Unforgiven

Clint Eastwood directs, produces and stars in this 1992 Western which won four Oscars including Best Picture and Best Director. While I personally don’t think it is a great film it is certainly a good film. Eastwood plays William Munny, an ex gunslinger who has put his past behind him to raise his two young children singlehandedly after the death of his wife. Meanwhile in a small town in Wyoming, a young prostitute is attacked by a drunken customer. Her fellow prostitutes raise $1,000 as a reward for the person who can kill her attacker. Eastwood is approached by the ‘Schofield Kid’, played by Jaimz Woolvett, who asks Munny to join him on one last ride out. Munny also persuades his old partner Ned Logan, played by Morgan Freeman, to accompany him.

When I think Cowboy, I think Clint Eastwood

The strength of the film lies in Eastwood’s directing and in the superb acting. Eastwood creates a tense and claustrophobic atmosphere despite the film being set in mostly large open spaces. Eastwood plays Munny with great precision. His looks could kill and his rough voice and tired appearance create a feeling that he is too old for killing but he is capable of turning these perceptions on their head in a matter of seconds with his ability to quick-draw and shoot down anyone who stands in his way. Gene Hackman is also excellent as the Sherriff whose job it is to run Munny and his gang out of town. He is arrogant and sure of himself despite flaws which become apparent as the film unfolds. Frances Fisher is strong as the Madame prostitute behind the $1,000 bounty whereas Morgan Freeman just appears to be along for the ride.

Beautiful title shot

Where I feel the film is let down is its length. At 131 minutes long, it feels much longer. I also felt that the character of ‘English Bob’ played by the late Richard Harris was unnecessary and detracted from the main story of the film.

While Unforgiven is now considered to be a classic of the Western genre and although I liked it, I didn’t like it as much as most other people seem to. 

6/10 

J. Edgar

Clint Eastwood, Leonardo DiCaprio, January release, biopic. All of these things scream Oscar bait but disappointingly the film doesn’t deliver.

Based on the life of J. Edgar Hoover and starring Leonardo DiCaprio in the lead role, director Clint Eastwood has delivered a solid if unremarkable film that skirts around the edges of much of Hoover’s life without delving deeply into any facet of it.

I found the film quite dull which it shouldn’t have been. Hoover was the head of the FBI for nearly forty years, serving under eight Presidents and responsible for introducing much of the scientific methods used to solve crimes today. He was also widely rumoured to be homosexual and that his long term second in command was, in fact, also his lover. Hoover also had secret files on thousands of high ranking political figures which he was able to use for his and the FBI’s own personal gain. With all that to work with it is perhaps surprising that the film is as boring as it is.

DiCaprio delivers a convincing performance as Hoover although one is sometimes reminded of his Howard Hughes in The Aviator, a vastly superior film. Armie Hammer, last seen playing twins in The Social Network plays Clyde Tolson with authority and is only let down by some dodgy prosthetics in scenes set in later life. Despite this, I felt that he played the older Tolson particularly well. Naomi Watts is given little to do as Helen Gandy, Hoover’s long time secretary but again excels playing the older version of Gandy. There is recognisable affection between Hoover and Tolson which is most obviously shown by Hammer who provides just enough bodhi to show that he has strong feelings for Hoover.

It is perhaps because we know so little about Hoover’s private life that the film is unable to give us many answers as to why he was the man he was. There are hints that his mother, played by Judi Dench, forced him to attempt to become as powerful as possible and her disdain of homosexuality gives some insight as to the secrecy of his personal life but the film is very balanced and unable to get off the fence. One scene in which Hoover wears his late mother’s dress and necklace could be viewed as either a way for him to grieve, to finally let his sexuality out or a combination of both.

Overall the film has a decent stab at portraying the life of one of the most powerful and controversial figures of the 20^th Century but because of who Hoover was and because of who was behind the film, I expected more.

Friends, colleagues, lovers?

6/10

Hereafter

In recent years I’ve come to expect good things from Director Clint Eastwood and actor Matt Damon (I still say it in the Team America voice) but I was disappointed with Hereafter.

The film’s protagonist, Damon plays George Lonegan, a man who can communicate with the dead. Lonegan does his best to hide his power after an earlier career making money from it left him unable to get close to people for fear of what he might discover. To him, his gift is in fact a curse. This is shown to be the case when his psychic readings wreck the beginnings of a promising new relationship.

Damon shares a moment of tenderness with love interest Bryce Dallas Howard

The two other strands to this story about a young boy who loses his twin in a car crash and a Frenchwoman caught up in the Boxing Day Tsunami in 2004 are unfortunately dull. While the Tsunami scene itself is exciting, you are left feeling detached and wondering where all the locals were. (Most of the victims appear to be European).

The acting is for the most part, terrible. Some actors seem as though they are reading their lines off a piece of card in front of them for the first time. It must be said however that Matt Damon delivers a believable performance of a man troubled by his gift. 

It is perhaps difficult to get into a film about a psychic as the profession is in my opinion a disgusting attempt to use pseudoscience and guesswork to con bereaved people out of money. I could see past this in The Sixth Sense though so perhaps the fact that I was thinking about what bollocks psychic abilities are tells me that I was not gripped by the film.     

5/10