I thought the main kid from Gran Torino didn't make much of an impression, but otherwise the story and direction were great. Also it's funny to see Clint Eastwood yelling at people to get off his lawn.

>> ^Yogi:

>> ^shuac:
I'm gonna go out on a limb and say that I do not think Clint Eastwood as a director is any great, special thing. The last good movie he directed was The Unforgiven and maybe Million Dollar Baby. And even those films, in my opinion, could have been as successful if helmed by just about anyone else.
What's my big complaint? Well, for one thing he's renown for his one-take-and-done thing. In other words, Eastwood shoots the first take and he usually doesn't ask for successive takes. This has the effect of making him popular in Hollywood for being ahead of schedule all the time (as well as for being fairly prolific) but unless you've got talented actors, such a method cannot work.
Case in point: Gran Torino. Terrible, terrible direction and it's all because his asian actors cannot act. They need a couple dozen takes to get it right and it's the director's job to get the shot. Further, it's the director's job to know when he didn't get the shot.
And even when you do have talented actors, it's still problematic. Any director who's okie-dokie with accepting the very first take can't have a very specific point of view, style, or solid narrative; all the things a good film has. It's like, "Yeah, that's good enough. Let's set the next shot up."
Ever wonder why Kubrick films are so goddamn watchable? Because he had a super-specific vision and he didn't let anyone go home until that vision was sated. Sure, that made him a pain in the ass to work with, no doubt, but just look at the results.

Very few people agree with you...have you considered the possibility that you could be wrong?


Of course not, don't be silly. Surely, you know how subjectivity works, yes?

>> ^shuac:

I'm gonna go out on a limb and say that I do not think Clint Eastwood as a director is any great, special thing. The last good movie he directed was The Unforgiven and maybe Million Dollar Baby. And even those films, in my opinion, could have been as successful if helmed by just about anyone else.
What's my big complaint? Well, for one thing he's renown for his one-take-and-done thing. In other words, Eastwood shoots the first take and he usually doesn't ask for successive takes. This has the effect of making him popular in Hollywood for being ahead of schedule all the time (as well as for being fairly prolific) but unless you've got talented actors, such a method cannot work.
Case in point: Gran Torino. Terrible, terrible direction and it's all because his asian actors cannot act. They need a couple dozen takes to get it right and it's the director's job to get the shot. Further, it's the director's job to know when he didn't get the shot.
And even when you do have talented actors, it's still problematic. Any director who's okie-dokie with accepting the very first take can't have a very specific point of view, style, or solid narrative; all the things a good film has. It's like, "Yeah, that's good enough. Let's set the next shot up."
Ever wonder why Kubrick films are so goddamn watchable? Because he had a super-specific vision and he didn't let anyone go home until that vision was sated. Sure, that made him a pain in the ass to work with, no doubt, but just look at the results.


Very few people agree with you...have you considered the possibility that you could be wrong?

I LOVED Gran Torino.

I'm gonna go out on a limb and say that I do not think Clint Eastwood as a director is any great, special thing. The last good movie he directed was The Unforgiven and maybe Million Dollar Baby. And even those films, in my opinion, could have been as successful if helmed by just about anyone else.

What's my big complaint? Well, for one thing he's renown for his one-take-and-done thing. In other words, Eastwood shoots the first take and he usually doesn't ask for successive takes. This has the effect of making him popular in Hollywood for being ahead of schedule all the time (as well as for being fairly prolific) but unless you've got talented actors, such a method cannot work.

Case in point: Gran Torino. Terrible, terrible direction and it's all because his asian actors cannot act. They need a couple dozen takes to get it right and it's the director's job to get the shot. Further, it's the director's job to know when he didn't get the shot.

And even when you do have talented actors, it's still problematic. Any director who's okie-dokie with accepting the very first take can't have a very specific point of view, style, or solid narrative; all the things a good film has. It's like, "Yeah, that's good enough. Let's set the next shot up."

Ever wonder why Kubrick films are so goddamn watchable? Because he had a super-specific vision and he didn't let anyone go home until that vision was sated. Sure, that made him a pain in the ass to work with, no doubt, but just look at the results.

OMG, what a crap movie this was! You know, I can dig Eastwood's one-take-and-print method of making movies but Gran Torino proves that you've got to have good actors to pull it off.

"It's society's fault he was driven to desperation!"
"It's entirely his responsibility for making this choice!"

Why does it have to be one or the other?
All criminals are human beings. They're people. People who, because of their circumstances, have made poor choices. This is a statement that acknowledges the impact of their situation and their personal culpability.

The criminal here may have been driven to desperate acts by his situation, or he might just be a sociopathic opportunist. We can't be certain.
He may have been lured by the promise of easy money after hearing how someone else had gotten away apparently scot-free. He might feel that a few hundred or thousand bucks is worth a lot to him, but is effectively nothing for the corporation behind the counter, and that no one's really going to be hurt by his actions.
He might have been just high enough to talk himself into it, or be talked into it by someone else.
His starving family, or his kid that needs a kidney transplant, or the eviction notice that's probably coming in a few days, or the drug habit he's feeding - none of these make it "OK" to decide to commit a crime, but they're factors.

We're often very quick to picture someone who has committed a crime as nothing more than the crime itself.
It's a message I think gets a bit muddled in Eastwood's Gran Torino. We're shown how Thao is driven by peer pressure to attempt to steal the titular vehicle; he's not a criminal, but a person who made a very poor decision. A person who could potentially be rehabilitated from his "life of crime." At the same time, the gang members throughout the movie are vilified in typical "nothing more than criminals" fashion.

If this pharmacist was in violation of corporate policy by having the pistol at work (and I highly doubt CVS policy allows employees to arm themselves), then he'll probably be fired, or at least reprimanded.
I imagine he was probably "fed up" and angry about "these criminals preying on us and getting away with it." Does that make what he did right? Personally, I don't think so.
Here in Texas, I'm allowed by law to shoot someone if they're stealing my property. I don't think property is worth killing over. I do, however, think it's reasonable to use deadly force if my life or the life of a loved one is in imminent danger, or to prevent or stop a sexual assault against a loved one.
Beyond asking if he was "right" to do it, we can also ask if it was a responsible act. Unless the pharmacist saw something that convinced him the robber was preparing to shoot someone, I definitely think it was irresponsible, even if he'd fired one carefully-aimed shot that dropped the robber. The vast majority of robberies are bloodless affairs and criminals know that employees are typically trained to comply with demands. Confrontation with a firearm could have escalated the situation in an unpredictable fashion.

I'm not sure what the law is in Georgia, but here in Texas one of the clauses for use of deadly force is that the "actor did not provoke the person against whom the force was used." This clause gives me pause because it seems like displaying a gun in the first place might be considered provocation.

Eastwood's "one take and we're done" method only works when he's got skilled actors. For this reason, Gran Torino was not a great movie.

Hehe, it was a very timely find, i'll give ya that. Couldn't stop myself linking it up

Bloody loved that film though, seriously. One of the best i've seen in a long time

In reply to this comment by enoch:
In reply to this comment by alien_concept:
While we're on this stupid theme, here is a great clip I duped this morning that needs more votes!

http://www.videosift.com/video/GRAN-TORINO-Eastwoods-last-acting-role-movie-scene


god..i am so in love with your dry british humor...
marry me!

In reply to this comment by alien_concept:
While we're on this stupid theme, here is a great clip I duped this morning that needs more votes!

http://www.videosift.com/video/GRAN-TORINO-Eastwoods-last-acting-role-movie-scene


god..i am so in love with your dry british humor...
marry me!

Gran Torino was a great movie. Eastwood gets better with age.

Related http://www.videosift.com/video/Jamie-Cullum-Gran-Torino-Theme-1

While we're on this stupid theme, here is a great clip I duped this morning that needs more votes!

http://www.videosift.com/video/GRAN-TORINO-Eastwoods-last-acting-role-movie-scene

I do love Raging Bull, Scarface etc. Pacino and De Niro are legends. No question about it. But they stopped making good movies. Morgan Freeman is great but he is very type cast imo. Gran Torino? Clint is still kicking ass. Polls like this are tough because they're all awesome.

also .. I think there at least a dozen other actors that should be in the list instead of James Earl Jones.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'gran torino, clint eastwood, scene, racist, racism, confrontation' to 'gran torino, clint eastwood, scene, racist, racism, confrontation, take care now' - edited by calvados

Tags for this video have been changed from 'gran torino, clint eastwood, scene, racist, confrontation' to 'gran torino, clint eastwood, scene, racist, racism, confrontation' - edited by calvados