's private life has been a punch line for many years. That's because while going out his way to use rumor and innuendo about alternative lifestyles in order to blackmail and manipulate other powerful individuals, it's a karmic comeuppance that Hoover's own private life becomes fodder for ridicule.

That said, director Clint Eastwood and screenwriter Dustin Lance Black treat Hoover's cross-dressing and homosexuality with grace and caring. In fact, it may be Eastwood's considerable tenderness in treating Hoover, making him something of a tragic victim of his time, which may be bothering people the most about "J. Edgar."

A Remarkable, Oscar Worthy Effort

Those who wish only to condemn Hoover's awful excesses will struggle with the moments in "J.Edgar" when Hoover is treated with respect and care and even rendered sympathetic. No man or woman is defined in a single way; there are always degrees and shades. Most of J. Edgar Hoover's life was spent on the wrong path but other parts of his life are worthy of a fair revision.

"J. Edgar" is a remarkable film. Clint Eastwood's direction is artful and studied while Leonardo DiCaprio's performance is layered with sadness, strength and a compelling will. The Academy Awards season has begun and "J. Edgar" is one film highly likely to make an impact on Hollywood's biggest night.

Movie Review Hereafter

Hereafter (2010) 

Directed by Clint Eastwood

Written by Peter Morgan

Starring Matt Damon, Cecile de France

Release Date October 22nd, 2010

Published October 21st, 2010

At 80 years old it appears that Clint Eastwood is ready to start a conversation about death. He's touched on the subject before, in both “Million Dollar Baby” and “Gran Torino,” but that conversation has mostly expressed his futile desire to control his destiny and decide how he goes out. In his new drama “Hereafter” Eastwood begins a conversation about the afterlife that some will find fascinating and others will find unsatisfying.

Matt Damon is ostensibly the star of “Hereafter” as George, a former psychic turned factory worker. George had a very successful business talking to the dead with books and his own website but the inherent sadness of what he did finally forced him to give it up. Now, George keeps to himself out of fear that if he even brushes someone's hand he may pick up some psychic connection to the dead. Needless to say, this has put a crimp in his love life.

Across the globe a French journalist named Marie Lelay (Cécile De France) is on vacation in some unnamed Asian country when it is devastated by a massive tidal wave. Marie is nearly killed and experiences a near death experience. When she returns to Paris to resume her life she finds herself plagued by visions of the hereafter and wanting to know for sure if she had indeed experienced death and proof of an afterlife.

Similar thoughts consume a British youngster named Marcus (Frankie/George McLaren) who has just lost his twin Brother Jason (George/Frankie McLaren). Jason was 12 minutes older and the leader to George's follower personality. Without Jason calling the shots George is unmoored and desperate to find a way to contact Jason in the hereafter. After he is removed from his junkie mom and placed with a nice foster family, George continuously runs away to seek psychics, mediums and any other crackpot promising a glimpse of the afterlife.

These three stories will eventually coalesce into one story in one location and it's a rather jarring use of deus ex machina on the part of director Clint Eastwood and Oscar nominated screenwriter (Peter Morgan). You can forgive the forced and mechanical way the plot trips into one space but it's not easy and requires some serious heavy lifting on the part of star Matt Damon.

Damon is the key to much of what works in “Hereafter.” He plays his psychic wound with a deep, soulful longing that is highly compelling and yet another example of Damon's exceptional talent as a character actor and a movie star. Damon carries off George's ability as a medium with a believable solemnity and sadness. He doesn't want this gift but wields it with care and sensitivity and you believe in it because he does.

French actress Cecile De France is an astonishing beauty in her elegant French-ness. She is both aloof and alluring. Less interesting are the young twin actors Frankie and George McLaren. It's not their fault really. Rather, it's the feeling that placing a young boy in this role feels a little emotionally suggestive. It feels like a dramatic shortcut to cast someone so young in such an emotional role.

None of the actors gets much help from the story which is basically nonexistent. “Hereafter” is not really a story so much as a cocktail party conversation starter for existentialists and true believers alike. Do you believe in the hereafter? What do you think it's like? Is there life after death? Can you talk to the dead? Are dead relatives waiting for you on the other side?

The conversation starts and each of the characters in “Hereafter” seems to have a perspective but what you really want is a definitive idea of what Clint Eastwood believes and that is just not there in “Hereafter”. Mr. Eastwood is comfortable touching off the conversation but when it comes to offering a definitive point of view on the hereafter Eastwood backs away and leaves the audience to attend to the major questions on their own.

There is nothing wrong with this approach; it's certainly a fascinating conversation. However, when it comes to raising these questions in a film it raises an expectation in the audience that the filmmaker will offer some kind of declaration of belief. We want answers and Clint Eastwood is not interested in giving an answer, just posing the questions and fobbing the conversation off on us as we walk out of the theater.

In the end it's not unfair to feel that Clint Eastwood cops out on the big question: What do you think the afterlife will be like Clint? With him being unwilling to answer the question “Hereafter” the movie feels aimless and adrift. Damon's ability to speak to the dead certainly hints at what the director believes the hereafter is like but the film hedges on just what heaven is like or even if there is a heaven. Where exactly are these souls in the hereafter? Earth? Heaven? Some strange abyss? What religion does this version of the hereafter adhere to?

Since we are talking about Clint Eastwood, an artist of the highest order, I will not assume a commercial motive behind the vagary of “Hereafter” and this version of the hereafter but if it were any other director who offered such a vague notion and failed to address any kind of religious order when talking about the hereafter one would certainly have to consider a commercial motivation. 

So, do I recommend “Hereafter?” It's a good question and one I've been wrestling with since I watched it. The answer is; kind of. Clint Eastwood is a masterful director and even his vague notions about the afterlife are populated by fascinating characters and elegant images. There is an overwhelming feel to “Hereafter;” the film casts a compelling shadow over the audience. At the end however, it's hard to escape the feeling that Eastwood chickened out. He wanted this conversation but is unwilling to commit his own true feelings about life after death to the big screen.

There is a fascinating divide in opinions developing over “Hereafter”. Older film critics are embracing the film while younger critics have been rejecting it. I am 34 years old and fall somewhere in the middle. I'm not so close to the grave that I spend much time thinking about death but I am not the young whippersnapper who believes in his unending invincibility. I am open to the conversation begun in “Hereafter” but I am not interested in vague notions, I want someone to be direct about their feelings on this issue and Eastwood is not being direct in “Hereafter” and that leaves me wanting more from this otherwise highly compelling film.

Movie Review American Sniper

American Sniper (2014) 

Directed by Clint Eastwood 

Written by Jason Hall 

Starring Sienna Miller, Bradley Cooper 

Release Date December 25th, 2014

Published December 21st, 2014

One scene in “American Sniper” wraps up who Chris Kyle truly is. Set atop a rooftop in Iraq, among a group of other snipers protecting a convoy, Chris Kyle spies a chance to kill a rival sniper. This rival sniper, a former Olympic shooting champion from Syria, has been picking off American soldiers from an incredible distance for some time now.

The rival sniper is about 1000 yards away and Chris can just barely make out his presence from a brief flash of light. The shot is nearly impossible but what makes the situation even more dangerous and compelling is that Kyle cannot make the shot without tipping off nearby insurgents to the presence of American soldiers on the rooftop.

Here is where Chris Kyle is truly revealed: will he take the shot and compromise his own safety and that of his fellow snipers for the chance to kill his ultimate rival? All at once we come to know Chris Kyle as competitive, dangerous, loyal to a fault, vengeful, protective, arrogant and devoted to a very particular cause: protecting the men on the ground.

Kyle takes the shot and remarkably, though 1000 meters away, he does take out his target. The shot then alerts the insurgents who quickly converge on the building. In this moment a new Chris Kyle is born, a vulnerable, frightened and remorseful man who in the midst of the coming chaos calls his wife to declare that he’s ready to come home. Bear in mind, in this moment, there is no guarantee that he will leave this rooftop.

Bradley Cooper infuses this scene with gut wrenching authenticity. Chris Kyle’s time as a soldier ends in this moment and the grief, relief, fear and catharsis arrive in waves. Director Clint Eastwood amps the scene with powerful, confident angles, quick cuts between Kyle, his wife back in Texas, an approaching sandstorm and the blur of faceless enemies rushing into the building.

The tension of this scene exhausting in the best possible way as we have been on a rollercoaster of emotion already and the scene plays like the last major climb and climactic drop. Many of us will never know the exhilarating fear brought about by actual life or death combat and this scene is likely as close as we will ever get.

Many critics have claimed that “American Sniper” is a jingoistic celebration of a warmonger. This dismissal of the film ignores the many conflicting emotions at play in the rooftop scenes. In the space of several minutes Chris Kyle is revealed as a man of great determination, skill and patriotism as well as a man who is quite vulnerable, dangerously competitive and arrogant and carrying enough guilt to have developed a death wish.

It’s not clear if Chris Kyle wants to die, the call to his wife seems like an indication of something to live for, but here he is initiating a situation that very likely will get him killed. That he is willing to die so that others may live is noble but the scene does not portray a noble sacrifice but rather a man in a fit of pique, defying orders with an agenda all his own. To this point, Chris Kyle has been a model soldier and yet he defies orders and likely got men killed in his single minded pursuit of his own goal.

Clint Eastwood and Bradley Cooper do not cower from the uglier side of Chris Kyle’s life in “American Sniper” and the rooftop sequence is a fine example of their complex and thoughtful take on his life. At every turn of “American Sniper” we in the audience are invited to see to Chris Kyle and make up our own mind whether we find him heroic or not. This is not hagiography, as the rooftop sequence indicates, this is one of the most raw and honest portrayals of the complexity of being a soldier ever put to screen.

Movie Review Letters from Iwo Jima

Letters from Iwo Jima (2006) 

Directed by Clint Eastwood

Written by Iris Yamashita 

Starring Ken Watanabe, Kazunari Ninomiya 

Release Date December 20th, 2006

Published December 18th, 2006

Clint Eastwood's bold decision to take on both sides of the battle of Iwo Jima, one of the bloodiest and most devastating battles of World War 2, has paid off with not one but two extraordinary films. Flags of Our Fathers covered the American side of the war from the battle on the field to the battle at home. Now Letters From Iwo Jima has arrived with the story from the Japanese perspective. If Iwo Jima is slightly more successful than Flags it's because it is more battle focused with a cleaner narrative line. Together they mark a cinematic achievement that only a true master could have created.

With the Americans closing in on the Japanese homeland a tiny sliver of land is all that keeps the Japanese from being overrun. The tiny isle of Iwo Jima is a strategic spot in the pacific where the American forces hope to launch a full scale invasion of Japan. If the Japanese army can somehow hold Iwo Jima that may not win the war but they could stave off the invasion.

Leading the defense of Iwo Jima is the great General Kuribayashi (Ken Watanabe). Having been trained by the Americans, General Kuribayashi is ideally suited to counter the American invasion. Rather, he would be ideal under better circumstances. On Iwo Jima, the general will find himself desperately outnumbered with no air support and reserve troops withheld to protect the next island in the chain.

On the opposite side of the command structure is a draftee named Saigo (Kazunari Ninomiya) who was a humble baker and now finds himself facing death on Iwo Jima. Saigo is a terrible soldier. It's not that he doesn't love his country, just that he was never bred to be a soldier.

The General and the grunt tell the story of Iwo Jima in letters they mail back to the homeland. The letters of the real life General Kuribayashi were the basis of Iris Yamashita's book Letters From Iwo Jima. With an assist from Oscar winning screenwriter Paul Haggis, Yamashita adapted the letters into the story of this legendary battle in all of its terrifying, doomed glory.

The look of the film has the same washed out, dreary, grays of Flags of Our Fathers. The bleakness of battle is conveyed by the lack of color, aside from the red of blood which, while it isn't enhanced by effects, is the only color that really stands out. Working with cinematographer Tom Stern, who did the same job on Flags of Our Fathers, Clint Eastwood tells the story of Iwo Jima as much with his visuals as with his compelling human drama.

Ken Watanabe was a natural to play the honorable General Kuribayashi. His face is a map of dignity, grace and stern steadfast dedication, qualities that the real life General, no doubt, would have had. His voice overs in the letters begin with a resigned courage and patriotism and slowly evolve with the courage intact but an increasing amount of sadness and disappointment. These are all extraordinarily subtle touches and Watanabe makes them all count.

Setting the story entirely on the battlefield gives Letters From Iwo Jima a tighter focus than Flags Of Our Fathers which limped a little when telling the story of soldiers at home after the battle. The few brief sojourns off the battlefield, flashbacks to the General's time in America, are brief and serve the purpose of deepening this already fascinating character.

Taken together Clint Eastwood's Flags of Our Fathers and Letters From Iwo Jima are the kind of bold cinematic achievement that only a great master could conceive. Clint Eastwood was already a legend, now he is truly an auteur. Even those audiences that are opposed to war movies will be moved by the compelling and very human drama of both sides of the battle of Iwo Jima.

Flags of Our Fathers and Letters From Iwo Jima are movies that demand to be seen.

Movie Review: Flags of Our Fathers

Flags of Our Fathers (2006)

Directed by Clint Eastwood

Written by William Broyles Jr, Paul Haggis

Starring Ryan Phillippe, Jesse Bradford, Adam Beach, Paul Walker, John Slattery, Barry Pepper

Release Date October 20th, 2006

Published October 18th, 2006

Clint Eastwood has always been one of our most beloved and respected artists. However, it wasn't until recently; with the release of Mystic River and Million Dollar Baby that Eastwood rose to the rank of auteur alongside men like Scorsese and Altman, directors whose work is awaited, debated and more often than not breathlessly praised.

Clint Eastwood's latest effort is the most ambitious of his career. A two part film series that takes on the extraordinary battle of Iwo Jim from the perspective of both the Americans, in Flags of Our Fathers and the Japanese, in Letters From Iwo Jima. First up is Flags of Our Fathers, an epic of heroism, sacrifice, sadness and war.

When his father passed away James Bradley -on whose book and real life experiences the movie is based-began searching thru his things and found that his father was one of the flag raisers at the battle of Iwo Jima. The artifacts lead James Bradley to seek out Iwo Jima veterans and tell his father, Doc Bradley's (Ryan Phillippe) story.

Ostensibly, Flags of Our Fathers is the story behind, arguably, the most famous photo ever taken; the raising of the flag atop mount suribachi during the battle of Iwo Jima. What many may not realize is that the flag raising was not a gesture of having won the battle. The flag was raised a mere five days into what would become a 35 day conflict.

The photo was not what it seems either. The first flag raising wasn't captured well and when a politician who saw the photo requested to have the original flag a col, played by Robert Patrick, asked to have the original flag brought to him and a new flag raised. That second flag raising is what Joe Rosenthal immortalized but that was not the story that was sold to the American people.

Of the men who raised the flag; only three survived the remaining battle. The fame of the photo leads the three survivors, Doc, Rene (Jesse Bradford) and Ira (Adam Beach) to a modicum of celebrity. Plucked from the pacific theater and plopped into the middle of the war machine ad campaign, the so called 'heroes of Iwo Jima' became a rallying point for renewed American support for the war.

In 1945 support for the war was flagging. The economy was reeling from the expense and the treasury needed to raise 13 billion dollars to fund the war or risk giving in to Japanese demands. That was when Joe Rosenthal's iconic photo landed on the front page of every newspaper and reassured a weary country that this war was being won.

Becoming spokesman for the war and being hailed as heroes wherever they went was not as easy for the flag raisers as it might seem. Each man is haunted in their own way by what they witnessed and what they did during the battle. Most troubled of all is Irv who slowly comes apart at the seams over the horrors he witnessed.

Adam Beach gives a heart rending performance in Flags of Our Fathers. In war he was brave but overwhelmed. On the tour to raise funds for the war the horrors, combined with heavy drinking, begin to catch up with him. He eventually is given the chance to return to what is left of his unit but nothing could ever relieve him of the nightmares and his life is a tragic one. Beach's performance is nuanced and heartbreaking and the stuff Academy awards are made of.

The rest of the cast struggles to be separated from one another. Ryan Phillippe does a credible job as Doc Bradley, however, during the battle scenes you struggle to tell doc from any of the other soldiers on the field. The same could be said of Jesse Bradford as Rene who never saw much in the way of action as he was more often kept to the rear of the battle as a runner.

Rounding out the cast are a few more recognizable faces. Jaime Bell gives another riff on the clueless but loyal manchild he played in King Kong as Doc's loyal pal Iggy. Paul Walker and Barry Pepper give effective performances simply for showing up and being so recognizable. Because the battle scenes are so chaotic there is no time to meet everyone. Our psychic connection to these men is sympathy for their basic humanity but it is deepened by these recognizable faces.

Structurally Flags of Our Fathers bounces around time periods from modern times, where veterans recall the battle, to scenes prior to and during the battle that are intercut with scenes from the heroes tour of America. The lurching about can be confounding but this is not fatal flaw. Clint Eastwood's work is far too extraordinary to be damaged by some minor editing choices.

The battle scenes in Flags of Our Fathers rival the carnage and heroics of Speilberg's Saving Private Ryan, and Speilberg is a producer on Flags. The carnage, the torn and tortured bodies of thousands of American soldiers who gave their lives for this sliver of land, no bigger than New York City, is exceptionally and stunningly rendered.

Clint Eastwood's calm and assured direction of Flags Of Our Fathers helps us settle in to an unsettling and violent experience. Brilliantly balancing honoring our heroes while not overly sentimentalizing them, Eastwood crafts a film that pays tribute without begging for your love and your sympathy. Never falling back on patriotic asides, Flags of Our Fathers earns your admiration by telling a true story in a most compelling and heartbreaking fashion.

Letters From Iwo Jima, Eastwood's Japanese based follow up to Flags of Our Fathers will be released in February. Ken Watanabe stars as the leader of Japanese forces in the battle. The verisimilitude of this venture only serves to deepen the stories being told. On it's own Flags of Our Fathers is a powerful, moving even heartbreaking story. Imagining what it will be like once we see it from the other side makes Flags of Our Fathers even more fascinating.

Flags of Our Fathers is a must see movie.

Movie Review: Changeling

Changeling (2008) 

Directed by Clint Eastwood

Written by J. Michael Straczynski 

Starring Angelina Jolie, John Malkovich, Michael Kelly, Jeffrey Donovan 

Release Date October 24th, 2008

Published October 23rd, 2008 

The title Changeling evokes images of little green aliens. I think director Clint Eastwood is going for alienation but the connection is missed until you actually see the movie. Despite the title Changeling, is really an affecting, thrilling drama featuring a performance by Angelina Jolie that is arguably an early lock for Oscar gold.

Christine Collins never usually worked on Saturdays but with a girl calling in sick and her replacement MIA, she would have to work this Saturday. It was to be the day she took her son Walter to see the new Charlie Chaplin movie. Instead, Christine had to leave her 9 year old little boy home alone. After missing her trolley and having to walk home, she arrived to find her son missing.

The police refused to take a report in the first 24 hours, assuming the kid would turn up. Walter would be missing for 5 months until a break in the case. A little boy found abandoned on DeKalb Illinois claims to be Walter. However, when mother and child are reunited Christine knows the boy is not her son. Bullied into posing for pictures and taking the child home by a PR obsessed detective (Jeffrey Donovan), Christine refuses to admit the child is hers.

Based on the true story of Christine Collins who in 1928 was the victim of a Los Angeles Police Department so desperate for good press coverage that they bullied and cajoled her into taking home a child that was not hers and went out of their way to convince her he was even as all evidence said no. Eventually, the cops tossed Collins in a sanitarium where she met other women who crossed the LAPD.

It's an exceptionally compelling story and in the hands of a master like Eastwood the plot is transcendent. There are several moments in Changeling that will absolutely take your breath away. Most movies can barely manage one breathtaking, edge of your seat moment, Eastwood has at least three. One is glimpsed in the trailer and nearly pulls an out of context tear.

Another is a perfectly thrown punch and still another is a classic courtroom scene that acts as a collective catharsis for nearly 2 solid hours of breath holding tension. There is no gotcha moment, no simple twists, no hand of god, just great actors with great material and a director who orchestrates it all to near perfection.

I cannot say enough about Angelina Jolie's transformative performance. Jolie takes everything audiences have known about her and turns them on it's ear. Aside from those legendary lips, in bright red here, Jolie plays totally against type as a meek, mousy single mom. Yes, she grows into a character we recognize as Angelina Jolie but early on as she effects the voice of a woman for whom speech is a desperate effort, you can't help but be blown away that you are watching the star of Wanted and Mr. and Mrs. Smith.

Even her characters in A Mighty Heart and her Oscar winning turn in Girl Interrupted do not compare to the highly original work Jolie delivers in Changeling.

The title sounds very Invasion of the Body Snatchers but the movie is truly a moving, often breathtaking drama. Far from one of Eastwood's masterpieces but still a work that shames most other directors. Changeling meanders from time to time and fudges some character motivations but with three scenes of truly devastating emotional power and an overall hypnotic air, there is far more to recommend Changeling than to nitpick.

Movie Review: Blood Work

Blood Work (2002) 

Directed by Clint Eastwood 

Written by Brian Helgeland

Starring Clint Eastwood, Gene Hackman, Jeff Daniels, Dylan Walsh, Anjelica Huston 

Release Date August 9th, 2002 

Published August 8th, 2002

As one of our greatest living actors, Clint Eastwood can be forgiven for many things. We can concede him the indulgence of playing a codger in a space comedy like Space Cowboys. We can forgive him, and even take a little pleasure watching him, in the trashy thriller Absolute Power. However, our good faith can only go so far, and when Eastwood releases a retread cop thriller like Blood Work, even Dirty Harry can't be forgiven this indulgence.

Blood Work stars Eastwood as a famous FBI criminal profiler--a job that is not nearly as glamorous or exciting as Hollywood would have you believe--Terry McCaleb. As we join the story, McCaleb joins a pair of cops, played by Paul Rodriguez and Dylan Walsh, as they walk through a crime that has a message specifically for McCaleb. Scrawled in blood on the wall is a code and the message "Catch me McCaleb." As McCaleb is exiting the crime scene, through a throng of reporters, a piece of evidence tips him off to a man in the crowd who may be the killer. McCaleb chases the suspect until he is felled by a heart attack, but not before popping a bullet in the suspect.

Two years later, McCaleb is the beneficiary of a heart transplant. The operation saved his life but ended his career. Now living on a boat in a marina, he passes the time fixing the boat and talking to his neighbor Buddy (Jeff Daniels). Out of the blue, a beautiful woman named Graciella (Wanda De Jesus) shows up on McCaleb's boat claiming to be the sister of the woman whose heart was given to McCaleb. She tells McCaleb that her sister was murdered and implores McCaleb to use his cop connections to find out what is happening with the investigation into her sister's murder.

From there you know what is going to happen. McCaleb is drawn into investigating the crime, which will inevitably connect to other crimes; innocent people will look suspicious; and the one least likely will turn out to be the killer. If you can't figure out this movie's secrets in the first 20 minutes, turn in your moviegoer's card and never come back to the theaters. 

If you don't feel like seeing Blood Work, rent The Bone Collector with Denzel Washington; the same lame thriller minutia populates both films. Blood Work is slightly more believable, but both are police procedurals. Normally, these films appear as straight-to-video trash starring people like Jeff Fahey and Patrick Bergin.

The most disappointing thing about Blood Work is that Eastwood also directed it. How can such a skilled director as Eastwood not see the obvious cliches in the script from Joel Schumacher wannabe Brian Helgeland? 

Eastwood knows the proper camera moves and his direction is studied and logical but the story Blood Work is too predictable to be either suspenseful or entertaining. After seeing this film, one is left to wonder if Eastwood's best work is behind him, a sad thought but one you can't help entertaining. I hope that is not true. Only time will tell. 

Movie Review Gran Torino

Gran Torino (2008) 

Directed by Clint Eastwood 

Written by Nick Schenk 

Starring Clint Eastwood, Ahney Herr, Christopher Carley, Bee Vang 

Release Date December 12th, 2008 

Published December 11th, 2008 

Clint Eastwood is a national treasure. Over his five decades in Hollywood he has created indelible characters, images, and phrases that will live long beyond himself. That iconography brings us to his latest film Gran Torino which combines the modern Eastwood image as a filmmaking auteur and the classic Eastwood icon of a tough guy, man's man. The combination gives life to an odd but engaging drama.

In Gran Torino Clint Eastwood is Walt Kowalski. Walt's wife has just died and the last thing tying him to life outside of the four walls of his decrepit house has disappeared. Walt doesn't appear suicidal but he is certainly unmoored as observed by the young priest (Christopher Carley) who presides over his wife's funeral and who, at the wife's behest, drops in on Walt from time to time.

More than anything, Walt just wants to be left alone. Even his grown sons do nothing but irritate him, one of them by trying to get him to move to an old folks home. Further irritating Walt is the change in his neighborhood. Hmong refugees began moving in more than a decade ago and they now dominate the local populace, much to Walt's dismay.\

As the story progresses, Walt is forced into the lives of his Hmong neighbors when their teenage son, Thao (Bee Vang), accepts a gang initiation that has him attempting to steal Walt's prized Gran Torino. Walt catches him in the act but doesn't call police. When confronted by gang members about his failure, Thao tells them that he won’t try to steal the car again and Walt ends up having to rescue Thao, brandishing a trusty shotgun at the wannabe gangsters. 

This leads to more involvement with his neighbors and eventually a begrudging respect begins to form, mostly thanks to Thao's outgoing sister Sue (Ahney Her) who befriends the old man with beer and really great Hmong food. If you guessed that the gang thing comes back and plays a major role in the movie's finish, points for you. How it plays out however, you won't see it coming. Eastwood is a master of misdirection as both Mystic River and Million Dollar Baby have shown. Eastwood takes pleasure in rarely doing what the audience expects.

There is an odd quality to Gran Torino and it comes in the film's strange sense of humor. Though the movie carries the heavy air of drama there are moments when Walt is dealing with his neighbors, and especially when dealing with his two beefy, lunkheaded sons, where laughs are mined that wouldn't be out of place in a sitcom. I'm not complaining, I laughed. The laughter however is awkward when considering how oppressively serious the rest of the movie is. Then again, there goes Clint, once again confounding our expectations.

Movie review: The Mule

The Mule (2018) 

Directed by Clint Eastwood 

Written by Nick Schenk 

Starring Clint Eastwood, Bradley Cooper, Laurence Fishburne, Michael Pena, Dianne Wiest, Andy Garcia 

Release Date December 14th, 2018 

Published December 13th, 2018 

Clint Eastwood’s career has been thought dead before but never by this critic. Never, until now. After suffering through his ‘experimental’ 15:17 to Paris earlier this year and now the misbegotten, The Mule, it feels as if Eastwood’s career as an auteur director is unquestionably over. Gone are the days of Unforgiven, Mystic River and Million Dollar Baby, deliberate and painstaking mood pieces that mixed character and drama brilliantly. 

Now we have movies like The Mule where the diminishing returns of Eastwood’s cranky old racist character have finally reached their ugly nadir. The Mule is Eastwood at his most tone deaf, and I’m not talking about his political incorrectness, this is a full fledged failure and not some political screed. The Mule isn’t merely proudly un-PC, it’s downright anti-intelligent. Where Eastwood used to be able to make up for story flaws with strong film-making, his ear for dialogue has gone deaf and his eye for visual flair is nearly blind. 

The Mule stars Eastwood as Earl Stone, a famed grower of Day-lilies. There is no need to remember this detail, it will play no role whatsoever in the movie. It’s an extraneous detail that plays like a failed rough draft that was never corrected in rewrites. That explanation may also work to answer Eastwood’s embarrassing early scenes in which he attends a flower show and delivers non-sequitur dialogue that would make Tommy Wiseau wince in recognition.

Earl chose flowers over his family, choosing the flower show over attending his daughter’s wedding The movie is so clumsy in detail that it makes it seem as if Earl has shown up at the wedding, he’s at a bar where there is a wedding party, before cutting to his having missed it and not speaking to his daughter (Alison Eastwood) again for more than a decade. He somehow manages to have a close relationship with his granddaughter, Ginny (Taissa Farmiga), though how he managed that without speaking to his daughter for most of the girl’s life is another clumsy detail in a series of dropped plot threads. 

Again, none of this matters to the central plot of The Mule. Yes, Earl’s strained relationship with his family, including his openly antagonistic relationship with his ex-wife, Mary (Dianne Wiest), is supposed to inform his character’s decisions in the main plot but the story is so muddled that he could have jettisoned the family story and it would not have altered the main narrative one iota. The Mule is shockingly lazy that way. 

The main plot of The Mule finds Earl down on his luck with his flower farm in foreclosure. Desperate for money, Earl accepts a shady job from a lowlife friend of his granddaughter. The job involves getting paid big money to drive drug shipments from Texas to Earl’s home city of Peoria, Illinois. Earl is perfect for the job because as an old white man driving a pickup truck, he is the single least likely person on the planet to get pulled over. That's not intended as trenchant observation of Police corruption however, that's more this writers observation than anything the movie characters have considered. 

No joke, he drives without a seat belt on for most of the movie and is never in danger of being stopped by police This could be a great opportunity to examine privilege and stereotypes but Eastwood shows no interest in exploring why an old white guy seemingly never has to worry about being questioned by authorities. Instead, the film appears to be a comic drama about Eastwood singing country songs in the cab of his truck while delivering load after load of illicit drugs. 

There is, I guess, some danger in the plot. The drug dealers threaten Earl’s life a lot and wave guns around a lot but he doesn’t react to any of it, as if age means that you don’t fear death or being beaten by drug dealers anymore. As much as money is his motivation, boredom could also play a role in Earl’s choice to become a mule. There appear to be no stakes on the line for Earl who uses his advanced age as an excuse to do whatever he wants. 

Perhaps that’s meant to be funny, Earl’s give no you know what attitude. Indeed, Eastwood could have been playing for laughs but there is nothing in Eastwood’s direction that indicates he’s being anything less than serious about this story. Just because it is terribly clumsy doesn’t mean it isn’t also dour in that way that bad melodramas are always dour as a way of seeming more dramatic than they really are. 

The Mule is downright dreary as it trudges to a finish that is unpredictable only because it is so messy it’s impossible to predict where we are headed. The film has no narrative momentum, it has no forward motion at times, scenes start, linger and peter out before being replaced by another. The scenes of Eastwood driving and singing along to old country and pop songs are endless and repeated to a torturous degree. 

Eastwood’s decline as a director is stunning. I won’t attribute it to his age because I still believe him capable of delivering a good movie. I think the issue is that he no longer cares for making movies. It’s my feeling that he likes keeping busy and collecting paychecks. 15:17 to Paris and The Mule are movies from a filmmaker who has nothing better to do and decided that making a movie with his buddies is a good way to pass the time.  Here’s hoping Mr. Eastwood had a better time making The Mule than we did watching it.