*** Official GRAN TORINO Discussion Thread (1 Viewer)

[Jeff_Standley]

 

[Adam Lenhardt]

I have never seen the advertising you describe; all of the trailers and commericals I've seen have been along the lines of the trailer at the beginning of this thread. Most people I know who've seen it went because it was a Clint Eastwood movie and they were willing to take a chance on it.
Now that the past weekend has brought in the biggest B.O. haul of his career, of course word-of-mouth is building for it. I still think the initial reaction was so strong because people's expectations going into the film were less than the impression they left with.

 

[Jeff_Standley]

I disagree, I think people already have high expectations for Clint Eastwood films, especially in the past several years.
But I do congratulate him on having his biggest weekend of his career. He deserved bigger weekends than that for almost all of his movies though.

 

[JonZ]

I saw this monday and liked it. It was definitely funnier than I was expecting it to be.

 

[Michael Reuben]

If that were true, Flags of Our Fathers, Letters from Iwo Jima and Changeling would have done bigger box office. Those are the three Eastwood-directed films between Million Dollar Baby and Gran Torino.

And there's a reason why I mentioned Blood Work in a previous post. It was to prevent someone saying, "Yeah, but Clint didn't appear in those three." Well, he appeared in Blood Work, and that film went nowhere either.

So there's really no knowing when a film will connect with an audience. And no denying when it does.

 

[Jeff_Standley]

There were some genuinely funny moments, when Thao said his "ass hurt from all the guys at his construction job" I lost it.

 

[Michael Reuben]

The same analysis applies, even if you're not just talking about box office. Changeling, Flags of Our Fathers and Blood Work are not especially well-regarded films in the Eastwood canon. Not only didn't they connect with audiences, but their critical reception was also mixed.

And no, I don't always expect great things from Eastwood. I expect the possibility of great things, which is all that's realistic. Too many things have to fall together just right, and sometimes the magic doesn't happen.

But let's not lose sight of where this started: People were talking about "hype", and I drew a distinction between attention that's initiated by marketing and attention that's generated by an audience discovering a film. The latter can't be separated from box office; if a film does no box office, the audience isn't discovering it. Michael Bay's films (to use your example) don't get "discovered". They're marketed to the nth degree long before anyone ever sees them. Gran Torino was not so marketed, and neither was Million Dollar Baby or Unforgiven.

 

[Jeff_Standley]

There is definitely a difference in the type of hype that can be put onto a movie. I would agree that Eastwoods film you mentioned did not get the over-hyping that an Iron Man or Dark Knight gets. Everyone should have seen Million Dollar baby, it deserved that kind of hype.

 

[Robert Crawford]

I agree with you about "Blood Work", but I'm not so sure about the other two. I thought both films were considered good films, but they're not on the level of Unforgiven or Million Dollar Baby.





Crawdaddy

 

[Michael Reuben]

That's the trouble with generalizations. They always blur important distinctions.

Of that group, Flags was probably the best regarded. But, at least as I recall it, even the reviews that were respectful were not enthusiastic, and I think that was reflected in the film's lack of popular appeal.

Changeling has had some very good reviews and some very bad ones. It's current RT rating is 59%. I happen to like the film, but it's one of the most polarizing of Eastwood's career. It received a poor reaction at Cannes and was reportedly reedited between that showing and the U.S. release.

All I was trying to do was emphasize that something like Gran Torino doesn't happen just because Eastwood releases a film. The film has to have something special -- and that ain't hype!

 

[Johnny Angell]

I'd like to ask about a plot point:
Does Eastwood's character die in this film?

 

[mylan]

Do you REALLY want to know this before you see it?

 

[Robert Crawford]

If you're planning on seeing the film, why would you want to know the answer to that question?





Crawdaddy

 

[Johnny Angell]

Yes, that is why I asked.

 

[Jeff_Standley]

Nothin like killing the movie for yourself huh?

Someone may answer this question, but if you have any plans at all in seeing this I would not look for the answer anymore.

 

[Dennis Castro]

I've read most of this discussion.

I loved this film. I think it's one of his best.

With his recent films I've developed the attitude that no matter what's it's about,no matter what you expectations are, you are going to get something special and unexpected with an Eastwood film. I was not disappointed.

It's now several days since I've seen it and I still have to stop myself from talking or thinking about it too much because I still get emotional. I'm not sure I can say that about any other film I've seen.

Was anyone reminded of the Outlaw Josie Wales with the spiting tobacco thing? It may just be me because that happens to be my favorite Eastwood film.

 

[Adam Lenhardt]

 

[Joe Karlosi]

If this is to be Clint Eastwood's last film, it would be a case of his going out on a high note. This is a very good film, though at this point I would hesitate to call it "perfect". At first I didn't know what to make out of Eastwood's over the top racial rantings ... they were so exaggerated and cartoonish that he was coming off as satirical. There are a lot of funny lines in the film in spite of this, and it's a relief that the script winds up making us care about Walt in contrast to his ways, which believe it or not actually begin to make him endearing as the story progresses (you have to see for yourself). If I am going to get picky, the acting wasn't the greatest. At times I thought even Clint's delivery seemed a bit false, or that he was pausing while delivering some of lines, or something. But this is a touching movie about people, heart, and responsibility. I really liked it.

 

[thehank]

My wife and I saw this yesterday and it's truly one of Eastwood's finer films, both from an acting and directing perspective. The racial slurs were a little over the top, but a critical part of the character development as well. "Walt" was a far more complex man than his racial slurs indicate, and I'm really glad they let the relationships develop, in spite of this.

I especially liked the development of the priest, who at first, came across as just a bumbling idiot, but in the end, was a crucial part of the story. Very well done indeed. The ending was somewhat predictable, but was still emotional and done well.

I'm still somewhat confused about why "Walt" has "Thao" fix-up the house across the street as his payback for attempting to steal his car. Unless it was part of "Walt's" plan to get him a construction job?

Of course, Eastwood wasn't even considered for an Oscar nomination, but that's hardly surprising, given the Academy's total cluelessness when it comes to mainstream films.

Hank

 

[Jeff_Standley]

Walt had nothing for Thao to do to for his own house and didn't want him to help him. Walt was the only one in the neighborhood who kept up his house and was pissed that the new neighbors didn't keep their houses and yards up. So he took advantage of Thao's debt to him and made thao work on the other houses to make them look a little nicer.

And Gran Torino didn't get shut out, it just didn't deserve the nominations. I think most of you have said it best here in this thread, it's good but over done in certain parts. That would pretty take it out of competition for an Oscar nomination wouldn't it? Even people who like this movie have said the movie has a few problems.