Hm. Variety ferrets out some news about a potentially under-the-radar Oscartastic movie:
Clint Eastwood will next direct and star in “Gran Torino” for Warner Bros. and Village Roadshow Pictures. Pic is skedded for a December release.
“Torino” marks the first time Eastwood has appeared on screen since “Million Dollar Baby,” released in late 2004.
Details of “Torino” are being kept under tantalizingly tight wraps. Existence of the film, and Eastwood’s role, were only revealed on Tuesday when Warner quietly dated the movie for sometime in December.
Producers are Rob Lorenz, Eastwood’s partner at Malpaso Prods., and Billy Gerber. Exec producers are Jenette Kahn and Adam Richman at Double Nickel Ent.
It’s unclear when the movie will begin shooting, or if it has already begun production. Eastwood is known for quick production turnarounds.
Okay, then. This is one we’ll have to remember is a crouching tiger, hidden dragon. Oh, that Clint!
David: I don’t find this to be true with Sasha at all. She actually has very good taste.
i bet either this or the changeling will be Sasha’s Oscar pony for this year. She’s such a sucker for that so called “Oscar Glow” – just look at her fanatically obsession and chest-thumping for CWW last year and early this year. Sheesh. Talk about “intelligent/rational analysis”. hehehe. Happy Easter Pseudo Sultans!
When Kael was writing for the new yorker…I had a subscription….I would still drive to LAx and get the mag early, because i just could not wait for it to get to my home. There were times when I saw a movie before the review—her’s appeared. Bonnie and Clyde…for instance. I was gaga for it…and called Pauline immediately. She said, “I think you will like my review….I can’t undrstand all the negative reviews…”
My liking or disliking a movie is completely tied up with her….I ALWAYS THOUGHT SHE WAS RIGHT….there you go….or so i went…
These days I disagree with critics…even the ones i love….Stephanie Zacharek for instance.
Good talking….best to you…..richard.
I also love Pauline Kael. This does not mean that I will “change” my opinion to match her; hat is completely ludicrous and dishonest. She was a great writer, but she dismissed a number of film masterpieces. I strongly recomment that you get hold of a volume by Professor Edward Murray called “Nine American Film Critics: Theory and Practice.” Prof. Murray examines the film criticism of Kael, Simon, Kauffmann, Paker Tyler, Agee, Sarris, Dwight MacDonald and VernonYoung….he points out that Kael’s venomous tirades against other critics strongly detracted from her criticism (and rightly so) and he said (I agree) that Kauffmann and MacDonald were greater critics. By you calling him “so so” when he is one of the most supreme intellectuals in the hstory of film, and then follow it up with an inane comment like “a zillion other people agree with you” well I won’t even dignify that with a response.
You can love Kael and respect her, but to blindly follow every opinion she follows is pretty lame, and achingly dishonest. We need to know what you, Richard Crawford think of the film, not when one single critic thinks. Honestly thoough, Kauffmann rates ahead of Kael as the quintessential film intellectual. That’s myopinion. I have spent most of my life reading every single word that Kael, Kauffmann, Sarris and all the others have written. I am a film criticism junkie, believe me!
Having said that, you are a nice person Richard; I’ve agreed with you in the past and will agree with you in the future. You are a gentleman. Cheers to you.
Pauline Kael had a brilliant mind. Her take on any movie was IT. I NEVER DISAGREED WITH HER….once in awhile i did not “get it” right off the bat…however, ultimately I would come around. (mostly little stuff….) If other critics disagreed with her she did not give a damn. Kauffman, whom i met once in 1967 and Sarris are so-so. PK is the greatest critic the movies have ever had. A zillion other people share my opinion. Sam J., if you don’t get it, you don’t get it.
I’m sorry, we disagree. You inform me of nothing.
Cheers! & I mean it. richard.
Richard Crawford:
You use the example of Pauline Kael saying that “critics are full of it.” Who is Pauline Kael? Isn’t she not also a critic? Poor example there. And I love the way you ‘selectively’ use her as an example. Personally, I do love Kael, but I probably love Stanley Kauffman and Andrew Sarris just as much. Check out what they said about THE UNFORGIVEN. Kael, may she rest in peace, said Ingmar Bergman’s SAWDUST AND TINSEL was ‘powerfully awful.’ She is not always right, sorry to inform you.
The fact that 98% of American and European critics praised THE UNFORGIVEN, MYSTIC RIVER, and LETTERS FROM IWO JIMA, should have stopped you from making that completely outrageous statement.
Next you’ll be writing to this thread that CITIZEN KANE, THE RULES OF THE GAME and THE GRAPES OF WRATH are all lousy films! LOL!
Ouch!
Gee, Old Git, you are such a good writer!
Ah, Pauline Kael, the embodiment of the Critic as Star. She knew nothing about anything – especially where Eastwood was concerned – but admire the dripping sarcasm, the venomous fury, the impotence of a woman who could not make a film if she tried but enjoyed tearing down those who did. Nearly 40 years after she raged with spite at Eastwood & Dirty Harry, the director is a four time Oscar-winner with a string of masterpieces, a director who moves effortlessly between crowd pleasing entertainments & serious arthouse fare & an auteur widely regarded as American cinemas greatest living director. Meanwhile Kael, much like her criticism, lies dead & buried. There’s an irony to that I’d like to think she appreciates, wherever she is now.
well, as my friend Pauline Kael often said:
Critics are often “Full of it.” Awards are often “Laughable.” Pauline “detested” Unforgiven”….she said it was “dreary”, among other things….and I agree.
Read her take on Bird.
“Clint Eastwood movies…the ones he directs are mostly terrible”
AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!
AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!
If you substitute the ones he “acts” are mostly terrible, you’d have something there.
MYSTIC RIVER, FLAGS and IWO JIMA (most of all) are great movies, and he directed all of ’em. I am not a big fan of BABY, but most consider that one great as well.
A very curious statement there Richard. LETTERS at the least won the LA Film Critics Award for Best Picture, had staggering numbers at RT, and was praised to high heaven by just about every single critic of worth.
Clint Eastwood movies…the ones he directs are mostly terrible.
Um, I’m not saying Clint’s a sure thing or creating any kind of foolproof rule. I’m just saying for my part, I won’t brush his films to the side as easily I have in the past.
“That’s the thing about predicting awards: the moment you see the pattern, it ends.”
Gentle Benj:
A very astute and too-often disregarded observation. I think many “Oscar-ologists” project way too much meaning onto awards outcomes and infer causal relationships (and patterns) that may or may not actually exist. “A surprise win? Well, now it’s *obviously* because we didn’t take into account…”
You know: “Brokeback” lost because the Academy is homophobic, Cotillard pulled off the win because they’d never award a 60 -year-old woman two years in a row, “Atonement” scored the surprise Best Picture nom because we underestimated the British voting bloc, etc…
Just because we concoct theories to conform to the outcomes does mean are justifications are rooted whatsoever in reality. Sure, theorizing is fun—and it is more than likely occasionally correct.
But unless you have solid insider evidence to back up these claims (to infer the intentions of individual voters), then you’re simply manufacturing fictitious causes.
—Michael
Yeah, but as soon as we identified the “never underestimate Judi Dench” rule in 2001, it proved to be less unbreakable than we figured. That’s the thing about predicting awards: the moment you see the pattern, it ends.
Details or not, one thing LETTERS and MILLION DOLLAR BABY taught everyone is this important rule: never underestimate Clint.
As per this article on AICN (http://www.aintitcool.com/node/36068), it COULD be a Dirty Harry follow-up.
This may end up like the Flags of Our Fathers/Letters From Iwo Jima match up a few years ago. I don’t see two Eastwood movies doing well – one will probably cancel out the other one’s odds entirely. And maybe Dennis has a point about Changeling being more mainstream.
Is it too early to add titles in the contenders column such as “In Bruges” and “Snow Angels” for screenplay. They may not have a chance later in the year, but we have to keep our options open
Good to see another “real” Eastwood movie to hit the screen as I don’t consider Changeling a contender in the top categories (Picture/Director). Just feels too mainstream to me.
Hm, interesting. If Zac is right & the tentative Morgan Freeman/Matt Damon project The Human Factor goes ahead, that’ll be two sports themed movies in a row for Eastwood. And I wonder what Universal think about Changeling having to potentially compete with another Eastwood movie during awards season?
Yes. But doesn’t he also have the changeling? So will this help or hurt his Oscar chances?
Great guess, Zac. We’ll see if you’re right shortly. Thanks for that background info as well.
I wonder if it’s about the following:
The Superga air disaster took place on Wednesday, May 4, 1949, when a plane carrying almost the entire Torino A.C. football squad, popularly known as Il Grande Torino, crashed into the hill of Superga near Turin killing all 31 aboard including 18 players, club officials, journalists accompanying the team, and the plane’s crew. The team was returning from a farewell match for José Ferreira against Benfica in Lisbon.
The Italian Airlines Fiat G212CP carrying the team flew into a thunderstorm on the approach to Turin and encountered conditions of low cloud and poor visibility. After descending to be able to fly visually the plane clipped a wall close to the Basilica of Superga and crashed. Italian authorities cited low cloud, poor radio aids and an error in navigation as factors contributing to the accident.[1][2]
The emotional impact the crash made on Italian sports fans was profound, as it claimed the lives of the players of a legendary team which had won the last Serie A title before the league play was interrupted in 1944 by World War II and had then returned after the conflict to win four consecutive titles (1946–1949).
At the time of the crash Torino A.C. was leading Serie A with four games left to play in the season. The club carried on by fielding its youth team (Primavera) and in a sign of respect their opponents in each of these matches (Genoa, Palermo, Sampdoria, and Fiorentina) also fielded their youth sides. Primavera won each of their matches. The disaster seriously weakened the country’s national side which had included up to 10 Torino players. Torino itself would not claim another title until 1976.
Of the entire squad only one player remained: Sauro Tomà missed the trip to Portugal due to injury. The Hungarian star Ladislao Kubala, who was to give a guest performance in Lisbon, had just been re-united with his wife and son. The boy was ill and Kubala stayed back to help care for him, missing the fatal trip.
The son of captain Valentino Mazzola, Sandro, became a player of international fame in his own right in the 1960s playing with Inter Milan. Both father and son wore the number 10.