Juror #2 (2024)

Two days in a row for legal thrillers on the blog. I could have planned things a bit better, but what the hell . . . my blog, my rules.

Written by Jonathan Abrams and directed by Clint Eastwood, Juror #2 is very entertaining for most of the 114-minute runtime. You have to work hard to keep suspending your disbelief though, especially when it comes to some of the moments engineered to specifically ratchet up the tension.

Nicholas Hoult plays Justin Kemp, the juror of the title. He's being asked to decide the guilt or innocence of a man (James, played by Gabriel Basso) accused of murdering his partner (Kendall, played by Francesca Eastwood) after a drunken argument witnessed by many people. What those people didn't witness was Justin also in that bar, looking at a drink that he was tempted by, before he drove home, hitting "something" in the road on the way. Justin thinks he can maybe convince the rest of the jury that James is innocent, but that will have people looking harder for someone to arrest for the crime. It's not just a criminal case. It's a political hot potato for Faith Killebrew (Toni Collette), who wants to prosecute this case successfully before bagging a DA role.

It's easy to see why this screenplay would appeal to Eastwood and his cast. Every minute of the runtime seems to see the stakes and drama increase, and the leads barely get to catch their breath as they get swept up by the tide taking them towards a finale that should, at the very least, prompt a bit of conversation between people about what they would or wouldn't have done in Hoult's situation.

Hoult is a big plus for the film, and he's good enough to get through even the more ridiculous sequences without embarrassing himself too much. The same can be said of the other main cast members, but it's Hoult stuck with the worst plot points to work around. Collette and Chris Messina do the usual movie lawyer schtick, playing the prosecuting attorney and defence attorney, respectively. Basso has to spend a lot of the movie trying not to be too expressive, J. K. Simmons is good fun as an ex-cop on the jury who starts to smell a rat, and Zoey Deutch, Leslie Bibb, and Kiefer Sutherland get to make very little impact.

I'm not going to say that I didn't enjoy some of Juror #2, but I cannot recall the last time I watched something with such a strong premise go downhill so quickly. What I hoped was going to be a knotty and thought-provoking riff on 12 Angry Men turns into something so laughable and contrived that it's impossible to keep caring for the main character for the entire runtime. 

If you can watch this without thinking about the absurd lack of logic then you may end up enjoying it, and I'm sure many can be carried through it all by the leads. Abrams and Eastwood make things very difficult though, the former not doing good enough with the writing and the latter not adding anything to distract from it. It may not be criminally bad, but it's not very good.

5/10

If you have enjoyed this, or any other, review on the blog then do consider the following ways to show your appreciation. A subscription/follow costs nothing.
It also costs nothing to like/subscribe to the YouTube channel attached to the podcast I am part of - https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCErkxBO0xds5qd_rhjFgDmA
Or you may have a couple of quid to throw at me, in Ko-fi form - https://ko-fi.com/kevinmatthews
Or Amazon is nice at this time of year - https://www.amazon.co.uk/hz/wishlist/ls/Y1ZUCB13HLJD?ref_=wl_share 

In The Line Of Fire (1993)

There was a lot of love given to The Fugitive last year, tied to the fact that it was 30 years since it was released and it received the 4K disc treatment, and I am one of many people happy to see it. I have always loved that film, but seeing all the praise it was receiving last year kept making me wonder why In The Line Of Fire wasn’t getting the same treatment. Although a very different movie in many ways, it also feels like the other great all-star thriller from 1993.

John Malkovich plays a man who intends to assassinate the President Of The United States. He is smart, he has a background that helped him form a particular set of skills, and he is very determined to see his plan through to the very end. Things get more interesting for him when he realises that he can engage in a battle of wits with a Secret Service agent named Frank Horrigan (Clint Eastwood). Frank has spent his time in the service of numerous Presidents, and he was there on the day that JFK was assassinated. Did he hesitate at the moment he was supposed to act selflessly? He may just get a chance to live through that moment again, a chance to figure out if he can take a bullet for someone under his protection.

Written by Jeff Maguire (that’s it, just Jeff, no need for a team of writers interfering with the work), In The Line Of Fire is just top-tier entertainment from start to finish, plotted well enough to keep viewers from overthinking the implausibilities, making use of a great cast of characters, and maintaining a brilliant game of cat and mouse that has you wondering if you will get a happy or downbeat ending.

Director Wolfgang Petersen proves to be a great choice to steer the ship. In fact, you could easily argue that Petersen had an amazing little run between the early 1980s right up to the year 2000 where he basically did no wrong, although I say this without having rewatched Outbreak since I owned it on VHS. He mixes the old-fashioned star casting and interplay with set-pieces that benefit from his ability to step up the tension, and there are one or two scenes that wander very close to outright horror territory.

Eastwood is frankly superb in a lead role that allows him to both be the tough guy and remember that he is no longer a spring chicken. It’s a performance full of wry humour, worldly wisdom, and inherent courage. Malkovich, always an intense screen presence, gives us one of the villains for the ages, someone who is smart and determined and also not entirely in the wrong to have such a major axe to grind. Every scene that has Malkovich talking on the phone with Eastwood is much more electrifying than any moment simply depicting people on the phone should be. Rene Russo is a welcome addition, playing another agent who catches the eye of Oor Clint, and Dylan McDermott is the typical trope of the younger partner who ends up in a lot more danger than he can handle. Others who get some screentime include John Mahoney, Gary Cole, Fred Thompson, John Heard, and both Tobin Bell and Steve Railsback appear for a few minutes.

After my latest rewatch of this, I facetiously stated that In The Line Of Fire jogged alongside a Presidential motorcade so that Se7en could run. I still think there’s a grain of truth in that, considering how Clint’s character becomes such an important part of Malkovich’s endgame, but the best thing about this film is that it makes use of so many familiar elements while very much being its own thing. When it comes to smart and entertaining mainstream thrillers, this one really hits the mark.

9/10

If you have enjoyed this, or any other, review on the blog then do consider the following ways to show your appreciation. A subscription/follow costs nothing.
It also costs nothing to like/subscribe to the YouTube channel attached to the podcast I am part of - https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCErkxBO0xds5qd_rhjFgDmA
Or you may have a couple of quid to throw at me, in Ko-fi form - https://ko-fi.com/kevinmatthews
Or Amazon is nice at this time of year - https://www.amazon.co.uk/hz/wishlist/ls/Y1ZUCB13HLJD?ref_=wl_share

Mubi Monday: Play Misty For Me (1971)

Clint Eastwood seemed to go out of his way to become, at least temporarily, hated by women in 1971. He starred in both The Beguiled, a wonderful gothic melodrama, and Play Misty For Me, a contemporary psychological thriller that serves as one of the main fore-runners to the "(x) from hell" movies that would become very popular again throughout the 1980s and '90s (and, to my delight, seem to be experiencing a slight resurgence at the moment). The big difference is that the former was directed by Don Siegel while the latter was the directorial debut of Eastwood himself (with a cameo role for Siegel).

Eastwood is a DJ, Dave, who manages to work his seductive magic one evening on a woman named Evelyn (Jessica Walter). Evelyn is a fan, and assumes that their liaison is the start of something serious. Dave just wanted some fun, but Evelyn has been pining for him a long time. She is the caller who often requests a tune named "Misty". One thing leads to another, and another, and things start to get heated and problematic quicker than you can say "bunny boiler" in a thriller that doesn't bother with ensuring you think the lead is completely undeserving of . . . at least being made to squirm for a little while.

Written by Jo Heims and Dean Riesner, this really does feel like a template-setting movie in this particular subgenre. Things start off being mildly inconvenient, with Evelyn turning up unexpectedly to cook a meal for Dave, for example, and the escalation is as steady as it is swift. The first half shows moments that make it all worse, and it's easy to see why someone would be angry at Evelyn before then feeling sympathy for her. And she has another way to win over Dave, of course, that involves shedding her coat to show nothing being worn underneath.

Eastwood directs with a sure hand, there's nothing fancy here but it's all clean and professional throughout, an approach that he would maintain throughout his entire directorial career. He's a man interested in human stories, and this is definitely a tale worth telling. Casting himself in the lead role also helps, not only for his own approach to the work (I am sure) but also because it's easy to buy into his character, and how someone like this could act around his level of supreme handsomeness.

Walter is superb in the role of Evelyn, initially sweet and alluring before turning into the flesh-covered equivalent of a bag of angry cats. She's the star of the show, despite Eastwood having his name and fingerprints all over it, and becomes more and more intense and unnerving as things build towards the expected climax. Elsewhere, Donna Mills is fine as an ex-girlfriend Dave wants to fix things with, John Larch is an investigating officer, and Clarice Taylor stands out as a housekeeper, Birdie, who ends up on the end of a horrifically violent outburst from Evelyn.

Although far from perfect, especially when it comes to the 1970s attitude towards what is surely a serious mental health issue (although, having said that, things didn't change much for the treatment of the perpetrators in those 1980s movies either), this remains a fine thriller, and showed Eastwood storming into this decade with a sense of commitment and fearlessness that would, mixed with a canny knack of giving people what they wanted every few years (be it cowboy, gun-toting cop, or everyday hero with an oranguntan sidekick), ensure his immortality as a towering cinematic icon.

8/10

You can buy the movie here.
Americans can get a decent little set here.

Filmstruck Friday: Pink Cadillac (1989)

Clint Eastwood can do many things. He can squint perhaps better than anyone else in cinema. He can portray iconic characters who usually solve their problems with violence. He can direct, some of his films being much better than some others. And he can even get away with temporary embarrassments. Some may have forgotten his famous dialogue with an empty chair in an attempt to make some political points a number of years ago. I haven’t. Regardless, it was a blip. He’s allowed a blip. Because Clint Eastwood can do pretty much whatever he likes. Except comedy. No, that is not one of his strengths (unless he’s co-starring with a great ensemble – a la Kelly’s Heroes – or an entertaining orangutang – “right turn, Clyde”). Pink Cadillac is an action comedy, but it’s sadly lacking in both action and laughs.

Eastwood plays Tommy Nowak, a skip-tracer (seems to be the same as a bounty hunter) who ends up tracking down a woman named Lou Ann McGuinn (Bernadette Peters). Lou Ann was found with counterfeit money that actually belonged to her husband (Timothy Carhart) and his fellow crooks. Heading off in his prized car, the pink cadillac of the title, Lou Ann hopes to evade the law long enough to spend more of the counterfeit money and somehow turn it into real money, thanks to some good luck at casinos, that will set up a better future for her child. Nowak finds Lou Ann quite easily, but he's unsure of the best way to get things done when he hears about her dilemma, involving her child, her husband, and a group of white supremacists who were due all of the money that she drove off with.

The first film written by John Eskow (who has written some others that I have really enjoyed), this script shows an obvious unease, a lack of faith in any of the main elements. That's why the comedy is never funny enough, nor are the action moments as thrilling as they could be. That could have been an issue easier to overlook if the leads were better but Eastwood seems determined to remind viewers that he is working hard at pretending to have fun.

Director Buddy Van Horn directed three movies in total, all starring Clint Eastwood. Starting with the passable enough Any Which Way You Can, he then moved on to the disappointing The Dead Pool (which is also places Jim Carrey in a small role, his very brief cameo in this movie means that he has been in two more Clint Eastwood films than most people would think him suitable for), and finished with this one. They must enjoy working together, however, as Van Horn has spent many years doing stunt work, either performing or co-ordinating the work, for many other Eastwood movies. So it's a distinct possibility that everyone working on this film was having a blast. They just didn't manage to convey that to viewers.

Eastwood is at his worst here, and I consider myself a fan of the man. This was a role that should have been bulked up and developed for someone more naturally comedic (with some hard work, this could have been a great vehicle for someone like Chevy Chase or Eddie Murphy). The material being weak is no excuse for Eastwood being so uncharacteristically lacking in charisma throughout, and that is the biggest problem that the film has. Peters tries harder, and she's as enjoyable as usual, but isn't given enough to do. Carhart is okay as her asshole of a husband, Michael Des Barres is good as the main baddie, and I would have liked to see him be even more of a threat, and you get a fun turn from Geoffrey Lewis, as well as a fleeting bit of screentime for Bill Moseley.

What can I say to sum things up any clearer? You get a weak script, weak direction, and a weak leading turn from someone who is usually on much better form. The saving grace is Peters, but even she doesn't do enough to make this worth your time. 

3/10

You can, if you feel the need, buy it here.
Americans can get it here.

The Good, The Bad And The Ugly (1966)

The action, the characters, the humour . . . how do you even begin to write a review of arguably the greatest, and most famous, Western ever made? Probably very, very badly. And it would certainly be superflous, compared to the many essays and tributes and articles already devoted to this masterpiece. But anyone who knows me already knows that I never let that stop me from adding my own witterings to the pile.

Clint Eastwood is the good, Lee Van Cleef is the bad, and Eli Wallach is tagged as ugly in this epic tale of bounty hunting, treachery, and a quest for a buried fortune. And that's all you need to know.

Although downright zippy compared to many other films from director Sergio Leone, this is another grandiose affair that allows the director plenty of moments to stretch out certain shots and scenes to almost unbearable degrees. It runs for just under 150 minutes, and if you're not grinning for at least 140 of them then I don't even know how to speak your language, because this is as rewarding and wonderful as cinema gets. It may not be sci-fi but you still feel transported to another world. It's live-action that sometimes feels wonderfully cartoonish. You get comedy, thrills, action, and some wonderful lines of dialogue alongside the standard Leone style of telling so much through actions and reactions. I tend not to mention the writers as much when reviewing Leone movies, because of how much is said without really being said, but the script here

Eastwood does some of his best work, as does the brilliant Wallach, while Lee Van Cleef seems to enjoy sinking his teeth into a role that is much more dastardly than his previous appearance in the trilogy. The supporting cast is bigger than in any of the previous films, but that doesn't mean there are many other central characters. This is all about our lead trio, even if we do also manage to get a fine, fleeting, turn from Luigi Pistilli.

And what would the lead performances and all of these gorgeous visuals be without an accompanying score from Ennio Morricone? They would still be gorgeous, no doubt, but Morricone's iconic music (can music be iconic? I am going to say yes) brings everything together with a score that is nigh on perfect. It doesn't matter how many times you hear it, "The Ecstasy Of Gold" should rightfully give you goosebumps, and that's only one section of a score that never puts a foot wrong.

For the artistry of it, and the themes explored, I only slightly prefer Once Upon A Time In The West, but I wouldn't argue with anyone who picks this as their favourite Western of all time. It is a classic, and a fitting swansong to one of the greatest cinematic trilogies ever made (and, yes, that even includes The Mighty Ducks).

10/10

I recommend buying this set.
Americans might want to try out this set.

For A Few Dollars More (1965)

Clint Eastwood returns as a man with no name (who is, this time around, named Monco and is apparently not the same character from the first movie) and finds himself grudgingly teaming up with Lee Van Cleef as the pair of them, both bounty hunters, try to capture an infamous baddie and his unruly gang. The motive is money but there is more to it than that for Van Cleef's character and all will be revealed before a finale that will, inevitably, feature bullets under a boiling sun.

In the second instalment of the highly regarded "Dollars" trilogy we get all the same kind of fun we received the first time around plus a major bonus in the shape of Lee Van Cleef. The interplay between him and Eastwood provides a much more satisfying dynamic than we had the first time around. And the "hat duel" scene is both brilliantly entertaining and absolutely perfect in establishing the moral compass of both characters.

Also featuring another great score from Ennio Morricone, this is yet another treat for Sergio Leone fans, although most fans have surely seen the trilogy numerous times by now.

Where things fall down ever so slightly is in the pacing and the characterisation. The movie packs a fair bit in but somehow still feels like it's dragging in a few places, cramming more in than is needed and lacking that energetic economy that suffused the first movie. It also sacrifices any drama/tension for entertainment and, while this isn't always a bad thing here, it makes for a negative point as Eastwood and Van Cleef never seem in any real danger, especially during a finale that features some strange decisions by the main villain (Gian Maria Volonte, also returning, and also playing a different character than the one he played in the first film).  It's also fair to say that the lead characters are so thinly sketched that it requires some real effort on the viewer's part to continue to identify with them, archetypes of the "Old West" as they pretend to be, but that's how Leone works. He shows the essence of a man by how he shoots, how he reacts under duress, and what code of conduct he decides to live by.

Still, nobody really does lively, entertaining, sun-scorched, cheroot-chewing Westerns like Leone and this is another classic for many fans of the genre.

Can you guess what instalment I am going to attempt to write about tomorrow?

9/10

I recommend buying this set.
Americans might want to try out this set.

A Fistful Of Dollars (1964)

In a tale familiar even to those who have not already seen this classic movie (based, as it is, on Yojimbo, which itself was based on previous material which has since been recycled and revamped in so many different incarnations that it's almost impossible to keep track . . . . . . if ONLY there was some kind of website to make things easier . . . hmmmmm), Clint Eastwood stars as the famous Man With No Name (although a couple of the characters call him Joe, and he is listed here as such) who rides into town and begins clearing up a big mess by making a bigger mess. he does this with great ingenuity and balls of steel, putting himself in between two warring families and playing one off against the other while pretending that his loyalties are beyond question.

Everything is present and correct here that would go on to be improved upon and made completely iconic in Sergio Leone's future movies: the camera moving in for those close-ups of the eyes, the dusky damsel in distress, the gruff and economic speech from Clint, the sharp-shooting and moments of intermittent brutality. From the very beginning, with some lively animation and the first sounds of the wonderful Ennio Morricone score, you just know that you're in for a treat.

Clint is quintessentially Clint in a role that (alongside Dirty Harry) firmly established an iconic image for him. He may not have everything perfected yet (there's still a freshness to him and a slight hamminess in his laid-back manner) but he gets it almost spot-on and, of course, would just get better and better with the trilogy. The rest of the cast? Well, I would be lying if I said they were all memorable and how much I adored each performance but they all do a very good job at playing, essentially, ducks ready to be shot in a barrel. The friendly barman and eager coffin-maker are definite highlights but nobody really disappoints, despite maybe not searing themselves onto your psyche.

With a grandiose landscape just hovering by the edge of every framed moment, this starting point for (arguably?) the greatest Western trilogy ever made actually impresses all the more thanks to its ability to overcome any limitations with a smart, economical approach. It's clear in the scripting, in the moments of action and in the general details that the resources were definitely limited but that in no way detracts from the fun to be had while Clint smokes cheroots and cleans up the town.

The only real negative points here are, as already mentioned, Clint's growth into the role, the mixture of baddies (some are great, some aren't), and a child who appears just enough to annoy in the first half of the movie and who wouldn't seem out of place wailing amidst any Manga cartoon. Which marks this movie down from perfection. Which, ironically, kind of makes it better while you tag along for the ride.

9/10

I recommend buying this set.
Americans might want to try out this set.

City Heat (1984)

Perhaps they weren't at their highest height, but in the early '80s you would struggle to find two cinematic superstars more iconic than Clint Eastwood and Burt Reynolds. Don't get me wrong, we still had plenty of cinematic icons alive and well, but they weren't seemingly at the peak of their powers, whereas Burt and Clint absolutely were. One was The Bandit, and also just Burt, one was Dirty Harry, and so many other memorable characters. Which makes the idea of City Heat a no-brainer.

This was Tango & Cash five years before Tango & Cash, with the added move of making it a period piece, for reasons I still can't quite fathom (although I admit that a couple of fun gags stem from the whole prohibition-era restrictions).

Eastwood is Lieutenant Speer, Reynolds is a private detective named Mike Murphy. The men used to be partners but it's clear from the opening scenes that there's no love lost between them. Murphy has a partner who has unwitingly gotten himself in too deep with some mobsters, Speer is keeping a detached eye on the situation, mainly by keeping an eye on Murphy.

Directed by Richard Benjamin (who I knew as an actor, mainly from the Saturday The 14th films, but was unaware that he has been behind some fun movies, including The Money Pit, Mermaids and My Favourite Year), and written by Blake Edwards and Joseph Stinson, City Heat is a film symptomatic of many that want to pair up two superstars without really knowing how best to use them. There's simple fun to be had just watching any exchange between the fast-talking Reynolds and the much more laconic Eastwood, and there are some good gags here and there (a running joke about hidden alcohol being one, the other involves Eastwood having a supply of larger and larger firearms), but that's about all this has going for it, which is a great shame for all involved. The script should have been full of better lines, the plotting didn't need to seem so convoluted, and there should have been more thought given to creating set-pieces that could involve the two leads.

Eastwood and Reynolds both do very well, and both are much better than the material they have to work with. Jane Alexander and Madeline Kahn are also very good, playing two women who may be inadvertently dragged into the whole dangerous mess. Tony Lo Bianco and Rip Torn play the two mob bosses at odds with one another, and Richard Roundtree, Irene Cara, William Sanderson, and Robert Davi are among the other familiar faces joining in.

Having not seen City Heat since I first watched it on VHS when it was released in the 1980s, I wondered if it would be better or worse than I recall. It turns out that, despite the age of the film and the much older age of myself, I feel pretty much the same way about it as I did way back then. I'll be interested to hear how others view it.

5/10

Having never really been given any special treatment on disc, I recommend picking City Heat up with this set.

American fans can pick it up on Bluray here.

American Sniper (2014)

American Sniper is a tough movie to review. I'm going to start here by making things easier on myself. I'm NOT going to delve into the politics of the movie. That's an entirely different conversation, and one that will no doubt come up between friends or loved ones who go along together to see the film in cinemas. I'm also not going to try to pin down the REAL character of Chris Kyle, the man portrayed here by Bradley Cooper. The movie plays out in the style of "print the legend" so let's just leave it at that.

Cooper is the man who turns out to be a bloody good shot, leading to him heading off on multiple tours of Iraq. He has a lovely wife (Sienna Miller) waiting for him at home, but civilian life is hard to adjust to when his natural state has seen him poised with a rifle for so many hours. He shoots lots of bad people, of course, and becomes a bit famous, but not in a good way. No, the baddies put a price on his head because he's causing them so many problems. And . . . . . . . well, that's it.

Written by Jason Hall, who was adapting the tale as told in the book written by Kyle, Scott McEwen and Jim Defelice, this is surprisingly shallow stuff. It's also riveting at times. That's the nature of this material. One man with his finger on a trigger, waiting to make the right call every time he sees a potential threat. It's just a shame that nothing else is added to the content. We see Kyle as a sniper. We see him as a husband. Each scene, whether he's in the former role or latter, seems to be little more than a repeat of the previous one, with the exception of the opening flashbacks that show how he got to his current position.

Director Clint Eastwood should have been able to lift this up, to look at the central subject from all angles and create a number of more interesting moments, but he doesn't. Whether he was playing it safe to ensure no disrespect to his central subject or whether he just didn't put in enough effort, either reason doesn't make up for this being such a disappointment.

Cooper is great in the lead role, bulked up and happiest while looking down the barrel of his gun. It's a good job too, because only Sienna Miller makes an impression alongside him. Everyone else is either a fellow soldier or an enemy fighter, with scarcely enough detailing to differentiate any individuals on either side of the battle.

So, as it turns out, American Sniper is, when everything else is set aside, not such a tough movie to review. It's just a shame that everything I've set aside here was also set aside by Hall and Eastwood, effectively neutering what could have been a great character study.

6/10

http://www.amazon.com/American-Sniper-Blu-ray-Digital-UltraViolet/dp/B00RGZ915C/ref=sr_1_2?s=movies-tv&ie=UTF8&qid=1421342459&sr=1-2&keywords=american+sniper

You know how you can show your appreciation for bloggers? If you share and share then every additional reader helps. Connect through Google or Blogger or any way you can, and rest easy in the knowledge that you've made little ol' me a very happy man.

And/or you could also buy my e-book, that has almost every review I've written over the past 5 years. It's very reasonably priced for the sheer amount of content.

The UK version can be bought here - http://www.amazon.co.uk/TJs-Ramshackle-Movie-Guide-Reviews-ebook/dp/B00J9PLT6Q/ref=sr_1_3?s=digital-text&ie=UTF8&qid=1395945647&sr=1-3&keywords=movie+guide

And American folks can buy it here - http://www.amazon.com/TJs-Ramshackle-Movie-Guide-Reviews-ebook/dp/B00J9PLT6Q/ref=sr_1_fkmr0_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1395945752&sr=8-1-fkmr0&keywords=TJs+ramshackle+mov

As much as I love the rest of the world, I can't keep up with all of the different links in different territories, but trust me when I say that it should be there on your local Amazon.

J. Edgar (2011)

Written by Dustin Lance Black and directed by Clint Eastwood, J. Edgar is the biopic of J. Edgar Hoover and it's a pretty decent film. The sad thing is, however, that it could have been a great film. It seems that Eastwood is content with sitting on his laurels lately instead of delivering the quality of movies that he was giving to audiences not more than five years ago.

Leonardo DiCaprio plays the main character, starting the movie made up as an old man. It's an important time in his life, time to think back over everything that he's done and to get his memoirs written and as he tells his story to a young man typing everything out the audience gets to see many episodes from his life. They may not all be true interpretations of events, sometimes J. Edgar Hoover would say whatever would place him in the best light, but they all add up to paint a picture of the man who started off with great ideas and ended up with great, many would say too much, power. As Mulder might put it he "put the eye in FBI."

Considering the subject matter, this is a surprisingly dull movie at times. Various episodes do, of course, provide some excitement, but when it comes to the central character it does seem as if the script, and in turn Eastwood, is content to just barely scratch the surface. Perhaps he didn't want to upset those who are now working in the house that Hoover built.

It's a shame that the script and direction are so unimaginative and unexciting because the cast all do well and have the potential to do better. DiCaprio, in particular, is excellent in the main role. His performance isn't unlike the performance he gave in The Aviator, especially as Hoover becomes more and more driven and paranoid. Naomi Watts is fine as Helen Gandy, the woman he takes on as his secretary and also the one person he seems to trust completely. Armie Hammer is superb as Clyde Tolson, the man who may or may not have been Hoover's lover, but was certainly a close, dear friend and colleague. Then we have Judi Dench, who may not be in the movie for all that long, but does her usual great work as the mother who casts a long shadow over Hoover's life. Small, but enjoyable, turns from Josh Lucas, Dermot Mulroney, Stephen Root and Denis O'Hare help keep boredom at bay, but only just.

J. Edgar is certainly not a bad movie, in my opinion, but it feels like a wasted opportunity for almost all of its two-hour plus run-time even though it has enough interesting elements throughout to make it worth at least a one-time watch - the look at Hoover's self-aggrandising version of events, the rumours about his sexuality, the film even takes one moment to hint at the alleged cross dressing. I don't think many people will love it, but some people may like it a bit more than I did.

6/10

http://www.amazon.co.uk/J-Edgar-Triple-Blu-ray-Region/dp/B005RYA5XQ/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1361915312&sr=8-1

Hereafter (2010)

It sometimes frustrates me when it takes so long to get to films that I knew I might be interested in. Seeing Hereafter proved to be more frustrating than usual, mainly thanks to a first act that reminded me of a major recent release with one major difference. Hereafter did everything just a bit better. It's not a great movie, by any means, but there are moments that almost reach that level and that opening sequence, featuring a devastating tsunami, is one of them. The fact that it decided to go down a fictional path in order to best tell its story is the main reason for me preferring it to The Impossible, but it's not the only one.

I'd better clarify just now that the two films then go on wildly different trajectories. I simply couldn't help commenting on the similarities during the powerful first half hour of the movie because, well, that's what will spring to mind for many viewers nowadays. Now I'd better move on to the rest of the film.

Matt Damon plays a psychic, but he's a real psychic. It's not a gift that he has, it's a curse, and he's chosen to turn his back on it all. He doesn't want the money or any fame, he just wants to feel normal. His brother (Jay Mohr) keeps trying to convince him that he should be helping people, and making plenty of money, but "a life that's all about death is no life at all."
Cecile De France plays Marie Lelay, a journalist who finds herself caught up in that aforementioned tsunami and then, understandably, deeply affected afterwards.
George and Frankie McLaren play twin brothers who muddle through life together as their heroin addicted mother often leaves them to their own devices. When one twin is suddenly taken away in a fatal accident it all becomes a bit too much for the one who is left, a young man seeking answers and maybe just another chance to communicate with his brother.
These three people have all been touched by death in some way, but perhaps something good can come out of it.

Directed by Clint Eastwood, from a script by Peter Morgan, Hereafter is a strange mix of the jaded and the optimistic helped by a solid cast. It takes ideas of spirituality and plays them out in a completely straightforward, if sometimes slightly schmaltzy, manner.

I've been a big fan of Matt Damon for a number of years now and, whatever you think of the whole film, he's superb here as someone cursed with what some see as a gift. The scenes with him and Bryce Dallas Howard, as a woman he meets and wants to spend some quality time with, may be obvious and even a bit heavy-handed, but they're also quite affecting. Cecile De France has the least interesting journey in the movie, but she does fine in her role. George and Frankie McLaren are stand outs and the movie actually peaks during the sequence in which the boy visits a number of people who claim they can contact the dead and watches blankly as they go through different nonsensical procedures to convince him that they're communicating with "the other side".

Technically proficient, with a couple of absolutely superb set-pieces (one near the beginning and one at just about the hour mark), the biggest problem with Hereafter is the way in which Eastwood takes something that needs a more delicate touch and proceeds to make everything far too obvious and emotionally moving. It DID move me, but I'm a sucker when it comes to that kind of easy manipulation so all I can really do is warn others about it as it's already too late for me.

There are too many negatives for Hereafter to be a great film, not least of which is the way in which the central subject matter is treated (a way that will put many off), but it has some great moments within it. It's just a shame that they're placed in between scenes of much lower quality.

6/10

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Hereafter-Triple-Blu-ray-Digital-Region/dp/B004MKNOGQ/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&qid=1360705539&sr=8-3

Unforgiven (1992)

Unforgiven is an astonishing film, truly astonishing. Taking a great script and adding the baggage of Clint Eastwood's entire Western filmography, it makes for a fitting finale to that particular aspect of his career. From start to finish, the movie fills every scene with a love for the genre and an intention to show the flip side of that lifestyle. Many movies end with a gunslinger riding off into the sunset, but this one picks things up years later and shows how men who have killed other men can hold something inside them for the rest of their days, a mixture of regret and also the knowledge that they can easily kill again if the situation calls for it.

Eastwood plays Will Munny, a man with a violent past who has tried to make a new life for himself. He has children and stays true to his deceased wife. Unfortunately, his violent past doesn't always lead to him having a quiet life and that's the case when he's approached with an offer by 'The Schofield Kid' (Jaimz Woolvett). A couple of men were responsible for cutting up a whore (played by Anna Levine) and the other working girls in town weren't too happy with the punishment they received from Little Bill Daggett (Gene Hackman). Strangely enough, Bill normally metes out far worse punishments to anyone he sees as a threat to his idyllic vision of the town. He doesn't even allow anyone to enter with guns on their person, which doesn't bode well for the likes of English Bob (Richard Harris). It also doesn't bode well for The Kid, Munny and Ned Logan (Munny's friend, played by Morgan Freeman).

Unforgiven sees Eastwood hitting it out of the park in his role as director and, when you think of how well he's done in his directorial career, that's high praise indeed. It helps that he also does great in the acting department and surrounds himself with fine talent (Freeman, Hackman and Harris do some of their best work, there's a great little role for Saul Rubinek and Woolvett, Levine and Frances Fisher, playing mother hen to her girls, all do sterling work). Then, there's the great script by David Webb Peoples. It's full of quality lines and character moments that are often mesmerising (I should rave more about Hackman and Harris, both outstanding with the former, in particular, getting his teeth into an interesting villain who is given an interesting complexity and sense of morals). And everything is turned into pure gold when the distilled essence of Eastwood's years in the Western genre is added to the mix.

The film is both a love letter to every movie that has ever feature a gunslinger on-screen and also a serious and moving study of how a man who spends his life doing bad things can ruin any future chance of happiness and contentment that he may one day hope for. It is ultimately, of course, about the deeds and the people and even the reflections in the mirror that are unforgiven.

10/10

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Unforgiven-Blu-ray-Region-Free/dp/B000RWDXDC/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1355953348&sr=8-2

Revenge Of The Creature (1955)

I love Creature From The Black Lagoon. Absolutely love it. Despite stiff competition from other classic movies, it is one of my very favourite Universal horrors from the era that gave us a number of definitive works. Beautiful, tense, haunting and surprisingly sympathetic to the main creature.

I didn't hold out much hope for the sequel because I knew that it would take something very special indeed to equal that first movie. As I expected, the sequel is a lesser movie but it's not a terrible one and it, once again, proves to be sympathetic to the creature by showing his poor treatment at the hands of lousy humans.

Following on from the events of the first movie, though it's made clear that some time has passed, the poor creature is this time hassled by a new bunch of folks (the one familiar face is Lucas, played by Nestor Paiva, who is once again guiding the boat for them). This time the creature is caught and taken back to an aquarium in Florida, to be put on display and poked and prodded and studied and trained. Understandably, the creature is none too happy about this and seeks an opportunity to escape, much to the upset of everyone in the local vicinity.

Martin Berkeley is responsible for the screenplay this time around, which isn't the strongest aspect of the movie, and Jack Arnold returns to the director's chair to make this a reasonable follow up to a real classic. The underwater photography isn't as good as it was in the first film but it's still the best part of the film, not counting the plotting that doesn't mind showing our lead characters (played by John Agar, Lori Nelson and John Bromfield) in a bad light.

The acting isn't too bad but the cast are weighed down by the screenplay, which isn't really terrible but remains terribly dull for large portions of the runtime - whether it's because of scientists discussing the creature or the uninvolving plot strand showing the relationship that blossoms between Agar and Nelson. Of course, the best performances come from the people you don't get to see, Ricou Browning who played the creature in the water and Tom Hennesy who played the creature on land.

Eagle-eyed fans of Clint Eastwood will want to watch this to see his uncredited appearance as a scientist monitoring some rats while everyone else should watch it simply because it's another great creature feature starring the best misunderstood gill man to ever be forcibly moved from the Amazon.

6/10

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Revenge-Creature-DVD-John-Agar/dp/B0046GCJLM/ref=sr_1_1?s=dvd&ie=UTF8&qid=1337459434&sr=1-1

Kelly's Heroes (1970)

I can't start a review of Kelly's Heroes without first relating a memory. A memory that goes all the way back to my early teens when the home entertainment market was still lorded over by the wonder of VHS. In my home we had a copy of Kelly's Heroes. It was quite a good movie but back then I felt it was a bit long and it didn't hold my attention from start to finish in the same way as, for instance, Stir Crazy did.
One of my best mates, Robbie, loved it. Absolutely loved it. But he didn't have it in his house. He only had access to my copy (well, not MINE but you know what I mean). This meant that during our school holidays, when the Scottish weather was predictably dire, I watched a lot of Kelly's Heroes. As did Robbie. In fact, he even borrowed it for a few months and tried to watch it every day while he had it. Which tells you that this movie is one that some people just absolutely love.

For anyone who has seen Three Kings, this is a definite forerunner to that movie. Clint Eastwood plays Kelly, a soldier who luckily happens on some information regarding of a LARGE stash of gold being held behind enemy lines. Instead of the American soldiers fighting Germans without respite just because they're ordered to do so it becomes easier to motivate themselves when they know that they can make themselves rich. But it's obviously not going to be easy.

Written by Troy Kennedy-Martin (and, believe it or not, this wild ride has a basis in truth) and directed by Brian G. Hutton, Kelly's Heroes is a great mix of war movie, heist movie and standard comedy. There are, as my mate Robbie will testify, many quotable lines from the variety of characters onscreen. And what a collection of folk we have.

Eastwood is still at his squinty best, even if he is wearing military garb as opposed to a poncho or NY detective badge, while I just have to namecheck the rest of my favourites now so that I don't miss anyone out. Telly Savalas - brash and very likeable as Big Joe. Don Rickles - great fun as a man interested in making money who resents having to do some work for it. Donald Sutherland - stealing every scene that he's in as Oddball. Stuart Margolin - highly entertaining as Little Joe. There are also great turns from Carroll O'Connor, Gavin MacLeod, Hal Buckley, Jeff Morris and Harry Dean Stanton (billed here as just Dean Stanton). The more eagle-eyed viewers can also try spotting John Landis in an uncredited cameo . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . as a nun.

Watching Kelly's Heroes nowadays is a bit of a frustrating experience because I have to admit that, all those years ago, Robbie was right. He may have gone overboard with his love for the movie but it's a movie that deserves at least a bit of love and recognition. Give it a try and see how much you end up loving it.

8/10.

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Kellys-Heroes-Blu-ray-Region-Free/dp/B0030A0ZE8/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1333809424&sr=8-1