We set up a sitter for last night so we could catch a Broadway show, but by the time she arrived, at 4, we were too tired to make the trek up to TKTS for cheap tickets, so we ended up at a movie instead. Which was, I must say, awesome. It gave us, the too-tired parents of a toddler, the illusion of spontaneity (“Hey, let’s go to the movies! Whaddya want to see?”) that we haven’t felt in…awhile!
Paul wanted to see Gran Torino because there’s a Detroit connection—Walt Kowalski, the main character, played by Clint Eastwood, who also directed the movie—is a former Ford factory worker (like Paul’s dad and many of the dads on the block he grew up on).
When we meet Walt, it’s at his wife’s funeral. He’s clearly a curmudgeon—and not a lovable one. After the funeral, we see him at his neatly appointed house, along with his unappealing sons, daughter-in-law, grandchildren, and other assorted funeral-goers.
Soon we understand that Walt’s neighborhood, like many of Detroit’s working class suburbs, has been claimed by various immigrant populations. In Walt’s neighborhood, it’s the Hmong, a group of Asians that sided, as one character explains it, “with you guys” during the Vietnam War--and paid for it later. Hence their exodus to the U.S.
To say that Walt isn’t too happy about sharing his turf is putting it mildly.
He’s racist, intolerant, angry, gun-happy (Dirty Harry fans will feel a little nostalgic) and burdened by experiences in the Korean War that are mostly only alluded to. The tension of the movie is Walt being forced, via his neighbors, to confront his past—and how he puts his ghosts to rest.
Atonement is a big theme here (the priest hounding him to make confession, the car, the finale---all of which will make sense to you later). But I wish they’d played with it more. In fact, there are a lot of things I wish they’d developed more. Maybe it’s because Eastwood is actually in this movie, and it’s hard to stay on top of everything and play a character. Maybe it’s because Sean Penn wasn’t in this one. (Sean Penn makes just about any movie better...Milk would have been a total snore without him.)
But after Paul and I left the theater, we went out for a drink, talking about the movie all the while. That’s generally a good sign…but many of our comments were along the lines of: “I wish that character hadn’t been quite so friendly right away, it wasn’t totally believable” and “He was just a little too black-and-white curmudgeon to believe the later transition.”
In short…it’s a good movie, an enjoyable ride (though the gun squeamish are going to find themselves watching through their hands at times). But it’s just a hair black-and-white, undeveloped, stereotypical, predictable, at times. Bottom line: It’s good, but it’s no Mystic River.
Paul wanted to see Gran Torino because there’s a Detroit connection—Walt Kowalski, the main character, played by Clint Eastwood, who also directed the movie—is a former Ford factory worker (like Paul’s dad and many of the dads on the block he grew up on).
When we meet Walt, it’s at his wife’s funeral. He’s clearly a curmudgeon—and not a lovable one. After the funeral, we see him at his neatly appointed house, along with his unappealing sons, daughter-in-law, grandchildren, and other assorted funeral-goers.
Soon we understand that Walt’s neighborhood, like many of Detroit’s working class suburbs, has been claimed by various immigrant populations. In Walt’s neighborhood, it’s the Hmong, a group of Asians that sided, as one character explains it, “with you guys” during the Vietnam War--and paid for it later. Hence their exodus to the U.S.
To say that Walt isn’t too happy about sharing his turf is putting it mildly.
He’s racist, intolerant, angry, gun-happy (Dirty Harry fans will feel a little nostalgic) and burdened by experiences in the Korean War that are mostly only alluded to. The tension of the movie is Walt being forced, via his neighbors, to confront his past—and how he puts his ghosts to rest.
Atonement is a big theme here (the priest hounding him to make confession, the car, the finale---all of which will make sense to you later). But I wish they’d played with it more. In fact, there are a lot of things I wish they’d developed more. Maybe it’s because Eastwood is actually in this movie, and it’s hard to stay on top of everything and play a character. Maybe it’s because Sean Penn wasn’t in this one. (Sean Penn makes just about any movie better...Milk would have been a total snore without him.)
But after Paul and I left the theater, we went out for a drink, talking about the movie all the while. That’s generally a good sign…but many of our comments were along the lines of: “I wish that character hadn’t been quite so friendly right away, it wasn’t totally believable” and “He was just a little too black-and-white curmudgeon to believe the later transition.”
In short…it’s a good movie, an enjoyable ride (though the gun squeamish are going to find themselves watching through their hands at times). But it’s just a hair black-and-white, undeveloped, stereotypical, predictable, at times. Bottom line: It’s good, but it’s no Mystic River.
Posts
1 comment:
I second Elizabeth's review. I felt as though this movie were 90 percent complete, as if it needed one more editing pass--or something. It was particularly surprising because Eastwood, as a director, is usually meticulous about the small details that can so enhance a movie. Good. Worth seeing. Sadly, not quite as good as it might have been.
Post a Comment