Schmaltzy and sentimental Hollywood cinema that desperately wants to be taken seriously. The appeal of his work is beyond me, but looking at the accolades his films have received he gets away with it, so your mileage may vary.
Movies
One of the better Eastwood films I've seen in quite a while. It's an ideal topic for him of course, an all-American hero attacked by justice and the media and left to defend for himself. But he handles it remarkably well, and after a slew of media-hailing dramas it offers some much-needed pushback. Jewell is a bit of an outcast, an aspiring law enforcer who takes his job a little too serious. Until one fateful day when he discovers a bomb package and urges people to leave a concert, saving many lives in the process. Jewell is declared a hero, but it doesn't take long before the FBI begins to suspect Jewell planted the bomb himself. The cast is quite something, but it's the relatively unknown Hauser as Jewell who impresses the most. The story is quite predictable and Eastwood neatly sticks to genre conventions, while making sure to stay away from excessive sentiment and too much overt patriotism. Not a great cinematic masterpiece, but solid nonetheless.Read all
It seems Eastwood has finally slowed down. Cry Macho felt like an attempt to relive the glory of Gran Torino, but by now Eastwood is a walking parody of himself, so making a somewhat serious film like this with him in the lead is just not going to work anymore. That said, it's not his worst film either. The plot is very basic, it's really just Eastwood and some young Mexican kid spending time together as they travel back to the US. The characters are predictable, the styling is generic and the few plot twists won't surprise anyone. But at least the film has a somewhat lighter tone, which makes it a relatively easy watch.Read all
Mediocre retelling of the failed terrorist attack on the Thalys. The film earns bonus points for using the actual people present that day, but Eastwood's focus on predestination, patriotism and religion leaves a foul aftertaste. There's also lots of filler material, with little to no time spent on the attacker. Should've been better.
Clint Eastwood plays another oldskool, slightly cynical, hardened by life, unpopular old man. It's a role that suits him, but after seeing quite a few Eastwood (directed) films I'm getting more than a bit fed up by it. Though it's probably the tepid and unadventurous direction that's the real mishap here. Earl is an old man, abandoned by his family because he cares more for his plants than he cares for them. When his granddaughter is about to get married, Earl wants to redeem himself by chipping in to pay for the wedding. Having no money though, he starts working for a Mexican cartel, smuggling drugs with his truck. The setup isn't too bad and similar to Gran Torino, there's some sly comedy where Eastwood seems to be having a little fun with his reputation. But the second half is way too sentimental, the plot gets dragged out and the film quickly loses steam. Not his worst feature, but I think it would be better if he'd just call it quits.Read all
A rather plain and tepid drama about a plane crash. It features some interesting bits about the media portrayal of heroes, but apart from that it's mostly US patriotism and hero worshipping of the worst kind. Eastwood's direction is as flavorless as ever, so is Hanks' portrayal of Sully. Not terrible, but quite boring.
Sports drama that can't escape the cringe of an oldskool American director adapting another nation's cultural highlight. Invictus is like most of Eastwood's films. Professionally made, but quite stale, boring and way too sentimental for its own good. Freeman and Damon are okay, the rest of the film not so much.
Eastwood putting himself in the spotlight again. The result is a bland 90s thriller with a bunch of old men chasing each other. It's a bit hard to imagine a film like this actually did well back in the 90s (I was around, but not really that big of a film fan back then, certainly not interested in this type of nonsense). The performances are bland, none of the characters are very interesting, the cinematography and score is crap, and the runtime is way too long. It's just bad genre film making with a bigger Hollywood budget and cast. Not that I'm a big Eastwood fan to begin with, but this is one of his weaker films.Read all
Clint Eastwood going for the basic buddy cop movie. He cast himself as the token old guy, Charlie Sheen is the rookie opposite of him. All the rest is just standard 80s action flick. I've never really liked Eastwood, not as a director, not as an actor, and this film didn't change my mind. It's also not the worst one I've seen though. Two hours is long for a simple setup and the film does drag a little in places. The performances are passable though and the pacing is OK. The action scenes aren't the worst, but there's very little here that stands out and unless you're a hardcore fan of 80s cop films, this is a tough recommend.Read all
Eastwood had a chance to do something a little different with this film. The introduction makes it look like a western take on the Civil War, but Eastwood is too married to his roots to commit, and slowly but surely more and more western elements find their way back into the film. Not that I'm a big fan of the Civil War setting, but it sure beats western villages and Indian tribes. Eastwood plays the character he always plays, and it works quite well during the first half of the film, but as it pivots more and more to straightforward western territory, I started to lose interest. Certainly not the worst western I've seen, but this could've been a lot better.Read all
Iegh. I never cared much for Eastwood as an actor, but he's possibly even worse as a director. His films are always so incredibly serious and sentimental while feeling so fake and insincere that they end up becoming utter kitsch. That's pretty much what these 135 minutes (!) felt like to me. Streep is somewhat decent, but Eastwood is a terrible actor and there is zero chemistry between the two. The cinematography is offputting, the score is incredibly sappy and the film drags to get itself over the 2-hour barrier. An unsightly film, it's beyond me where it got its positive reputation from.Read all
