City Heat.

Review #2567: City Heat.

Cast: 

Clint Eastwood (Lieutenant Speer), Burt Reynolds (Mike Murphy), Jane Alexander (Addy), Madeline Kahn (Caroline Howley), Rip Torn (Primo Pitt), Beau Starr (Pitt Lookout), Irene Cara (Ginny Lee), Richard Roundtree (Diehl Swift), Tony Lo Bianco (Leon Coll), William Sanderson (Lonnie Ash), Nicholas Worth (Troy Roker), Robert Davi (Nino), Art LaFleur ("Bruiser"), Arthur Malet (Doc Loomis), and Jack Nance (Aram Strossell) Directed by Richard Benjamin (#1024 - My Favorite Year)

Review: 

I have to admit, the key impetus to actually watching this movie was the fact that it was on a DVD pack, specifically a Clint Eastwood set (paired with Pink Cadillac, of all things). Sure, Eastwood is a curious presence, why not try a comedy? I didn't have enough time to see it back in 2024, but it sure seems time to actually watch what all the fuss is about. Blake Edwards penned the original story (once called "Kansas City Jazz") in the 1970s and it eventually found its way to Warner Bros. wanting to have Edwards direct Reynolds and Eastwood together (previously, Edwards directed Reynolds with The Man Who Loved Women [1983]) Somehow, Eastwood had disagreements over the script and his character and Edwards was soon replaced with Richard Benjamin; this was the second of two movies directed by Benjamin to come out in 1984 after Racing with the Moon. According to Reynolds, Eastwood was fine with Benjamin replacing Edwards while saying the dismissal "hurt [Eastwood] badly". Reynolds claimed that he knew the film was going down the tubes ten days into shooting because he saw his role as such: "playing Jack Lemmon in this strange film where people were getting blown away...The public wanted Boom Town or to see us in a contemporary film. They didn't want Dirty Harry vs. the Wimp." As a result of an accident (reported as either a metal chair to the face or falling from a chair and hitting his jaw), this was not a happy experience for Reynolds. As a result, Joseph C. Stinson was credited as a co-writer of the screenplay with "Samuel O. Brown" (get it? S...O...B.?). Expected to be a big hit with a budget of $25 million and released on the same week as Beverly Hills Cop and 2010 in December 1984, the movie made roughly $38 million as a considerable disappointment. Benjamin kept on as a director with films of extremely varied quality such as The Money Pit (1986), Mermaids (1990), and Marci X (2003).

This might be the most obvious case of seeing a movie and watching it die in real time. Sometimes it looks nice and sometimes it comes off as a comedy and sometimes it has some violence worth being in a buddy action movie...but it never comes off as a complete package. For such a "buddy movie", it just seems more like two short films that got cobbled together, with Reynolds seemingly having the more thankless job of trying to carry a film in doing silly lines and getting beat up a bit while Eastwood basically goes "nope" and "yep". Even being a sendup of the gangster movie isn't that fun because the movie just dawdles for 97 minutes with a blithering plot and little else to go which goes as such: two gangs want this briefcase of records but the guy who stole it ends up dead and a game of "where's the briefcase?" tangles up a cop and cop-turned-private eye into an alliance to not only avenge the dead man & his injured girl but also to rescue both of their would-be lovers (as you do) that ends up in both gangs getting plenty of bullets and fire in them. For such a star-studded cast, it's amazing to make a movie that just feels so small. Sometimes I chuckled, sometimes I rolled my eyes: it's the ultimate 6/10 movie, arguably.

The fact that the movie almost gets to a quality finish line is more of a testament to Reynolds than Eastwood, arguably. I've had a soft spot for Reynolds for a number of years because of the varying heights that came with such a fascinating movie star that I knew was going to make for a curious experience when watching a stinker such as, say, this movie or Stroker Ace (released in 1983 that has been cited as the starting point of his downturn as a star). He may have been approaching middle age with shaky ground in terms of public appearance of his charm (his next movie ended up being the misfire Stick [1985]), but I liked what I saw of him here in the same way that one admires the hokum of someone trying to retain the appearance of legitimacy and virility. This is basically important to at least giving the movie a shot (grinning in the face of mediocrity, an American tradition?), because Eastwood and his routine that comes off as dry with the bare minimum in trying to make a pair that might accidentally make you appreciate The Rookie (1990) in the future of mismatched duos. Eastwood looks like he wants to be anywhere else than here and being a "can take this corny crap in stride" is not a compliment. It also extends to Alexander and Kahn, who are each given thankless tasks to pair off the two male leads that goes nowhere in actual charm (Kahn basically vanishes for a good chunk of the film too, making it even harder, but at least she is paired with Reynolds in...trying to do something). Roundtree and Cara are needlessly given little to actually do (besides being hit by a car), and Alexander being on the bottom edge of the totem pole of "what do they actually do?" is less helpful when you wonder why Torn or Davi are just...there. Whether because of Benjamin or studio arrogance of going "Eastwood and Reynolds, what could go wrong for printing money?" or something else, they never come off as much of a team together. As a whole, City Heat came and went with audiences and hasn't exactly rocketed in reputation four decades later. Flawed as it may be, you could find something curious here. 

Overall, I give it 6 out of 10 stars.

Song of the day!

Next up: A mystery...

*Truthfully, Reynolds was already on my mind for this month with, say, Rent-a-Cop or Striptease. 

The Outlaw Josey Wales.

Review #2554: The Outlaw Josey Wales.

Cast: 

Clint Eastwood (Josey Wales), Chief Dan George (Lone Watie), Sondra Locke (Laura Lee Turner), Bill McKinney (Captain Terrill), John Vernon (Fletcher), Paula Trueman (Grandma Sarah Turner), Sam Bottoms (Jamie), Geraldine Keams (Little Moonlight), Woodrow Parfrey (Percy Long), Joyce Jameson (Rose), Sheb Wooley (Travis Cobb), Royal Dano (Ten Spot), Matt Clark (Kelly), John Verros (Chato), Will Sampson (Ten Bears), William O'Connell (Sim Carstairs), Madeleine Taylor Holmes (Grannie Hawkins), John Quade (Ciril E. Forebaugh), Frank Schofield (Senator James Henry Lane), Buck Kartalian (Shopkeeper), Len Lesser (Abe), and Doug McGrath (Lige)

Directed by Clint Eastwood (#1252 - Space Cowboys, #1310 - Million Dollar Baby, #1476 - Pale Rider, #1501 - Unforgiven, #1550 - Gran Torino, #1638 - Bird, #1757 - Sudden Impact, #1831 - High Plains Drifter, #2487 - The Rookie)

Review: 

"When people stop me in the street, it tends to be about Josey Wales. They seem to like that one. I rented it recently, it still holds up."

As we approach the Semiquincentennial of America, I suppose it only makes sense to cover a film that came across in the dawn of the Bicentennial fifty years ago. The movie was based on a book called The Rebel Outlaw: Josey Wales (titled Gone to Texas in later editions), which was published in 1973 with the writer being listed as Forrest Carter. He had sent the book unsolicited to Eastwood's office with a letter talking about "Eastwood's kind eyes", and go figure, producer Robert Daley felt it looked like a good idea to approach it to Eastwood, who soon agreed to work with optioning Carter's book. When Philip Kaufman looked at the book for the first time, he thought, well, that it was written by a "crude fascist". He co-wrote the screenplay with Sonia Chernus, which included the characters of Terrill and Fletcher that was not previously included in the book. It didn't help with filming, as disagreements with Eastwood in the shooting led to Kaufman's firing in favor of Eastwood, which he once said was "the worst moment of my life"*. It was his fifth film as a director, after the release of The Eiger Sanction (1975). The resulting film made over eight times its $3 million budget back with audiences when released (premiering in late June for a festival before going into release in July and August). As for Carter, he actually was born Asa Earl Carter, an Alabama-born segregationist who for whatever reason decided to try and rebrand himself as a writer with Cherokee background that lived in Abilene, Texas. Sure, there were rumbling questions about who Carter really as early as 1975 (only a few years prior, he ran a failed campaign for governor of Alabama), but Carter kept the facade on long enough to have written three further books, one of which was The Education of Little Tree (which was adapted into a film in 1997). He died at the age of 53, which apparently came after choking on his own vomit after a fight with his son. Plans to do a movie based on his second novel with the Wales character in The Vengeance Trail of Josey Wales (1976) did not come to pass with Eastwood involved. In 1986, Michael Parks directed and starred in The Return of Josey Wales, which dealt with confronting corrupt lawmen in Mexico.

Sure, you might wonder how it goes to make a movie about an ex-Confederate guerilla (incidentally, Jesse James was one of them), particularly with a person that believed that the "values of a civilization never died so long as they’re kept alive in legend.” Simply put, there are people who really thought there was a lost cause to a group of losers who never won a war, never deserved a monument to being traitors, and never did anything meaningful for the United States of America besides dying, because goddamn it, you should know the war was fought over slavery before you leave high school*. But, and this is the important part, it is such a worthwhile movie to see a tale of a man at war with himself that becomes whole again (besides, some people called Dirty Harry "fascist", it didn't stop them from making four more of those movies), or at least much as possible when the iron in his words is akin to the iron of a pistol. All he wants to do is move on and pick up what was broken in him from the war and move on. As Eastwood once said, man becomes his most creative in war, so you can only do so much to clean the blood stain from the tapestry. It isn't even that much of a revenge tale, because McKinney (and to a lesser extent in adversarial nature, Vernon) is not present in the movie as much as, say, George is for the 135-minute runtime, as if to suggest that it matters to see the frontier for what it really is beyond the cliches matters more than if one is going to rattle the sabre right into a man's heart, which, well, yes. It's a violent movie that also has plenty of offbeat moments, such as the moment where one says that hell is coming to breakfast. Everything collides for a reckoning of the soul, whether that's Eastwood and his ambivalence, George and his straightforward nature or otherwise. New order, old order, we thrive on the myths and tales we tell for ourselves, regardless of where they may spring from. As a whole, The Outlaw Josey Wales freewheels history and the usual conventions of the Western for a pretty solid result in offbeat entertainment that is expertly filmed and executed by Eastwood and company for a movie that reckons with community and what really matters to live or die on the frontier.

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.

Song of the day!

*If one goes by this interview, Kaufman has never seen the film: Philip Kaufman: The Hollywood Interview | The Hollywood Interview

*If I remember correctly, my dad had a license plate cover of the Confederate battle flag. And yet, I turned out the way I did. 

The Rookie (1990).

Review #2487: The Rookie (1990).

Cast: 

Clint Eastwood (Sergeant Nick Pulovski), Charlie Sheen (Detective David Ackerman), Raul Julia (Ulrich Sigmund Strom), Sônia Braga (Liesl Strom), Tom Skerritt (Eugene Ackerman), Lara Flynn Boyle (Sarah Ackerman), Pepe Serna (Lieutenant Raymond Garcia), Donna Mitchell (Laura Ackerman), Coleby Lombardo (Joey Ackerman), Marco Rodriguez ("Loco" Martinez), Xander Berkeley (Ken Blackwell), Roberta Vasquez (Officer Heather Torres), Hal Williams (Detective Powell), Paul Ben-Victor (Felix "Little Felix"), and Tony Plana (Morales)

Directed by Clint Eastwood (#1252 - Space Cowboys, #1310 - Million Dollar Baby, #1476 - Pale Rider, #1501 - Unforgiven, #1550 - Gran Torino, #1638 - Bird, #1757 - Sudden Impact, #1831 - High Plains Drifter)

Review: 

I'm sure you've heard this before: buddy cop movie pairing two distinct folks up for strange hijinks and action to go around. The script to the film is credited to Boaz Yakin (in his second credit after The Punisher [1989]) and Scott Spiegel (the co-writer of Evil Dead II [1987]). This was the second Clint Eastwood film released in 1990 after White Hunter Black Heart, a film that Eastwood apparently had a personal interest in (so, yes, "one for them and one for me"). While that movie wasn't exactly an audience favorite, The Rookie didn't fare too much better at the time because of its release in December 1990 that got overshadowed by Home Alone, released three weeks earlier (did you know that movie was the highest grossing comedy of all time for decades?). The highlight of the film for those at the time may have been the stunt work, with major scenes involving no miniatures or blue screens, which were filmed at night. Of course, this is also the movie where Eastwood gets sexually assaulted by a woman and it is also the same movie where Raul Julia and Sônia Braga were cast to play a couple of Germans. So there's that.

It is a silly and loud affair that almost seems tailor-made for those who enjoyed stuff such as Lethal Weapon, Tango & Cash, you get the idea. But I can't help but wonder if the problems with the film come from the fact that Sheen and Eastwood just don't mesh that well together. Even Tango handled that better. One sometimes wonders who exactly was thought of for the role besides him, as if even Emilio Estevez would've been better off playing the toils of someone trying to be by-the-book in a weary world (this is where I try to not just wish for a different movie in the middle of talking about this movie*). But Eastwood doesn't exactly come off that great either, as if he himself is tired of playing a Dirty Harry pastiche (ironically, The Dead Pool from two years earlier was a better movie). The movie just seems flat-footed for a good chunk of its two-hour runtime, never really getting into full gear with its energy beyond neat stunts (again, mostly at night). It just feels like an obligation film, one that goes through the motions that almost sounds like it was supposed to be a parody of the action thriller, right down to the assault scene which is there because, uh, because. But instead the parts that are meant to be funny aren't as funny and the parts that sound like they want to be serious (such as the flashback trauma) sound like a riff. Even the moments where Julia says racial epithets (get it, he's playing a rough German?) sounds like it was dug up for a joke for the parody rather than an actual serious/fun thriller. Boyle was on Twin Peaks in the same year this premiered and it can easily be said that she has more to actually do on that show than here*, which is kind of sad, and the less said about Skerritt's lack of presence, the better. Julia and Braga technically are the best part of the film, but they can't save the film from meandering as much as it does. As a whole, I wish I could appreciate the movie more, but there is a clear air of lethargic nature to the whole proceedings that you don't get from the usual Eastwood fare. Even when the Dirty Harry movies got a bit long in the tooth, you could still see some zip to them. Here it just doesn't sound like anyone but the stuntmen is having fun, but it doesn't seem quite enough to make for a well-rounded film to actually recommend.

Overall, I give it 6 out of 10 stars.

*For whatever reason, I thought of Tom Hanks. Or hey, what if it was Emilio Estevez matched up with his father Martin Sheen? Or even Eastwood playing the beleaguered lieutenant for a whole film would probably be ideal. 

*As a person who's seen the first six Twin Peaks episodes, anyway.

The Dead Pool.

Review #2162: The Dead Pool.

Cast: 

Clint Eastwood (Inspector Harry Callahan), Patricia Clarkson (Samantha Walker), Liam Neeson (Peter Swan), Evan C. Kim (Inspector Al Quan), David Hunt (Harlan Rook), Michael Currie (Captain Donnelly), Michael Goodwin (Lieutenant Ackerman), Jim Carrey (Johnny Squares), Anthony Charnota (Lou Janero), and Ronnie Claire Edwards (Molly Fisher) Directed by Buddy Van Horn.

Review: 

Sure, there might be something to say about how the Dirty Harry series managed to end at probably the right time. This was the fifth and final film with Eastwood in the series as originally devised in the previous decade of the 1970s by Harry Julian Fink and R.M. Fink. Say what you will about how the film is in some sort of manner of "politics", the film was a popular one of its time and of now because, well, people do go to watch handily crafted films of action and suspense done right. Magnum Force (1973), The Enforcer (1976) and Sudden Impact (1983) were all adequate sequels to the original, even if they had their varying qualities of definition that ranged to a middling climatic punch to headline-drawing confrontations with smart remarks or heightened contrasts in the pursuit of "justice". I'm just more surprised I didn't turn cynical with any of the sequels, but it probably has something to do with the slap-bang touch that comes with that passiveness of Eastwood as the one constant, because even the directors aren't the same through and through. This was the second of three films directed by Buddy Van Horn, who had served as a second unit director on Magnum Force (1973) and had directed Eastwood in Any Which Way You Can (1980) among other various things; Van Horn's third and final effort was with Eastwood in Pink Cadillac (1989), the action-comedy flop. The screenplay (written entirely by people who never wrote a film again) was done by Steve Sharon while the story was done by Sharon, Durk Pearson and Sandy Shaw. The latter two had served as scientific advisors on Eastwood's Firefox (1982) and consultants on Brainstorm (1983) but are perhaps best known for their book on life extension and smart drug movements in Life Extension: A Practical Scientific Approach.

It probably is a bit tough to seek out a ranking of where the sequel films lie when compared to each other, but one can at least say this one was decent enough for Eastwood to not think about going for another one. You have time to dwell on Guns N' Roses appearing in music and literal form to go with toy car bombs, a young Neeson and Carrey (one going around saying "luv" for dialogue at time and it isn't the comedian saying it) and you get the idea. Getting to 58 and still seeming at home with quips and general dry ways of handling the material is not a bad place to be if you are Clint Eastwood. It wouldn't be his last one of the action genre or the buddy stuff, because he would do variations on it with films such as The Rookie two years later. And yet, well, he is still the professional you usually see in his films (directed or what have you), which is that particular type of dryness that cares about the facts over fluff of the moment. Clarkson does fine in the rapport of media with cops that at least isn't too much of patronizing schtick. Not to spoil anything, but one really might be disappointed in just who the villain is when it comes to presence, but this isn't that new when talking about Dirty Harry sequels, but at least the climax gives some useful cat-and-mouse trickery. I sure could have had more Neeson when it comes to trying to deal in spectacle and obsession in scuzzyness. I suppose seeing nuts that want to be on television or take down folks in delusion sounds about right. The chase sequence involving little dialogue and one particular idea of dealing with explosives does the job without becoming silly. Granted, the film doesn't exactly have the best way of handling its threat to our hero, particularly with a runtime of just 91 minutes, but it all still comes together. The people that dig films like this when it comes to fun slam-bang films (with some sort of message this time around involving the media doing things like you'd see coming from the media) will be fine here while the ones who probably weren't too big on Eastwood as a whole know exactly what they have to pick at here with an inferior sequel that might make them think they are watching A View to a Kill (okay, Eastwood and Moore were each near 60 and each film is set in the Bay Area...). In a sea of decent Dirty Harry sequels, you can't go wrong with any of them as acceptable films for a look around procedure and what can be bent in the idea of justice when it comes to the cloying hands of bureaucracy and eyes all around. As such, The Dead Pool is totally fine for entertainment.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

High Plains Drifter.

Review #1831: High Plains Drifter.

Cast: 

Clint Eastwood (The Stranger), Verna Bloom (Sarah Belding), Mariana Hill (Callie Travers), Billy Curtis (Mordecai), Mitchell Ryan (Dave Drake), Jack Ging (Morgan Allen), Stefan Gierasch (Mayor Jason Hobart), Ted Hartley (Lewis Belding), Geoffrey Lewis (Stacey Bridges), Dan Vadis (Dan Carlin), Anthony James (Cole Carlin), Walter Barnes (Sheriff Sam Shaw), Paul Brinegar (Lutie Naylor), Richard Bull (Asa Goodwin), Robert Donner (Preacher), John Hillerman (Bootmaker), John Quade (Freight Wagon Operator), and Buddy Van Horn (Marshal Jim Duncan) Directed by Clint Eastwood (#1252 - Space Cowboys, #1310 - Million Dollar Baby, #1476 - Pale Rider, #1501 - Unforgiven, #1550 - Gran Torino, #1638 - Bird, #1757 - Sudden Impact)

Review: 

"The townspeople did not represent the true spirit of the American pioneer, the spirit that made America great." 

It's interesting to consider the reactions one can have over a Western that dared to do something different with the genre, if only because not many Westerns get criticized by a Western icon - because that quote above is by John Wayne, referring to this feature film, which was the first Western directed by Clint Eastwood (apparently, he had sent a letter to Wayne after this film was released to perhaps star together on a film - go figure). This was his second feature, with the first having been Play Misty for Me (1971), and Eastwood would end up directing a total of six features in the 1970s (all but one featured him as star). Of course, Eastwood had plenty of time to incorporate his vision of the Western hero with six seasons of Rawhide and stardom in Sergio Leone's "Man with No Name" trilogy around him. It wasn't even the first starring feature of his to feature a lead character dedicated to serving some sort of retribution to others that had brought upon him, as could be evidenced by Hang 'Em High (1968). Eastwood's influences in Don Siegel and Sergio Leone prove apparent here, probably helped by the fact that Eastwood included their names on gravestones in the film. The film was evidently inspired by a murder in 1964 of Kitty Genovese, who reporters had said numerous people heard or saw the crime from their apartment building but did nothing (of course, this report was later found to be highly inaccurate). Ernest Tidyman, who had won an Academy Award for his work on The French Connection (1971), wrote the screenplay, although Dean Riesner (a writer on numerous Eastwood films) provided key re-writes.

It's too bad that Wayne thought there was some sort of disagreeable element to making a portrayal of the Old West that differed from what had been seen in dozens of films before it (perhaps he saw something in this film that reminded him of High Noon (1952) when it comes to examining one's conscience, since Wayne also disliked that movie). Well, at least the ones before The Wild Bunch (1969), anyway, because heaven knows the genre has only managed to have one or two highlights in the next couple of decades, and High Plains Drifter is probably one to spotlight for the 1970s, paranoia and all. I welcome any kind of movie that has interest in showing the fear of a town in what they know about themselves, where trying to teach a town courage ends up exposing a lack of moral courage from before. Of course, this is a movie that makes itself starkly different from other films with its hero in the first 25 minutes, so there is that to consider. Eastwood has made an effective film here, one filled with iconoclastic spirit that points the mirror firmly at oneself when it comes to showing conscience and justice. It isn't surprising that the script proposal presented to Eastwood was offbeat enough for him to like it, because it is a lead role that continues what Eastwood liked to do best: the less one says, the stronger one becomes in the imagination of the audience. This results in an efficient production and performance, one that maneuvers his way through with raw enigmatic energy; interestingly, the original script had him as the brother of a marshal, but this was changed to something that could lend itself to discussion. The rest of the cast follows along with worthy reflection, most notably with Curtis. While most of the folks here are representations of the ooze of the morals in town, Curtis is different even when presented as a yes-man to the folks around him, if only because of his eyes, ones that have seen pain despite plenty of friendliness to go around. Bloom is the only other one with a semblance of conscience here, one that eventually festers to the surface that results in a few interesting moments shared with Eastwood, while Hill represents the other side of feminine influence in the town of alleged morals with proper wiles. Ryan is the other highlight among the smarmy folks, one who serves as the ideal conniving presence without having to chew scenery to do so, with the others following along in that regard. Lewis, Vadis, and James do well as the adversaries in simple ruthlessness without needing to see more than what is needed. If you think about it, Pale Rider (1985) is the cousin to this feature when it comes to long & tall mysterious strangers arising from somewhere in a small town, but I think High Plains Drifter is slightly better, if only because it has a jagged edge of humor and allegory that makes its result all the more whole, one that utilizes its 105 minute run-time for gratifying effect in haunting display, complete with a Dee Barton music score to generate a first-rate Western. It isn't perfect, but it makes a worthy first impression when looking on the career of Clint Eastwood - the star and director.

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.

Note: This one was for Dad.

Sudden Impact.

Review #1757: Sudden Impact.

Cast: 

Clint Eastwood (Inspector Harry Callahan), Sondra Locke (Jennifer Spencer), Pat Hingle (Chief Lester Jannings), Bradford Dillman (Captain Briggs), Paul Drake (Mick), Michael Maurer (George Wilburn), Albert Popwell (Horace King), Audrie J. Neenan (Ray Parkins), and Jack Thibeau (Kruger) Produced and Directed by Clint Eastwood (#1252 - Space Cowboys, #1310 - Million Dollar Baby, #1476 - Pale Rider, #1501 - Unforgiven, #1550 - Gran Torino, and #1638 - Bird)

Review: 

Remember the ham-fisted nature of the Dirty Harry series? Well, at least some of the time, anyway. True, having the first feature being the undisputed best of a five film series is not exactly a new thing, but one really can't forget just how engaging the original 1971 film was when it came to police procedural dramas. Of course, it did not go without controversy, at least from folks that have quibbles with its moral positioning (real or imagined, depending on the source). Magnum Force (1973) was not a bad follow-up film, although it certainly had a diminished quality when it came to the adversarial contrast to Eastwood (who doesn't have to do much to make the lead role his own with a few key lines); the punch for its climax was fine, but it was what it was. The Enforcer (1976) harkened to pulling from the headlines for its main confrontation that saw plenty of action and folks sprayed around; the smart remarks and vigilance continued, albeit with stock adversaries and a tone that almost could have been lampooned. This would be the first and only Dirty Harry film that Eastwood would direct; incidentally, he felt the success of the series was because people felt frustrated with the criminal justice system. Earl E. Smith and Charles B. Pierce wrote the initial script that was meant to be a starring vehicle for just Locke, but it was later turned into a film fit for both Locke and Eastwood with the help of Joseph Stinson. This would happen to be the last major feature role for Locke, who had decided to venture into directing (she had starred with Eastwood in five previous films) before personal disputes with Eastwood led to what she would call being blacklisted from the film industry.

If you were wondering just where the series would go here, well, here you go. It has a weird blend of coarse procedural clichés that go hand in hand with parts that go with moments that seem destined for curious chuckles that teeter on self-parody. A hack writer who wanted to make a parody of loose cannon cops like the one Eastwood plays wouldn't have to search hard for stuff to lampoon, what with the capacity for the lead hero to have bodies turn up dead around him (criminal or not). Justice is a tough thing to enforce when folks keep turning up, it seems. Of course the parody wouldn't be as cynical about the nature of society and criminal justice as this film does, although at least one can say there is a fairly decent movie within semi-plausible standards. Technically speaking, it is a bit better than the last film, in that it manages to have a more interesting contrast to its lead character, although it certainly does have a bit more baggage within building 117 minutes of cop drama. Of course, you could see where the series may or may not have started to run a bit on its own self-righteous steam; the fifth and final film would be released in 1988. Eastwood always seems unflappable with making movies his way with a particular view involving crime and the near-mythic hero that doesn't have to say much to get his shot clear, so one can take it or leave the actor at who he is (I say that word rather than just "the man", interpret that how you like); even an average Eastwood movie is still a useful time to be had for those who seek it, at least. Locke seems to represent the other side of the coin of driven determination in the idea of justice, and one might be amused that they don't interact with each other until nearly an hour in; they don't exactly share broad chemistry with each other, but they seem to connect the quiet wires to where they need to (it should be pointed out that in the "parody", you wouldn't even have to change the fact that she is the most effective "adversarial counterpart" to the hero) - if you believe the climax, you might just believe almost anything with Eastwood, I guess. Hingle is the straight-laced counterpart to situations that could almost require more bluster to blush oneself (what with the whole big city vs town thing), but he makes the most of it with useful candor. Drake makes an okay goon, although it is strange to note that this was his most noted role as an actor. Popwell plays the partner-surrogate to fit the detached chemistry one sees coming from interactions with Eastwood in these films (insert phrase here). As a whole, one can reasonably be engaged with the film with its casual handling of action and stance on justice (namely have more of it?) while recognizing that it likely only works as much as one wants to put into it with the usual suspects; folks that are not too big on Eastwood or his rigidity won't be swayed too much, but others will roll with the punches fine (one wonders just how the last film will go with an actor pushing near 60 though). If it is thought of as one of Eastwood's more mediocre works, one can at least state that it manages to be a fair mediocre work one would still want to think about. It may be a bit off-kilter with its overall execution, but it still manages to provide a fine time for those who seek the waning days of the Dirty Harry series with curiosity.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

The Enforcer.

Review #1666: The Enforcer.

Cast: 

Clint Eastwood (Inspector Harry Callahan), Tyne Daly (Inspector Kate Moore), Harry Guardino (Lt. Al J. Bressler), Bradford Dillman (Captain Jerome McKay), John Mitchum (Inspector Frank DiGiorgio), Bill Ackridge (Andy), DeVeren Bookwalter (Bobby Maxwell), Albert Popwell (Big Ed Mustapha), John Crawford (The Mayor), and Robert Hoy (Buchinski) Directed by James Fargo.

Review: 

Did you know that this was supposed to be the last Dirty Harry film? I thought the most surprising thing about the series of Dirty Harry films would be the fact that Clint Eastwood ended up directing only one of them, although he certainly had his level of control (at least in terms of re-takes) with how they ended up with his production company in Malpaso. Why don't we just recap how we got to a third film, shall we: Harry Julian Fink and Rita Fink were the folks that came up with the original script for what would become Dirty Harry (1971), one that showed the blurred lines between criminal and cop with the hunt for a serial killer (in this case inspired by the Zodiac killer) that showed a lesson on the ends justifying the means. Further contributions came through Dean Riesner (a writer who had contributed scripts to a number of Eastwood films starting with Coogan's Bluff in 1968) alongside un-credited writers such as John Milius and Terence Malick. Don Siegel's efforts in wrangling the script to something Eastwood liked made for one of the most memorable cop films of the era, albeit one that certainly proved a shock to certain audiences. Magnum Force (1973) was done as a reaction against complete vigilantism, complete with Milius as story writer and Michael Cimino as co-writer. It was an okay film, one that might have run a bit too long to wander in all the directions it wanted. Originally, Eastwood was slated to direct this film (after having disputes with Ted Post with the last one), but troubles with The Outlaw Josey Wales (1976) meant that he had to focus his attention elsewhere (he took over directing for that film and had to supervise the editing). James Fargo was a familiar presence for Eastwood, since he served as his assistant director on numerous movies, and the Washington native would be brought in by Eastwood to direct his first feature film. The script came out of a hodgepodge of four writers in Stirling Silliphant and Dean Riesner (screenplay) to go with Gail Morgan Hickman and S.W. Schurr (story). Hickman and Schurr made a script that had Eastwood's character going up against a violent group that harkened to real-lie events of the day (such as the Symbionese Liberation Army and the Black Panther Party - the former was a domestic terrorist group comprised of left-wing thugs that committed two murders alongside robbery and kidnapping (most notably Patty Hearst), and as for the latter group...search and interpret for yourself). Meanwhile, Silliphant had come up with a script that paired the lead character with a female partner, but Eastwood wanted more action from it (rather than the emphasis on character); at any rate, Riesner would be brought in to re-write the script after Silliphant had done re-writes to both his original script and Hickman/Schurr's script. 

So how is the overall movie? For something that proved such a popular hit with audiences (at least in terms of being the biggest hit of the series until the next film seven years later), it certainly is a weird one to think about. On the one hand, having a shorter run-time (96 minutes) helps, but really one can't help but wonder what exactly has changed from the previous features. It almost delves into ham-fisted amusement with its attempts at balancing action with light moments that can range from crashing a car to foil a robbery/hostage situation after giving a remark about giving a car to a quite long foot-chase that is equivalent to a jog around your house to a final encounter at Alcatraz Island that I suppose made sense somewhere on the line. On a cheesy level, it is firmly in the middle of what you would consider in that department, wracked with a bleak tone that may or may not be overkill in action (one count in the body-count suggests one of nineteen, for example) that contrasts with moments of disjointed narrative movement. In other words: it is a decent movie in terms of not wasting my time, but it sure is an average way to do so with a cast that could have done better. I feel like if someone really wanted to make fun of the ham-fisted nature of these films, all one would need to do is to just trim a little bit from here and just add in a few more points of furor over hippie-I mean criminals doing actions against Callahan; he already loses more partners than pairs of keys, to begin with. Eastwood grits through a role that he certainly supervised to not speak as much as he didn't want to, complete with meeting the need for action to keep up with the fans. It isn't a bad performance, but it is exactly the kind of thing you have seen before that makes one see the logic in this being thought of as the last intended one - where else could he go with this character of smart remarks and vigilance? Daly had rejected the role a few times before being convinced to do it on one key change: omitting a relationship beyond professional between her and Eastwood's character. The interesting thing about Daly is that she would wind up playing a police officer again a few years later with the noted hit Cagney & Lacey in 1982. She does pretty well here in terms of wedging in clear-cut professional chemistry with Eastwood that never feels phoned in - she stands her ground in respect that seems a bit more memorable than the usual partner with Eastwood. Guardino is here and there when it comes to having the shoulder presence of authority, serving more for exposition more than anything; Dillman however is used as a foil to the usual beat against the main character that feels quite hollow. I had forgotten that Mitchum was making his third and last appearance in the series, but I'm sure he had a decent time with what is there for shock in setting up the obvious. Bookwalter makes for a fair stock performance in deranged nature that honestly needed more from the script (again, it's hard to top the first film and its choirboy faced killer). If the sequels to Dirty Harry are this distinctive in oddness, one almost wonders how sequels to other movies involving vigilance or cop action end up being, particularly for a feature like The Enforcer that is diverting if not just an excuse to rack up a few thrills with a somewhat game script and cast that result in a cheesy but likely serviceable effort. It kept the attention for what was needed as a continued reflection of 1970s action that has its moments for an overall mixed bag of curiosity.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars. 

Bird.

Review #1638: Bird.

Cast: 

Forest Whitaker (Charlie "Bird" Parker), Diane Venora (Chan Parker), Michael Zelniker (Red Rodney), Samuel E. Wright (Dizzy Gillespie), Keith David (Buster Franklin), Diane Salinger (Baroness Nica de Koenigswarter), Michael McGuire (Brewster), James Handy (Esteves), Anna Thomson (Audrey), Damon Whitaker (Young Bird Parker), Arlen Dean Snyder (Dr. Heath), Sam Robards (Moscowitz), and Bill Cobbs (Dr. Caulfield) Produced and Directed by Clint Eastwood (#1252 - Space Cowboys, #1310 - Million Dollar Baby, #1476 - Pale Rider, #1501 - Unforgiven, and #1550 - Gran Torino)

Review: 

"I'd love to go back in time. To Bourbon Street in the 20's, to 12th Street in Kansas City in the 30's, to 52nd Street in the late 40's."

It was once said by Miles Davis (a legend in his own right in music) that one could tell the history of jazz in four words: "Louis Armstrong. Charlie Parker." Jazz, one of the great music genres of the times, certainly had plenty of historical figures leading the way, and the key to understanding one of its styles rests with Charlie "Yardbird" Parker. The Kansas City native used his time on this Earth for a variety of impactful compositions that clearly touched upon numerous listeners with his alto saxophone of fast tempos and improvisation before his death in 1954. One of those folks was Clint Eastwood, who heard the musician play in Oakland when he was just 15. The film was made on a budget of $9-14 million and came around years after its script was developed by Joel Oliansky in 1980 (shaped by recollections from colleague Teddy Edwards), and it was originally intended to be a project for Richard Pryor. There would be participation from a variety of people close to Parker, such as his common law widow Chan Parker, provided recordings to Eastwood that she had in a vault. It was the first Eastwood film that he had directed where he did not appear in any form (Breezy (1973) had a cameo of him). This was the first of a group of jazz-related programs that Eastwood would be behind in some form (mostly producing), with 1988 also seeing the release of a documentary of the life of Thelonious Monk. It is the sound that matters most when it comes to this film (particularly with music coordinator and former alto sax at Birdland Lennie Niehaus, tasked with writing for the instruments to play where the original piano music was playing), since the recordings of Parker had to be digitally and electronically isolated from the solos, with modern backing tracks recorded over.

While it was not a success with audiences at the time of its release, it certainly has an appeal for those interested in jazz or for those who yearn to see someone at the top of their craft, struggles and all. The beauty of the film is the rhythm it carries with its tribute to a jazz legend with a biography that depicts selections from his life without rote routine or a judging eye. In a way, it moves like a beat you might hear in a jazz composition with all of the thoughtful moodiness required to make a worthwhile time. All interesting biopics have a performance to carry it and no one should be surprised by Whitaker and his effectiveness in bringing Bird to the screen. This was the first starring lead role for Whitaker, who had entered films and television with supporting roles in 1982 such as Tag: The Assassination Game (1982) and Platoon (1986) after a back injury had him shift focus away from football, although he did do some study in music before doing drama. He is the guiding force that makes the film work as smoothly as it does, one that can justify spending plenty of time with in all the soulful aspects that makes for a fascinating experience. He manages to carry talent alongside pain that we can see play a note alongside play his burden without just finding it easy to take judgement or easy pity for as a man. In other words, we see the genius that comes from the notes in the fragments that come out alongside his highs and lows that came with a struggle with addiction to heroin. Venora plays a worthy settling piece to the times away from the road, one with warmth and reason that come around with various scenes that jump from end to end (whether involving interludes at home or near the ends of the timeline spent). Zelniker does fine in those moments on the road, balancing talent with wracked nerve that obviously strikes a chord with what is needed with Whitaker, whether that means an albino act or struggles with oneself (incidentally, the real Rodney participated in the production and is even mentioned in the credits). Wright does well with following along with the beat required from Whitaker without being stepped on (as one would see coming from another figure of bebop jazz, who was touring at the time of production). David and his time spent are quite fleeting, but he sure does well with setting up one particular scene quite well involving cymbals despite playing a composite. Salinger plays the fateful part needed from someone who invites curiosity (incidentally, the real life Baroness was also featured in the documentary about the life of Monk, which aired the month before her death). I suppose any biography is going to have twiddling with the facts, and there are a few things one might quibble with, which is interesting for a film of 155 minutes. Maybe it depends on how much one knows on the subject to begin with, since one might not know about Parker's other marriages (which I probably should have guessed with the whole common thing I described earlier) or lack of mention to associations Parker had with musicians like Miles Davis. In the end, it just comes down to how much one finds themselves enjoying the experience to be had with an elegy for a legend that captures what it means to move to the tune of one's own beat as a film for all of the musicians.

Next Time: Legends in the fields of laughter come together for a most unusual film with a one-time director. Night time comes for Harlem Nights.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Gran Torino.

Review #1550: Gran Torino.

Cast: 
Clint Eastwood (Walt Kowalski), Bee Vang (Thao Vang Lor), Ahney Her (Sue Lor), Christopher Carley (Father Janovich), Doua Moua (Fong "Spider"), Sonny Vue (Smokie), Elvis Thao (Hmong Gangbanger No. 1), Brian Haley (Mitch Kowalski), Brian Howe (Steve Kowalski), Geraldine Hughes (Karen Kowalski), Dreama Walker (Ashley Kowalski), Michael E. Kurowski (Josh Kowalski), John Carroll Lynch (Martin), and Chee Thao (Grandma Vang Lor) Produced and Directed by Clint Eastwood (#1252 - Space Cowboys, #1310 - Million Dollar Baby, #1476 - Pale Rider, and #1501 - Unforgiven)

Review: 
"I liked that it dealt with prejudice, that it was about never being too old to learn — we talked about that before, about always moving forward, progressing."

This was the 29th directorial effort of Clint Eastwood, a name very familiar with numerous films highlighted previously. The 2000s only continued that trend with films such as Million Dollar Baby (2004) or with his Iwo Jima duology in Flags of Our Fathers and Letter from Iwo Jima (2006). He gradually took on less roles as a star, with this being his fourth and last role in the decade (of course anyone would be glad to be over 70 and still take on roles from time to time), with this one serving as an audience favorite. The screenplay was written by first-time writer Nick Schenk with a story by him and Dave Johannson. Schenk had done some work with television (a game show, a mixed martial arts show, and comedy sketches) while working in construction and fruit truck driving that wrote his script at a bar, while Johannson sold furnaces. It was the experiences Schenk had with Hmong co-workers people at construction that inspired the main character (whose characteristics were stated by others in why it couldn't be made). However, after finding producers to help option the script and a bit of bouncing around, it found its way to Warner Brothers with Eastwood, who accepted it without apprehension - the story had only one modification made from script to to screen, which was to change the setting from Minneapolis to Detroit (for tax breaks).

In a way, this proves to be the last of a specific theme in the films of Eastwood - namely the idea of having messed with the wrong man at exactly the wrong time to do so, one who becomes an unintentional hero to those who seek out his scowl-turning tenacity. He might as well be thought of as the hodgepodge of Archie Bunker and Dirty Harry, a man of evolving sensibility towards others but also in the cycle of violence. Even a retirement from Westerns can't help shake the idea that the genre is present in those basic ideas (resembling The Shootist, in its aging fighter, aspiring ward and ultimate note on violence). Whether the film actually accomplishes its goal of said breaking away from said stuff is up to the viewer, naturally. For me, I thought it was a decent film, even if it seems a bit wedged stuck in between being a coming-of-age film involving one finding their courage or just being a confrontational one of a man against the streets infringing on his lawn. I think it actually worked a bit better when involving the Hmong culture and the parallels that come from it with family when faced with Eastwood - or at the very least what seems like their culture, since there  since there was discussion over perceived inaccuracies in the film that came from writers, cast members, and crew. In any case, it is the fact that the performances are fair enough to go alongside fine production values that keep the film from seeming completely washed away in a dated capsule.

Eastwood is probably the best part of the film, in that he fits the mold of what is needed in acid-laced edge that does not so much cry for redemption as he so much softens himself from sharp prejudice to at the very least finding some sort of peace as we go along with him and his grimace, winces and all. The Hmong actors do fine, but "natural acting" without having much rehearsal to go with it can make a wooden time to see play out, because they can only go so far when faced with someone like Eastwood. Vang subsequently described the struggles associated with his performance as one that "doesn't look like stellar acting to me". He stated that he and others did not have much consulting with Eastwood, since he wanted "natural acting", so to speak while finding trouble with a character he felt was negated by the script in submissiveness; the scene with the barber is a bizarre expression of that, trying to assert just what one needs in terms of friendly exchange of insults and banter that doesn't really gel well with actually building this character up as opposed to a bit of a gag. Her makes an okay impression in accompanying Eastwood for a time in snark and culture info-giving. Carley is the only other one giving any sort of impression, and it takes a while for him to not seemingly crumble into a corncob in quivering persistence. The others seem to be there for the occasional vague moment with everything riding on the one professional star, which could have been an unwieldly time with less conviction from an actor.  It all depends on how much one buys the gradual growing-bond between Eastwood and the community that goes alongside macho melodrama that bubbles itself in observation for 116 minutes that only scratches the surface of changing attitudes towards others. In that sense, it may prove a minor effort in Eastwood's extensive body of work, but it certainly has an appeal for those who find it having enough grasp on its subject to make it mean something in the end.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

Unforgiven.

Review #1501: Unforgiven.

Cast: 
Clint Eastwood (William "Will" Munny), Gene Hackman ("Little" Bill Daggett), Morgan Freeman (Ned Logan), Richard Harris (English Bob), Jaimz Woolvett (The Schofield Kid), Saul Rubinek (W. W. Beauchamp), Frances Fisher (Strawberry Alice), Anna Thomson (Delilah Fitzgerald), David Mucci (Quick Mike), Rob Campbell (Davey Bunting), and Anthony James (Skinny Dubois) Produced and Directed by Clint Eastwood (#1252 - Space Cowboys, #1310 - Million Dollar Baby, and #1476 - Pale Rider)

Review: 
"Gene Hackman was interesting because I gave the Unforgiven script to his agent and he said no, he didn't want to do anything violent. But I went back to him and said, "I know where you're coming from. You get to a certain age and I'm there too, where you don't want to tell a lot of violent stories, but this is a chance to make a great statement"

It's easy to make a lasting great Western when it is going to be the last one you make after a long career defined by them. Eastwood had at least one defining Western that he was featured in, whether that involved television with Rawhide or with films such as A Fistful of Dollars, Two Mules for Sister Sara, or Pale Rider. This was his 17th directorial effort (and fourth involving the Western), and it surely proved a fitting last hurrah for Eastwood to declare as his last Western so as to not repeat himself or others (which has proven correct in for over two decades). The script for this film was written by David Peoples (who prior to writing had been a editor for TV and news programs) in 1976, with one development title being "The William Munny Killings", and one inspiration for him when it came to the depiction of violence was Taxi Driver. The script languished for years while Peoples wrote for other films such as The Day After Trinity (1980) and Blade Runner (1982), with Eastwood having waited around for years to do other projects first. Eastwood thought of making changes to the script, but he changed his mind because of how he saw the script was better without it (minus one thing, which involved having the opening having a text crawl rather than a voiceover). The result was two Academy Awards for Eastwood (for direction and Best Picture) and one for Hackman alongside one for editing.

At last, a Western great enough for the 1990s to deserve. It proves to be a riveting and somber ilm with its subversion of the Western and the myths that could make outlaws famous with whatever exploit could be covered fast enough. Sure, there have been quite a few films that have played with the clichés and traditions of what we saw in the Western in the classic era (with one slight resemblance being The Shootist, for example), but this one handles itself with a great elegiac quality in its direction, characters, and pace that make it one for the ages. It lives and moves with a great patience for making its surroundings resonate with its audience, with a false note never happening as more characters come and leave the picture as reflections of the time and place, whether that means a once-removed killer/farmer, or a savage outlaw, an outlaw with publicity, or even a sight-challenged kid with reputation. The easiest strength of the film lies within its main trio of actors, starting with Eastwood. No one ever fit the mythic mold of the Western hero ever so much in the last few decades of the 20th century film era like Eastwood did, who resonates in pained grit that reflects past and present with no contrived frills as a man with shades of gray. Hackman proves just as worthy in matching up to Hackman on the other side of the hill, tenacious and dedicated in intimidation and order (one of the people Hackman drew from was a police chief, for example) that lend excellence to small moments, such as a conversation with Harris and Rubinek involving the nature of fact and fiction with outlaws turning into a quiet showdown of chicken. Freeman (in the midst of a deserved rise in prominence with supporting and lead roles in the late 1980s) fills in the main details with resonating nerve and conviction that we come to depend on in a careful balancing act between him and Eastwood that make for useful time spent. Harris, despite being in the film considerably less than the others (and only having time with just Hackman and Rubinek) does a resoundingly good job in playing the part of the myth of a refined killer come out splendidly when faced with Hackman and his own interpretation of killers and those who write about them. Woolvett is the key supporting piece to encapsulate the film, brash but quite convincing as the lasting piece of the dealings of myth and reality when it comes to bits of amusement and action between him and Eastwood, never grating on one's patience. Rubinek and the others prove well in filling the town with interest and the dealings that come with conflicting view of justice and morality. What we have here is a film to stamp out the myths that came from films about a time as myth-inducing as the Old West with a wise one at the hand behind and in front of the camera in Eastwood to do wonders with for 131 minutes. This is a well-done piece of subversion and execution on a variety of levels that range from its cast to its look (done entirely in Alberta, Canada) that make the grand myth of outlaw one to look closer into and care about with flourish and satisfaction. It isn't the first Western one might view for themselves, but it sure is the one deserving of being up there to see time and time again among the classics.

Overall, I give it 10 out of 10 stars.

Pale Rider.

Review #1476: Pale Rider.

Cast:
Clint Eastwood (The Preacher), Michael Moriarty (Hull Barret), Carrie Snodgress (Sarah Wheeler), Richard Dysart (Coy LaHood), Chris Penn (Josh LaHood), Sydney Penny (Megan Wheeler), John Russell (Marshal Stockburn), Richard Kiel (Club), Doug McGrath (Spider Conway), Chuck Lafont (Eddie Conway), and Jeffrey Weissman (Teddy Conway) Produced and Directed by Clint Eastwood (#1252 - Space Cowboys and #1310 - Million Dollar Baby)

Review:
"You have to trust your instincts. There's a moment when an actor has it, and he knows it. Behind the camera you can feel the moment even more clearly. And once you've got it, once you feel it, you can't second-guess yourself. You can find a million reasons why something didn't work. But if it feels right, and it looks right, it works. Without sounding like a pseudointellectual dipshit, it's my responsibility to be true to myself. If it works for me, it's right."

Clint Eastwood has cultivated a unique and prolific career for himself over half of a century. Ther have been quite a bit of actors who have become stars in both television and film, but there have not been as many actors who have also sprung into star directors. Eastwood has had a breakthrough project in each decade since the 1950s, whether that involves television (Rawhide, 1959-65), starring roles (The Dollars Trilogy, Dirty Harry), or directing (debuting with Play Misty for Me (1971), the first of over thirty films), with influence coming from directors he had worked with such as Sergio Leone and Don Siegel with a quick pace. The Western certainly had declined in stature for the 1980s, but Pale Rider was certainly a high point for its decade (being one of the most profitable Westerns released for that era). This was the third Western directed by Eastwood and his first since The Outlaw Josey Wales (1976), and it certainly isn't the first of him playing a nameless and mystical drifter (such as with High Plains Drifter over a decade earlier). In general, the film seems to cover ground that was done with Shane (1953), which also had a stranger that came into a town wracked with intimidation over settlers by a baron and his minions that soon escalates into hiring a gunfighter to combat the stranger (in this case, a group of marshals), and the stranger leaves town after it has been settled to stay with its settlers. Of course there are quite a few differences between the two (namely in gold miners as opposed to homesteaders), with the most key being in the quiet details of this film, which has a mystical quality to its title hero, practically seeming like a ghost when engaging in action (which Eastwood subsequently confirmed). In that sense, it makes for an interesting experience of 116 minutes with careful precision. No matter how familiar one is with Eastwood as an actor or director, it isn't too much of a stretch to enjoy what we see without feeling like one is watching a greatest hits Western or something without a competent athmosphere and support to go with it. Eastwood may always grit his way through a role, but it doesn't mean he can't be curious to view regardless, a sardonic presence of careful words. The others prove fairly adept with making this small town setting come forward with careful interest. Moriarty proves an affiable leader of the folks with calmness. Snodgrass and Penny do fine when paired with others, while Dysart and Penn make fair adversaries to view involving greed. Russell (known for his work in the TV show Lawman) makes for a useful presence of old eyes that carry menace. The film proves diverting in its own look upon the mysterious stranger lurking on the frontier with its own kind of mythic nature that make a quietly effective time - whether in thinking about a man we see with bullet holes in the back at first glance or in how he operates with these folks without really needing to show much of himself and cut the ambiguity. There is always a place for a Western that wants to cover a frontier worth looing upon, and this is a fair film in its genre that sets itself up well with atmosphere and a cast worth viewing at least once for its era.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Million Dollar Baby.

Review #1310: Million Dollar Baby.

Cast: 
Clint Eastwood (Frankie Dunn), Hilary Swank (Margaret "Maggie" Fitzgerald), Morgan Freeman (Eddie "Scrap-Iron" Dupris), Jay Baruchel (Danger), Mike Colter ("Big" Willie Little), Lucia Rijker (Billie "The Blue Bear" Osterman), Brían F. O'Byrne (Father Horvak), Anthony Mackie (Shawrelle Berry), Margo Martindale (Earline Fitzgerald), Riki Lindhome (Mardell Fitzgerald), and Michael Peña (Omar) Directed by Clint Eastwood (#1252 - Space Cowboys)

Review: 
We all love underdogs. Or at least we love the idea of someone trying to claw their way out of their past and find a new life for themselves (a second act, if you will). Of course one may have already seen a Cinderella story through the eyes of boxing before with Rocky (1976), but the film finds its own place to deliver a wrenching drama that works wonderfully for its 132 minute run-time with a solid trio to make its foundation stick. The film is based on a short story collection named Rope Burns: Stories from the Corner by F.X. Toole (pen name of boxing trainer Jerry Boyd), with Paul Haggis writing the screenplay. The film plays itself out in realism piece by piece that draws its ensemble with quiet precision. The film plays itself out in realism piece by piece that draws its ensemble with quiet precision. Eastwood does the task of acting/directing with ease, seeping into a grizzled yet well-meaning teacher with confidence. Freeman (who also serves as narrator) does a wonderful sobering job, carrying the soul of the film to where it needs to go whenever he is on screen or narrating about these characters and who they are when down and out in boxing. Swank clearly trained hard to sell such a tough role, where looking the part is only the half of it all - one is invested in Swank because of the drive and raw charisma she brings here. It's no surprise each won an Academy Award (Best Director, Supporting Actor, Actress) for their work - they all play well with each other, no matter whose partnered with who is a scene. The supporting cast (filled with actors who would become known in their own right) give credence to this grizzled atmosphere seen in the film, where one has to find something to stick with to belong and face hard truths - whether it means how one can be as a fighter or as a father or with one's own relatives or with the reality of sudden changes. The boxing looks the part when it comes to giving the right balance of brutality and entertainment, where one is involved with the punches without bellowing for more or being squeamish for less.  It grips the audience like a book you'd find in the store and find reading piece by piece without hesitation, never hedging itself too long on somehing without a clear reason.

The film hits most of the right punches when it comes to mining hard hitting drama in and out of the ring, being more than a typical boxing film through its distinct first and second halves. It forges with its choices without hamhanded compromise or cruelty for its characters, which may work differently for a viewer with their own mindsets about certain uncomfortable decisions. For me, the film hits the landing with a quiet but resounding focus, where a tear may very well come out of a stone composure. After 15 years, it's no wonder why this proves to be a modern classic worth checking out at least once.

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.

Space Cowboys.

Review #1252: Space Cowboys.

Cast: 
Clint Eastwood (Frank Corvin), Tommy Lee Jones (William "Hawk" Hawkins), Donald Sutherland (Jerry O'Neill), James Garner ("Tank" Sullivan), Marcia Gay Harden (Sara Holland), William Devane (Flight Director Eugene "Gene" Davis), Loren Dean (Ethan Glance), Courtney B. Vance (Roger Hines), James Cromwell (Bob Gerson), Rade Šerbedžija (General Vostov), and Barbara Babcock (Barbara Corvin) Directed by Clint Eastwood.

Review: 
This is one of those films that exists to deliver adventure for a certain kind of audience that surely is interested in seeing some entertainment without any rough challenges and a few visual winners. It runs at 130 minutes, but it sure seems to want to be familiar with predictable leanings that its main core four actors are up to making seem fun to sit with. After all, if John Glenn (fighter/test pilot turned astronaut turned U.S Senator) could be sent into outer space at the ripe age of 77, why not send four old pilots (with Garner being the oldest at 72 on release) into space to fix a secret satellite? Even the challenge of getting these folks up to speed with training (in 30 days, no less - for which publicity for this mission only comes in two weeks before launch) doesn't really seem to faze anybody in the film, especially not the audience. It does fall in the lines of a popcorn movie in that if you really wanted to poke a few jabs in its logic (the idea of sending an astronaut with terminal cancer comes to mind), you could, but I was at least entertained enough with what I saw to make this a winner by the margins, primarily because of its cast and effects. At least one cannot fault Eastwood for taking the script from Ken Kaufman-Howard Klausner and rolling with giving the film a bit of light charm in its journey without too many roaring bumps, essentially being the kind of film you could probably watch with your dad or mom and have a good time with (I remember my dad having interest in plenty of Eastwood films, nearly all of which in the bunch qualified as adventures like this), with even a Jay Leno cameo fitting the bill for what one could expect. It has a yearning for what was that certainly has aged a bit (particularly with the end of the Space Shuttle program) but will linger just fine with those who seek it. The effects-work from Industrial Light & Magic is well done as one could expect, capturing the essence of space and the moments that require some wonder and delivers pretty well, where one isn't taken out of the film and its shots of the shuttle or satellite in space because something seems too off-putting or ridiculous. As one would hope, it is the interactions between the core four that drive the film as forward as it wants, particularly when it is between Eastwood and Jones. Eastwood certainly is wiry enough to headline a last hurrah routine with a degree of persistence that only could come out in a mild adventure driven by Eastwood on both sides of the camera. Jones is just as wiry with plenty of rough charm that certainly gets its chance to come out plenty, whether when old wounds open up about who ruined whose shot at going to space or when doing some stunt piloting for an eager birthday man. Sutherland and Garner are both warm and engaging as the other useful cogs in this fairly oiled machine, fitting with what is needed just as one can hope. Harden, Devane, and Cromwell fill the other piece of the pie just fine, doing what needs to be done to further the film (whether it be exposition or occasional character moments with the main four) without bumps on the way. Dean and Vance are okay, but they feel a bit sidetracked when it comes to making any sort of comparison of the old guard (Air Force pilots) and the new type of astronauts, which might have been a bit interesting to go with. In the long run, what we have here is a film that aims for a tolerable standard blend of reality and movie-magic that will certainly feel par for the course in its execution but at least please its crowd just well enough to make things worth it, where the time goes by without too much waste to speak of.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

Magnum Force.

Review #1135: Magnum Force.

Cast: 
Clint Eastwood (Inspector Harry Callahan), Hal Holbrook (Lt. Neil Briggs), David Soul (Officer John Davis), Tim Matheson (Officer Phil Sweet), Kip Niven (Officer Alan "Red" Astrachan), Robert Urich (Officer Mike Grimes), Felton Perry (Inspector Earlington "Early" Smith), Mitchell Ryan (Officer Charlie McCoy), Bob McClurg (the Cab Driver), and John Mitchum (Inspector Frank DiGiorgio) Directed by Ted Post (#518 - Hang 'Em High and #662 - Beneath the Planet of the Apes)

Review: 
The original Dirty Harry was a great success as an action crime thriller upon release in 1971, having a great combination of talent and style to it, from Don Siegel as director to a screenplay written by Harry Julian Fink, R.M. Fink & Dean Riesner, with un-credited work from John Milius. This time around, the director is Ted Post, who had directed numerous television programs such as Rawhide (also starring Clint Eastwood) and The Twilight Zone along with a few feature films, with Milius doing the story and co-writing the screenplay with Michael Cimino (co-writer of the screenplay for Silent Running a year prior). It should be noted that there had been a draft for the original film written by Terrence Malick that had a vigilante who hunted wealthy criminals who had gotten free of justice, which certainly has a bit of similarity with the story that Milius came up with for the sequel - albeit with motorcycle cops. The original film certainly attracted attention (and controversy) with the way it portrayed its loose cannon main character and how he did business, but the movie was certainly a popular one due to how it reflected the time it was made. In any case, the sequel tries to follow that up with something fresh, with the villain being people more rogue than him. For the most part, Magnum Force does a fine job in generating entertainment and thrills enough to make for a decent sequel, although it certainly has its limitations. Eastwood is as tough and grizzled as ever, which certainly leads to a bunch of effective sequences, such as the one involving a pistol championship between the cops or a scene with the adversaries and Eastwood stating their differences. Holbrook does a fine job with the role, managing to not fall under the radar while providing a fair contrast between his character and the main with how they treat the system - made true with the last half. Soul and the other three cops are okay, but they pale when compared to the villain from the original, particularly since they feel a bit more disposable and not as creepy this time around - for better or worse. Perry makes an fair impression when with Eastwood as partners, for the most part. Ryan does okay with the raw bit of time he has on screen. The film certainly feels a bit long at 124 minutes (as compared to the original being 102 minutes), and it is likely due to occasional lulls in the middle. The climax does fine with helping the film end without stumbling too much, but it doesn't seem to have the kind of punch that stands out amongst other action thrillers. Milius wasn't a particular fan of the film, describing it as one he did not like much, saying "They changed a lot of things in a cheap and distasteful manner. The whole ending is wrong, it wasn't mine at all. All movies had a motorcycle or car chase at the time — except Westerns." the film certainly had its troubles, with Post and Eastwood having disagreements over how the film should be done, which led to a falling out. In any case, There certainly is a good amount of action that will satisfy people enough without being too brutal or too out of place. I can't say that this is a great film by any means, but it is at least fair entertainment and a fair sequel.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.