Tag Archives: Clint Eastwood

1983 Films, Action, Clint Eastwood, Crime Thriller, Sondra Locke, Thriller

Sudden Impact-1983

Leave a comment

Sudden Impact-1983

Director Clint Eastwood

Starring Clint Eastwood, Sondra Locke

Scott’s Review #1,388

Reviewed August 12, 2023

Grade: B+

The groundbreaking and highly influential Dirty Harry, released in 1971 spawned four sequels. Sudden Impact (1983) is the third. It is directed, produced by, and stars Clint Eastwood (making it the only Dirty Harry film to be directed by Eastwood himself) and co-starring Sondra Locke, the star’s longtime girlfriend.

On the surface, the film is standard fare and relatively conventional featuring slick cinematography, a predictable story, shoot ’em-ups, and cartoon villains.

It’s also quite bloody and violent with a theme of justice being served.

Exactly what you’d expect from any action/thriller to come out in the two decades following the original.

The cliches and story setups had by 1983 been seen in so many crime thriller genre films that they feel tired and stale and can be predicted at length.

The expected Dirty Harry catchphrase in Sudden Impact is, “Go ahead, make my day” which is probably what the film is best remembered for though some assume the famous line appears in Dirty Harry.

This isn’t a glowing testament for Sudden Impact.

United States President Ronald Reagan embarrassingly used the “make my day” line in a March 1985 speech threatening to veto legislation raising taxes.

The secret weapon of Sudden Impact though is the inclusion of Locke who is a tour de force in acting and raises the film quite a bit. Her romance with Eastwood (on and off the silver screen) simmers with chemistry making Sudden Impact feel like a much better film than it is.

Jennifer Spencer (Sondra Locke) is a thirty-something blonde bombshell who along with her much younger sister was gang raped, but the crime went unpunished. She now hunts down those responsible one by one and gruesomely shoots them in the testicles before killing them.

She’s not a gal to be messed with.

The murders attract the attention of Harry Callahan (Eastwood), who is on a forced vacation due to his violent approach to police work.

The case gets complicated when Harry develops a relationship with Jennifer, and it’s up to Harry to make the right decision when Jennifer’s life is threatened for a second time.

Locke and Eastwood always do well with marginal material- think Bronco Billy (1980) or Every Which Way But Loose (1978). Both of those films are more comical so it’s riveting to see them co-star in a violence-based thriller.

Not to dwell on Locke (okay, I must), but she’s the best part of Sudden Impact. The first scene involves one of her vigilante murders and her cold, calm, steadiness is magnificent. Through icy eyes, she is filled with rage though is wise and calculating.

When she is not blowing balls to bits, Jennifer leads a successful life as an author and escapes to a whimsical carnival town outside San Francisco to focus on her work. She also finds time to finish killing the remaining members of the gang of rapists.

Locke mesmerizes in every scene she appears in.

Eastwood is good too but his character is the same grizzled, sick of criminal, guy with a gun he’s been since the beginning. Harry’s arguments with the suits in the top office are tired and the actors cast are handily stock types.

The win is Eastwood’s scenes with Locke. As they share dinner there is a romantic tenderness that perfectly offsets the rest of the story. We ask, will he send her to prison or let her go when he inevitably finds out she’s the killer?

Is she justified?

The rapists are cartoon-like and poorly cast and there is no character development. The main villain, Mick (Paul Drake) shrieks and wails and delivers his dialogue in over-the-top fashion. He’s a poor man’s ‘Scorpio’ who he tries to emulate.

A female villain, an assumed lesbian named Ray Parkins, in a purely politically incorrect fashion, has every lesbian stereotype imaginable.

I liken Sudden Impact (1983) to a McDonald’s meal. A greasy Big Mac, fries, and a shake. It’s not fine dining but it’s satisfying and one knows exactly what to expect. Only in this case, Locke is the special sauce.

1976 Films, Action, Clint Eastwood, Crime Thriller, Thriller, Tyne Daly

The Enforcer-1976

Leave a comment

The Enforcer-1976

Director James Fargo

Starring Clint Eastwood, Tyne Daly, John Mitchum

Scott’s Review #1,330

Reviewed January 2, 2023

Grade: B+

The Dirty Harry film series is pure, gooey 1970s machismo entertainment.

Featuring a vigilante-type police detective who rids the world of the bad guys is pleasure personified if not all that realistic. In these films there exists only the good versus the destructive and social issues, if they are explored, are not the most relevant part of the film but more reasoning as to why the events are occurring.

Nonetheless, the films are top-notch in action with quality gun fights and violence creating a powerful crime thriller film franchise that still holds up well.

They are much better than the similar yet uninspired and poorly acted Death Wish films featuring Charles Bronson.

The Enforcer (1976) is a third of five films from 1971 until 1988 following the 1971 masterpiece Dirty Harry and the nearly as good Magnum Force in 1973.

This one provides a slightly progressive and feminist approach that would also continue in 1983’s Sudden Impact and adds some much-needed humor creating a lighter touch.

Feminism is the inclusion of a female cop due to a new affirmative action initiative who goes toe to toe with the masculinity and conservatism of our main character.

Officer “Dirty Harry” Callahan (Clint Eastwood) is reassigned from homicide to personnel after his latest use of excessive force exhausts his outranking superiors. Demoralized, he angrily assumes his duties while a new case disrupts the San Francisco Bay Area.

A new terrorist group calling themselves the People’s Revolutionary Strike Force organizes a series of crimes in San Francisco, hoping to enrich themselves. Led by Bobby Maxwell (DeVeren Bookwalter) they wreak havoc and create fear.

When they kidnap the mayor (John Crawford) and steal rockets and rifles for their next attack, Harry and his new female partner, Inspector Kate Moore (Tyne Daly), must stop the terrorists.

To measure up to 1971’s Dirty Harry is a nearly impossible feat but The Enforcer continues the rhythm with largely the same basic script. A main part of the fun is watching the grizzled Callahan feud with his superiors and being reduced to working with a female cop.

Naturally, he and Moore eventually become buddies and I like the lack of sexual chemistry. She’s not interested in his affection and neither is he so their relationship is focused on serving and protecting the public.

Daly is terrific in the role of Moore which led to her career-defining role in the television series Cagney and Lacey. Rather than playing her as a bitch she is warm and determined to immerse into a man’s world.

She’s a great character but unfortunately is not explored as much as she could have been.

The filmmakers also keep the setting of San Francisco intact which is a wise move and a treat for those moviegoers that love a good exterior sequence or two.

A fabulous final sequence finds the events of the film heading to a Giants game at the historic Candlestick Park and finally a showdown at Alcatraz Island. These trimmings are so necessary to fans anticipating the juicy and pulsating locales of the populous city.

No, Eastwood is not the greatest actor in the film but he is the best at playing Callahan. He carries the film seamlessly and will make conservatives smirk as he endures the irritations of liberal-minded decision-makers.

A weak explanation of the real motives of the terrorist group is unimportant. It’s the violence, the thrills, the chases, and Eastwood and Daly that make this movie pure fun.

The Enforcer (1976) doesn’t challenge or add to the creativity of cinematic art but provides a shoot-em-up experience featuring a confident and charismatic main character.

Forever immersed in the good tidings of 1970s cinema is enough to continue the successful string of Dirty Harry films.

1966 Films, Clint Eastwood, Epic, Sergio Leone, Western

The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly-1966

Leave a comment

The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly-1966

Director Sergio Leone

Starring Clint Eastwood, Eli Wallach, Lee Van Cleef

Scott’s Review #1,320

Reviewed December 9, 2022

Grade: A

Any film lover cannot view The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly (1966) without realizing its enormous influence on Quentin Tarantino, one of the greatest filmmakers of modern times.

Obsessed with the ‘spaghetti western’ a derogatory categorization for cheaply made Italian western films with lousy lip-syncing and an over-the-top stylization, he made them ‘cool’ and interspersed moments and film scores from some of these films.

Director, Sergio Leone also created brilliant films like Once Upon a Time in the West (1968) and Once Upon a Time in America (1984) and was famous for his sprawling epics at great length.

The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly is top-notch in nearly every way. The instantly recognizable hauntingly operatic score is to be revered. It brings dubious and edgy energy that defines the entire film representing the title characters.

Unfortunately, the film received mixed reviews at best upon initial release but is now considered a masterpiece.

The sprawling landscape represents the American Western territory with lush mountains and desert dryness. In reality, the film was shot mostly in Spain but you’d never know it. It’s a pleasing feeling to possess this knowledge since it makes for more fun and comparisons to the fake world of the frontier.

The creative sweeping widescreen cinematography is also a major win. Combined with violent, stylized gunfights, the use of close-ups and long shots makes the film unique.

Story-wise, during the bloody Civil War, a mysterious stranger, Blondie ‘the Good’ (Clint Eastwood), and a Mexican outlaw, Tuco ‘the Ugly’ (Eli Wallach), form an uneasy partnership. Blondie turns in the bandit for some reward money, then rescues him just as he is being hanged. When Blondie’s shot at the noose goes awry during one escapade, a furious Tuco tries to have him murdered.

The men re-team abruptly, however, to beat out a sadistic criminal named ‘Angel Eyes’ (Lee Van Cleef) or ‘the Ugly’ and the Union army and find $20,000 that a soldier has buried in the desert.

The hook is that each of the three principal characters is looking for loot, specifically a buried cache of Confederate gold. This plot enhances the duels and peril along the way which is surely a selling point to the viewer.

The finale and paired ‘noose sequence’ is the highlight of the film.

The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly is purely a ‘guy’s film’ though this is not to say females who appreciate influential cinema will not get something from it. Even if the plot is a one-trick pony the other aspects of the film quality are worthy of admiration.

In 1966 Clint Eastwood was not the big Hollywood star he would soon become and certainly hadn’t tried his hand in the director’s chair.

The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly is very early Eastwood, and worth noting that it’s the film that propelled him into a rebellious action hero he cemented with Dirty Harry (1971).

Studying the characters may be a superfluous approach for a film like this but Blondie’s nickname of ‘the Good’ is laughable. He’s a pure anti-hero and joins forces with ‘the Ugly’ a known criminal. Sure, he spares lives but he’s not exactly a goody two shoes. That just makes the character more appealing in my book.

Spaghetti westerns were derided and scoffed at when they were originally released. Nobody could have predicted that decades later a film like The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly (1966) would be revered and influential.

The great filmmakers who appreciated this film mirrored their own after it.

2011 Films, Adam Driver, Armie Hammer, Biography, Clint Eastwood, Denis O'Hare, Dermot Mulroney, Drama, Jessica Hecht, Judi Dench, Kaitlyn Dever, Lea Thompson, Leonardo DiCaprio, LGBTQ+ Drama, LGBTQ+ Films, Naomi Watts

J. Edgar-2011

Leave a comment

J. Edgar-2011

Director Clint Eastwood

Starring Leonardo DiCaprio, Armie Hammer, Naomi Watts

Scott’s Review #1,099

Reviewed January 12, 2021

Grade: A

When director Clint Eastwood and actor Leonardo DiCaprio align, exceptional things can happen. This is evidenced by J. Edgar (2011), a compelling and well-constructed drama with a biographical and character-driven focus.

One gets inside the head and psyche of the title character, J. Edgar Hoover, the head of the Federal Bureau of Investigations, with DiCaprio playing him flawlessly.

The film is left-of-center, surprising for the mainstream director, though his film-making style is familiar. Eastwood does what he does best by constructing a slick and “Hollywood” experience.

There are not daring camera angles or unique uses of light that Stanley Kubrick might use.  He creates a steady affair that will appeal to the American heartland, getting butts to the movie theater on his name alone.

The film opens in 1919 when a young Hoover (DiCaprio) is tasked with purging radicals from the United States and obtaining their secrets, something he’d carry with him for decades. He meets a new Secretary, Helen Gandy (Naomi Watts), whom he makes an awkward pass and an even more awkward marriage proposal.

She refuses, and they become professional and personal allies.

The story then plods along with historical stops through the decades like the Lindbergh baby kidnapping, Martin Luther King Jr., and Richard Nixon.

Hoover is always involved in these escapades.

Hoover, who served as the head of the bureau from 1924 until he died in 1972, was a powerful and ruthless man.

Eastwood carefully dissects him, professionally and personally. He never married, lived with his mother, traveled, and enjoyed dinners with one man who in death, bequeathed his estate.

You do the math.

He was a gay man when one couldn’t be an openly gay man. Thus, he is conflicted, and Eastwood does a great job of showing the demons he wrestles with.

The relationship between Hoover and lawyer, Clyde Tolson (Armie Hammer) is my favorite part of J. Edgar because it’s interesting and humanistic.

DiCaprio and Hammer give outstanding performances with flawless chemistry and charisma.

When Hoover professes his love for Tolson and quickly recants his statement then professes love for an actress, we view his turmoil. He loves Tolson but cannot bear to accept it even though it would free him from his chains.

Despite the tender nature of the sequence above or that his mother was a traditional, no-nonsense, shrew, Hoover is not portrayed as a hero. He was a complicated and damaged man and Eastwood hits this point home.

He blackmailed Martin Luther King Jr., kept sexual secrets on several Hollywood stars, and participated in various abuses of power.

The film does admit that the director also instituted fingerprinting and forensic measures that reduced crime.

Those who desire a straightforward lesson in history may be slightly perturbed by the focus on Hoover’s personal life. Eastwood could have easily made Hoover’s career the only facet of the production-enough material that exists for this.

Instead, we get to see the inner workings of the man. Kudos for this.

Dustin Lance Black, who wrote Milk (2008), a portrait of a gay man, is back at the helm serving as a screenwriter. But the two films are not modeled after one another. They are very different animals.

While Milk celebrates a man refusing to deny who he and others are, demanding their just civil rights, J. Edgar provides the narrative of a man fleeing from who he is.

Offering a rich and complex biography of a tortured man, the audience is exposed to a person wrestling with inner turmoil. Hoover was a famous man, but the film could easily represent those thousands of men who could not bring themselves to accept who they were.

The largest praise goes to DiCaprio who makes us sympathize, pity, and admire the complexities of his character.

J. Edgar (2011) hits a grand slam.

2003 Films, Clint Eastwood, Crime Drama, Drama, Emmy Rossum, Kevin Bacon, Laura Linney, Laurence Fishburne, Marcia Gay Harden, Sean Penn, Tim Robbins

Mystic River-2003

Leave a comment

Mystic River-2003

Director Clint Eastwood

Starring Sean Penn, Tim Robbins

Scott’s Review #801

Reviewed August 10, 2018

Grade: A

Mystic River (2003) is a film that I consider to be the second-best offering directed by Clint Eastwood.

Along with Million Dollar Baby (2004), Eastwood successfully creates two compelling back-to-back dramas, not too dissimilar from each other.

He was unquestionably the “it” director of the early 2000s, and with Mystic River, helms a gritty, mystery drama with a stellar cast, nuts-and-bolts storytelling, and enough twists and turns to keep the audience guessing and ultimately shocked.

All of these pieces result in a memorable experience.

The film is based on the novel of the same name, written by Dennis Lehane. A tremendous element is a locale of Boston, and an Irish, blue-collar/working-class theme, prevalent throughout the story.

Thanks to the cinematography, illuminating a grey and stormy look, enhances the rest of the film. I adore films shot in and around Boston as so much culture and flavor are provided.

Eastwood hardly misses a beat with some cold and grizzled touches that play into the hardships and struggles of the character’s everyday lives.

The story itself begins as we meet the central characters (Jimmy, Dave, and Sean) as young boys, a three musketeers-type scenario where they are like blood brothers. After an incident occurs where Dave is accosted by men and sexually abused, he is ultimately rescued after four torturous days, but his life is never the same.

Fast forward twenty-five years and the boys are now men, still living in a working-class Boston neighborhood. Each is now married, their lives have moved on, drifted away from each other, and contain vastly different personality types.

They reunite after a tragedy occurs.

For starters, a major win by Eastwood is the casting of each of the male characters. Sean Penn plays Jimmy, the volatile ex-con, who runs a small store, while Sean, played by Kevin Bacon, has become a Massachusetts State Police officer, putting him directly at odds with Jimmy.

Sadly, Dave (Tim Robbins), now lives a quiet life, still harboring trauma, shame, and guilt from his childhood experience. When Jimmy’s daughter (Emmy Rossum) is brutally murdered, the three friends’ lives are intertwined as they search for the killer taking the viewers down a dark path filled with secrets, some from the past.

Laura Linney and Marcia Gay Harden give tremendous performances as Jimmy’s and Dave’s wives, respectively.

Mystic River is a film where all of the great elements come together perfectly. From the acting to the components of the story to the whodunit involved, to the exciting twist and conclusion to the overall film are truly exceptional.

But what sets it apart from a standard drama or thriller are the characterizations and relationships among these characters.

Childhood memories can last a lifetime in their monumental importance and this is evidenced many times between Jimmy, Dave, and Sean. Blood brothers, yes, but when tragedy strikes, old wounds and fresh wounds together run deep.

The themes of violence and revenge are firm staples of this film, and these are commonalities for many Eastwood films. Viewers may also find themselves conflicted with whom to sympathize with or where their allegiances should lie.

Jimmy, the anti-hero, will garner sympathy for the vicious loss of his daughter- pain that can never be fully healed.

Did Dave, the obvious prime suspect, kill the girl? If so, was it on purpose or by accident? Are others, specifically his wife, involved in a cover-up? Eastwood carves the setup spectacularly, but is it a simple red herring? These events make the film unbelievably compelling.

Fabulous is the performances all around, but especially by Penn and Robbins, both awarded with Oscar wins for Best Actor and Best Supporting Actor, respectively.

Penn never delivers poor performance, but Jimmy is one of his best characters yet. As for Robbins, he fills the character of Dave with empathy- a wounded bird left damaged through no fault of his own, suffering a terrible fate due to circumstances, misunderstandings, and ultimately tragedy.

Mystic River (2003) watched alongside Million Dollar Baby (2004) would make for an excellent Saturday night for fans of Clint Eastwood’s directorial talents. These two are the best of the best with great character development and rich writing.

The direction, however, enhances the spectacular elements and takes it a bit further providing appropriate texture and a wonderful atmosphere.

Oscar Nominations: 2 wins-Best Picture, Best Director-Clint Eastwood, Best Actor-Sean Penn (won), Best Supporting Actor-Tim Robbins (won), Best Supporting Actress-Marcia Gay Harden, Best Adapted Screenplay

2004 Films, Anthony Mackie, Best Picture Oscar Winners, Clint Eastwood, Drama, Hilary Swank, Margo Martindale, Michael Pena, Morgan Freeman, Paul Haggis, Sports

Million Dollar Baby-2004

Leave a comment

Million Dollar Baby-2004

Director Clint Eastwood

Starring Clint Eastwood, Hilary Swank, Morgan Freeman

Scott’s Review #798

Reviewed August 2, 2018

Grade: A

Million Dollar Baby (2004) is arguably Clint Eastwood’s best-directed film of his career.

Rivaling Mystic River (2003) by a hair, the film has a raw emotional appeal, empathetic and richly carved characters and mainstream sensibility.

These combined elements resulted in huge box office success and Oscar wins for Picture, Director, Actress, and Supporting Actor in the year of its release.

Frankie Dunn (Clint Eastwood) is a hardened boxing coach who owns a run-down Los Angeles gym. He works with his best friend and assistant, Eddie (Morgan Freeman). When an aspiring female boxer, Maggie (Hilary Swank), arrives and begs Frankie to train her, he initially declines, but at Eddie’s urging, eventually relents and leads her to great success as a top female boxer.

Frankie and Maggie forge a close-knit, father/daughter relationship, a substitute for the damaged one he has with his daughter.

The final portion of Million Dollar Baby takes a very dark turn, as Maggie is illegally punched during a fight by a fellow boxer, causing her to become a quadriplegic. These events are what change the tone of the film from a very good sports drama to a great tale of morality.

Many emotions and debates transpired after this film was released and the common question of, “What would you have done?” engulfed viewers for months, all through awards season.

The heartbreaking effects of the story events raise the film head and shoulders above most typical sports films.

Too often Eastwood creates films that are palpable, but in a way generic, and very Hollywood. Grand Torino (2008) and Invictus (2009) are good examples of this- especially Invictus given the sports drama element.

Some assumed that Million Dollar Baby was to be a female Rocky (1976) and the film was indeed marketed as such. For this reason, some felt robbed or duped, but I celebrate this film as leaning a firm left of center with a refreshing, progressive approach.

The performances are amazing all around, even by Eastwood- never known for his acting talent. The characters are written as character-driven, but not caricatures. Wounded, grizzled, and flawed, in his senior years, Frankie sees his life has passed him by, having achieved nothing.

Never has Eastwood portrayed a character as complex and reserved as Frankie.

Swank deserved her second Oscar (1999’s Boys Don’t Cry was her first) for simply becoming a boxer- her pre-filming prep schedule reportedly was insane. More than the muscle and toning she achieved, are the raw acting talent and wounded emotions she possesses.

The character is written as pained and vulnerable, but also very strong. She has achieved little in her life- working as a waitress in Missouri and stealing scraps of leftovers to survive. Her family is trash through and through, only wanting her eventual riches for themselves.

The character is inevitably championed as we empathize with her plight emotionally.

Finally, Freeman deserves recognition for being the ultimate supporting actor. Eddie Dupris, a former fighter blind in one eye, is the center point of the story and frequently narrates the actions of others, oftentimes offering a glimpse into the psyche of individuals.

The voice of reason, he is observant and analytical, almost knowing Freddie better than Freddie knows himself. They quarrel and disagree, but are forever friends and loyal to a fault. Freeman possesses quite a reserve as the audience becomes curious about his past life.

Million Dollar Baby (2004) is Eastwood’s best film- Mystic River comes a close second, however. A seemingly formulaic story and genre are weaved into a web of humanism, emotions, and power.

The film is about the characters, which makes it succeed.

Eastwood has not been able to quite surpass this beautiful story, but thankfully received dripping praise and accolades for a film not soon forgotten.

Oscar Nominations: 4 wins-Best Picture (won), Best Director-Clint Eastwood (won), Best Actor-Clint Eastwood, Best Actress-Hilary Swank (won), Best Supporting Actor-Morgan Freeman (won), Best Adapted Screenplay, Best Film Editing

1979 Films, Clint Eastwood, Crime Thriller, Don Siegel, Thriller

Escape from Alcatraz-1979

Leave a comment

Escape from Alcatraz-1979

Director Don Siegel

Starring Clint Eastwood

Scott’s Review #656

Reviewed July 2, 2017

Grade: B+

Made during the heyday (the 1970s and the early 1980s) of a slew of action and thriller-type films to star popular actor, Clint Eastwood, Escape from Alcatraz is a gritty, guy-focused film with not one single female character insight.

The film is directed by Don Siegel, who also directed Eastwood in several previous films, most notably, Dirty Harry in 1971, and contains a grittiness frequently used in this genre of film during the period.

Reminiscent in style of 1975’s One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest in its authority repressing and taking advantage of the victimized common man, the film itself is also a good historical account of one of the most famous prison escapes ever achieved, in 1962.

Having recently visited the long since shut down Alcatraz prison near San Francisco, California, the film was wonderful to watch at this time as much of it was shot inside and around the actual prison grounds.

We immediately meet Frank Morris (Eastwood) as he is unceremoniously led to the infamous Alcatraz prison on a stormy, chilly night in foggy San Francisco. The dark, harsh weather perfectly sets the tone for the dreary prison experience he will face.

Morris is stripped, searched, intimidated by the warden and the guards, and paraded around naked, finally taken to his tiny cell, where he will presumably spend the rest of his life.

The film does not reveal what crimes Morris has committed to warrant his tenure in Alcatraz this way the character is more sympathetic.

Slowly, Morris befriends other inmates and formulates an idea to escape the impossible prison by digging through the cement walls with spoons and escaping through pipes.

The other inmates featured in the film are the Anglin brothers, in for robbery, a kindly older man named Doc, who fervently paints the time away, nervous Charlie Butts, and English, an intelligent black man serving two life sentences for killing two white men in self-defense.

All of these men in some way aid Morris in his escape from the torturous Alcatraz.

A side story involves a bully named Wolf, who has designs on Morris from day one. Whether Wolf is actually gay or merely a menace is unknown and not explored. Throughout the film, Wolf and Morris fight and spend time in solitary confinement and their rivalry is an interesting sub-plot.

The film wants the viewer to be on the side of the prisoners and I am not sure if in real life the prisoners would be as sympathetic as portrayed in the film. Most of them seem to be confined to Alcatraz for robberies or crimes they did not commit or circumstances deeming the crimes inevitable in some way.

Furthering a liberal slant to the film is the friendship between Morris and English. An interracial friendship between the men reveals that our hero Morris is progressive-thinking and a “good guy”.

Conversely, most of the guards and certainly the Warden (Patrick McGoohan) are written as terrible, unsympathetic people. When an inmate drops dead of a heart attack, the warden coldly remarks “Some men are destined never to leave Alcatraz alive”.

The Warden is the foil of the film and in the final scene, the Warden gets a bit of comeuppance when a mocking souvenir is left for him.

To further compare Escape from Alcatraz to One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest, the Warden is a similar character to the infamous Nurse Ratched in their mutual, diabolical sadism.

I am unsure if in “real life” the distinctions between the prisoners and the authority figures were so black and white, but it sure makes for good film drama. It is “the heroes versus the villains” but in reverse.

The inevitable escape sequence is predictable but highly compelling as Morris and Company enact their escape plot during an overnight.

The usage of papier-mache dolls to fool the guards is heavily dramatic and compelling.

Escape from Alcatraz (1979) is not high art but works as a historical account of a real-life incident in one of the most discussed prisons in United States history.

The film is also a perfect starring vehicle for Eastwood as he is well cast in the gritty, yet likable role of prisoner Morris.

The film is a good, solid, late 1970s thriller.

1992 Films, Best Picture Oscar Winners, Clint Eastwood, Frances Fisher, Gene Hackman, Morgan Freeman, Richard Harris, Western

Unforgiven-1992

Leave a comment

Unforgiven-1992

Director Clint Eastwood

Starring Clint Eastwood, Gene Hackman

Scott’s Review #596

Reviewed January 9, 2017

Grade: A-

Winning the 1992 Best Picture Academy Award, Unforgiven is a beautifully shot, well-crafted Western film, directed by and starring Clint Eastwood.

The film differs from that of classic Westerns in that it questions the meaning of violence and is of moral fiber. Director Sergio Leone influenced Eastwood.

Eastwood also stars in the film as William Munny, a former cold-blooded murderer, who is now retired and living as a farmer, a widower due to violence against his deceased wife.

He is talked out of retirement to help kill some shady cowboys.

Unforgiven is a dark film and definitely, character-driven- centering mostly on Eastwood’s character. Why does Munny come out of retirement? Is he lusting after blood or enjoying the satisfaction of revenge?

The cinematography is second to none with gorgeous western United States locales and beautiful landscapes.

The film admittedly drags a bit at times but is rich in character development and questions the motives of its central characters, which is much deeper than most Western, shooting them up the style of films.

Oscar Nominations: 4 wins-Best Picture (won), Best Director-Clint Eastwood (won), Best Actor-Clint Eastwood, Best Supporting Actor-Gene Hackman (won), Best Screenplay Written Directly for the Screen, Best Sound, Best Art Direction, Best Cinematography, Best Film Editing (won)

2009 Films, Biography, Clint Eastwood, Drama, Matt Damon, Morgan Freeman, Sports

Invictus-2009

Leave a comment

Invictus-2009

Director Clint Eastwood

Starring Matt Damon, Morgan Freeman

Scott’s Review #579

Reviewed January 2, 2017

Grade: B

As sports films go, it is very difficult, especially a sports film based on real-life actions, for a director to avoid cliches and make the film not a sappy, saturated mess.

I will point out some of the latter-day Rocky films as examples of cheese, not that those are true stories.

Nevertheless, Clint Eastwood has given us Invictus, and while the film is predictable and sappy, somehow it also works as an above-average offering.

This is undoubtedly helped by the superior acting of stars Matt Damon and Morgan Freeman, who give both compelling and nuanced performances.

While not a masterpiece, for the sports genre, it is above average, as it combines a South African history lesson along with good drama.

Freeman portrays the famed Nelson Mandela, during the period when he took over as President and subsequently ended apartheid. He used the 1995 World Cup rugby matches as a way to unite his people.

Damon stars as a key rugby player.

Invictus is a rousing, triumphant sports film with a happy ending one can see for miles away. There is particularly a rooting value and rallying cry to the film since the subject matter is an important social issue and historically significant.

I wish that the film might have contained more character-driven elements, but it was clear the type of film that it was. Nothing very surprising ever developed as the film was straightforward.

Still, a worthy effort that is a feel-good film.

Oscar Nominations: Best Actor-Morgan Freeman, Best Supporting Actor-Matt Damon

1971 Films, Action, Clint Eastwood, Crime Drama, Don Siegel, Scott's Top 100 Films

Dirty Harry-1971

Leave a comment

Dirty Harry-1971

Director Don Siegel

Starring Clint Eastwood, Harry Guardino

Top 100 Films #86

Scott’s Review #443

445522

Reviewed July 4, 2016

Grade: A

Dirty Harry (1971) is a classic crime drama that became a signature role for Clint Eastwood as the title character, a character he has played four more times.

Dirty Harry set the tone for the plethora of crime thrillers and police action films that filled theaters throughout the 1970s and 1980s. This film still holds up very well and is a masterpiece of the cat and mouse/detective genre.

Quiet, and controlled, but filled with anger below the surface (we learn his wife was killed by a drunk driver), Harry Callahan is a tough cop in San Francisco who has seen it all. He is a red-blooded American good guy, though is brooding and has a mind of his own, oftentimes disagreeing with his superiors and their rules.

He epitomizes good versus evil.

A vicious killer named Scorpio (based on the real-life Zodiac killer) is on the loose, having killed two people already. His motives are unclear, but that is rather unimportant. What is important is that he threatens to kill one person per day unless his demands of $100,000 are met.

Harry is immediately assigned to the case despite his reputation for being difficult and violent. This leads to a cat-and-mouse game between Harry and Scorpio in Harry’s pursuit of the criminal.

Scorpio is played by Andy Robinson, who is a fantastic villain- perhaps one of the most frightening in film history. His dirty blonde locks, yet angelic face, combined with maniacal facial expressions make his portrayal quite frightening.

He is a sniper so he is continually perched on rooftops seeking his next victim. As he watches a couple eating ice cream in the park or a woman swimming in a rooftop pool, we feel a sense of voyeurism and dread.

His disturbing sense of humor and sadistic personality make him quite scary.

The film succeeds in large part because of its grit and violence.  And it is a very masculine film. Harry is a take-no-prisoners kind of guy and he is hell-bent on stopping Scorpio from killing- no matter what.

In a very effective scene, Harry chases Scorpio to a vast football field and uses torture to elicit a confession from Scorpio. It is a bloody and intense scene, but quite necessary to who Harry is.

Of course, this tactic backfires as Scorpio is released from the hospital and set free. This leads to a further feud between the two men.

A bonus of Dirty Harry, and one aspect that gives so much authenticity, is the on-location setting of San Francisco. From the Golden Gate bridge to the illustrious mountains outside of the city and the Pacific Ocean, these elements give a dash of realism to an already gritty film. Chinatown and Dolores Park are also featured.

Highlighting all of this is a sequence where Scorpio forces Harry to go from locale to locale on foot in part of a wicked game to save a victim.

Harry’s famous lines as he points his gun at the perpetrators and mocks them by asking them if five or six bullets in his gun are now legendary as is his “Do I feel lucky? Well, do you, punk?”

On the surface a bit silly and gimmicky, these catchphrases somehow still work.

The school bus finale as Harry and Scorpio once again square off is great. As Scorpio hijacks a bus filled with grammar school students, he tricks the students, unaware of his intentions, by engaging them in children’s song sing-alongs as the harried bus driver drives out of the city.

When one child catches wind of the situation, Scorpio turns nasty, scaring the children into a frenzy.

Dirty Harry (1971) is a classic cop film that I never tire of watching. For the genre, it is as good as it gets and holds up well. After all of these years, it is tough to disassociate Clint Eastwood from the role of “Dirty Harry”.

2003 Films, Bruce Dern, Clint Eastwood, Dennis Hopper, Documentary, Ellen Burstyn, Francis Ford Coppola, Jon Voight, Julie Christie, Martin Scorsese, Milos Forman, Pam Grier, Paul Schrader, Peter Bogdanovich, Robert Altman, Roy Scheider, Sissy Spacek, Sydney Pollack, William Friedkin

A Decade Under The Influence-2003

Leave a comment

A Decade Under the Influence-2003

Director Ted Demme, Richard LaGravenese

Starring Francis Ford Coppola, William Friedkin

Scott’s Review #392

60027599

Reviewed April 5, 2016

Grade: B+

Produced by the cable network Independent Film Channel (IFC), A Decade Under The Influence explores the decade of 1970s film, a decade that was arguably the most creative and liberating to filmmakers and audiences alike.

A period in film defined by the directors securing creative freedom instead of the studios, where artists instead of corporations finally ruled the roost. A Decade Under The Influence gives us an overview of the era.

Despite some conspicuous omissions, I enjoyed this informative piece a great deal.

The documentary is divided into numerous segments including sections on women in film, the transition into a different period in Hollywood, and the subsequent close of the decade.

The interviews are plentiful including a who’s who of stars: Martin Scorsese, Ellen Burstyn, Clint Eastwood, Robert Altman, Julie Christie, Francis Ford Coppola, and numerous other influential directors, actors, and filmmakers.

Each individual describes his or her perspective on 1970s cinema, and personal anecdotes of experiences or challenges are shared.

Ellen Burstyn, for example, describes how the success of The Exorcist afforded her a plethora of other film offers, but all of the roles were of prostitutes, dutiful wives, or women in peril.

She needed roles more stimulating than those so she chose to star in Alice Doesn’t Live Here Anymore, which was a much better-written role. What I found a bit sad is how there are still limited, layered roles for women in Hollywood to this day unless one goes the independent film route, which this documentary touts as a savior.

Francis Ford Coppola relays how The Godfather was never expected to be a success, but rather, how he was chosen to direct the film merely because he worked for cheap and was Italian-American.

How ironic that the film became such a monumental success and influential to film making as a whole for generations to come.

The documentary, at times, seems like an overview of the decade, with many clips of classic 1970s cinema interspersed with the talking points.

Despite being three hours in length, I still felt that there was so much more than the documentary could have explored. Not surprisingly, the stars granting interviews were granted heavy screen time for their films.

The documentary was fine, but could have delved much deeper- I could see a multiple-disc set totally of ten or more hours dedicated to the decade.

One conspicuous omission was Robert Altman’s Nashville, arguably, the best film of the decade. While it was briefly mentioned, and a still frame of a scene from it did appear, I felt that it warranted more dissection and discussion.

This was more surprising given that Altman was interviewed for the documentary.

Another miss was Halloween or any mention of John Carpenter films. Halloween influenced many horror films to come and The Exorcist received heaps of coverage, undoubtedly because star Burstyn and director William Friedkin appear at length throughout the production.

Additionally, in the horror genre, Black Christmas (a highly influential horror film) was not mentioned at all.

A celebration of my favorite decade of cinema, A Decade Under the Influence is a documentary that is a basic must-see for fans of 1970s cinema, or film students perhaps immersing themselves into the world of great film for the first time.

1973 Films, Action, Clint Eastwood, Hal Holbrook, Scott's Top 100 Films

Magnum Force-1973

Leave a comment

Magnum Force-1973

Director Ted Post

Starring Clint Eastwood, Hal Holbrook

Top 100 Films #87

Scott’s Review #336

60021588

Reviewed January 9, 2016

Grade: A

The follow-up to the original action thriller to end all action thrillers, Dirty Harry, 1973’s Magnum Force is as good as the original in my opinion but flies under the radar as compared to the acclaimed Harry.

Both films are similar in style and grit, but Magnum Force holds sentimental memories for me, as I remember watching the film countless times on rainy Saturday afternoons as a kid.

The similarities abound between both films as the screenwriter and score are by the same writer and composer, respectively.

Admittedly, Magnum Force is more conventional and less dirty than its predecessor.

Playing not just the same role of Harry Callahan, the grizzled, hard-nosed Inspector from Dirty Harry, but Clint Eastwood also plays him in quite the same manner.

Not one to blow anyone away with his dazzling acting talent, Eastwood is smart to keep to the status quo. The character is tough, and no-nonsense, but has a take-prisoner vulnerability we love and admire.

In this chapter, a syndicate of vigilante cops is taking matters into their own hands by assassinating known criminals who have been let off the hook either by connections or some other form of loophole.

The pattern is for uniformed patrol officers to pull over a criminal for a mundane reason only to shoot and kill them on the side of the road at point-blank range. They deserve it, but are the cops justified in their actions?

The appeal and mystery of the film are that the police officers wear dark helmets that hide their identities from the audience adding a level of intrigue.

The film offers up a moral question- do the criminals get what they deserve, and do the policemen have the right to justify their actions?

Especially relevant is the final thirty minutes of the film, as Harry and the central “villain”, Lieutenant Briggs (Holbrook)  have a standoff and discuss the topic.

Magnum Force is a shoot-’em-up action flick, so this debate is skirted over largely in favor of car chases and fight scenes. But the point can be thought about.

The best sequence of the film is the finale, as Callahan is lured to an abandoned garage and chased by three remaining cops. The big reveal is that Briggs is running the show and as he drives around in his early 1970’s Ford LTD, soon to become battered and weathered, it is a great scene, especially for those who enjoy car chases.

Magnum Force is a no-frills “guy” film, but one done very well and with an interesting, semi-controversial premise.

The film is the 1970s action genre at its very best.

Surprisingly, and to the film’s credit, one can discuss the film after watching it instead of it being a generic, forgettable flick.