Clint Eastwood

[CO. Hoosier]

Clint, and his son Scott, recently gave a joint interview to Esquire. This is the one where Clint talked about the "pussy generation". Interesting read. Clint also talked about his dad and being a dad. Both topics were the subject of threads here.

The interview has a lot of thread worthy material. I'd like to focus on his comments about his famous chair speech. He said:

It was silly at the time, but I was standing backstage and I'm hearing everybody say the same thing: "Oh, this guy's a great guy." Great, he's a great guy. I've got to say something more. And so I'm listening to an old Neil Diamond thing and he's going, "And no one heard at all / Not even the chair." And I'm thinking, That's Obama. He doesn't go to work. He doesn't go down to Congress and make a deal. What the hell's he doing sitting in the White House? If I were in that job, I'd get down there and make a deal. Sure, Congress are lazy bastards, but so what? You're the top guy. You're the president of the company. It's your responsibility to make sure everybody does well. It's the same with every company in this country, whether it's a two-man company or a two-hundred-man company… . And that's the pussy generation—nobody wants to work.
​

To that I can only say amen.* There has been much discussion recently and in the past about qualifications for president. The conclusion of millions of people is that Trump doesn't meet any standards of being qualified. As I have posted a few times, and consistent with what Clint said above, being president is all about relationships. I really don't care what a president's positions on the issues are. None of that matters if the individual doesn't have the knack, personality, or interest in doing the job of president. This is why I ruled out Cruz of ever receiving my vote. Frankly, I have yet to rule out Trump. The ONLY intelligent thing Trump said during his whole year long campaign is when he said being president is all about building relationships and negotiations. All of our recent presidents did this; except one. Reagan and Clinton were genius at it--and a lot was accomplished in both administrations. George W. did it too with education, immigration, and TARP. Carter did it at Camp David when he brought Egypt and Israel together. There are good examples for many presidents. Trump does it; most recently with his trips to Mexico and to the Black Church. I think Hillary did that as a senator. I think she did it as first lady in a couple of circumstances. As SOS, not so much. Her separation and then detachment from all things that matter were obvious during her congressional testimony and her FBI interview. The ARB noted failed leadership at the State Department in its Benghazi report. If I were to vote for Trump, this would be the reason. But I simply cannot get past him making fun of a disability. So unpresidential.

Not knowing where a thread goes, I'll make a few comments about Clint. I simply love his work. I enjoyed watching him act, but I am even more taken by movies he has directed. I like them all. He attracts, and then makes better, many different and highly accomplished actors. My favorite is Mystic River. He magnificently directed a cast that included Kevin Bacon, Tim Robbins, and Sean Penn. Clint also composed the soundtrack, which is one of my favorites too. Clint's impact on the movies is clearly at or near the top of the list. Yet he seems like an ordinary guy with feelings about his dad and being a dad that we all have.

*Many of you will go into full ODS mode and say I am simply finding yet another way to criticize Obama. Save it. We've heard and read all of it.

 

[UncleMark]

What the hell's he doing sitting in the White House? If I were in that job, I'd get down there and make a deal. Sure, Congress are lazy bastards, but so what? You're the top guy. You're the president of the company. It's your responsibility to make sure everybody does well.

"The single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president."

 

[CO. Hoosier]

"The single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president."

Ha ha ha

McConnel negotiates more on any day before lunch than Obama has in 7+ years. Why do you think Cruz hates him? Besides Tip O'Neill and Newt Gingrich were pretty strong partisans and they both accomplished much with Reagan and Clinton. Neither Reagan nor Clinton got all pissy when congress didn't go along with them. They both sought and found common ground instead of yacking about a pen and a phone

 

[UncleMark]

McConnel negotiates more on any day before lunch than Obama has in 7+ years. Why do you think Cruz hates him? Besides Tip O'Neill and Newt Gingrich were pretty strong partisans and they both accomplished much with Reagan and Clinton. Neither Reagan nor Clinton got all pissy when congress didn't go along with them. They both sought and found common ground instead of yacking about a pen and a phone

How many non-sequiturs can one shoehorn into one paragraph?

 

[Rockfish1]

Ha ha ha

McConnel negotiates more on any day before lunch than Obama has in 7+ years. Why do you think Cruz hates him? Besides Tip O'Neill and Newt Gingrich were pretty strong partisans and they both accomplished much with Reagan and Clinton. Neither Reagan nor Clinton got all pissy when congress didn't go along with them. They both sought and found common ground instead of yacking about a pen and a phone

You spent the entire Bush administration insisting that presidents don't matter, but since January 20, 2009 you've insisted that little else matters. Even the conscious decision by congressional Republicans to obstruct whatever Obama proposed is, in your new view, somehow the president's fault. Not exactly political science, is it?

 

[meridian]

"The single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president."

That is probably the most profound statement he has made!

 

[zeke4ahs]

I like Clint's work in movies, but why do we care what a movie star thinks about politics? That's the comment we get when the 95% of the liberal actors dare to venture an opinion. Clint looked like a doddering fool at the convention in 2012, but at least he didn't repeat that. As for his comments now, not sure what he is talking about with people not wanting to work, with Obama not wanting to make deals etc. I don't think Trump has many good relationships with people,e at all. It's why you've seen very few of his business partners speak up for him. And I disagree that the Mexico trip or the photo op at the Black church shows anything of the kind. As soon as he got back from Mexico he lied about what happened. As for Hillary, it's pretty well known that she actually has worked well in the past with the sane segments of the GOP.

 

[UncleMark]

As for Hillary, it's pretty well known that she actually has worked well in the past with the sane segments of the GOP.

I think the "sane segments of the GOP" are okay with the prospect of a Clinton presidency, as long as they retain control of the Senate and House. What has them worried is the prospect of the Senate turning over if Trump loses in a landslide.

 

[mjvcaj]

Clint, and his son Scott, recently gave a joint interview to Esquire. This is the one where Clint talked about the "pussy generation". Interesting read. Clint also talked about his dad and being a dad. Both topics were the subject of threads here.

The interview has a lot of thread worthy material. I'd like to focus on his comments about his famous chair speech. He said:

It was silly at the time, but I was standing backstage and I'm hearing everybody say the same thing: "Oh, this guy's a great guy." Great, he's a great guy. I've got to say something more. And so I'm listening to an old Neil Diamond thing and he's going, "And no one heard at all / Not even the chair." And I'm thinking, That's Obama. He doesn't go to work. He doesn't go down to Congress and make a deal. What the hell's he doing sitting in the White House? If I were in that job, I'd get down there and make a deal. Sure, Congress are lazy bastards, but so what? You're the top guy. You're the president of the company. It's your responsibility to make sure everybody does well. It's the same with every company in this country, whether it's a two-man company or a two-hundred-man company… . And that's the pussy generation—nobody wants to work.
​

To that I can only say amen.* There has been much discussion recently and in the past about qualifications for president. The conclusion of millions of people is that Trump doesn't meet any standards of being qualified. As I have posted a few times, and consistent with what Clint said above, being president is all about relationships. I really don't care what a president's positions on the issues are. None of that matters if the individual doesn't have the knack, personality, or interest in doing the job of president. This is why I ruled out Cruz of ever receiving my vote. Frankly, I have yet to rule out Trump. The ONLY intelligent thing Trump said during his whole year long campaign is when he said being president is all about building relationships and negotiations. All of our recent presidents did this; except one. Reagan and Clinton were genius at it--and a lot was accomplished in both administrations. George W. did it too with education, immigration, and TARP. Carter did it at Camp David when he brought Egypt and Israel together. There are good examples for many presidents. Trump does it; most recently with his trips to Mexico and to the Black Church. I think Hillary did that as a senator. I think she did it as first lady in a couple of circumstances. As SOS, not so much. Her separation and then detachment from all things that matter were obvious during her congressional testimony and her FBI interview. The ARB noted failed leadership at the State Department in its Benghazi report. If I were to vote for Trump, this would be the reason. But I simply cannot get past him making fun of a disability. So unpresidential.

Not knowing where a thread goes, I'll make a few comments about Clint. I simply love his work. I enjoyed watching him act, but I am even more taken by movies he has directed. I like them all. He attracts, and then makes better, many different and highly accomplished actors. My favorite is Mystic River. He magnificently directed a cast that included Kevin Bacon, Tim Robbins, and Sean Penn. Clint also composed the soundtrack, which is one of my favorites too. Clint's impact on the movies is clearly at or near the top of the list. Yet he seems like an ordinary guy with feelings about his dad and being a dad that we all have.

*Many of you will go into full ODS mode and say I am simply finding yet another way to criticize Obama. Save it. We've heard and read all of it.

So, while you sit here and commend him (and I'm not saying he is wrong about the pussification of humanity - after all, it isn't a problem isolated to the U.S.), where is the accountability for your flawed generation and its inability to live up to the prior ones regarding making the world better for the next generation?

 

[CO. Hoosier]

So, while you sit here and commend him (and I'm not saying he is wrong about the pussification of humanity - after all, it isn't a problem isolated to the U.S.), where is the accountability for your flawed generation and its inability to live up to the prior ones regarding making the world better for the next generation?

Just what we need

I nice simple point to discuss. Not even I, with my uncanny ability to simplify complicated matters and using my clarity of thought can succinctly respond to this. I'll simply say that my generation made good beer commonly available while your generation gives us tutti-frutti martinis.

 

[mjvcaj]

Just what we need

I nice simple point to discuss. Not even I, with my uncanny ability to simplify complicated matters and using my clarity of thought can succinctly respond to this. I'll simply say that my generation made good beer commonly available while your generation gives us tutti-frutti martinis.

Did you type this in between sips of the piss you were drinking? Your generation gave us MillerCoors and AB... along with some other gems like Old Style, Milwaukee's Best, and whatever other swill you chose to drink.

You can thank me for my contribution to some of Colorado's finest, including Avery, Great Divide and Odell.

 

[Rockfish1]

I like Clint's work in movies, but why do we care what a movie star thinks about politics? That's the comment we get when the 95% of the liberal actors dare to venture an opinion. Clint looked like a doddering fool at the convention in 2012, but at least he didn't repeat that. As for his comments now, not sure what he is talking about with people not wanting to work, with Obama not wanting to make deals etc. I don't think Trump has many good relationships with people,e at all. It's why you've seen very few of his business partners speak up for him. And I disagree that the Mexico trip or the photo op at the Black church shows anything of the kind. As soon as he got back from Mexico he lied about what happened. As for Hillary, it's pretty well known that she actually has worked well in the past with the sane segments of the GOP.

Eastwood's career is a muddle. I loved his iconic westerns (except the execrable "Paint Your Wagon" and "Two Mules for Sister Sara"), but the Harry Callahan stuff was fascism. Then there were the truly awful "Every Which Way" movies.

Eastwood became formidable in my eyes with the exceptional "Unforgiven" and the extraordinary "Mystic River". Lots of people who aren't me enjoyed "Million Dollar Baby", but I recognized that he was playing above the rim there. (Morgan Freeman never hurts.)

In all of this I recognized his politics, but in none of it did I care -- as I do with Mel Gibson's virulent anti-semitism. Even his absurd discussion with a chair at the RNC wouldn't keep me from an Eastwood film worth seeing.

But his discussion of the "pussy generation" isn't helping me to ignore his stupid politics.

 

[CO. Hoosier]

Eastwood's career is a muddle. I loved his iconic westerns (except the execrable "Paint Your Wagon" and "Two Mules for Sister Sara"), but the Harry Callahan stuff was fascism. Then there were the truly awful "Every Which Way" movies.

Eastwood became formidable in my eyes with the exceptional "Unforgiven" and the extraordinary "Mystic River". Lots of people who aren't me enjoyed "Million Dollar Baby", but I recognized that he was playing above the rim there. (Morgan Freeman never hurts.)

In all of this I recognized his politics, but in none of it did I care -- as I do with Mel Gibson's virulent anti-semitism. Even his absurd discussion with a chair at the RNC wouldn't keep me from an Eastwood film worth seeing.

But his discussion of the "pussy generation" isn't helping me to ignore his stupid politics.

The year after Unforgiven

Eastwood directed Kevin Costner in A Perfect World. Not exactly a box office smash. It is a "bad guys aren't always bad" theme, but it is much more than that. I think it is Costner's best performance* and is the most underrated Eastwood project.

I don't view Eastwood's "pussy generation" remark as much of a political statement, as it is a social comment. The evidence about this is all over the place, and is particularly noticeable on college campuses. To the extent politics follows our social trends, pussy politics is a result, not a cause.

*I just rented and watched Costner in Criminal. I think this is Costner's second best performance.

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

Eastwood's career is a muddle. I loved his iconic westerns (except the execrable "Paint Your Wagon" and "Two Mules for Sister Sara"), but the Harry Callahan stuff was fascism. Then there were the truly awful "Every Which Way" movies.

Eastwood became formidable in my eyes with the exceptional "Unforgiven" and the extraordinary "Mystic River". Lots of people who aren't me enjoyed "Million Dollar Baby", but I recognized that he was playing above the rim there. (Morgan Freeman never hurts.)

In all of this I recognized his politics, but in none of it did I care -- as I do with Mel Gibson's virulent anti-semitism. Even his absurd discussion with a chair at the RNC wouldn't keep me from an Eastwood film worth seeing.

But his discussion of the "pussy generation" isn't helping me to ignore his stupid politics.

I think Unforgiven may be the greatest western ever produced. I'm personally partial to a couple of others - Silverado, Tombstone, e.g. - but in terms of pure artistry, I'm not sure any western film tops Unforgiven. I always liked Eastwood, but that was the film that made me love him.

 

[crazed_hoosier2]

As I have posted a few times, and consistent with what Clint said above, being president is all about relationships. I really don't care what a president's positions on the issues are. None of that matters if the individual doesn't have the knack, personality, or interest in doing the job of president. This is why I ruled out Cruz of ever receiving my vote. Frankly, I have yet to rule out Trump. The ONLY intelligent thing Trump said during his whole year long campaign is when he said being president is all about building relationships and negotiations. All of our recent presidents did this; except one.

In terms of domestic policy, I'd say that Obama's gotten just about everything he set out to get -- and largely the way he preferred it. I don't think he quite got taxes up as much as he said he would. But he came pretty close. And, of course, the healthcare reform debacle. For matters regarding immigration and carbon, where he couldn't get what he wanted through Congress, he's just sidestepped them using (unlawfully expanded, IMO) executive powers.

In terms of foreign policy, most of his legacy will be indistinguishable from wholesale capitulation. I've long supported revisiting and modernizing our relationship with Cuba -- the status quo ante with Cuba was one of the few remaining anachronistic vestiges of the Cold War. But, given how much it was in the Castros' interest to thaw the relationship, it's hard to tell what, if anything, we got (or at least they gave up) out of the deal. They needed normalization far more than we did. And it would seem they got it by just running out the clock -- without having to sacrifice anything.

The tune sounds very similar for Iran -- which is a much bigger deal in terms of American interests. As much hay has been made about the $400 million cash (but don't call it ransom!) we sent to secure the release of the 4 hostages, what nobody seems to question is how we couldn't have secured their release with the nuclear deal itself? The most logical explanation is that the Obama Administration entered that bargaining in the classically weak position of not being willing to walk away with no deal. No matter what's at issue, anytime somebody sits down at a bargaining table with an unwillingness to walk away empty-handed, they've lost the negotiation before the first word is said. I have to imagine these hostages were broached at the talks -- and I also suspect that Iran refused to involve them directly.

Some have estimated that the framework guarantees that Iran's breakout time would go from 2 months to a year. But, for one thing, that isn't universally accepted. For another, the verification protocols in the agreement are remarkably weak -- for instance, giving Iran the ability to delay some inspections by as long as a month.

As with Cuba, it's not that I'm opposed to striking a diplomatic deal with Iran. But it does seem that Iran got an awful lot without having to surrender much. And, even in areas where they did have to make actual concessions, they're limited and temporary. I'd be willing to guess that Iran was far more willing than we were to walk away empty-handed -- and 9 times out of 10, that's the party that will get the better end of any negotiated deal.

Time will be the ultimate judge on the Iran deal. It may go down in history as a major diplomatic achievement that thwarted nuclear proliferation. Or it may go down as a modern-day Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact -- with the added twist of freeing up $150 billion in once-frozen assets.

Either way, it does provide a fascinating contrast with Obama's "my way or the highway" approach to domestic policy -- where he's been far less accommodating to the folks on the other side of the table.

 

[Marvin the Martian]

As with Cuba, it's not that I'm opposed to striking a diplomatic deal with Iran. But it does seem that Iran got an awful lot without having to surrender much. And, even in areas where they did have to make actual concessions, they're limited and temporary. I'd be willing to guess that Iran was far more willing than we were to walk away empty-handed -- and 9 times out of 10, that's the party that will get the better end of any negotiated deal.

Time will be the ultimate judge on the Iran deal. It may go down in history as a major diplomatic achievement that thwarted nuclear proliferation. Or it may go down as a modern-day Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact -- with the added twist of freeing up $150 billion in once-frozen assets.

Either way, it does provide a fascinating contrast with Obama's "my way or the highway" approach to domestic policy -- where he's been far less accommodating to the folks on the other side of the table.

Last week POTUS radio was discussing how unpopular the current Iranian President is because of the deal. The Iranian people feel he gave up their program for nothing in return, and his popularity is so low he may well lose to, get this, Ahmadinejad. I'm wondering what a deal is where both sides feel they got totally screwed.

 

[crazed_hoosier2]

I think Unforgiven may be the greatest western ever produced.

I can't see how this distinction could be given to any film other than either (1) "Once Upon a Time in the West" or (2) "The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly". My pick is the former, but I also think the latter makes a strong case.

I loved Unforgiven, don't get me wrong. And there are probably 10-15 more that, for me, get into the honorable mention category (The Magnificent Seven, El Dorado, the other two "Man With No Name" films, The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance, The Searchers, The Shootist, The Outlaw Josey Wales, etc.).

But, for me, nothing ever eclipsed Once Upon a Time...

 

[SuperHoosierFan]

"The single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president."

Obviously should have worked harder with these guys. You know, since they made it so clear they wanted to work with Obama.

Good response and one of my favorite quotes from the republican party that complained non stop about Obama not working with them. The mental gymnastics by republicans interpreting of that quote is mind boggling.

 

[Marvin the Martian]

I can't see how this distinction could be given to any film other than either (1) "Once Upon a Time in the West" or (2) "The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly". My pick is the former, but I also think the latter makes a strong case.

I loved Unforgiven, don't get me wrong. And there are probably 10-15 more than, for me, get into the honorable mention category (The Magnificent Seven, El Dorado, the other two "Man With No Name" films, The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance, The Searchers, The Shootist, The Outlaw Josey Wales, etc.).

But, for me, nothing ever eclipsed Once Upon a Time...

I don't recall ever seeing Once Upon a Time in the West. I will have to watch it. I loved Unforgiven, but I would have to choose from The Searchers, Magnificent Seven, Outlaw Josey Wales, and True Grit.

That last one is because I love movies that are so bad they are good (just not in the way intended). The pairing of Wayne/Campbell was just tremendous. One of the great comedies. The remake was a much better movie that I liked a lot less.

 

[hoosboot]

Eastwood's career is a muddle. I loved his iconic westerns (except the execrable "Paint Your Wagon" and "Two Mules for Sister Sara"), but the Harry Callahan stuff was fascism. Then there were the truly awful "Every Which Way" movies.

Eastwood became formidable in my eyes with the exceptional "Unforgiven" and the extraordinary "Mystic River". Lots of people who aren't me enjoyed "Million Dollar Baby", but I recognized that he was playing above the rim there. (Morgan Freeman never hurts.)

In all of this I recognized his politics, but in none of it did I care -- as I do with Mel Gibson's virulent anti-semitism. Even his absurd discussion with a chair at the RNC wouldn't keep me from an Eastwood film worth seeing.

But his discussion of the "pussy generation" isn't helping me to ignore his stupid politics.

It's always fun listening to old guys wax poetic about the misunderstood brilliance of Eastwood and Costner. Eastwood's "pussy generation" commentary is much like his directing career. Uneven and simple. And I don't mean simple as a pejorative. For every Unforgiven, there's a Bronco Billy or Space Cowboys. For every Mystic River, there's a Jersey Boys or Blood Work. Many times he totally nails it and many times he seems clumsy and utterly tone deaf. Right turn, Clyde!

 

[crazed_hoosier2]

Last week POTUS radio was discussing how unpopular the current Iranian President is because of the deal. The Iranian people feel he gave up their program for nothing in return, and his popularity is so low he may well lose to, get this, Ahmadinejad. I'm wondering what a deal is where both sides feel they got totally screwed.

The Iranian people think they got nothing in return? They got ~$150 billion in previously frozen assets -- not to mention the lifting of oodles of economic sanctions ongoing. And, besides, they didn't give up their nuclear program -- they ostensibly gave up, for what really is a relatively brief period of time, the aspects of the nuclear program which would lend themselves to weaponizing. They are to give up all their medium-enriched uranium and most of their low-enriched. The advanced centrifuges are, I believe, taken offline and kept as auxiliary units.

Heck, even the friendliest assessment of the JCPOA says that Iran's breakout time is now 1 year.

So I'm not exactly sure what these Iranians are griping about. They basically get $150 billion and improved global economic relations for what amounts to temporarily slowing down their nuclear advancement.

 

[Marvin the Martian]

The Iranian people think they got nothing in return? They got ~$150 billion in previously frozen assets -- not to mention the lifting of oodles of economic sanctions ongoing. And, besides, they didn't give up their nuclear program -- they ostensibly gave up, for what really is a relatively brief period of time, the aspects of the nuclear program which would lend themselves to weaponizing. They are to give up all their medium-enriched uranium and most of their low-enriched. The advanced centrifuges are, I believe, taken offline and kept as auxiliary units.

Heck, even the friendliest assessment of the JCPOA says that Iran's breakout time is now 1 year.

So I'm not exactly sure what these Iranians are griping about. They basically get $150 billion and improved global economic relations for what amounts to temporarily slowing down their nuclear advancement.

Who said their government is any better than ours? If the American people get $150 billion, what are the odds you or I see a penny of it? The complaint is what money came in went to the wealthy in hopes they would create jobs and trickle down the money. Instead the money hit a dam and never trickled down. $150 billion is roughly Gates, Ellison, Buffet and Dell. It sounds like a lot, but not more than 3 or 4 enterprising people can keep and spend.

 

[crazed_hoosier2]

I don't recall ever seeing Once Upon a Time in the West. I will have to watch it.

Oh, you're in for a treat. I'm almost jealous that I can't watch it again for the first time. As with pretty much all of Leone's films, it's slow-paced. And that turns some people off. But I would argue that such pacing fits these films to a T -- even if they don't jibe with a "gotta have it now" modern culture.

Despite the length, I highly recommend seeing the 175 minute "Director's Cut" version.

Fonda, Robards, Bronson, and the irresistibly seductive Claudia Cardinale.

I loved Unforgiven, but I would have to choose from The Searchers, Magnificent Seven, Outlaw Josey Wales, and True Grit.

That last one is because I love movies that are so bad they are good (just not in the way intended). The pairing of Wayne/Campbell was just tremendous. One of the great comedies. The remake was a much better movie that I liked a lot less.

I didn't care for that version of True Grit at all. I always thought it ironic that, of all John Wayne's films, that was the one that netted him the Oscar....and he wasn't even nominated for "The Quiet Man." I loved the Coens' take on True Grit -- but, then, I'm a sucker for most (not all...Hail Caesar was uncharacteristically lame) of what they do.

The others are genuine classics.

 

[crazed_hoosier2]

Who said their government is any better than ours? If the American people get $150 billion, what are the odds you or I see a penny of it? The complaint is what money came in went to the wealthy in hopes they would create jobs and trickle down the money. Instead the money hit a dam and never trickled down. $150 billion is roughly Gates, Ellison, Buffet and Dell. It sounds like a lot, but not more than 3 or 4 enterprising people can keep and spend.

Well, it's roughly a third of the country's GDP. So, in terms of the size of the number, it's quite significant.

And I don't think the point here is that, unless the mullahs are going to be doling it out to average Iranians, they're just going to keep the money for their own use. It's $150 billion that that the country previously did not have access to that it now does (and, yes, I realize they were rightfully Iranian assets, frozen by the sanctions) -- which is $150 billion they don't have to reallocate from elsewhere for whatever purposes -- be it infrastructure, investment in productive capital, etc.

If the Iranian people really think they gave up a whole lot for little in return, I'd say they're nuts. They should consider their negotiators national heroes.

 

[Aloha Hoosier]

Oh, you're in for a treat. I'm almost jealous that I can't watch it again for the first time. As with pretty much all of Leone's films, it's slow-paced. And that turns some people off. But I would argue that such pacing fits these films to a T -- even if they don't jibe with a "gotta have it now" modern culture.

Despite the length, I highly recommend seeing the 175 minute "Director's Cut" version.

Fonda, Robards, Bronson, and the irresistibly seductive Claudia Cardinale.



I didn't care for that version of True Grit at all. I always thought it ironic that, of all John Wayne's films, that was the one that netted him the Oscar....and he wasn't even nominated for "The Quiet Man." I loved the Coens' take on True Grit -- but, then, I'm a sucker for most (not all...Hail Caesar was uncharacteristically lame) of what they do.

The others are genuine classics.

I have to admit I just couldn't get into "Once upon . . ." It is incredibly slow paced. The new "True Grit" is much better than the first. I think all the other westerns mentioned are very good.

 

[crazed_hoosier2]

It's always fun listening to old guys wax poetic about the misunderstood brilliance of Eastwood and Costner. Eastwood's "pussy generation" commentary is much like his directing career. Uneven and simple. And I don't mean simple as a pejorative. For every Unforgiven, there's a Bronco Billy or Space Cowboys. For every Mystic River, there's a Jersey Boys or Blood Work. Many times he totally nails it and many times he seems clumsy and utterly tone deaf. Right turn, Clyde!

Isn't that pretty much the case for most filmmakers, though? At least for those who are at all prolific.

For my money, the best director of all time is Spielberg followed by Alfred Hitchcock. Both of them did quite a few films. Taken as a whole, their bodies of work are unmatched. But they also each have their share of misfires. Same goes for John Ford. I haven't even come close to seeing all of his. And, while Ford directed some indisputably great films, I've seen a couple of his (including Cheyenne Autumn) where I thought "I can't believe this is the same guy who did The Searchers."

Eastwood's body of work as a director is, for my money, among the very best -- and for somebody to have that kind of resume on both sides of the camera is not just rare, but unprecedented. I mean, yeah, Orson Welles both acted and directed. But, let's face it, despite hitting a few grand slams early on, Welles' career petered out into a tragicomic farce.

 

[mjvcaj]

I can't see how this distinction could be given to any film other than either (1) "Once Upon a Time in the West" or (2) "The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly". My pick is the former, but I also think the latter makes a strong case.

Both very good movies, though I tended to enjoy For a Few Dollars More even better. Can't go wrong with any of "The Man with No Name" Trilogy.

 

[mjvcaj]

Always felt Pale Rider was Eastwood's most underrated movie. Never gets much discussion, but it was a more unique setting.

 

[hoosboot]

Isn't that pretty much the case for most filmmakers, though? At least for those who are at all prolific.

For my money, the best director of all time is Spielberg followed by Alfred Hitchcock. Both of them did quite a few films. Taken as a whole, their bodies of work are unmatched. But they also each have their share of misfires. Same goes for John Ford. I haven't even come close to seeing all of his. And, while Ford directed some indisputably great films, I've seen a couple of his (including Cheyenne Autumn) where I thought "I can't believe this is the same guy who did The Searchers."

Eastwood's body of work as a director is, for my money, among the very best -- and for somebody to have that kind of resume on both sides of the camera is not just rare, but unprecedented. I mean, yeah, Orson Welles both acted and directed. But, let's face it, despite hitting a few grand slams early on, Welles' career petered out into a tragicomic farce.

For my money, not really. In my observations, most directors have phases of their careers where the quality and nature of their work flows together. To me, Eastwood's work has been pretty wildly uneven throughout his career as he battled commercial and personal concerns over the years. The thing he shares with most directors is tunnel vision, which is both a director's best friend and worst enemy.

 

[CO. Hoosier]

I can't see how this distinction could be given to any film other than either (1) "Once Upon a Time in the West" or (2) "The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly". My pick is the former, but I also think the latter makes a strong case.

I loved Unforgiven, don't get me wrong. And there are probably 10-15 more that, for me, get into the honorable mention category (The Magnificent Seven, El Dorado, the other two "Man With No Name" films, The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance, The Searchers, The Shootist, The Outlaw Josey Wales, etc.).

But, for me, nothing ever eclipsed Once Upon a Time...

Make mine Red River

Not only my favorite western, but one of my favorite movies period. As far as I am concerned, John Wayne's best performance, and that includes True Grit.

Unforgiven is very good. A cast that includes Eastwood, Hackman, Freeman and Harris must a fortiori be good. Coming back from being beaten up is a theme in several Eastwood westerns and Unforgiven is the old fart version of that. (In Pale Rider he came back from the dead). Maybe Unforgiven suffers from being one of a number of excellent Eastwoood projects. Red River, on the other hand, easily is in a class of its own.

I'm really looking forward to Sully and the new Magnicent Seven.

 

[mjvcaj]

It's always fun listening to old guys wax poetic about the misunderstood brilliance of Eastwood and Costner. Eastwood's "pussy generation" commentary is much like his directing career. Uneven and simple. And I don't mean simple as a pejorative. For every Unforgiven, there's a Bronco Billy or Space Cowboys. For every Mystic River, there's a Jersey Boys or Blood Work. Many times he totally nails it and many times he seems clumsy and utterly tone deaf. Right turn, Clyde!

Does anyone actually say that about Costner? Dances with Wolves was a phenomenal movie, but after that, there is a considerable fall off, right?

 

[Marvin the Martian]

Make mine Red River

Not only my favorite western, but one of my favorite movies period. As far as I am concerned, John Wayne's best performance, and that includes True Grit.

Unforgiven is very good. A cast that includes Eastwood, Hackman, Freeman and Harris must a fortiori be good. Coming back from being beaten up is a theme in several Eastwood westerns and Unforgiven is the old fart version of that. (In Pale Rider he came back from the dead). Maybe Unforgiven suffers from being one of a number of excellent Eastwoood projects. Red River, on the other hand, easily is in a class of its own.

I'm really looking forward to Sully and the new Magnicent Seven.

I have such a mixed reaction to the Magnificent Seven remake. I just don't think it is possible to make something nearly as good as the original. So I grow concerned I'm going to hate the new one. But other times I really look forward to it. I don't know, maybe I'll love it. But at first look, it's just a movie that should never have been remade. For me it is close to a perfect film, so if you can't improve on it why remake it?

 

[CO. Hoosier]

Does anyone actually say that about Costner? Dances with Wolves was a phenomenal movie, but after that, there is a considerable fall off, right?

Dances with Wolves was indeed a phenomenal movie

But I don't think Costner's acting contributed a lot to that. The soundtrack and cinematography
carried the day.

 

[Aloha Hoosier]

"Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid" is not only my favorite western, it's in my top five favorite movies of any genre.

 

[mjvcaj]

Dances with Wolves was indeed a phenomenal movie

But I don't think Costner's acting contributed a lot to that. The soundtrack and cinematography
carried the day.

No question, but he directed it right? That's where I give him immense credit.

Also, you have to give him some props for this: Kevin Costner did all his own riding, including bare back and shooting his gun without holding the reins, during the buffalo hunt

 

[CO. Hoosier]

I have such a mixed reaction to the Magnificent Seven remake. I just don't think it is possible to make something nearly as good as the original. So I grow concerned I'm going to hate the new one. But other times I really look forward to it. I don't know, maybe I'll love it. But at first look, it's just a movie that should never have been remade. For me it is close to a perfect film, so if you can't improve on it why remake it?

I guess my interest is more about curiosity

But the original was a remake of a Japanese film. I'm already prepared to be disappointed in the soundtrack. I don't think the original soundtrack can ever be topped.

 

[CO. Hoosier]

No question, but he directed it right? That's where I give him immense credit.

Also, you have to give him some props for this: Kevin Costner did all his own riding, including bare back and shooting his gun without holding the reins, during the buffalo hunt

Yes

and I agree with that.

 

[hoosboot]

I have such a mixed reaction to the Magnificent Seven remake. I just don't think it is possible to make something nearly as good as the original. So I grow concerned I'm going to hate the new one. But other times I really look forward to it. I don't know, maybe I'll love it. But at first look, it's just a movie that should never have been remade. For me it is close to a perfect film, so if you can't improve on it why remake it?

I look at the new Magnificent Seven remake much in the same way I looked at the Psycho remake...only Antoine Fuqua is a significantly less interesting director than Gus Van Sant...or Kurosawa.

 

[VanPastorMan]

The year after Unforgiven

Eastwood directed Kevin Costner in A Perfect World. Not exactly a box office smash. It is a "bad guys aren't always bad" theme, but it is much more than that. I think it is Costner's best performance* and is the most underrated Eastwood project.

I don't view Eastwood's "pussy generation" remark as much of a political statement, as it is a social comment. The evidence about this is all over the place, and is particularly noticeable on college campuses. To the extent politics follows our social trends, pussy politics is a result, not a cause.

*I just rented and watched Costner in Criminal. I think this is Costner's second best performance.

My Dad's oldest brother died this year and back in 08 before the election he told me that, "Obama says a lot of words without saying anything of real substance." This would be close to what Clint was saying when he displayed the empty chair. My uncle was a no nonsense guy who was not overly sensitive. He graduated from IU after WW2 and was a successful geologist. By the way I went to an IU game with him back in 08 and it was the best seats I ever had. It was the game when IU lost to Wisconsin when their center hit the 3 at the end. Back to my thoughts from my uncle. LoL sorry for getting sidetracked. My uncle would not use the word pussy. He would say the younger generations are overly sensitive. He grew up in a time when words were just words and you watched a man's actions. As you stated the PC culture has changed from this kind of thinking. My view is that they are sensitive bullies. They use their outrage over words to gain power over people which is usually of a political nature.

 

[Ladoga]

Does anyone actually say that about Costner? Dances with Wolves was a phenomenal movie, but after that, there is a considerable fall off, right?

Dance with Wolves is my all time favorite movie. The detail of settings and costumes is beyond belief. Look at those things as the seasons changed. I've seen it countless times and every time I find something in the detail that I had never noticed before. The casting is incredible. I don't count it a "western" though.