J. Edgar

[theyarelegion]

I mean that his films are (from the ones I've seen at least) never remarkable in any way. You can't fault the fact that they are solidly put together, but they never surpass your expectations. You want a middle-of-the-road, "worthy" drama? Watch a Clint Eastwood film. Someone (possibly on here) described his films as having a "workman" quality, which I think describes them perfectly. He turns up to work everyday, directs the film, and clocks out when his shift is over. He does his job, but there's no passion there, and it shows.

what films do you mean?
i would never call something like letters from iwo jima a "middle of the road 'worthy' drama", or unforgiven, bird, mystic river, high plains drifter, black hunter white heart...
uneven experiments like gran torino or million dollar baby are pretty "passionate".
so yeah, i don't know what you're talking about.

Just watch Changeling and you'll know exactly what he's talking about. I love Clint Eastwood the actor and sometimes Clint Eastwood the director (High Plains Drifter is one of my favourite westerns) but his movies nowadays are just not the work of a passionate or exciting filmmaker...they are, as Sleepless said, the product of someone (an 81 year old man who has been doing this for decades & hats off) that turns up to work everyday, gets the movie in the can (on/under budget and schedule) and goes home. he's not slaving away to make these things...but Warner Bros love him and don't want him making his movies anywhere else because they consistently turn a profit...either because his name is attached to it or the fact that he always has movie stars in them.

[Stefen]

Leonardo DiCaprio is Leonardo DiCaprio in J. EDGAR

lol fer real tho.

Getting tired of Leo.  

Leo is very smart and (almost) always choice great projects to work on, tho. Just look at which directors he have worked with the past ten years, or so...

Inception, Christopher Nolan
Shutter Island, Martin Scorsese
Revolutionary Road, Sam Me... well, nevermind.. you get my point.

He is also playing a pretty controversial role in Django Unchanied, which is exciting and a little unexpected. I think he's great.

I get what you're saying, but man, there isn't a single actor in the world who would ever think twice about working with Nolan and Scorsese and being the lead. That's a no-brainer. You sign onto those, clear your schedule and shore up any drug habits without even seeing scripts. No way does Leo deserve kudos for 'choosing' to work with filmmakers like Nolan, Scorsese and Spielberg. He does those films because they're safe movies. Leo isn't making those movies because they're going to stretch his talent as an actor and push his boundaries and limits -- he's doing them because they're going to make a lot of money and keep his name out there and if they're bad, he only gets half the blame.

He's had some solid performances. The Basketball Diaries, What's Eating Gilbert Grape and I even liked him in Titanic. I don't give a fuck. But he's a safe actor who somehow has an image of being edgy when he's really not. He just puts on that intense face and goes to town in Nolan, Scorsese and Spielberg movies. Anyone could do that with those filmmakers, but he gets to because he's Leonardo DiCaprio.

[Alexandro]

wow.
in one thread clint eastwood is a "middle of the road" director and dicaprio has no range and only puts an "intense face" to cheat all of us along with christopher nolan, steven spielberg and martin scorsese into thinking he can act.

[Pubrick]

Yes. It was a very revelatory thread.

Kudos to Stefen (and sleepless) for telling it like it is.

The movies you listed in Eastwood's defence were like once in a decade efforts.

[ElPandaRoyal]

Sometimes it's hard to understand some people. So, an 81-year-old movie icon, who directs an average of a movie a year, and who's probably a millionaire, is said to lack passion in his work? I mean, what the fuck? If he's doing this at 81, it's because movies have become his life, the thing he loves to do more than anything else. And fuck it, he's still better than most at what he does. Someone whose roots are mainly in classic american film storytelling doesn't mean he's out of date. In 10 years, Eastwood has directed Mystic River, Million Dollar Baby, Letters From Iwo Jima, Changeling or Gran Torino, all pretty damn good, and he has a distinct sensibility that I quite frankly can't find much in movies these days. In a time when a lot of movies are cynical, his are mostly human, with characters that believe in something and fight for it how they can. And most of them contain great performances (the only bad one I can remember is that damn hmong kid in Gran Torino) and very intense and emotional moments. Moving your camera a lot, doing tricks in your editing room or squeezing high concept ideas into your sripts says nothing about one's passion for movies. I just don't buy the idea that Eastwood's not passionate for his work. At all!!!

[theyarelegion]

[Alexandro]

there's no need to make a list in eastwood's defense. those were just movies of his that i think are impossible to call "middle-of-the-road". his filmography is vast, varied and full of surprises. he has a distinct visual style, gets great performances from his actors, knows how to be understated and dramatic at the same time, shows humor, composes his own scores and a long etcetera. the guy was in his 70's while directing letters from iwo jima, such a devastating poem of death, a true unglamorous look at war as if a 20 year old prodigy had directed it. there's nothing to defend. he's a master and everyone knows it.

dicaprio. you must think working with nolan, spielberg, scorsese is nothing but a picnic. you show up and pum, you get oscars and raves. i'm pretty sure working with any of those guys must be tremendously challenging by the minute for any actor, and it must force actors to up their game a million times. showing up and putting an "intense face", right.

[Sleepless]

I've not seen Letters From Iwo Jima, so I can't comment on that film in particular. If you honestly believe that it's worth checking out, then I'll do so.

As for other films of his that you've cited from the past decade, if they're the kind of films which get you all excited then good for you. I'm not saying that they're not perfectly satisfactory films. They're competently made and if you sit down to watch them with certain expectations you can more or less leave with said expectations fulfilled. But that's kind of my point. There aren't any surprises. A straightforward story is told in a straightforward manner. Shots are competently framed and executed. Award-bating actors turn in award-baiting performances. It's all rather easygoing, unoffensive and - yes - middle of the road.

I mean, come on! To suggest that simply by virtue of the fact that he's an octogenarian still making movies makes him a passionate filmmaker is absolutely absurd. I know guys who've been selling carpet all their lives and will keep selling carpet until the day they die, even though they could have comfortably retired years ago. Doesn't mean they're passionate about piles and weaves, but what else would they do with their days? Don't get me wrong, I don't think any film fan would want Clint Eastwood to be the kind of old man who spends his final days in a nursing home playing bridge and connect 4, but that's a gaping void away from saying his films are either distinct or passionate simply because he's still churning them out year after year.

[Alexandro]

To give an example, I guess I felt Mystic River was nothing special the first time I saw it in 2003. Last year I checked it again and was simply blown away. The thought was "wow, so that's what all the critics meant back then that I didn't saw". Sometimes it happens one is a smart-ass about certain films, particularly the classic storytelling ones, we take them for granted. When all the elements work so well together it's actually a special thing.

The mid-level quality you're speaking of is something I've felt from Eastwood in the last couple of movies, not in decades. I couldn't finish the Mandela film and Hereafter was intriguing but a complete mess storytelling wise. In those films it was obvious he was working too fast. No real performances from anyone (even Morgan Freeman as Nelson Mandela), no memorable moments, all that natural pop instinct in this guy lost. the Hoover movie feels, from that trailer, like the same. It's not something you can point out that clearly, but Gran Torino certainly had "something" that made it work so well it was actually a box office and critical hit, it was actually pretty moving. Million Dollar Baby, a film I didn't like, also has it. Some of his films have that kind of energy more than others, as with any filmmaker.

I do think that being 81 and still making movies, or anything, is a testament of passion for your work. Simply put, most people 20 years younger are already retiring and doing nothing work related anymore. And making films is always hard, no matter the conditions, so if you're doing it, means you really love it. Like Woody Allen, Eastwood is not the kind of guy who will drench the movies with his own blood, but he certainly has a point of view and distinct aesthetic which sometimes (more times than most other directors working) gives us films that are better of 80 or 85% of what's out there, particularly from the U.S.

I really feel Iwo Jima was the pinnacle of his last decade career. Mystic River is much more accessible as an adult drama / crime story, but Iwo Jima, I felt, really had a different thing to say about the second world war than every other american film since the private ryan / thin red line combo of 1998. Bird, on the other hand, was a true unexpected turn for him, and it's interesting because it was the first time he settled into what would become his signature visual style of chiaroscuro cinematography, besides having some intricate set pieces and camera movements that if I remember correctly, he never did again.

I think he's a much more interesting filmmaker than what you're giving him credit for.

[ElPandaRoyal]

I'm sorry, but if you make movies in your 80, or sell carpets for that matter, especially when you could be comfortably retired, then you're doing it for passion, it means you can't find any other thing in the world that gives you as much pleasure. And if you're a dude who directs, produces, scores and acts in movies, it means you're giving it everything you've got - it becomes part of your life, of who you are. Eastwood movies are distinct, he has a voice, there are even recurring themes that consume his work. I'm not even saying I love them, or that he's my favorite director, but if the question is about whether or not he's a middle of the road film director, then I can't agree with that. And one of the things that I love about watching an Eastwood movie, is that I know I'll be seeing the closest thing we can have today to classic american filmmaking. I think the fact that very few people make movies like that anymore is enough to consider him one of a kind.

Plus, he made a movie with a scene where Angelina Jolie is naked and I could barely look at the screen. That, right there, is a testament to how special he is  - now seriously, I know I'm in the minority here, but Changeling was my favorite Eastwood from the 2000s.

[Ravi]

Leonardo DiCaprio is Leonardo DiCaprio in J. EDGAR

[Pubrick]

L. DiCaprio (Funny or Die video)