Re: *** Official GRAN TORINO Discussion Thread
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Michael Elliott
I think the majority of his early stuff was "good" but could have been a lot better with a better director who knew how to cut stuff.
|
Be a part of the community.
It's free, join today!
|
Originally Posted by Michael Elliott
I think the majority of his early stuff was "good" but could have been a lot better with a better director who knew how to cut stuff.
|
|
Originally Posted by Rob Foss
Your distinction is a false one. There's no purist distinction to be made between an audience discovering a film for themselves & one where the mindless masses have been allegedly driven to it by a blizzard of hype - at least not in the examples you give. There's always a crossover.
|
|
Originally Posted by Rob Foss
That you don't perceive any hype or marketing to have been responsible for their success only goes to show just how well those people did their job.
|
|
Originally Posted by Rob Foss
Flags was well received critically, so was Changeling, the latter even more so outside the US. Blood Work aside I don't know what your sources are for a statement like '[those] .. are not especially well-regarded films in the Eastwood canon' but the critical & even box office response strongly suggests otherwise. Changeling is well on the way to a $100 million worldwide gross & Flags/Letters were highly placed on almost all Top 10/Films of the Year lists from the major reviewers.
|
|
Originally Posted by Michael Reuben
Like Crawdaddy, I think "most" is an overstatement. Maybe I need to see the film again, but I don't get the complaints about the supporting cast. It's not something I even noticed while watching the film.
|
|
Originally Posted by BrettB
Liked it quite a bit but I prefer the Unforgiven ending.
|
|
Originally Posted by Jeff_Standley
See the ending of GT is one of the few kudos I do give the movie. The Unforgiven ending is too obvious, GT's ending is a sacrifice from a hard man rather than the typical Hollywood ending where everyone good is alive and all the baddies meet their maker.
|
|
Originally Posted by Brian.L
I've already made my feelings on this movie known much farther upthread (and believe me, I could go on), but as to the ending:
Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show) Maybe it works as a dramatic device for some people, but my lawyer friend thought Clint's idea of going over to the gang's house (and on THEIR lawn) and pretending to pull a gun is a good way to give them a semi-plausible claim of self-defense.
|
|
Originally Posted by Michael Elliott
I still think the film being overlooked at the Oscar is due to the racist character.
|
|
Originally Posted by Michael Elliott
CRASH was also fake whereas this one isn't.
|
|
Originally Posted by Michael Elliott
But in short term, I found the film to be so fake that Pamela Anderson would have been embarrassed by it.
|
|
Originally Posted by BrettB
In the meantime...
Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)
I have a hard time believing the thugs would see the inside of a prison also. They would get lawyered up with ACLU types, half of Hollywood would be championing their cause and there would be all sorts of witness testimony re: Walt's half a century of racist behavior and most importantly his actions in the final hours before the shooting.
|
|
Originally Posted by Jeff_Standley
If this is the case how did Walt know that the people watching all around would actually go to the police this time and not keep to themselves out of fear of the gangs retaliation?
|
|
Originally Posted by BrettB
In the meantime...
Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)
I have a hard time believing the thugs would see the inside of a prison also. They would get lawyered up with ACLU types, half of Hollywood would be championing their cause and there would be all sorts of witness testimony re: Walt's half a century of racist behavior and most importantly his actions in the final hours before the shooting.
|
|
Originally Posted by Michael Reuben
I agree with Travis. Ask your lawyer friend this question from another lawyer of your acquaintance (me):
How are the gang members going to prove that Walt pretended to draw a gun? Assuming anyone else saw it (and Walt positioned himself pretty carefully), why would anyone come forward to help them? So now they have to testify on their own behalf, and given their history, they'd make lousy witnesses on their own behalf. Most defense attorneys wouldn't even put guys like this on the stand, because you can bet that every one of them has one or more prior convictions, all of which gets into evidence if they testify. |
|
Originally Posted by schmidtt
The defense can subpoena these witnesses to testify under oath.
|
|
Originally Posted by schmidtt
Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)
I'm the "lawyer friend." Deadly force is justifiable if you reasonably believe it necessary to protect against death or serious injury. There is no duty to retreat if the assailant is on your property. Was it reasonable for the gang members to believe Walt might seriously injure or kill them? We know these things: -Walt went on to the property a week prior to the shooting and seriously injured one of the residents. -Walt had been driving around town pointing his hand like a gun and then waiving around a real gun. -Walt reached into his pocket as if he was going to pull out a gun right before he was shot. There were, or should have been, many witnesses to Walt reaching into his coat, Walt's assault on one of the gang members (in broad daylight), and his antics with the gun. The defense can subpoena these witnesses to testify under oath. |
|
Originally Posted by Mark Hawley
I'm pretty sure Uzis are illegal anyways so the rap would be more than just unregistered firearms.
|
| (1) An individual who has not or is not engaged in the commission of a crime at the time he or she uses deadly force may use deadly force against another individual anywhere he or she has the legal right to be with no duty to retreat if either of the following applies: (a) The individual honestly and reasonably believes that the use of deadly force is necessary to prevent the imminent death of or imminent great bodily harm to himself or herself or to another individual. |
|
Originally Posted by Michael Reuben
You've raised an important point.
|
|
Originally Posted by Holadem
Hey! That's what *I* said but no one cared! WTF?
|