21st Century Clint Eastwood

[JohnnyBlaze]

I prefer him as an actor. I have to admit though I'm not exactly sure how to judge a director. Do you just go on the quality of the film? The way it's shot (which might be down to the cinematographer), the way it's edited, the acting, the way the film looks ( which might be down to the lighting people, director of photography, colourists) the way the story unfolds (which could be down to writer)? Who knows what any particular director actually does and what effect he truly has on the film. So yeah I have to go with acting as that's something I can see and understand.

You should judge a director on body fat. Clint's always been pretty lean so he must be a great director.

 

Surely, you an tell the difference between Stanley Kubrick and Michael Bay. Woody Allen and Uwe Boll. Clint Eastwood and Roland Emmerich. Imagine Uwe Boll directing A Clockwork Orange. Imagine Michael Bay directing Manhattan. Just imagine it.

Hitchcock was fat though.

That was just a costume. One of those fat suits.

That M Night Shyamalan is skinny though.

That's also just a costume. He's fat. Really fat.

Are you sure you've not got this the wrong way around?

You're the one who doesn't know how to tell a good director from a bad one. I'm saying suits for those that don't fit the idea. Woody Allen is clearly thin. Clint is definitely thin. M. Night used to be thin then he got fatter and fatter. bla bla bla

[treeduck]

I prefer him as an actor. I have to admit though I'm not exactly sure how to judge a director. Do you just go on the quality of the film? The way it's shot (which might be down to the cinematographer), the way it's edited, the acting, the way the film looks ( which might be down to the lighting people, director of photography, colourists) the way the story unfolds (which could be down to writer)? Who knows what any particular director actually does and what effect he truly has on the film. So yeah I have to go with acting as that's something I can see and understand.

You should judge a director on body fat. Clint's always been pretty lean so he must be a great director.

 

Surely, you an tell the difference between Stanley Kubrick and Michael Bay. Woody Allen and Uwe Boll. Clint Eastwood and Roland Emmerich. Imagine Uwe Boll directing A Clockwork Orange. Imagine Michael Bay directing Manhattan. Just imagine it.

Hitchcock was fat though.

That was just a costume. One of those fat suits.

That M Night Shyamalan is skinny though.

That's also just a costume. He's fat. Really fat.

Are you sure you've not got this the wrong way around?

You're the one who doesn't know how to tell a good director from a bad one. I'm saying suits for those that don't fit the idea. Woody Allen is clearly thin. Clint is definitely thin. M. Night used to be thin then he got fatter and fatter. bla bla bla

:hail:

 

I go by whether the films are good or not, nothing technical.

[JohnnyBlaze]

I prefer him as an actor. I have to admit though I'm not exactly sure how to judge a director. Do you just go on the quality of the film? The way it's shot (which might be down to the cinematographer), the way it's edited, the acting, the way the film looks ( which might be down to the lighting people, director of photography, colourists) the way the story unfolds (which could be down to writer)? Who knows what any particular director actually does and what effect he truly has on the film. So yeah I have to go with acting as that's something I can see and understand.

You should judge a director on body fat. Clint's always been pretty lean so he must be a great director.

 

Surely, you an tell the difference between Stanley Kubrick and Michael Bay. Woody Allen and Uwe Boll. Clint Eastwood and Roland Emmerich. Imagine Uwe Boll directing A Clockwork Orange. Imagine Michael Bay directing Manhattan. Just imagine it.

Hitchcock was fat though.

That was just a costume. One of those fat suits.

That M Night Shyamalan is skinny though.

That's also just a costume. He's fat. Really fat.

Are you sure you've not got this the wrong way around?

You're the one who doesn't know how to tell a good director from a bad one. I'm saying suits for those that don't fit the idea. Woody Allen is clearly thin. Clint is definitely thin. M. Night used to be thin then he got fatter and fatter. bla bla bla

:hail:

 

I go by whether the films are good or not, nothing technical.

:hail:

Yeah, it's all debatable anyway. Rush is good at least partly because of their technical ability. Some might say mostly because of it.

[treeduck]

I prefer him as an actor. I have to admit though I'm not exactly sure how to judge a director. Do you just go on the quality of the film? The way it's shot (which might be down to the cinematographer), the way it's edited, the acting, the way the film looks ( which might be down to the lighting people, director of photography, colourists) the way the story unfolds (which could be down to writer)? Who knows what any particular director actually does and what effect he truly has on the film. So yeah I have to go with acting as that's something I can see and understand.

You should judge a director on body fat. Clint's always been pretty lean so he must be a great director.

 

Surely, you an tell the difference between Stanley Kubrick and Michael Bay. Woody Allen and Uwe Boll. Clint Eastwood and Roland Emmerich. Imagine Uwe Boll directing A Clockwork Orange. Imagine Michael Bay directing Manhattan. Just imagine it.

Hitchcock was fat though.

That was just a costume. One of those fat suits.

That M Night Shyamalan is skinny though.

That's also just a costume. He's fat. Really fat.

Are you sure you've not got this the wrong way around?

You're the one who doesn't know how to tell a good director from a bad one. I'm saying suits for those that don't fit the idea. Woody Allen is clearly thin. Clint is definitely thin. M. Night used to be thin then he got fatter and fatter. bla bla bla

:hail:

 

I go by whether the films are good or not, nothing technical.

:hail:

Yeah, it's all debatable anyway. Rush is good at least partly because of their technical ability. Some might say mostly because of it.

yeah but it's hard to tell who's technical skill is really responsible for a film's quality.

 

John Sturges is a guy I think is a good director because he directed a lot of great films and Walter Hill, they just make good films.

[JohnnyBlaze]

I prefer him as an actor. I have to admit though I'm not exactly sure how to judge a director. Do you just go on the quality of the film? The way it's shot (which might be down to the cinematographer), the way it's edited, the acting, the way the film looks ( which might be down to the lighting people, director of photography, colourists) the way the story unfolds (which could be down to writer)? Who knows what any particular director actually does and what effect he truly has on the film. So yeah I have to go with acting as that's something I can see and understand.

You should judge a director on body fat. Clint's always been pretty lean so he must be a great director.

 

Surely, you an tell the difference between Stanley Kubrick and Michael Bay. Woody Allen and Uwe Boll. Clint Eastwood and Roland Emmerich. Imagine Uwe Boll directing A Clockwork Orange. Imagine Michael Bay directing Manhattan. Just imagine it.

Hitchcock was fat though.

That was just a costume. One of those fat suits.

That M Night Shyamalan is skinny though.

That's also just a costume. He's fat. Really fat.

Are you sure you've not got this the wrong way around?

You're the one who doesn't know how to tell a good director from a bad one. I'm saying suits for those that don't fit the idea. Woody Allen is clearly thin. Clint is definitely thin. M. Night used to be thin then he got fatter and fatter. bla bla bla

:hail:

 

I go by whether the films are good or not, nothing technical.

:hail:

Yeah, it's all debatable anyway. Rush is good at least partly because of their technical ability. Some might say mostly because of it.

yeah but it's hard to tell who's technical skill is really responsible for a film's quality.

 

John Sturges is a guy I think is a good director because he directed a lot of great films and Walter Hill, they just make good films.

Speaking of Sturges, how is Joe Kidd? I almost got that at the rental shop this morning but changed my mind.

 

Walter Hill has a bunch of good movies to his name.

[treeduck]

I prefer him as an actor. I have to admit though I'm not exactly sure how to judge a director. Do you just go on the quality of the film? The way it's shot (which might be down to the cinematographer), the way it's edited, the acting, the way the film looks ( which might be down to the lighting people, director of photography, colourists) the way the story unfolds (which could be down to writer)? Who knows what any particular director actually does and what effect he truly has on the film. So yeah I have to go with acting as that's something I can see and understand.

You should judge a director on body fat. Clint's always been pretty lean so he must be a great director.

 

Surely, you an tell the difference between Stanley Kubrick and Michael Bay. Woody Allen and Uwe Boll. Clint Eastwood and Roland Emmerich. Imagine Uwe Boll directing A Clockwork Orange. Imagine Michael Bay directing Manhattan. Just imagine it.

Hitchcock was fat though.

That was just a costume. One of those fat suits.

That M Night Shyamalan is skinny though.

That's also just a costume. He's fat. Really fat.

Are you sure you've not got this the wrong way around?

You're the one who doesn't know how to tell a good director from a bad one. I'm saying suits for those that don't fit the idea. Woody Allen is clearly thin. Clint is definitely thin. M. Night used to be thin then he got fatter and fatter. bla bla bla

:hail:

 

I go by whether the films are good or not, nothing technical.

:hail:

Yeah, it's all debatable anyway. Rush is good at least partly because of their technical ability. Some might say mostly because of it.

yeah but it's hard to tell who's technical skill is really responsible for a film's quality.

 

John Sturges is a guy I think is a good director because he directed a lot of great films and Walter Hill, they just make good films.

Speaking of Sturges, how is Joe Kidd? I almost got that at the rental shop this morning but changed my mind.

 

Walter Hill has a bunch of good movies to his name.

Yeah you need to see that one it's a classic with a great cast, Clint, John Saxon, Robert Duvall, Don Stroud. Hey I've just remembered where I saw that guy in the HULK episode, the one where this guy thinks he's Ernest Hemingway. It's taken me about four months to remember but i just now realized it was Joe Kidd, this guy James Wainwright was the actor. In Joe Kidd he plays this badass gunfighter who uses this special gun.

[JohnnyBlaze]

I prefer him as an actor. I have to admit though I'm not exactly sure how to judge a director. Do you just go on the quality of the film? The way it's shot (which might be down to the cinematographer), the way it's edited, the acting, the way the film looks ( which might be down to the lighting people, director of photography, colourists) the way the story unfolds (which could be down to writer)? Who knows what any particular director actually does and what effect he truly has on the film. So yeah I have to go with acting as that's something I can see and understand.

You should judge a director on body fat. Clint's always been pretty lean so he must be a great director.

 

Surely, you an tell the difference between Stanley Kubrick and Michael Bay. Woody Allen and Uwe Boll. Clint Eastwood and Roland Emmerich. Imagine Uwe Boll directing A Clockwork Orange. Imagine Michael Bay directing Manhattan. Just imagine it.

Hitchcock was fat though.

That was just a costume. One of those fat suits.

That M Night Shyamalan is skinny though.

That's also just a costume. He's fat. Really fat.

Are you sure you've not got this the wrong way around?

You're the one who doesn't know how to tell a good director from a bad one. I'm saying suits for those that don't fit the idea. Woody Allen is clearly thin. Clint is definitely thin. M. Night used to be thin then he got fatter and fatter. bla bla bla

:hail:

 

I go by whether the films are good or not, nothing technical.

:hail:

Yeah, it's all debatable anyway. Rush is good at least partly because of their technical ability. Some might say mostly because of it.

yeah but it's hard to tell who's technical skill is really responsible for a film's quality.

 

John Sturges is a guy I think is a good director because he directed a lot of great films and Walter Hill, they just make good films.

Speaking of Sturges, how is Joe Kidd? I almost got that at the rental shop this morning but changed my mind.

 

Walter Hill has a bunch of good movies to his name.

Yeah you need to see that one it's a classic with a great cast, Clint, John Saxon, Robert Duvall, Don Stroud. Hey I've just remembered where I saw that guy in the HULK episode, the one where this guy thinks he's Ernest Hemingway. It's taken me about four months to remember but i just now realized it was Joe Kidd, this guy James Wainwright was the actor. In Joe Kidd he plays this badass gunfighter who uses this special gun.

Alright, will pick up Joe Kidd next time. Good cast there for sure.

[JohnnyBlaze]

Listening to Kevin Bacon and Tim Robbins on the DVD commentary for Mystic River is pretty interesting. Of course, they go into the details of various scenes/background/history but I liked the things they say about Clint and HOW he directs-- calm, cool, laid back, no anal-retentiveness or ego + there's an authority and respect there that you automatically follow. I'm paraphrasing but those are some of the things Bacon & Robbin went on about.

[treeduck]

I prefer him as an actor. I have to admit though I'm not exactly sure how to judge a director. Do you just go on the quality of the film? The way it's shot (which might be down to the cinematographer), the way it's edited, the acting, the way the film looks ( which might be down to the lighting people, director of photography, colourists) the way the story unfolds (which could be down to writer)? Who knows what any particular director actually does and what effect he truly has on the film. So yeah I have to go with acting as that's something I can see and understand.

You should judge a director on body fat. Clint's always been pretty lean so he must be a great director.

 

Surely, you an tell the difference between Stanley Kubrick and Michael Bay. Woody Allen and Uwe Boll. Clint Eastwood and Roland Emmerich. Imagine Uwe Boll directing A Clockwork Orange. Imagine Michael Bay directing Manhattan. Just imagine it.

Hitchcock was fat though.

That was just a costume. One of those fat suits.

That M Night Shyamalan is skinny though.

That's also just a costume. He's fat. Really fat.

Are you sure you've not got this the wrong way around?

You're the one who doesn't know how to tell a good director from a bad one. I'm saying suits for those that don't fit the idea. Woody Allen is clearly thin. Clint is definitely thin. M. Night used to be thin then he got fatter and fatter. bla bla bla

:hail:

 

I go by whether the films are good or not, nothing technical.

:hail:

Yeah, it's all debatable anyway. Rush is good at least partly because of their technical ability. Some might say mostly because of it.

yeah but it's hard to tell who's technical skill is really responsible for a film's quality.

 

John Sturges is a guy I think is a good director because he directed a lot of great films and Walter Hill, they just make good films.

Speaking of Sturges, how is Joe Kidd? I almost got that at the rental shop this morning but changed my mind.

 

Walter Hill has a bunch of good movies to his name.

Yeah you need to see that one it's a classic with a great cast, Clint, John Saxon, Robert Duvall, Don Stroud. Hey I've just remembered where I saw that guy in the HULK episode, the one where this guy thinks he's Ernest Hemingway. It's taken me about four months to remember but i just now realized it was Joe Kidd, this guy James Wainwright was the actor. In Joe Kidd he plays this badass gunfighter who uses this special gun.

Alright, will pick up Joe Kidd next time. Good cast there for sure.

Yeah it's got to be up with Clint's best westerns, not quite as good as the Dollars trilogy but right up there. And the music is good too, Lalo Schifrin I think, it's a lot like the music from Dirty Harry, only with a bit more of a western feel, with a twangy old school guitar and whatnot, it's cool.

[Segue Myles]

Changeling.

 

Adore that film.

[JohnnyBlaze]

Changeling.

 

Adore that film.

Then that would be the "other" box. Coincidentally, I JUST rented it this morning. Will be watching that sometime this week.

[Segue Myles]

Changeling.

 

Adore that film.

Then that would be the "other" box. Coincidentally, I JUST rented it this morning. Will be watching that sometime this week.

 

Jolie should have made a career with nothing but performances of this calibre.

[goose]

Of these, Flags and Torino are the only two that I've seen all the way through. Of those, I'll pick Flags of Our Fathers.

 

To be honest, I find many of these films a bit tedious, and I like slow-paced movies. Trouble with the Curveball...not listed here, but man, did that bore the heck out of me. I'll check out Mystic River, though, based on y'all's recommendations.

[Babycat]

I have the Dirty Harry movies - they're awesome and iconic!

They are! But which ways did you vote here babykit? :)

 

Other (hence Dirty Harry)

Acting

Hmm...Dirty Harry isn't a 21st century Clint-related movie. In this case, "other" refers to Blood Work, Grace is Gone, Changeling, Kurosawa's Way, Trouble with the Curve, and Jersey Boys. :)

 

Oh I see - that's fair enough. Having said that, I've never heard of the ones you've mentioned.

[JohnnyBlaze]

Of these, Flags and Torino are the only two that I've seen all the way through. Of those, I'll pick Flags of Our Fathers.

 

To be honest, I find many of these films a bit tedious, and I like slow-paced movies. Trouble with the Curveball...not listed here, but man, did that bore the heck out of me. I'll check out Mystic River, though, based on y'all's recommendations.

I saw part of "Trouble with..." on a flight but couldn't finish. So yeah, I agree that that was boring. I filed it under "other" 21st century Clint stuff.

 

Flags of Our Fathers I thought was generally too slow paced so I thought Letters was better...though that wasn't that special either, though not bad. I'm surprised you didn't like Torino but having said that, and as I said earlier, I did like Mystic R and Million DB better. Not sure you'll feel the same though.

[treeduck]

There's not enough Dirty Harry and Dollars trilogy talk in this Eastwood thread.

[JohnnyBlaze]

Changeling.

 

Adore that film.

Then that would be the "other" box. Coincidentally, I JUST rented it this morning. Will be watching that sometime this week.

 

Jolie should have made a career with nothing but performances of this calibre.

Okay, I just saw Changeling. I'd put it somewhere between "alright" and "good". I think it tackled too many meaty topics: corruption, the mental health system, and violence. Still though, it's a decent movie. Imho, it's better than Flags, Letters, Hereafter, and probably Invictus but not as good as MDB, Mystic, or GT.

 

Jolie's pretty good here. With the exception of Bone Collector and Girl Interrupted, I generally associate her with mindless crap movies. Nice to see she's now got 3 movies (that I've seen) where she isn't dependent on her body or slo-mo action scenes.

 

Grade: B-

[JohnnyBlaze]

There's not enough Dirty Harry and Dollars trilogy talk in this Eastwood thread.

...because of the thread title. But ok....

 

My friend says Fistful of Dollars is the best of the Dollars trilogy. I told him that he's nuts. It's good but not on par with For A Few... or The Good, The Bad... He thinks Matrix is brilliant and The Mist is clever so that adds to my theory that he's nuts.

[treeduck]

There's not enough Dirty Harry and Dollars trilogy talk in this Eastwood thread.

...because of the thread title. But ok....

 

My friend says Fistful of Dollars is the best of the Dollars trilogy. I told him that he's nuts. It's good but not on par with For A Few... or The Good, The Bad... He thinks Matrix is brilliant and The Mist is clever so that adds to my theory that he's nuts.

They get better as they go along, and the addition of Lee Van Cleef automatically gives FOAFDM a major boost. And of course with TGTBATU with the addition of Eli Wallach, a bigger more complex and much better story, even better music etc you have the best film of the trilogy.

[JohnnyBlaze]

There's not enough Dirty Harry and Dollars trilogy talk in this Eastwood thread.

...because of the thread title. But ok....

 

My friend says Fistful of Dollars is the best of the Dollars trilogy. I told him that he's nuts. It's good but not on par with For A Few... or The Good, The Bad... He thinks Matrix is brilliant and The Mist is clever so that adds to my theory that he's nuts.

They get better as they go along, and the addition of Lee Van Cleef automatically gives FOAFDM a major boost. And of course with TGTBATU with the addition of Eli Wallach, a bigger more complex and much better story, even better music etc you have the best film of the trilogy.

Hey! This was the other trilogy I was trying to think of (other than Captain America) that got better as they progressed.

[treeduck]

There's not enough Dirty Harry and Dollars trilogy talk in this Eastwood thread.

...because of the thread title. But ok....

 

My friend says Fistful of Dollars is the best of the Dollars trilogy. I told him that he's nuts. It's good but not on par with For A Few... or The Good, The Bad... He thinks Matrix is brilliant and The Mist is clever so that adds to my theory that he's nuts.

They get better as they go along, and the addition of Lee Van Cleef automatically gives FOAFDM a major boost. And of course with TGTBATU with the addition of Eli Wallach, a bigger more complex and much better story, even better music etc you have the best film of the trilogy.

Hey! This was the other trilogy I was trying to think of (other than Captain America) that got better as they progressed.

The thing about this trilogy is it isn't really a series of sequels, they're three stories that aren't connected but have a similar lead character.

[JohnnyBlaze]

There's not enough Dirty Harry and Dollars trilogy talk in this Eastwood thread.

...because of the thread title. But ok....

 

My friend says Fistful of Dollars is the best of the Dollars trilogy. I told him that he's nuts. It's good but not on par with For A Few... or The Good, The Bad... He thinks Matrix is brilliant and The Mist is clever so that adds to my theory that he's nuts.

They get better as they go along, and the addition of Lee Van Cleef automatically gives FOAFDM a major boost. And of course with TGTBATU with the addition of Eli Wallach, a bigger more complex and much better story, even better music etc you have the best film of the trilogy.

Hey! This was the other trilogy I was trying to think of (other than Captain America) that got better as they progressed.

The thing about this trilogy is it isn't really a series of sequels, they're three stories that aren't connected but have a similar lead character.

Right. Still count it as a trilogy though. Leone did too, yeah?

[treeduck]

There's not enough Dirty Harry and Dollars trilogy talk in this Eastwood thread.

...because of the thread title. But ok....

 

My friend says Fistful of Dollars is the best of the Dollars trilogy. I told him that he's nuts. It's good but not on par with For A Few... or The Good, The Bad... He thinks Matrix is brilliant and The Mist is clever so that adds to my theory that he's nuts.

They get better as they go along, and the addition of Lee Van Cleef automatically gives FOAFDM a major boost. And of course with TGTBATU with the addition of Eli Wallach, a bigger more complex and much better story, even better music etc you have the best film of the trilogy.

Hey! This was the other trilogy I was trying to think of (other than Captain America) that got better as they progressed.

The thing about this trilogy is it isn't really a series of sequels, they're three stories that aren't connected but have a similar lead character.

Right. Still count it as a trilogy though. Leone did too, yeah?

Yeah it's a trilogy for sure, same lead actor, same director, same composer, same genre and style etc.

[Del_Duio]

GRAN TORINO!

 

Was almost going to bitch about Unforgiven not being on there but then remembered what 21st century meant haha.

He's an awesome director, but he's probably my #1 favorite actor ever so that's my vote.

[Del_Duio]

There's not enough Dirty Harry and Dollars trilogy talk in this Eastwood thread.

...because of the thread title. But ok....

 

My friend says Fistful of Dollars is the best of the Dollars trilogy. I told him that he's nuts. It's good but not on par with For A Few... or The Good, The Bad... He thinks Matrix is brilliant and The Mist is clever so that adds to my theory that he's nuts.

They get better as they go along, and the addition of Lee Van Cleef automatically gives FOAFDM a major boost. And of course with TGTBATU with the addition of Eli Wallach, a bigger more complex and much better story, even better music etc you have the best film of the trilogy.

Hey! This was the other trilogy I was trying to think of (other than Captain America) that got better as they progressed.

The thing about this trilogy is it isn't really a series of sequels, they're three stories that aren't connected but have a similar lead character.

Right. Still count it as a trilogy though. Leone did too, yeah?

Yeah it's a trilogy for sure, same lead actor, same director, same composer, same genre and style etc.

Good the Bad & The Ugly is the best of the three.

It's rare that I can watch a 3+ hour slow-moving western at the drop of a hat and not get bored.

 

I LIKE BIG GUYS LIKE YOU! THEY MAKE MORE NOISE WHEN THEY HIT THE FLOOR!