Escape from Alcatraz (6/10): Cliched prison film saved by Eastwood's performance.

“Alcatraz was built to keep all the rotten eggs in one basket, and I was specially chosen to make sure that the stink from the basket does not escape.”

When it comes to prison films the first movie that comes to mind is Frank Darabont’s Shawshank Redemption. It ranks on some popular online sites as one of the best films ever made, so when I finally got a chance to watch Don Siegel’s 1979 prison movie I was underwhelmed. The greatest problem is that this film hasn’t aged well and these characters are all playing familiar stereotypes. Modern prison films have captured the right atmosphere where you actually believe most prisoners are criminals and not just victims of a system. They’re dark, gruesome films, and above all they feel genuine. Even popular TV shows have managed to give us a much more raw sense of prison life. But you don’t get any of that from watching this film because almost every prisoner in this movie is presented as a victim. I had a hard time believing these characters were actual prisoners and the interactions among them were predictable and cheesy. Don Siegel had worked with Clint Eastwood since the late 60’s, but it had been several years since they had last collaborated together. Escape from Alcatraz was their fifth film together and despite its success it was there last collaboration. Clint Eastwood had long solidified his career as a star and he basically comes into this film playing himself. He isn’t given much of a personality other than being the quiet and reserved prisoner who you know is smarter than anyone around him simply because he’s Eastwood. He is so slow at delivering every one-liner that you can predict everything he is going to answer back to whoever tries to intimidate him. I was surprised the screenplay was so predictable, but Eastwood has such strong charisma that you just enjoy the way he delivers the lines even though you know exactly what he’s going to say.   

Escape from Alcatraz, which was based on J. Campbell Bruce’s book of the same name, was inspired on true events. Richard Tuggle, who would later go on to direct Eastwood in another film, adapted the screenplay and did some research of his own on the 1962 escape attempt of Frank Morris and the Anglin brothers. The film begins very silently (there is hardly any dialogue during the first 10 minutes) as Frank Morris (Clint Eastwood) is being escorted by officers to the Alcatraz prison. The long ride to the prison cell and the extreme security measures give us a sense of how improbable it is for someone to escape the prison, but Frank is determined and seems to have the IQ for the task. In case he didn’t receive the message, the warden (Patrick McGoohan) gives him a friendly reminder that he will never leave the island because no one has ever been able to escape. He is later introduced to some of the other prisoners: English (Paul Benjamin), who works at the library and exchanges a couple of friendly racial insults with him, Litmus (Frank Ronzio) the prisoner who enjoys the company of his mouse (such a cliche now for prison movies) and is always bargaining with Frank for his dessert, Wolf (Bruce M. Fischer) the bully in the prison who wants Frank to be his pet, and Butts (Larry Hankin) who is in the cell next to his. Frank realizes that the salt in the water has eroded some of the walls and he comes up with an escape plan that he shares with Butts. When two brothers, John (Fred Ward) and Clarence Anglin (Jack Thibeau), arrive at the prison Frank realizes he can use their help as well and the four come up with a plan. The suspense begins to grow as the film centers on their escape attempt.  

The film works much better when it focuses on the escape plan because the characters aren’t really developed too well and the interactions between them are painfully dull at times. None of the prisoners have a personality of their own and every subplot is simply used as a filler. Once the escape plan gets underway however the film works at a much better pace. Eastwood is a star and he can turn any one dimensional character into someone compelling, which he manages to do here. Any attempt to give the rest of the characters something compelling to do fails. You could care less about the threat that the Wolf or the warden present to Frank, and the bonds he makes in prison aren’t very interesting either. The scenes he shares with English were pointless. Larry Hankin is probably the only other sympathetic character here. The lack of character development kind of lowers the stakes of the actual escape, but Eastwood manages to make it compelling nonetheless. The tension escalates in the second half of the film and makes the experience worthwhile, but overall I felt underwhelmed by this classic.

   

My Favorite Collection: Mystic River (10/10)

“We bury our sins here, Dave. We wash them clean.”

     

Mystic River and Unforgiven are my two favorite Clint Eastwood films and depending on which one I see last I tend to put in first place. Right now I’m inclined to declare Mystic River as Eastwood’s best film, but that is subject to change anytime (perhaps even before I finish writing this review). Nominated for six Academy Awards, the film won two: Sean Penn for Best Actor in a Leading Role and Tim Robbins for Best Supporting Actor. I was rooting for Brian Helgeland’s wonderful screenplay adaptation from Dennis Lehane’s novel, but it lost out to The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King. Helgeland had previously won an Oscar for his adaptation of L.A. Confidential, which is another wonderful thriller. Lehane’s novel adaptations have always translated well to the big screen and I recommend each one: The Drop, Shutter Island, and Gone Baby Gone. So when putting these two great writers together you are guaranteed an intriguing story with rich characters, which is one of the reasons why I love Mystic River. On a side note I just want to say that Lehane’s novel, Live By Night, is being directed by Ben Affleck and will be released some time next year. It’s already my frontrunner for Best Picture at the 2017 Academy Awards without knowing anything else about it. 

Mystic River’s underlying theme is the loss of innocence. The story centers around three childhood friends whose life is forever changed when one of them is abducted and molested for several days before he manages to escape. The film centers on these three characters now that they are adults. Dave (Tim Robbins), the victim, is now a married man, but he is clearly traumatized by the abuse he received. Sean (Kevin Bacon) has become a homicide detective, while Jimmy (Sean Penn) is an ex-con who is now a loving father of three. When Jimmy’s daughter goes missing and is found dead, Sean takes over the investigation, but Jimmy is not going to let whoever committed this terrible crime go unpunished. 

Mystic River stands out for its clever screenplay, and that usually translates to fantastic performances. Sean Penn delivers one of his best performances and the scene where he finds out his daughter has been murdered is heart-breaking. Tim Robbins is also fantastic playing a traumatized man whose life was changed by that terrible event during his childhood. Sean Penn is perhaps given the most straightforward scenes as the detective, but even he shares some powerful scenes with Sean Penn. Laura Linney and Marcia Gay Harden also have some intense dramatic scenes. The film stands out thanks to its powerful performances and the surprising dark reveals along the way. It could even stand out on its own for the detective story, but it is carried to another level thanks to the impressive performances and Eastwood’s solid direction.

“The last time I saw Dave…That was twenty-five years ago, going up this street, in the back of that car.” That quote left me with goosebumps all over my arms and a quick chill run through my spine.

American Sniper (8/10): Chris Kyle gets the Eastwood treatment.

“I'm willing to meet my Creator and answer for every shot that I took.”

Clint Eastwood’s latest film, American Sniper, is a carefully constructed character study of one of America’s deadliest snipers during the War in Iraq. Unlike most war films this isn’t an anti or pro-war movie; it is a film focusing on a character who happens to be a soldier. Bradley Cooper is in nearly every scene of the movie and everything revolves around him. We really don’t get familiar with any of the other characters in the movie because he is the main subject of the film. Sienna Miller plays his wife and she is the only other character in the film who has any depth beside him. Eastwood is doing what he does best here, which is focusing on the narration and telling the story of this unique man who had more than 150 confirmed kills during his service as a Navy SEAL. Some may read this film as patriotic, but I think it doesn’t really take a side on this issue and rather simply focuses on a man who acted upon the firm conviction that he was doing what was right. Having his character kill off a woman and a young child during the opening scene proves this point. It is a difficult decision, but Chris Kyle has no reservation about what he is doing because he is determined and is able to justify his own actions. The film then flashes back to Kyle’s adolescent years where he is taught by his father to be a protective man (to be a sheep dog that protects the sheep from the wolves). This is the key scene in the movie that becomes a metaphor of who Kyle will later become. That is why after watching the 9-11 attacks on TV he decides to join the army. This could’ve been cheesy and cliche, but I believed his character actually would act on such an impulse because it was the way he was raised. So without taking sides or judging this character, Eastwood is able to focus on his actions and later the consequences those decisions had in his life. He isn’t simply portrayed as a hero, he suffers PTSD and suffers consequences for his actions. This however is the weakest part of the film because the film sort of rushes the character to recovery and doesn’t take more time to dwell on that aspect of his life. American Snpier a solid character study with some good action scenes and a strong lead performance from Bradley Cooper.

Based on Chris Kyle’s autobiographical book, Jason Hall adapts a solid screenplay and walks the dangerous fine line of trying to force a point of view about the war on the audience. Focusing on the character allows it to steer away from that common and familiar take on war films. Bradley Cooper is the driving force of the movie and for the first time I actually forgot I was watching Bradley Cooper, and I believed he was the actual Chris Kyle. He downplays much of his performance and that is what made it more convincing. Sienna Miller is also great (she disappears like she did in Foxcatcher, and becomes the character). The rest of the cast really never get much to work with considering everything centers on the lead character. There is a thrilling confrontation between Kyle and an enemy sniper played by Sammy Sheik that is very interesting. The film has plenty of well choreographed action scenes and many thrills that keep us engaged. There is a great sandstorm action scene near the third act of the film that stands out. The action scenes are perhaps the most gripping thing about American Sniper, but a deeper exploration of the effects of the war on Kyle could’ve lifted this to another level. It is portrayed in a light and rushed way, but Cooper does his best to capture that inner tension. What American Sniper does best is tell the character’s story and let the audience make their own conclusion of wether or not he was a hero or a murderer. 

My Review: Jersey Boys (6/10)

“I remember thinking there was something off with this guy. This was 1959, people thought Liberace was just theatrical.”

With films like Mystic River, Million Dollar Baby, Unforgiven, and Gran Torino you’d never guess Clint Eastwood would direct a musical biography like this one. It is unlike any other film directed by him in the past couple of decades. Jersey Boys tells the true story of the musical quartet formed by a group of kids growing up in the streets of New Jersey who influenced rock and roll during the 60’s. Eastwood explores their trials and triumphs during these decades and balances the rather dull story with their great music. The film was adapted from the successful Broadway musical, but unfortunately it fails to capture some of that energy. My biggest issue with this film was the pacing which became tedious at times. It tried to cover so many years that it felt like some characters that were introduced early in the film were never really explored at all. At times the movie also feels like it’s playing it safe by following most conventions of the musical biopic genre. It tries to be different by breaking the fourth wall, but it never works. However, I did enjoy this film because of the music. It was great. The film succeeds when we get to see how they come up with the songs and then hear them perform them, but it fails when it tries to explore their relationships outside of the group. Eastwood’s film could’ve been so much better if the unnecessary subplots were cut out because the pacing becomes tedious at times.

I wasn’t familiar with the four lead actors in Jersey Boys, but they all gave strong performances. Their voices were phenomenal and the music was a pleasure to hear. John Lloyd Young played the same role he did in the Broadway musical as Frankie Valli, and he captures that unique voice in the film. Vincent Piazza as Tommy DeVito also delivers, but it’s Christopher Walken once gain who steals each scene he’s in. Walken plays the mobster, Gyp DeCarlo, who first discovers Frankie’s angelical voice. It’s a role Walken could perform in his sleep, but there is no one who can pull it off better than he can. The film could’ve used a bit more of his character and humor, especially when the story began to drag. Clint Eastwood is a director that I’ve learned to admire over the years, but this is one of his weakest films which lacked some of that spark from his other films. Jersey Boys simply plays it too safe and never delivers the punch. 

My Review: Trouble with the Curve (8/10)

¨Anybody who uses computers doesn't know a damn thing about this game.¨

Trouble with the Curve is this year`s response to Moneyball claiming that the experience of scouts can`t be replaced by a bunch of computer programs and numbers. It is kind of the opposite of what happened in last year`s movie starring Brad Pitt, but in my opinion both films worked really well. I believe that a balance must be found in both systems and that there is no right or wrong way to approach this. Moneyball explored the baseball concepts a little deeper; Trouble with the Curve on the other hand focuses more on the father and daughter relationship. I am not a big baseball fan, but I enjoyed these movies quite a bit because they had a lot of heart. This film might be predictable, but it`s hard not to fall for the sentimentality it brings along and the broken relationships it tries to restore. This is Robert Lorenz`s first film as a director, but he has had a lot of experience working with Clint Eastwood as his assistant in most of his movies. Lorenz uses some of the same techniques and trademarks of Eastwood in this film so it is kind of like if you were watching one of his movies. The screenplay was written by Randy Brown, and the film stars Clint Eastwood (it has been a long time since he has acted in a movie that he didn’t direct). Eastwood`s last film as an actor was Gran Torino, and he has a sort of similar role in this movie playing his usual old grumpy self again. Trouble with the Curve is a good film, but not as great as some other Eastwood films (Gran Torino and Million Dollar Baby).

Gus (Clint Eastwood) is a baseball scout for the Atlanta Braves. He has had a long and successful career with the club, but some of the managers think he`s getting too old and his contract is about to expire in three months. Phillip (Matthew Lillard) one of the General Manager`s assistant is a firm believer in the numbers that his computer program gives him, but the other assistant, Pete (John Goodman), is a friend of Gus`s and defends him. Gus has a talent for scouting good players; the problem he´s facing now is that his eyes are failing him. Despite the problem, he tries to hide it from everybody and continue to go on as if nothing is wrong. His wife passed away years ago and he had to raise his daughter Mickey on his own. Mickey (Amy Adams) is now in her 30`s and is becoming a successful lawyer, but her relationship with her father has always been distant. Pete figures out that something is wrong with Gus and asks Mickey to accompany her father on what could be his last scouting assignment to North Carolina. Gus has to scout a promising player there named Bo (Joe Massingill) in case the Red Sox, who have the first round pick, pass on him. The scout from the Red Sox happens to be Johnny (Justin Timberlake), a former player who was scouted by Gus himself. Johnny ends up falling for Mickey during their stay in North Carolina, although there are several other issues she wants to resolve with her father first.

The performances in this film didn’t blow my mind, but the story does have a lot of heart. It`s hard not to fall for the characters in this story and despite the fact that the film is very predictable and formulaic it was still a very satisfying experience for me. Amy Adams and Clint Eastwood shared some touching scenes together. Eastwood seems to always explore this father-daughter distant relationship in most of his movies. You don’t need to be a baseball fan to enjoy this movie because it deals more with these relationships than with the game itself. Justin Timberlake and Amy Adams share some scenes together as well adding a little romance to the story. Trouble with the Curve has a little bit of everything: sports, romance, and drama so it is one of those rare films that the entire family will enjoy.

http://estebueno10.blogspot.com

My Review: J. Edgar (6/10)

¨Do I kill everything that I love? ¨

J. Edgar is Clint Eastwood`s latest biopic that tells the story of Edgar Hoover`s life and how he created the FBI during a span of over fifty years. Hoover was a very controversial character, some people hated him and others loved him, but Eastwood doesn’t take any sides; he simply allows us to judge his work for ourselves showing us the good and the bad. Hoover didn’t have an idealistic life either; Eastwood also focuses on his personal life and exposes some of his secrets. The film was written by Dustin Lance Black, who also wrote the Oscar nominated biopic: Milk, but unlike in that movie, this time the story suffers from a very slow pace. The weakest thing about J. Edgar is truly its pacing. The subject matter is just so wide that the movie fails to focus on just one particular detail and tries to mash everything together with a series of numerous flashbacks. There were some very interesting moments during the story, but they were just too far spread out and most of the film was really a bore to sit through. I wish the film would have focused more on just one or two aspects instead of trying to include such a broad range. By trying to show everything that went on in Edgar`s life, we truly end up not knowing much. This movie suffers from the typical case of trying to say so much that you end up not saying anything at all. The film should of focused on a much shorter time period (let’s say the Lindbergh case for example which was probably the most interesting part of the film) instead of covering all the specific details. The highlights of this film however are the performance from Leonardo DiCaprio as Hoover, and the art direction which is just beautiful (like in every Eastwood film).

As for the story, the movie begins with an older version of J. Edgar Hoover (Leonardo DiCaprio) narrating his memories to one of the agents and telling him to write his memoirs. It was during the communist hunt that J. Edgar found the opportunity to tighten his grip in the law enforcement agency and make important arrests after several communist revolutions began taking place across several major cities in the US. Hoover was completely dedicated to his job and slowly began building what today we know as the FBI. He had a very awkward social behavior, and very few friends. They called him Speedy for the way he talked, and he was very close to his mother (Judi Dench), to whom he looked up too all the time for advice. He trusted very few people, one of them was his personal secretary Helen Gandy (Naomi Watts) and the other his right hand man and personal assistant, Agent Clyde Tolson (Armie Hammer), with whom he had a secret love affair despite the fact that he tried to deny it and hide it. After the witch hunt was over with, Hoover`s attention shifted to arresting important gangsters and mafia groups, and in doing so he slowly began to build the Bureau. He had secret personal files on every United States president he served under, whether it was Roosevelt or Kennedy. The true highlight of the film and the turning point for the Agency`s autonomy came with the Lindbergh case which received a lot of media attention after a child was kidnapped from his own home. Hoover used this case to build prestige for the Bureau and create a fingerprint database of every citizen in order to solve crimes easier. He built the Federal Bureau of Investigation and this is how he did it.

One of the most distracting things about J. Edgar is the makeup. Some of the actors really looked bad when they had to play older versions of themselves (Armie Hammer above all). They should`ve stuck with hiring older actors to play those roles because the makeup really didn’t work. It was awful. Leonardo DiCaprio does save this movie however, from being bad thanks to a great performance. He deserved an Oscar nomination, but I guess the film just wasn’t good enough. Armie Hammer also was great in his supporting role, but his makeup when playing an older version of himself distracted us from his true performance. The rest of the supporting cast just doesn’t have enough time to shine on screen, with the exception of Judi Dench who is as brilliant as usual. Naomi Watts did have plenty of screen time, but she really didn’t have a memorable performance. I`d have to say that J. Edgar is one of Eastwood`s weakest films, but I am still a huge fan of his work and wish him the best in his upcoming projects. The subject matter in this film is interesting, but the pacing is just poorly done. I recommend it only for DiCaprio or Eastwood fans although I wouldn’t be watching this film a second time.

http://estebueno10.blogspot.com

My Review: Hereafter (6/10)

¨If you are afraid about being on your own, don`t be. You are not.¨

I´m a huge Clint Eastwood fan, but I have to admit that Hereafter is one of his weakest efforts. I expected a lot more from this movie which had Matt Damon teaming up again with him after Invictus, and it also had one of the best screenwriters working on the project. Peter Morgan has written screenplays for such great films as The Damned United, Frost/Nixon, The Queen, and The Last King of Scotland. Hereafter will definitely not rank among Eastwood, Damon, or Morgan`s best work. They are all very talented at what they do, but sometimes things don`t work out the way we expect them too. The movie begins with a lot of promise, but then it seems to drift all the way to the anticlimactic ending. Eastwood does take huge risks as a director, but this time it just didn`t work out for him like in his other projects. Hereafter tells three different stories about three characters that in some way or another have to deal with death. It`s not a bad film, I enjoyed Hereafter, especially the first half of the film, but I just hoped the three stories would have tied a little nicer than they actually did. The film lacked a climactic ending, and the most important scene actually takes place in the opening five minutes. This is my least favorite Eastwood film of the last ten years, and he has made plenty of them (Mystic River, Million Dollar Baby, Iwo Jima, Flags of Our Fathers, Changeling, Gran Torino, and Invictus). I still think Eastwood, who is now 80 years old, is one of the brightest and finest directors in Hollywood so all his films are worth checking out. He tries to leave an important underlying message in all of his films, and in Hereafter he tells us that there is more to life after death.

The movie opens with a French journalist named Marie Lelay (played by Cecile de France known for her role in the French horror film High Tension) who is on vacations in the eastern shores of Asia along with her boyfriend and producer Didier (Thierry Neuvic). While Marie is out on the streets buying some gifts for Didier`s boys a tsunami takes place destroying everything on its path. Marie is swept away by the wave only to be resurrected by some local fishermen. During the incident Marie experiences some sort of afterlife, but she can`t explain it very well. She decides to take some time off from her job and begin writing about her experience. The film then jumps to San Francisco where we are introduced to George (Matt Damon), a factory worker who used to work as a psychic. He is a true psychic who can communicate with the dead, but for him it is a curse unlike what his brother Billy (Jay Mohr) thinks that it`s a gift. Billy wants George to become a psychic again because he is really good at it, but George wants to stay away from that life because he has learned death isn`t fun to be around with. He spends his free time taking cooking lessons where he meets Melanie (Bryce Dallas Howard) and an interesting friendship develops although his psychic abilities might get in the way. The third parallel story takes place in London and it centers around Marcus and Jason (Frankie and George McLaren), twins who have to take care of their alcoholic and drug addict mother. One day Jason suffers an accident and dies leaving Marcus on his own desperately trying to find a way to communicate with him. The three stories continue to develop until they overlap with each other.

Hereafter is a strong drama that really begins with a lot of promise, but as the movie continues to develop it starts to drag and the final connection between the three stories isn`t as strong to make the wait worth your while. The best part of the film is the opening scene with the tsunami. I liked the visuals, and the scene felt very real (especially after experiencing the recent tsunami in Japan and seeing all those real life images). Eastwood definitely hooks our attention with that opening, but then he loses us by the time we get to the final act because there is no climax. There is a lot to learn about life after death and this movie tries to explore it, but it doesn`t get to delve in too deep. The movie barely touches the surface of it and it focuses more on the drama and loneliness that each character goes through. By the end you feel like something was missing and that it could have had a more powerful ending considering the subject matter. When it comes to movies about death, I personally prefer films like Meet Joe Black, but I still don’t think Hereafter was as bad as many people considered it to be. It still works as a character driven drama and both Damon and De France give some strong performances. Eastwood still knows how to make good films, this one just isn`t up to par with the rest of his movies.

http://estebueno10.blogspot.com/

My Review: The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly (10/10)

¨You see in this world there`s two kinds of people my friend, those with loaded guns, and those who dig. You dig.¨

I wonder what would`ve been of Clint Eastwood`s career if it weren`t for the ¨Dollars¨ trilogy. Before working with Italian filmmaker, Sergio Leone, he had a career as a television actor in Rawhide, a western based TV series, but he couldn`t get a decent job in Hollywood so he began to look for work abroad. He reached international success thanks to Leone`s reinvented spaghetti westerns: A Fistful of Dollars (1964), For a Few Dollars More (1965), and The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly (1966), known as the ¨Dollars¨ trilogy. He proved producers wrong because they thought that people wouldn`t pay to see movies of actors they could see for free on television, but audiences were  more than willing to see him in the big screen. His pairing with Leone couldn`t have worked out better for him since the director`s trademark was combining long wide shots with extreme close-ups. These wide shots couldn´t have been enjoyed as much on the small television sets at home. Eastwood`s rough features and manly charisma also contributed to Leone`s success, and both seemed destined to work with each other. There is no need to see the previous ¨Dollars¨ movies as The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly stands out on its own and is actually a prequel since the movie takes place during the Civil War in the early 1860`s before the other plots take place and they are all separate stories that only have Clint Eastwood`s character in common. When I see Eastwood`s latest films as a director I can`t help but think how much he was influenced by the great Sergio Leone. He must have learned a great deal working with the Italian director in this masterpiece. It is just shot beautifully and to perfection by Leone, the cinematography and scenery are amazing and feel real, and the score is perfect. Eastwood may be a different director than Leone was, but he pays close detail to his craft and also knows how to shoot beautifully.

The plot is pretty simple for a movie that is about three hours long, but Leone`s use of the camera and extended shots makes the film longer. He also adds several side stories that work really well in the narrative. The film begins by introducing each character (although in the opposite order: The Ugly, The Bad, and The Good). The film begins with an extreme close up on a bounty hunter (Al Mulock) and then when we see the wide shot there are three of them who are quietly entering a bar. Once the men enter we hear three shots and out comes Tuco, also known as The Ugly (Eli Wallach), who escapes. In the next scene we are introduced to The Bad, Angel Eyes (Lee Van Cleef), who is tracking down a peasant farmer. The scene is truly a classic as no words are spoken for about ten minutes, but the tension can be felt. Angel Eyes is actually looking for information on the location of a treasure of coins lost during the Civil War and he is told a soldier named Bill Carson has it. Finally, we are introduced to Blondie, The Good (Clint Eastwood), who saves Tuco from a group of men who want to turn him in because there is a reward on his head. Blondie saves him only to collect the reward himself, but once Tuco is about to be hanged he shoots the rope and sets him free as part of a scam in which they divide the money. They later turn against each other only to discover the location of the treasure that has been buried and the race begins to see who can get to the treasure first as the three men have different information regarding its whereabouts.

The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly is my all-time favorite Western. Any other film in the genre will always be measured by its standards. The opening scene in which we are introduced to Angel Eyes (The Bad) is just so beautifully shot that no dialogue was needed and we were already hooked (Ennio Morricone´s amazing score can also take some credit for that). The first ten minutes have no dialogue whatsoever but it sets up the general tone of the movie: several wide shots where we can see the great landscape and deserts combining them with extreme close ups of the characters facial expressions, the tension and suspense is built with long and slow scenes and suddenly the violence happens so quickly that we are caught off guard. The film doesn`t celebrate violence, it portrays it truthfully. The main character is the quiet Blondie (The Good), but without a doubt Tuco (The Ugly) is the one who has the most lines and brings some unbalance and goofiness to an otherwise serious picture. One of the funniest scenes is when he is in the tub and one of the bounty hunter shows up to kill him but before shooting he begins the classic speech villains tend to give and Tuco pulls out his gun and fires at him saying, ¨When you have to shoot, shoot, don`t talk.¨ Tuco plays a key role and his character is kind of the gray in an otherwise black (Angel Eyes) and white (Blondie), good guy and bad guy western movie. He breaks the conventionality in the genre. The final Mexican standoff scene is also truly memorable and one of the best shot sequences. This is a truly unique film that has stood the test of time; it catapulted Eastwood into a movie star, and has influenced him on his way to becoming a great director. The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly is one of my all time favorite movies and is a must see film.

http://estebueno10.blogspot.com/

My Review: Invictus (8/10)

¨I am the master of my fate. I am the captain of my soul.¨

(8/10) Clint Eastwood is one of today`s best directors. He seems to have enough time every year to direct a new film and sometimes even releases two movies a year. Every film he directs seems to receive a lot of praise from the critics and audiences as well. Last year he directed two great films: Changeling and Gran Torino. He even acted in Gran Torino and was nominated for an Oscar. I don`t know where he gets the time to do all this, but one thing is certain he is a very talented director. His movies always end up in my top ten lists every year. Somehow in all his films he seems to bring out the best in every actor and many receive awards because of him, such was the case with Tim Robbins and Sean Penn who received an Oscar each for Mystic River and Morgan Freeman and Hillary Swank who received the same award for Million Dollar Baby. Invictus, Eastwood`s latest film, has already brought acting award nominations for Matt Damon and Morgan Freeman. Clint studies his projects very closely, he brings the best out of every actor and his films are always very powerful and inspirational. Invictus is a very inspirational movie as well, but it is so careful in being historically accurate that it sometimes feels more like a documentary about the South African rugby team. The movie might seem to follow the same basic clichés any inspirational sport movie does but the truth of the matter is that it is very historically accurate and it is exactly what happened.

Morgan Freeman has worked with Eastwood on many occasions in the past (Million Dollar Baby and Unforgiven) and he teams up with him once again to portray Nelson Mandela, the recently elected president of South Africa. Freeman had a difficult task ahead of him since he had to play a well known and recognized figure worldwide, but he was perfect and really fit the part. His physical appearance and body language was almost identical to the real man. Mandela rises to power during a very difficult time because the country is divided in two. On the one hand you have the white who have always been in power and oppressed the natives and on the other you have the natives who have recently found a victory through the election of Mandela as the president. Everyone expects Mandela to govern with a stern hand and have his revenge on the white people who have oppressed him and sent him to prison, but Mandela has a different approach. He wants to unite the country and put the past to rest, and in order to do so he wants the natives to forget the past and move on forward together. He leads by example and finds rugby to be the perfect instrument to unite the people. He decides to meet with the South African Rugby team captain Francois Pienaar, played by Matt Damon, and teaches him a thing or two about motivation and leadership. He expects the team to win the Rugby World Cup that they are hosting and finds this to be the perfect opportunity to reconcile any differences in the past and show the world that South Africa is a strong nation.

Invictus is a great film, but you are left with a sense that there could be so much more because the story is so rich and Mandela is a very inspiring persona. I still think Mystic River, Gran Torino, and Unforgiven are among Eastwood´s best films. Invictus is good and expectations are always high when Eastwood is behind the camera and that sometimes might hurt the film´s chances, but his movies are always a must see and this is one you won`t want to miss even though it hasn`t received as many nominations as his previous films. You cannot miss Morgan Freeman`s Mandela, it is just right on the mark and his performance is almost perfect. Matt Damon also brings a lot to the table and he is great as a supporting character. He put on some weight and got in shape so he has a real rugby player physique, but I don`t think his performance was good enough to beat Christopher Waltz´s performance in Inglorious Basterds. Morgan Freeman probably won`t get the Oscar either but he was great nonetheless. This movie is worth seeing because Clint Eastwood is behind the camera once again and his films are always outstanding. I hope he continues to make more movies every year as he has been doing these last couple of years because they always have an important underlying message and leave an impact in you even after you leave the theater. Invictus taught us how Mandela was able to unite a country through love and forgiveness when he had all the resources to act with hate and revenge. It also proves how sports can have an impact in society as well, as the Rugby team united the country for the first time in its history.