Knowing this is supposedly Eastwood’s last film makes me sad. I feel like the man peaked too soon. Unforgiven, perhaps my favorite Eastwood film, should have been his last.
I went into this film with semi-high expectations. When I first saw a poster for this film I was surprised that Clint Eastwood had come out with a film so quickly after Changeling. I don’t know when he shot either of the films, so I don’t really know if they were made back-to-back, but still, it made me wonder how good it could be thinking it was a bit rushed. My concerns were confirmed.
I’m not what you would call a diehard fan of Eastwood, but I’ve typically enjoyed most of his films; Unforgiven hell yes… The Bridges of Madison County? Um… no…
So, Gran Torino? I enjoyed the film, the story was good, it felt genuine, but the acting was horrible (other than Eastwood’s, which is usually pretty consistant). The performances in some scenes were so bad that I thought, “really, Clint? Why would you hire this kid? Still, the film is worth a rental. Knowing this is supposedly Eastwood’s last film makes me sad. I feel like the man peaked too soon. Unforgiven, perhaps my favorite Eastwood film, should have been his last.
Grade: B
Tags: Film Reviews
Hey, haven’t seen GT yet, but no one can say “Letters from Iwo Jima” wasn’t a masterpiece, and that was 2006…and peaked too soon? You mean “The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly” (1965) or “Outlaw Josey Wales” (1976)? He was already a 30-year screen veteran when he made “Unforgiven”.
You’re right! But I guess what I meant is not that Unforgiven should have been his last film and never again made a film after that, but that he should have saved Unforgiven to be his last. I have not seen Letters from Iwo Jima yet, which very well could be light years better than Unforgiven so I can’t compare, but I’ll make sure to write a follow up.