I was disappointed by this movie. A wise teacher once said that if someone only compliments the cinematography, there's something wrong with you movie, and this is a good example. It felt flat, engaging, and meaningless. No story... no character... no personality. It could have been so good.

I think Clint Eastwood is slipping.

Slipping? Was he ever a good director to start with?

I think he's been consistently overrated as a director by virtue of his age and acting performances. He was great as the Man with No Name - but I'm not going to claim that MDB and Mystic River were great movies, because it's not the case.

'Workmanlike' seems to be the right word here. I haven't seen 'Flags' but I'll probably check out the Japanese part just to see what results he gets from a cast of Japanese actors...

Clint is The last Old-School/Classical Hollywood Style Director.In my opinion, not overrated because I admire people like Ford or Capra.
The Unforgiven and Mystic River are Both Masterpieces.
I haven´t seen Flags of our Fathers yet but I will when it comes out.
I hope its bad because I want to see Marty to get his long time deserved oscar stolen by john g avildesen.

I hated Mystic River, and I'm not actually sure I can think of any Eastwood pictures I did like...

Fellini: Mystic River was a masterpiece? Jesus, and you thought Marie Antoinette was disappointing? I'm having an incredibly hard time reconciling these two thoughts.

Mystic River was emblematic of everything that is wrong with Hollywood. Treacly, pandering material two steps removed from a TV soap disguised as 'art' and Oscar-bait.

There aren't any "classic" Hollywood-style directors still working, if you're using the term in its strict sense. Making films like the studio system in the '30s and early '40s is impossible now. Eastwood can't truly be considered to be working in that mode... Certainly we have one director who is still true to the independent uprising in the '70s, though, and that is Terrence Malick. Not Scorsese, Lucas, or Coppola.

Evan, I´m more into a good story. Hitchcock once said there are 3 things that make a good movie: the script, the script and the script.
Mystic river had a good story.Very rare in recent Hollywood productions.
You dont agree with me but clint´s style is old Hollywood like hawks and ford.
About MA, I thought it was very visual and less story driven.I dont like that.
TD also said that when you like the cinematography there is something wrong.I agree 100%.
Ingmar Bergman said something like that: "the best films are the ones you forget there is a camera".

Cheers

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Fellini77,

quote:

TD also said that when you like the cinematography there is something wrong.I agree 100%.

Great, but you agree with something that wasn't in his original post at all: he said if someone *only* compliments the cinematography, not if someone *likes* it.

I see nothing wrong with films that have good, compelling stories - but Mystic River didn't provide this. It was a third-rate murder mystery with an appallingly bad conclusion dressed up with name actors.

The difference between John Ford and Clint Eastwood is that John Ford was actually good.

I just don't see anything in Eastwood's films that strikes me as particularly well-done. They're very staid and mediocre.

ok, I change the phrase: "if someone only compliments the cinematography...".

To me, Marie-Antoniette is like a fashion show...beautiful but empty. A nice music video, nothing else.
Sofia is very talented but self-centered. The self-centered Lost in Translation worked for me but this mixture of marie-antoniette with Sofia and pop culture didnt.
You can´t be historical accurated and give your personal vision at the same time.

Can we get back to dissing Clint Eastwood?

Somehow this thread veered into MA even though I made another one for it.

Fellini: try conflating 'Sofia Coppola' and 'Marie Antoinette' and see if that resolves some of the tension. I liked MA better than 'Lost in Translation' because the latter film tried to be something other than self-centered, which, as you pointed out, Coppola clearly is. The subject and approach for MA seemed more honest even in its superficiality.

"Can we get back to dissing Clint Eastwood?"

A: why not? . To me, Clint is the last american hero in hollwood´s "old-school way". Contemporary American Cinema is all about the anti-hero like the great charlie kaufman stories.I like those but I also admire the old american cinema. I admire how Ford or Hawks could fight the stupid studio laws giving us brilliant films such as The Searchers and the Rio Bravo.
Clint is not that good but is the closest you can get.

about MA, I think is more self-centered han LT ,because sofia wants to be marie and thats very pretentious and ambicious.Besides that she wants to be european without knowing anything about europe.That Rosseau part was a huge cliche also. The result is paris Hilton Meets Debora Harry Meets European Cinema.It doesnt work.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Fellini77,

Your last comment is interesting - I think this was also intentional on the part of the movie.

1 - who *can* know anything about Europe? I don't necessarily think being 'European' qualifies one any more than being 'non-European.' What is Europe? If you follow the recent cultural studies discourse about defining Europe and European cinema, etc. these questions repeatedly come up.

Second - Kirsten Dunst, an American, plays Marie-Antoinette with an American accent. No one else in the film has such a noticeable lack of 'European' enunciation. Part of this is to recast the contrast between France (Europe proper) and Austria (rural, backwater, etc.), and part of it works to restate a dichotomy between American and European production. The uncertain status of the film's production assists this reading.

Also, my point in the previous post was precisely that the blatant self-centered techniques in MA were less dishonest than Lost in Translation, which was equally indulgent but pretended not to be.

quote:

You can´t be historical accurated and give your personal vision at the same time.

Nor should you try to be. Not if you want to do something other than an imitation. Who on this site gets on Spielberg for not having Schindler's List completely in German? Not even I snoop that low, because its not so important as the performances in any film for that matter. Look at Stone's Nixon, a crappy film but I thought Hopkins really got to the heart of the man, especially in the scene where he's at the Lincoln Memorial, showed how the real man really didn't "get" it, and it wasn't hurt by Hopkins not looking much like Nixon at all, or his lackluster on-and-off-again accent. That's why i've always maintained that Edward Norton should have played Ali. But maybe I've taken things too far and off course

Right, I don't know how it ever even came up that the film was under the onus of being 'historically accurate.' I certainly never suggested that.

I'd much rather see a film like this that makes no pretense of being a 'living history' than something deceptive and dishonest like Saving Private Ryan which attempts to have fiction and truth playing contrived roles for maximum affect (even though I admire the film's craft, I question its politics). For a lot of people, SPR probably *is* World War II. Which is frightening.

I;ve always liked good or great films like Apocalypse Now and Thin Red Line that were about war, rather than films that had to be great "war films" or realistic like Platoon and ****.

"I don't necessarily think being 'European' qualifies one any more than being 'non-European."

A: I didnt said that.Some americans can portait Europe wisely. Kubrick´s Barry Lydon or Coppola´s Apocalypse Now REDUX (The french colonisation part) for example.
Sofia did a mess because she wanted to be accurated - the rosseau cliche bull**** for example- but also modern like paris hilton.

I also despise that biopic style Like Ray. Oliver Stone is an exception because he shoots like a documentary.

About Sofia,she should watch more of bertoluci´s 1900 and visconti´s gattopardo.Thats the right way to go.

What i dont like also is american directors trying to be european.I have plenty of european cinema to chose from.
MA, was ambicious and failed. AMADEUS had the same formula (a modern portait of the past) but worked much better cause it wasnt pretencious to the bone.

want a much better film about the revolution done with style:

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0239234/ Eric Rohmer´s - "Anglaise et le duc".

quote:

What i dont like also is american directors trying to be european.

Haha, you're right, they should be ****ty like Spielberg and Bay and leave the art and pretentiousness to Lars Von Trier! Audiences redily get what they deserve.

No leave it to people like alexander payne, malick, scorsese, woody allen.
Excellent american artists with a trademark.

quote:

Excellent american artists with a trademark.

Meh, they've got more along the lines of a schtick, and only Malick has a good one that doesn't interfere. At least S. Coppola has tried 3 different films, we all know woody allen's done the same 2 his whole career, and scorsese the same 1

since when spielberg is ****ty?
Kubrick and bergman (two of the most important filmmakers of all time) dont agree with you.

Hill´s favorite cd:

quote:

since when spielberg is ****ty?

He is what he is. I personally maintain that most of the things worth watching in his films are because of Kaminski.

And Payne, Scorsese (the current version) and Woody Allen (current version) should really not be taken as representative of the best American directors...