Jump to content


Photo

"Gran Torino"


  • Please log in to reply
16 replies to this topic

#1 Jonathan Bowerbank

Jonathan Bowerbank
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2815 posts
  • 1st Assistant Camera
  • San Francisco, CA

Posted 04 January 2009 - 11:23 PM

Saw this during a movie binge yesterday. Really really enjoyed it. Honestly, some of the Asian actors could have had better performances, but Eastwood was just so completely awesome, nobody else in the film stood any chance.

He's like an even meaner, more pissed off yet charmingly racist version of Dirty Harry.
  • 0

#2 Jaron Berman

Jaron Berman
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 160 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • New York, NY

Posted 05 January 2009 - 12:18 AM

I couldn't make it past the first 40 minutes. The acting was some of the worst I've ever seen in a theatrical feature. Even Clint was obviously anticipating lines. His family was written to be so despicable that they were caricatures at best.

On video I'll think about giving it another shot, but I have to say it was a HUGE letdown (a BAD student film in comparison) after his more recent projects. Awful.
  • 0

#3 James Steven Beverly

James Steven Beverly
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 4199 posts
  • Director
  • El Paso, Texas

Posted 05 January 2009 - 12:50 AM

WOW, that's the first time I've seen THAT extreme a difference in view points on the same movie.Talk about either loving it or hating it! :blink: Now I HAVE to see it! :D
  • 0

#4 Tom Lowe

Tom Lowe
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1211 posts
  • Director
  • somewhere worshipping Terrence Malick

Posted 05 January 2009 - 12:57 AM

I liked it, and got a real kick out of Clint's grumpy character. It's half Archie Bunker, half retired Dirty Harry. The noobie kid actors were god awful. I cannot imagine how a director could let takes like those go to print. But overall, it's a good movie and well worth seeing.
  • 0

#5 Marcus Joseph

Marcus Joseph
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 404 posts
  • Other
  • Sydney, Australia

Posted 05 January 2009 - 06:44 PM

So we got a loved, hated and in between on it?

I'd personally settle around an 8/10, because the final act really made up for the beginning, and the ending was quite good <_<

Edited by Marcus Johnston, 05 January 2009 - 06:46 PM.

  • 0

#6 Jonathan Bowerbank

Jonathan Bowerbank
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2815 posts
  • 1st Assistant Camera
  • San Francisco, CA

Posted 05 January 2009 - 10:00 PM

Did anyone else notice that one kid's double thumb!?
  • 0

#7 Steve McBride

Steve McBride
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 239 posts
  • 1st Assistant Camera
  • New York, NY

Posted 10 January 2009 - 05:15 PM

I have to agree with Jaron, I really did not like this movie at all. At the end I turned to my friend and said "I think the dog was the best actor." All of the acting, sadly Eastwood included, was way below par. Anticipating lines as well as bad emotion made it really hard to enjoy the movie at all. I was really excited to go and watch the cinematography, but it was impossible for me due to paying attention to how bad the acting was.

One thing that I did really like about the movie though was the story. I absolutely loved it, it had characters who you cared for (even though the portrayl of said characters wasn't good) and a nice tone throughout that almost made you forget about the bad acting... Almost.

The major thing that I think brought the tone down was the writing of dialogue. There was way too much comedy in it. A lot of it though probably wasn't supposed to be funny, but ended up being it. It was like the writers were trying to lighten the tension of scenes by throwing one-liners or derogatory names into it which led to laughter throughout the theater I was in.

I think a lot of my experience was the theater I was in though. It was absolutely packed, the couple in front of me knocked over a wine bottle in the middle of the movie which rolled a couple rows down which caused the whole mood in the theater to dissolve, and then on the side of the theater a person dropped a glass beer bottle and it broke which was really loud. It was also a very diverse audience which just average people who aren't into film there which led to most of the laughter.

I may go see it again in a couple weeks if it's still showing and the theater isn't so packed. This was definitely a film I was looking forward to and I was very upset by it.
  • 0

#8 Jonathan Bowerbank

Jonathan Bowerbank
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2815 posts
  • 1st Assistant Camera
  • San Francisco, CA

Posted 11 January 2009 - 02:46 AM

Yeah, it was packed when I saw it too, which was surprising. Even more surprising was about half the audience were Asian, and it's amazing nobody walked out after all the racial slurs Eastwood effortlessly spat out.
  • 0

#9 Krystian Ramlogan

Krystian Ramlogan
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 65 posts
  • Student

Posted 12 January 2009 - 12:42 AM

Just saw it. It's no where near as bad as you guys have made it out to be.

The story is ok: a little predictable at time, but overall not bad. The main weakness was a lack of development, both of the environment and the characters.

The acting. Bad? Certainly it wasn't superb, but I've seen worse. I think it's an insult to say it's on par with a student film: both for students and for this film. Perhaps we can have a frame of reference? Could it have been better, I agree: yes, but what more could the actors have brought? I've always wondered how an actor/director would fare with a story that requires a lot of directing; perhaps on this occassion, Mr. Eastwood should have produced and allowed someone else to Direct, as I do agree the Directing was weaker than his normal standard.

The dialogue, I'll agree was a mixed bag. I think the comedic effect was unintentional, but it's always easy to laugh when looking at a situation where different cultures and languages clash. The audience I was a part of laughed many times throughout the film, but there was a collective "ok, that was a good movie at the end".

Sometimes you just have to appreciate a film for what it is; a modest attempt to tell a good story without falling back on meaningless visuals or action sequences. I'm not saying the film was successful on all fronts, but sometime films allow you to appreciate what other movies lack with their inflated budgets and eye candy.

The cinematography. Hmm. I have to let that settle in, but I wasn't too impressed at certain points with the choice of angle, some shots were soft, and crossing the line at the bar when Walt and the Priest had their chat left me wondering "why do that?" There were some shots I liked, but it wasn't consistent and I didn't feel compelled by the camera work at any time.

At the end of the day however, I would recommend it.

K.
  • 0

#10 Henry Weidemann

Henry Weidemann
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 37 posts
  • Student
  • Germany

Posted 17 January 2009 - 07:50 AM

First of all I have to say that I am a huge admirer of Eastwood but what I don't like is that his latest movies always seem to have the same look. I know he's always working with the same DP but they should try something different. It's not that I don't like the way Eastwoods movies are shot but I am getting "bored" of it a bit.
  • 0

#11 Thom Stitt

Thom Stitt
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 68 posts
  • Other
  • Vancouver

Posted 08 February 2009 - 06:04 PM

I couldn't HELP but enjoy this movie! It was impossible for me NOT to enjoy it. I agree with all of the statements about poor performances. My girlfriend told me after seeing it, "that was the first movie I think I've seen with terrible acting, but that I really liked."

The whole thing was over-the-top. Most of the characters were caricatures more than real people - there were "bad guys" and "good guys". The movie becomes almost ridiculous at times, and there's a great sense of humor throughout. I had a hard time really caring about the people because of the bad acting, but nonetheless, the very weird sense of humor and tone kept me very entertained. It's such an Eastwood movie too - If it weren't for him, this thing would practically be senseless. But with Eastwood inhabiting it, it becomes this American story about... Clint Eastwood!

And I don't think anyone's mentioned the song at the end. Just before the end credits.

I don't want to say anymore, except that my jaw dropped and I stared at the screen in bewilderment through the entire end credits. That song may be one of the greatest payoffs I've seen in any movie in recent years. Thank you for that, Clint. You made my week.
  • 0

#12 David Mullen ASC

David Mullen ASC
  • Sustaining Members
  • 19759 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Los Angeles

Posted 08 February 2009 - 07:50 PM

And I don't think anyone's mentioned the song at the end. Just before the end credits.

I don't want to say anymore, except that my jaw dropped and I stared at the screen in bewilderment through the entire end credits. That song may be one of the greatest payoffs I've seen in any movie in recent years. Thank you for that, Clint. You made my week.


Did anyone see "Appaloosa"? The song the Ed Harris sings during the end credits was hilarious, though maybe not intentionally. Or maybe it was intentional...
  • 0

#13 Jayson Crothers

Jayson Crothers
  • Sustaining Members
  • 351 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Los Angeles, CA

Posted 10 February 2009 - 03:48 AM

David, after sitting through "Appaloosa" in the theatre I pretty much thought everything between the opening shot to the credit roll was hilarious, though not intentionally.......
  • 0

#14 John Allen

John Allen
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 235 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Iowa

Posted 10 February 2009 - 01:09 PM

David, after sitting through "Appaloosa" in the theatre I pretty much thought everything between the opening shot to the credit roll was hilarious, though not intentionally.......


Do you guys mean that you thought that the film was hilarious as in not as well made as you were thinking, or did I miss something? I haven't seen it yet. So that's why I ask.
  • 0

#15 Adam Orton

Adam Orton
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 77 posts
  • Student
  • Chicago, IL

Posted 11 February 2009 - 02:27 AM

When I saw Gran Torino, there was a certain uneasiness I had toward the humor. Often times it was hard to tell if I was supposed to laugh at the absurd racial slurs or just realize that his character has a lot of faults.

I think the film's true intention was to show that he was a good man, yet incredibly hard and racist. Unfortunately there were times when it seemed the movie couldn't make up its mind with what the true purpose of the racism was for -- it seemed as if we were supposed to laugh.

I sensed that same feeling was with the rest of the audience in the theater. At times there were a few chuckles that fizzled out when the audience realized, "Wow. That's kind of mean." Also, the laughter was never really unanimous...

Finally, this movie has some of the WORST acting I've seen in a long time. Eastwood was OK, but every other person in that film was terrible. (Except for maybe the barber and one of the gang-bangers.)

I've talked to other people about it and they claimed that it wasn't as bad as other movies they've seen. They must be talking about narrative porn or zero-budget zombie action because I don't know what kind of film could have worse. Someone on here said it's on par with a lot of student films. I agree, but only if you believe that most student films have unwatchable performances. :rolleyes: Maybe it is just me.

Surprisingly, and this is strange to say, in the end I enjoyed it. I guess the film is exceptional in that way. The weak aspects I've mentioned here didn't completely drag the movie down for me.
:rolleyes:

Edited by Adam Orton, 11 February 2009 - 02:29 AM.

  • 0

#16 Delorme Jean-Marie

Delorme Jean-Marie
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 513 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • paris, france

Posted 14 March 2009 - 04:45 AM

hi
saw it yesterday night
it's funny to talk about apaloosa because i think "gran torino" is a western.
clint was hilarious !
the part when he learn to the young man how to speak "like a man" reminded me my first day on a major shoot!


for the look, i was verry suprised in the mixed treatment, it was at times hot and goldy and at times really green and cold.
was it just the print i saw or do you have any idea what was the motivation of this look.

at the end i thought it was Fuji th stock used. But it was just impossible on "Gran Torino" !!! it had to be Eastman Kodak :)
  • 0

#17 Chris McCron

Chris McCron

    New

  • Basic Members
  • Pip
  • 6 posts
  • Student
  • ON, Canada

Posted 15 March 2009 - 11:42 PM

charmingly racist


Sounds weird to say this, but I know what you mean by that. It was a delicate situation to work in the racial humour in the film. The lovability of Eastwood's character and his change of heart seemed to make the racial slurs seem endearing? By the end of the flick they are all laughing at the jokes he once was serious about. They did a good job of keeping it all very tasteful.
  • 0


Metropolis Post

rebotnix Technologies

Opal

FJS International, LLC

Wooden Camera

Glidecam

CineLab

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

Tai Audio

Broadcast Solutions Inc

Abel Cine

Paralinx LLC

Willys Widgets

Ritter Battery

Technodolly

CineTape

Aerial Filmworks

Visual Products

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

The Slider

Rig Wheels Passport

Aerial Filmworks

Tai Audio

Rig Wheels Passport

Technodolly

Abel Cine

Paralinx LLC

Willys Widgets

The Slider

Ritter Battery

Broadcast Solutions Inc

CineTape

FJS International, LLC

Metropolis Post

CineLab

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

Opal

Wooden Camera

rebotnix Technologies

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

Glidecam

Visual Products