MovieChat Forums > Cry Macho (2021) Discussion > Cry Macho: Some Food for Thought. SPOILE...

Cry Macho: Some Food for Thought. SPOILERS

posted 3 years ago by ecarle (14979)
22 replies | jump to latest

I've seen Cry Macho. Some food for thought.

ONE: I was thinking, watching it, what if by some miracle Steve McQueen was alive today to play that role? McQueen was born in 1930, the same year as Clint Eastwood, and was a bigger star than Eastwood for about a decade. But McQueen died in 1980 -- 41 years ago. What a miracle it would have been if McQueen had lived to 91 and been in this movie. But he didn't.

TWO: Speaking of 1930, a couple of other tough guy stars were born in that year: Sean Connery and Gene Hackman. Connery barely made it to 90 and died....but he had been retired since 2003("The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen". Hackman made it to 90 and is still with us...photos suggest that Gene is as frail at 90 as his "Unforgiven" co star . Hackman has been retired since 2004 ("Welcome to Mooseport.")

THREE: So of these four great movie stars who were all born in 1930...one died 41 years ago, two retired over 15 years ago, one died last year and...Clint Eastwood elected to "carry on" and place his 90 year old(now 91 year old) body, face and voice before the camera one more time.

FOUR: And that is an achievement. That's the key achievement of Cry Macho and I'll bet it is why Eastwood made the film. Its a landmark achievement for a major star: to headline a major motion picture, as the leading man above the title, after age 90. (Character stars like Eli Wallach and Ernest Borgnine did smaller parts after age 90, but not a lead.)

FIVE: Humphrey Bogart died at 57. Clark Gable at 59. Gary Cooper at 61. Here's Clint making a major movie about 30 years past those ages. Its historic.

SIX: And so...exactly how good does Cry Macho have to be? Its not a great film, but Clint Eastwood hasn't made many of those. Unforgiven. Dirty Harry. Maybe one of the Leone movies(but not all three.) Million Dollar Baby, sort of...but it was as spare and cheapjack in the making as Cry Macho, actually. The PLOT won the Oscars for everybody.

SEVEN: Actually, Clint Eastwood spent many years as a major star who made some pretty routine, pedestrian movies. Joe Kidd. The Eiger Sanction. The Gauntlet. The Orangatan movies(even though they made big bucks.) Firefox. Honky Tonk Man. At least two of the Dirty Harry sequels. City Heat(with Burt Reynolds, yet.) Pink Cadillac. The Rookie. True Crime. Blood Work. Eastwood rather cruised on his name and his reputation and was at one time considered "down and out" (around the time of Pink Cadillac and The Rookie) before being rescued by Unforgiven. It doesn't matter how old Clint is in "Cry Macho," its not much worse than any of those I've just mentioned.

EIGHT: A couple of women throw themselves at Clint in this movie. He's been doing that for years...check out True Crime, where a then-wizened Clint kept sleeping with other guy's wives and assorted babes. Granted, in his most recent "old geezer movie," The Mule, Old Clint took gorgeous hookers into his motel room, but hell, he PAID for them and I'll bet they didn't have sex with him(look, can't touch.) The women in this movie who come on to Clint are (1) an established psycho nymphomaniac and (2) a widow woman with grandchildren. What's the problem?

NINE: So it comes down to the movie itself, but before I GET to the movie itself, I will suggest this as its theme: "This is what it looks like to be 91 years old." The always slim Eastwood here looks like a walking skeleton -- how much longer can his system support that body?(Maybe til 100, if Kirk Douglas is any proof." ) This is how ones face looks at 91, this is how one's eyes fade at 91, this is how hard it is to cough out a line at 91 and...in America and the world, many, many, MANY people are going to live to be 91 -- the 90s are the fastest growing age group in America -- so get used to it. This is how your grandparents may look now, how your parents will look and how YOU will look. Mr. Eastwood is doing us all a public service, offering an (again) historic look at what the age of 90 plus will be for all of us. If we live as long as Mr. Eastwood. And if we follow the advice of this movie -- 91 won't be all that bad.

TEN: Its fricking CLINT EASTWOOD up there. The Rawhide guy. The Man With No Name(Blondie, actually.) The dude who machine gunned 1000 Nazis while Richard Burton snoozed in Where Eagles Dare. The hot DJ with the psycho stalker. The ghost cowboy who opened "HIgh Plains Drifter" by raping a woman(who liked it) and killing a bunch of men. That Harry guy. William Munny("Killer of women and children and anything that walked or crawled.") The Secret Service agent on duty when JFK died. The boxing coach who makes a life changing decision. That's a lot of history to consider as we watch this "skeleton man" cross the screen. I was deeply moved. The movie isn't JUST about the story of the movie.

CONT

[–] ecarle (14979) 3 years ago

ELEVEN: How about this? When Clint Eastwood made Unforgiven, he was considered an "old man" and Dirty Harry had been made 21 years before. (ONLY 21 years before.) Now comes Cry Macho -- 29 years after Unforgiven! Why, Clint was just a kid when he made Unforgiven(which helps those of us in that age bracket now.)

TWELVE: Eastwood is also the director of Cry Macho and frankly, though he's been directing for years (often in movies he DOESN'T act in), a lot of them aren't that good or weren't seen by that many people -- J Edgar, The Changeling, Invictus, Here After, Jersey Boys(?!) the one about the terrorist on the train, the WWII movies..Clint just kept cranking them out(usually with pretty big stars) but there aren't any classics in THAT bunch. Cry Macho fits right in. Trying to make "too big a deal" about Cry Macho is to ignore how fairly blah Eastwood's career has been for the past 20 years (with the great big whopping almost accidental exception of American Sniper.)

THIRTEEN: So cut "Cry Macho" some slack. First and foremost the movie is about: "Clint Eastwood is 91, and with any luck someday you will be too." Its no worse than a lot of his films, better than some. I found the story very slight, very episodic and -- surprisingly moving once the "reveal" kicks in at the end(The 91 year old man gets a new life at a very old age -- and, crucially does not DIE. That would defeat the purpose of the film.)

A good, not great, movie. Rather middle of the road par for Eastwood as actor and director.

And one of the most moving and historic film projects in movie history.

[–] DoctorThirteen (13936) 3 years ago

I haven't seen the movie but that's some interesting points there.

[–] christomacin (4655) 3 years ago

This may be sacrilege to some, but I also feel Clint was never that interesting of a director as well.

[–] maximmm (3335) 3 years ago

I'll grand you this - at his 90 years old, he looks as old as Biden - so he could actually pass for a 70+ year old man.

The women throwing themselves at him - that was sellable when he didn't look/walk/act like Biden. Clint aged well - him looking old now is not a crime, but the role was clearly for someone younger looking person than Biden-looking character.

His directing skills are seriously declining - most of the actors act like shit in this film - I think their suspension of disbelief is simply not there, just like mine. Many of you disagree, but I think Clint actually had legit directing skills - in my opinion - better than his acting.

I dunno if he can still make a decent film at this stage. This film was, in my opinion, worse than any of his previous films. Not due to the story, but rather due to miscasting and poor directing. That, of course, is JUST my opinion.

What I'm seeing a lot of is this - pity reviews. Your number 10 says as much.

You know what this is like for me? It's like watching M. Ali getting beaten up in one of his last fights. He was great - he is a legend - but the fight is shit - he is getting beaten up to bits and it's just sad - yet, you have so many people cheering him on, which is horrific to watch.

Having said all that, I think Clint still has a good movie in him. If he is casted right - if another person directs him - he can still star in a legitimately good movie. See, I saw a few of his recent interviews - he can still speak coherently - he understands questions and everything that goes on around him - I'd even say that his mental faculties are above that of Biden. If he takes on another project by himself though - miscasts himself and other actors, directs it - it's gonna be a similar nightmare.

[–] ecarle (14979) 3 years ago

maximum:

I've seen your negative posts on the film here, and I take a lot of your points and if there is one thing I am not out to do -- could not do -- it is to convince you(or others reading this) that Cry Macho is a good movie. Also -- I am an older individual (though I don't FEEL like one) so in real life, we wouldn't be having a heated argument over this. Its just an opinion.

I have now seen Cry Macho twice. I elected to go to the theater the first time(to support Clint). I watched it the second time on HBO Max, right at home. Such a weird experience, but it allowed me to get a little more deeply into how Cry Macho WORKS.

For instance, as a director, Clint was famous for dark cinemtography but here it is DIM cinematography. In certain indoor scenes you can barely see Clint OR the other actor. Outdoors he is often backlit, or seen in campfire light at night.

The movie "protects" Clint visually...but it also protects Clint physically.

The scenes were developed so that a 90-year old man could play them. Clint sits a lot. He talks a fair amount. (though not as much as Dwight Yoakum carrying the exposition.) There are no major fight scenes or shootouts as from his past.

There IS the moment that he punches that younger man, but it is properly set up: one punch that only has so much impact and a larger group of men finish the fight because the young boy converts them into "Clint's helpers." A scene written for a 90 year old man to center -- and Clint knew to put the punch into his trailer and to make it a point of promotional discussion in his interviews("Its not as good a punch as I used to throw, I'll admit.")

CONT

[–] ecarle (14979) 3 years ago

Clint may be playing a younger character than 91 but most of the scenes don't make much of it. Male movie stars almost ALWAYS play characters younger than their real age. Clint's romance with a woman perhaps meant to be 30 years his junior(the widow with grandkids) played OK to me...its really the point of this story, that Clint's character will end up with a woman, children, and even animals to care for in his final years. Again, if this story ended with Clint DYING, the whole message of the movie would disappear. Which is: its NEVER over. The "plot message" for the boy is: if his life with his father is unsatisfactory, he can always return to Clint and family (and if Clint dies, the boy can return to the woman and her brood.)

CONT

[–] ecarle (14979) 3 years ago

His directing skills are seriously declining - most of the actors act like shit in this film - I think their suspension of disbelief is simply not there, just like mine. Many of you disagree, but I think Clint actually had legit directing skills - in my opinion - better than his acting.

---

There is no career in Hollywood history like that of Clint Eastwood's.

Here is a key comparison (to me):

In the 70s and 80s, when they were both major stars

JACK NICHOLSON: worked with a variety of top directors: Bob Rafelson, Mike Nichols, Roman Polanski, Michelangelo Antonioni, Milos Forman, Arthur Penn, Stanley Kubrick, James L. Brooks...

CLINT EASTWOOD...after breaking in with Leone and Don Siegel...usually directed himself. Or gave the directing chores over to his assistants James Fargo and Buddy Van Horn. In short, "Eastwood movies" were a mom and pop store of a family business , unto themselves. It took YEARS for Eastwood to turn himself over to other directors again and that was only for a short while when he was "down and out." Wolfgang Peterson on In the Line of Fire was one. The only one?

Thus..Cry Macho is a continuation of "the Clint Eastwood mom and pop project." He directs (and produces?) He acts(rarely these days, only three movies since Gran Torino.) Low budget. Miniscule cast, mainly of no names(except for Dwight Yoakum.)

The decades-long uniqueness of "the Clint Eastwood movie" is on full display in Cry Macho...but with the added and historic element: a 90-year old star.

I think Clint looked just as bad in The Mule a few years ago. It was clear that very old age had hit: frail body, weak voice, clouded eyes. I think Clint just felt: "Hey, I made The Mule at 88, let's do one more in my 90's and make history."

CONT

[–] ecarle (14979) 3 years ago

Me, I think that the "real final Clint Eastwood movie"(as a movie star) was Gran Torino. He was old but mentally engaged and physically formidable. I can barely remember Trouble With the Curve(where Clint had John Goodman, Amy Adams, and Justin Timberlake as "name" back up.) With "The Mule" and "Cry Macho," Clint Eastwood just isn't really Clint Eastwood anymore. He's a skeletal walking icon. (Interesting: both films put Old Man Clint into Mexican plots and settings, they are almost companion pieces.)

---
I dunno if he can still make a decent film at this stage. This film was, in my opinion, worse than any of his previous films. Not due to the story, but rather due to miscasting and poor directing. That, of course, is JUST my opinion.

---

Your opinion is what moviechat is about. My opinion, too. That's a cool aspect of living life: having opinions and comparing them.

We are less apart than you think. I don't think that Cry Macho is a particularly entertaining or memorable movie. Against such all time great Eastwood movies as GBU, Dirty Harry(number one only) and Unforgiven, it is not in the same ballpark.

But its entire reason to exist is to show us that a 90 year old man -- a living legend -- is still out there and can be seen and heard and -- within bounds -- enjoyed. Clint isn't a "nonentity" in Cry Macho, he imparts lessons to the boy and becomes of value to a community(the scenes where animals are brought to him and his "vet" advice is minimal at best, are cute.)

You know, there is a doctor out there somewhere -- I saw him on TV -- who contends that human life is only truly viable until about age 75. The doc's contention is that, after 75, human beings in older age are never really fully functional again and it would be best if they died instead.

Harsh but...truly in Cry Macho you see a human being PHYSICALLY reduced and yet...certainly worthy of staying on the planet earth as long as he wants.

(As I post this, 90 year old William Shatner has just said that he's going to go into space in Elon Musk's craft. THAT will be a test of 90.)

CONT

[–] ecarle (14979) 3 years ago

What I'm seeing a lot of is this - pity reviews. Your number 10 says as much.

--

Here is my number 10 again:

TEN: Its fricking CLINT EASTWOOD up there. The Rawhide guy. The Man With No Name(Blondie, actually.) The dude who machine gunned 1000 Nazis while Richard Burton snoozed in Where Eagles Dare. The hot DJ with the psycho stalker. The ghost cowboy who opened "HIgh Plains Drifter" by raping a woman(who liked it) and killing a bunch of men. That Harry guy. William Munny("Killer of women and children and anything that walked or crawled.") The Secret Service agent on duty when JFK died. The boxing coach who makes a life changing decision. That's a lot of history to consider as we watch this "skeleton man" cross the screen. I was deeply moved. The movie isn't JUST about the story of the movie.

--

I'd say that is more of an "homage" review than a pity review, but to each his own terms.

A key to ANY movie star career -- the long ones -- is that when you watch the actor on screen you at least subconsciously remember their entire career. Clint may be barely functional physically in Cry Macho, but he carries his history with him. And the film thus honors him.

I have two "dead on" examples of same, from the same year: back in 1976.

Two icons made their final films that year: John Wayne(The Shootist) for director Don Siegel(Clint's guy) and Alfred Hitchcock(Family Plot.)

Hitchcock first: he was 75 then, and probably equal to Clint's 91 NOW. Out of shape. Bad health. Expected to die soon. As the DIRECTOR of Family Plot, Hitchcock's age betrayed him. It was slower, less intricate, than his best work. But Hitchcock's entire glorious 6 decade history preceded him(from The Lodger to The 39 Steps to Rebecca to Rear Window to Psycho) and we cut him some slack: we would accept this smaller, slower film as a "late gift" and savor what DID work in it(quite a few touches and set pieces, actually.)

Wayne second: The Shootist "gets it": the movie opens with clips of a young and then aging John Wayne over the years in action as "the past of the gunfighter" in this film. The movie is squarely telling us: "Look at John Wayne over the decades, and in 1976, he's still here." Poignant about The Shootist is that Wayne's character is dying of cancer; unlike Cry Macho, this is a movie about death and the end. But LIKE Cry Macho, we are to honor John Wayne for decades of meaning in movies and in lives.

Both Hitchocck and Wayne said that their 1976 movies would NOT be their last; but we weren't sure. Both men were in bad shape. As it rurned out, those movies WERE their last. They died a few years later, a year apart.

As for Clint -- in far better shape than cancer-ridden smoker Wayne and obese Hitchcock -- nobody's thinking he's going to die soon. 100 seems realistically in reach. Maybe there WILL be another movie....

CONT

[–] ecarle (14979) 3 years ago

You know what this is like for me? It's like watching M. Ali getting beaten up in one of his last fights. He was great - he is a legend - but the fight is shit - he is getting beaten up to bits and it's just sad - yet, you have so many people cheering him on, which is horrific to watch.

--

Old age for athletes is pretty tough...especially superstars.

Back to actors:

I was thinking of James Cagney. Like Cary Grant, he retired "early" in his 60's (in 1961 with Billy Wilder's One Two Three as his final film.) Unlike Grant -- Cagney CAME BACK . In his 80's, in the major 1981 release "Ragtime." I recall thinking SIMULTANEOUSLY "Hey, its great to see and HEAR James Cagney again" but also "Hey, he sure is old. He can't even move...he's doing all his scenes sitting down." On balance, I'm more glad than sad that Cagney came back -- but he sure wasn't the Cagney of the 30s and 40s . Then Cagney did a TV movie that was awful...THAT was the one he should not have made.

Unlike Cagney, Clint didn't go away for decades before coming back. We've watched him age, and he's been playing "old man" roles I'd say since Heartbreak Ridge (1986). Though in that one, he's a muscular old man who can beat the crap out of young Marine recruits. How believable was THAT?

CONT

[–] ecarle (14979) 3 years ago

Having said all that, I think Clint still has a good movie in him.

---

I'm afraid that I don't. Not as an actor, anyway. His faculties are reduced, he simply can't "fill the screen" as he did when he was younger and a TRUE movie star.

I'm reminded that over the past 20 years, Clint(by his choice) has been far more active -- INCREDIBLY active -- as a director than as an actor. His appearances as an actor have been few and far between -- exciting surprises ("Oh, he's going to do another one.")

But AS a director -- hit and miss. American Sniper. Big Hit. Sully. Hit. The rest -- a lot of misses.

Personally I believe that Warner Brothers lets Clint direct movies to stay in his good graces to market his collection of Warners films(all the Dirty Harrys, Josey Wales, Unforgiven.)

--

If he is casted right - if another person directs him - he can still star in a legitimately good movie.

---

Yes, with ANOTHER , younger director (as John Wayne got in Don Siegel for The Shootist), Clint would at least be in a competent film again. But I just don't see him physically or facially ever holding the screen as a star again.

--

See, I saw a few of his recent interviews - he can still speak coherently - he understands questions and everything that goes on around him - I'd even say that his mental faculties are above that of Biden.

---

Well, Biden has had a number of BRAIN SURGERIES, and Eastwood was a physical fitness nut -- daily workouts, constant vitamins -- his entire life. Interesting: Eastwood's mother lived well into her 90s but his FATHER died in his 50s as I recall. Eastwood became a bigger health nut that very day.

---

[–] ecarle (14979) 3 years ago

If he takes on another project by himself though - miscasts himself and other actors, directs it - it's gonna be a similar nightmare.

---

For better or worse, "Eastwood's way" is usually that he directs himself and casts, etc. Keep in mind that even when he was younger, he had a BAD reputation as a control freak who liked to make his movies superfast and supercheap, rarely affording his co-stars many takes, treating his fans with a bit of contempt: "I'm such a great movie star that they will accept me in anything." That ended with The Dead Pool(wiped out by Die Hard) and PInk Cadillac (wiped out by Batman and Indy Jones 3.)

So if there IS a movie starring Eastwood after Cry Macho, I don't think it will be much better.

I don't see Cry Macho as a nightmare. Its a nice little movie that ONLY works if you consider "Clint Eastwood is 90" as the whole reason the film was made (again, we lost his peer Steve McQueen DECADES ago -- having Clint today is sort of a gift.)

Final movies are a bit of luck. John Wayne got The Shootist as his final film (instead of Rooster Cogburn.) Henry Fonda got On Golden Pond as his final film (instead of Tentacles.)

But Sean Connery? League of Extraordinary Gentlemen. Gene Hackman? Welcome to Mooseport.

If "Cry Macho" has to be Clint's final film before the camera...its good enough.

I'll bet he directs one or two more before he retires/dies, though.

PS. Speaking of Warner Brothers movies on HBO Max...in a couple of weeks, we get ANOTHER gimmick cast movie: Michael Gandolfini playing his late father James Gandoliinis role in The Sopranos movie. Its just like "Clint Eastwood is 90."

[–] maximmm (3335) 3 years ago

Thanks for your reply. Old age is quite a thing, isn't it?

Truth is, Clint is aging quite well. Most people are dead by their 90's. I have seen a few people who got to being over a 100, yet were still lucid and fairly active - their number is small, but they do exist.
Clint showing that life is not over when you reach 90 is indeed a good example - I agree.
As far as Clint still having another good film in him - you are right, it would be quite a challenge. I do think he'd play a support role in such a film. Have you seen 'the upside'? I'm thinking that's the kind of role he could take on. Alas, his voice is weak, his body is frail - there's not much acting left in him, is there? I wonder if stem-cell therapy could help. The alternative is to play a role of a character that's supposed to be depicted as being weak, frail and old -

[–] ecarle (14979) 3 years ago

Thank you for reading, maximm.

As you can see, I in know way refute your dislike of the film AS a film...to me , it can ONLY be defended as almost an "experiment on film" -- can a 90 year old man function in a dramatic environment.

Old age IS quite a thing...and I expect I'm more on its edge than you are.

And THAT's another secret about "Cry Macho." It tells folks in their 50's, 60s, 70s..."hang in there, if you're lucky you've got plenty of years left -- and possibly romance and a family."

There's a line I read somewhere: "Old is always 15 years older than you are right now." Works from 60 on up...

CONT

[–] ecarle (14979) 3 years ago

Truth is, Clint is aging quite well. Most people are dead by their 90's. I have seen a few people who got to being over a 100, yet were still lucid and fairly active - their number is small, but they do exist.

---

Well, I currently see people who are in their 90s and 100s(I know a couple of THOSE) as "the survivors." Its like when ywe read of a plane crash that killed 80 people but 10 survived..weidentify with the SURVIVORS. We like to think we will live forever.

But most don't. Clint's even MAKING it to 91 is an achievement. Working at that age? Something more.

I "buried the lede" up there, but I did find it interesting to realize that Eastwood, McQueen, Hackman and Connery were ALL born in 1930, and that three of them made it to 90. Movie star genes -- with McQueen as the one "loser" in the bunch(health wise). Alas, Connery died AT 90, but Eastwood and Hackman live on. I read a quote from Hackman about being in a movie again since his retirement: "Well, maybe if they filmed it in my living room..." Hackman will not give us his frail self on screen again.

CONT

[–] ecarle (14979) 3 years ago

Clint showing that life is not over when you reach 90 is indeed a good example - I agree.
As far as Clint still having another good film in him - you are right, it would be quite a challenge. I do think he'd play a support role in such a film.

---

I wonder how Eastwood's ego could handle that. Kate Hepburn did a few cameos in her old age(like in the Warren Beatty film Love Affair.) James Cagney doesn't show up in Ragtime(with top billing) until the end of the second act. COULD Eastwood do a "short role?"

--
Have you seen 'the upside'? I'm thinking that's the kind of role he could take on.

--

I have not. I'll look it up.

---

Alas, his voice is weak, his body is frail - there's not much acting left in him, is there?

--

Well, here we confront the nature of how one becomes a movie star in the first place:

Eastwood as Dirty Harry (in his 40s, but looking younger) was tough, strong, two-fisted...and sexually virile (well not shown having sex in Harry, but in Magnum Force, and Play Misty for Me, and High Plains Drifter) . THAT's the man who became a superstar and he is nowhere to be found in The Mule or Cry Macho.

Handsome Cary Grant retired gray and handsome at 62 and said he wanted to leave his audience with that "tall tan fellow from the Late Show.) Grant saw no point in taking "old man roles." Whereas men like Melvyn Douglas and John Houseman DID.

I will note that Sean Connery was physically big enough in his 70's to "sell" his fight scenes in The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen. but...sexuality was off limits.

---

CONT

[–] ecarle (14979) 3 years ago

I wonder if stem-cell therapy could help. The alternative is to play a role of a character that's supposed to be depicted as being weak, frail and old -

---
I just don't think that Eastwood wants to play weak, frail and old. He IS all of those things in Cry Macho, but he is total control of his life(he DRIVES), he stands up to bad guys, he romances an older woman (hey, maybe his character is supposed to be 75 and hers 55)...I don't think that Clint will ever want to play someone who is dying or losing, no matter his age (oh a few of his younger characters died -- Honky Tonk Man - but now is not the time for that.)

[–] ecarle (14979) 3 years ago

This film was, in my opinion, worse than any of his previous films.--

--
Due to his advanced age, Cry Macho is certainly the most minimal and action-free of his films. Its really a character study, almost a short story on film.

I actually hold other movies against him -- made when he was young and strong and mentally fine. But these STILL didn't make the grade with me:

Joe Kidd (1972): Too lackadaisical. Good cast, a little bit of good action, but nothing much(and it came out right after Dirty Harry.)

The Gauntlet: Too MUCH action, and a ridiculous overkill ending. Plus, the Sandra Locke Problem begins. Not the world's warmest actress.

Bronco Billy: No box office, some good reviews...I find it equal to Cry Macho in...slightness. And more Sandra Locke trouble. Miscast.

Firefox: A dull cold war movie from 1962..made in 1982. Even some Lucasfilm effects didn't help.

Honky Tonk Man. As slight as Cry Macho. About equal (neither is a bad film, they are just inconsequential.) Oh yeah...SPOILER for this one. No , never mind.

Sudden Impact (Dirty Harry 4.) "Go ahead make my day" and "Smith Wesson and Me" are great lines. Early in the movie. The rest of the movie is borderline repulsive and Sondra Locke reaches new heights of offputting-ness here.

City Heat. It should have been a blockbuster: Clint and Burt(Reynolds) finally together. But Clint cagily waited to work with Burt until Burt was ...on the downhill slide. Both stars ARE stars here(Reynolds broke his jaw on the movie but is fine and funny) but...the movie is very silly and short and weightless.

Pale Rider. An OK Western, but not much. A pale version of " HIgh Plains Drifter" with some Shane mixed in.

CONT

[–] ecarle (14979) 3 years ago

The Dead Pool: In the summer of 1988, Eastwood thought he could still get away with giving his audience a cheapjack movie with a sub-par script, just because he was Eastwood, playing Dirty Harry for the 5th time. Die Hard wiped this one off the map and announced the end of Clint as an action star.

Pink Cadillac. Eastwood was famous for turning in his movies under-budget and under-schedule. This one was so cut down that it didn't really have an ending. It bombed Big.

White Hunter, Black Heart. Kinda interesting actually, with Eastwood essentially playhing John Huston. Good African locales. But...minor. A flop.

The Rookie. Eastwood tries to do Lethal Weapon, with Charlie Sheen for a "young partner." There's plenty of actin, but with Eastwood in charge, there is none of the fun of Lethal Weapon. Everything is brutal, ugly, and for keeps. Another flop.

(Then came Unforgiven, and In the Line of Fire and Eastwood willing to work with other big stars like Hackman and Costner and Streep.)

But later:

True Crime. Eastwood looks old. Women throw themselves at him.

Bloodwork: I remember nothing of this other than he played a guy with a heart transplant.

(Then Million Dollar Baby saved him and got him a second Best Picture win.)

(Then Gran Torino made him a name again.)

Trouble With the Curve. Not much to remember.

The Mule. Pretty much the same movie as Cry Macho, with Eastwood looking the same.

---

So, Cry Macho isn't THAT much worse than quite a few Eastwoods.

CONT

[–] ecarle (14979) 3 years ago

Note in passing:

I've pretty much seen every movie Clint Eastwood was in. In the 70's, he was guaranteed action -- "Good B movies with an A list star." Sometimes they weren't great (all of the above except the Oscar winners noted), sometimes they WERE great. I LIKED these:

The Leones
Coogan's Bluff (Siegel Film)
Two Mules for Sister Sara (Siegel Film)
The Beguiled (Siegel Film)
Play Misty for Me.
DIRTY HARRY (the big one.) (Siegel Film)
High Plains Drifter
Magnum Force(the next best Harry -- a bit like a violent TV epidode, though.)
Thunderbolt and Lightfoot(Jeff Bridges Oscar nommed; Michael Cimino directs.)
Josey Wales (A classic)
Every Which Way But Loose(blue collar, silly and brutal -- but a big, big hit; the sequel too.)

and onward.

I think Eastwood is just one of those movie star/filmmakers who works so often that good ones arrive often enough to offset the mediocre ones.

CONT

[–] ecarle (14979) 3 years ago

Some trivia on Eastwood's super-controlling ways as a director:

After Eastwood AND director Don Siegel hit it big with Dirty Harry(1971), they went their separate ways. Eastwood mainly directed himself. Siegel directed a large number of other male stars: Matthau, Caine, Bronson, Reynolds.

Paramount "match-made" Eastwood and Siegel for one final film together: the arty, well-reviewed but rather dull Escape from Alcatraz(1979).

The rest of the time, Eastwood usually directed himself. A couple of times, he let his assistants -- Buddy Van Horn and James Fargo -- direct. But he was REALLY directing.

But this was interesting:

On The Outlaw Josey Wales, Eastwood fired the noted director Phillip Kaufman (The Right Stuff) and took over the direction himself. The Directors Guild protested and the "Eastwood rule" was passed: no star could fire the director and take over as director. A star had to hire another director instead.

On Tightrope, Eastwood WANTED to fire novice director Richard Tuggle(writer of Escape from AlcatrazZ) but the "Eastwood rule" prevented it. Rather than hire another director, Eastwood took over the direction -- but gave Tuggle the screen credit as director.

Clint Eastwood really liked personal control over his movies.

During a brief "down and out period", Eastwood accepted Wolfgang Peterson as director of "In the Line of Fire" -- and it was one of the most entertaiing, well scripted and exciting movies Eastwood ever made.

Cry Macho has a lot before it...

[–] bozo_500 (13108) 3 years ago

Cool interesting thread for old school Clint fans like me🤠