Richard Jewell (2019) (1 Viewer)

[Robert Crawford]

I saw this today and liked it a lot. Some terrific performances.

The opening was slow (but necessary), but once it reached the Park scenes it was good, very good.

However it should probably win an Oscar for the greatest achievement for a 2019 film - getting a large group of millennials to learn and perform The Macarena

I never did make it out to see this movie. Oh well, I'll get the 4K Digital of it.

 

[Jake Lipson]

I saw this today and I liked it, mostly for the performances. Rockwell, Bates, Hamm and Wilde were good as usual, but that was not a surprise. because they are well-known and almost always good. Paul Walter Hauser as Richard Jewell was the revelation in this film. He was very good in I Tonya, BlacKkKlansman, and Late Night in supporting roles, and it was a delight to see him front and center here in a terrific lead role that he could really sink his teeth into and shine in. He deserves to become a star off of this film.

I thought that the script was a little overly simplistic and lacking nuance.

Spoiler

The message seemed to be "Oh, look at how the FBI and media ruined this poor man's life." It's not incorrect, but the script paints the FBI in particular as the bad guys here, and I don't think that's entirely fair. While there were mistakes made with how the investigation was handled, I don't think they should be vilified for doing their jobs. While we know that Jewell didn't do it, it's entirely reasonable for them to look at him; it got out of hand and shouldn't have, but if he had been the bomber and they didn't look, that would have been equally problematic. So it's a situation in which wrong things were done, but I don't think the entire idea of the investigation was out of line, and it feels like the movie just wants to paint those opposing Jewell as the Bad Guys. I think a more fleshed-out script with the others written in a more complex manner might have been an even more interesting movie.

But it was still good and I'm glad I saw it. I'd probably give it a solid B. It's probably the least distinguished thing of Eastwood's directing career that I have seen, but that's still pretty good.

Belated edit only to correct a typo.

 

[Hollywoodaholic]

I found this film profoundly and devastatingly sad; because of Jewell's fate during and after these events, and because of Paul Walter Hauser's fantastic performance. It's not showy; it's just endearingly human.But the fates will probably conspire against his nomination. There is nothing subtle about Eastwood's demonization of both the FBI and the Media in this; and you don't need any empty chair on stage to see whose side that speaks to at this particular juncture in history.

I can understand the outrage over Scrugg's portrayal; some calling it plain misogynistic, others just over-the-top rabid cliche. My first reaction was, hey, it's just a portrayal of a 'character,' lighten up. But then you find out Scruggs basically got the same judgmental treatment that Jewell did after the fiasco, and died... a year younger than he did, at 43. That is beyond ironic. And where's her movie?

In the end, as just a film, I found it a really worthwhile and compelling story, and if you were a news junkie during that time, you also felt a bit of shame; because we were all on that jump-to-conclusion bandwagon. I remember thinking him the obvious choice suspect. And I doubt I ever read the retractions or clarifications on page 6. But the media was ultimately just following the investigation events, and the investigation was rawly human, as well. And after all, is there anything more American than competition to get the story first, with railroading a possible outcome, and it's oh so hard to back a train up once that steam gets going. Eastwood took us on that ride.

 

[Mike Frezon]

I finally got to watching my copy of Richard Jewell yesterday.

A very entertaining film. Performances, directing and script all top notch. I agree with everyone here about how great this cast was.

I have no love lost currently for the media (for so many reasons). And I am no big fan of the institutionalization of government. So I can clearly understand why Eastwood picked both as his boogeymen here. They were culpable.

As noted by Jake earlier in the thread, I have no problem with the FBI investigating the crap out of Jewell in connection with the bombing. But the leak changes everything. And how the FBI behaved after the leak was reprehensible. Because of the intense spotlight (and government pressure) to solve a highly-public act of terror on US soil during an international event, the FBI was hellbent on pinning the crime on someone they "knew" likely couldn't have done it. And that IS something worth pointing out.

 

[Rick Thompson]

Once again, though, those movies aren't "built around the importance of the truth, the human cost of jumping to conclusions, and the dangers of a compelling but unsubstantiated narrative".

You mean like Oliver Stone's JFK?

 

[SixOfTheRichest]

I found this film profoundly and devastatingly sad; because of Jewell's fate during and after these events, and because of Paul Walter Hauser's fantastic performance. It's not showy; it's just endearingly human.But the fates will probably conspire against his nomination. There is nothing subtle about Eastwood's demonization of both the FBI and the Media in this; and you don't need any empty chair on stage to see whose side that speaks to at this particular juncture in history.

I can understand the outrage over Scrugg's portrayal; some calling it plain misogynistic, others just over-the-top rabid cliche. My first reaction was, hey, it's just a portrayal of a 'character,' lighten up. But then you find out Scruggs basically got the same judgmental treatment that Jewell did after the fiasco, and died... a year younger than he did, at 43. That is beyond ironic. And where's her movie?

In the end, as just a film, I found it a really worthwhile and compelling story, and if you were a news junkie during that time, you also felt a bit of shame; because we were all on that jump-to-conclusion bandwagon. I remember thinking him the obvious choice suspect. And I doubt I ever read the retractions or clarifications on page 6. But the media was ultimately just following the investigation events, and the investigation was rawly human, as well. And after all, is there anything more American than competition to get the story first, with railroading a possible outcome, and it's oh so hard to back a train up once that steam gets going. Eastwood took us on that ride.

I'd say this is Scruggs movie. She doesn't deserve the movie that Jewell got. How was she wrongly accused and vilified? She was out for her own glorification and ruined lives in the process for her own self-serving grandstanding ideals. I can't even believe how the FBI thought they could get away by using Jewell as a scapegoat. Shaw was just as narcissistic as Scruggs. Jewell was an oddball of a character, yet the evidence worked against Shaw and he still couldn't humble himself by the end.

This is one of my favourite Eastwood film since Gran Torino.

 

[SamT]

Finally watched it. I really enjoyed it and I went into it with preconceived ideas and ready not to like it! After Sully I have not enjoyed Clint Eastwood movies that much. I mean who can mess up a movie about Sully Sullenberger!

 

[Robert Crawford]

Finally watched it. I really enjoyed it and I went into it with preconceived ideas and ready not to like it! After Sully I have not enjoyed Clint Eastwood movies that much. I mean who can mess up a movie about Sully Sullenberger!

He didn't if that's what you're implying.

 

[Colin Jacobson]

I thought "Sully" was very good - not quite great, but enjoyable and well-made.

"Jewell" is watchable but too simplistic and one-sided...

 

[Jeffrey D]

I thought "Sully" was very good - not quite great, but enjoyable and well-made.

"Jewell" is watchable but too simplistic and one-sided...

Agree with your take on Jewell- I have zero love for the targeted enemies of the film, but the truth was likely more complicated than the film portrays.

 

[SamT]

I thought the movie didn't target anything that hard. It kind of felt balanced to me. The only real bad thing was the Kathy Scruggs part. They just should have used a fictionalized name for her part. How come for the man, the FBI man they have the courtesy to use a fake name but for the woman, they use her real name and show her slutty, one dimensional and bad. That's shameful and misogynistic on their part.

I'm not implying, I'm saying Sully (2016) was bad, real bad. Thankfully with Richard Jewell they didn't fall into the Sully trap and told the story in a simple way. They didn't chop it up into million pieces and put it in a blender and glue the scenes together.

 

[Jeffrey D]

I thought the movie didn't target anything that hard. It kind of felt balanced to me. The only real bad thing was the Kathy Scruggs part. They just should have used a fictionalized name for her part. How come for the man, the FBI man they have the courtesy to use a fake name but for the woman, they use her real name and show her slutty, one dimensional and bad. That's shameful and misogynistic on their part.

I'm not implying, I'm saying Sully (2016) was bad, real bad. Thankfully with Richard Jewell they didn't fall into the Sully trap and told the story in a simple way. They didn't chop it up into million pieces and put it in a blender and glue the scenes together.

So you don’t like Sully because of its structure? I like the film, but didn’t love the portrayal of the investigators who seemed to be overly tough on him. Maybe all of that was factual- I don’t know.

 

[Johnny Angell]

So you don’t like Sully because of its structure? I like the film, but didn’t love the portrayal of the investigators who seemed to be overly tough on him. Maybe all of that was factual- I don’t know.

I seem to recall reading that the law required the investigators to take a hard look at the incident. Haven’t watched the movie recently but I think it made them out to have ill intentions. Gotta have that drama.

 

[Robert Crawford]

I'm not implying, I'm saying Sully (2016) was bad, real bad. Thankfully with Richard Jewell they didn't fall into the Sully trap and told the story in a simple way. They didn't chop it up into million pieces and put it in a blender and glue the scenes together.

Oh well, we all have opinions.

 

[Colin Jacobson]

So you don’t like Sully because of its structure? I like the film, but didn’t love the portrayal of the investigators who seemed to be overly tough on him. Maybe all of that was factual- I don’t know.

I don't think it is - at least not as Eastwood painted.

It's been a few years since I read about the fact vs. fiction side of "Sully", but IIRC, Eastwood made the proceedings to be much more antagonistic than they really were...