Criminal Minds Seasons 1 and 2- 3 Stars

I was recommended Criminal Minds by a friend and intrigued by the premise I decided that I would watch it. Criminal Minds is a crime show focusing on the psychology of the criminal, using this profile to catch them. It is an episodic series with each episode focusing on each case.

The Main Cast of Seasons 1 and 2

Well this series is far from perfect. Let's start with the basic lack of any kind of character development throughout the first two seasons. So we are introduced to the simplistic, stereotypical characters in the first epsiode and by the end of the second season, after 40 hours or 2400 minutes of watching, the characters have barely changed or developed. Reid (MGG or Mathew Gray Gubler for those of you who are unacquainted with this screenlegend) is still a stereotypical asocial genius, Gideon (Mandy Patinkin aka, the guy who was much better in Homeland) still a weary but wise middle aged man and Garcia (Kirsten Vansgness, an actress so obscure she wasn't even on the opening titles) is still unbearably annoying. Nothing changes. Each episode might contain its own character arc (e.g. the one where Reid fails to pass his weapons test and then shoots the bad guy at the end) but these character arcs rarely impact the rest of the season. This leads to frustration because if the characters aren't really affected by the events of an episode then it makes that episodes happenings feel irrelevant.

The other problem with characters is the stereotypical characterisation. Every single one of the characters in seasons one and two, bar Hotch, Elle, and JJ, are stereotypes. Morgan is the stereotypical black cop, Garcia the stereotypical computer whizz, Reid the stereotypical asocial genius...do I really need to go on? I'll set it out in a list to make it clear:

Gideon: middle aged man, obligatory murky past, misses his wife and kids (who we never see and are only mentioned every fifth episode), some stupid reason he quit the FBI in the first episode which isn't really followed up convincingly- conclusion: basic characterisation, middle aged man stereotype, fail

Hotch: authoritative but cares for his wife and kid, careerist but still works well in a team, best character in the series- conclusion: good realistic character, pass

Elle: action woman-ish, outwardly confident but inwardly more nervous about her position as a woman in the FBI, completely stupid (she reads a secret FBI file on a public train in full view, I mean seriously)- conclusion: realistic, well done character, pass

Morgan: womanising, shouty, confident and rather incompetent black stereotype. To be fair to the writers be does move away from this stereotype a little but that is with no explanation or development it just happens to stop him being stereotypical- conclusion: gets better but still stereotypical, fail

Reid: boy genius but socially awkward, knows everything but is about as physically capable as someone in a coma, yes he is completely stereotypical. Tried to be made slightly more complex with the introduction of his mother but didn't really make up for the fact that his entire character is one overused stereotype- conclusion: no, just no, fail (that said MGG plays him fairly well and is basically the reason this show has such a larger following of teenage girls)

JJ: okay does she actually have a character? I mean she's hot and everything but what is her character? So Gideon is wise, Morgan confident and Reid super intelligent but what is JJ's character? Organised I guess...when the only description of a character you can come up with is organised then you know that character is basic. I also question what her purpose is in the team. So she holds press meetings but then is sometimes sent to crime scenes to investigate stuff and helps them solve cases despite showing no talent for profiling in most episodes- conclusion: she just doesn't have a character, fail

Garcia: annoying, stereotypical computer geek who makes not very funny wise cracks, I dislike this character so much I can't even bring up the energy to write more about her- conclusion: fail

Emily: haven't really seen enough of her to judge so she escapes the axe for now

A J Cook as JJ, does she actually have a character?

There have been occasions where the characters have felt more real and we feel invested in them- most notably in the last episodes of each season. However, these are one offs and don't reflect the seasons as a whole. Now a lot of people tell me that the characters improve as you go through the seasons. In response, I would compare Criminal Minds with House. Both are similar shows- episodic with a different mystery each episode to be solved by a team (obviously House is a medical drama and Criminal Minds is a crime drama but the way both shows are handled plot wise they are very similar). However, House is a superior show because it gives more time to its characters. The first season gives us some time to get to know the characters and then starts some subplots involving these characters. Basically what a TV show needs to have to be successful is good characters and plots revolving around those characters or we might as well just have a different set of characters each episode. I mean seriously if you had a different team for each episode of Criminal Minds seasons 1 and 2 it would not make much difference. In House however, as many of the subplots revolve around these characters and their varying personalities replacing them would render those episodes nonsensical. What Criminal Minds needs is an extra 10 or 20 minutes at the end of each episode so there can be more room for character subplots. I can't emphasise this enough- it is not the repetition of the mysteries that make a series successful but the characters. Criminal Minds, without this, basically becomes a far inferior version of Silence of the Lambs.

MGG as Spencer Reid-

Is there anything I do like about Criminal Minds? Yes there is actually quite a bit. I really enjoy the cases each episodes and although some episodes are naturally better than other most are exciting and tense if occasionally predictable. On a purely episode basis each character gets a good spread amount of episodes- i.e. episodes focused on that character (for example the season 2 finale when Gideon's girlfriend is murdered, oops spoilers sorry). The acting is also good especially as they have to put up with such blank characters, although perhaps that actually makes it easier. The writing is also fairly good on a line to line basis with relatively little cringe inducing dialouge which could easily be inserted. The series also tries to tackle some issues of why criminals commit crimes and the nature police work, although these are fairly low key and not in most episodes.

As I have said I think this is a series with potential and maybe it will get better (as promised). I do feel however, that by the end of season 2 there should have been more character development. This could be a series worth watching if you are into crime dramas or are into psychology.

Ratings: Entertainment: 8 Technical: 3 Intelligence: 3= 14/20 ***







http://www.femail.com.au/image.php?imagename=criminal_minds.jpg&imagetype=b
http://xfinity.comcast.net/blogs/tv/files/2012/01/aj-cook-criminal-minds.jpg
http://www.proprofs.com/quiz-school/upload/yuiupload/1511956292.jpg

Pan's Labyrinth- 5 Stars

Wow. This is the first film to really have blown me away with how good it is since Apocalypse Now. Pan's Labyrinth is such an intricate and fascinatingly beautiful tale but it also one that is tense, horrific and deeply sad. The film is a blend of a fairy-tale like fantasy with a faun, fairies and various monsters but it is also a realistic and dark portrayal of fascism in Spain. The film explores the themes of imagination, control and death.

Theatrical Release Poster

The year is 1944. The Spanish Civil war has ended but small guerrilla groups are still resisting Franco's new regime (sounds like the opening of Star Wars). The film begins with a girl, Ofelia (Ivana Baquero), travelling with her pregnant mother, Carmen (Ariadna Gil), to live with her mother's new husband, Captain Vidal (Sergei Lopez), who is the father of Carmen's unborn son and has been tasked with destroying leftist fighters hiding in the nearby mountains and woodland. In Ofelia's fairy-tale book there is the story of princess Moanna who came from another realm to the mortal world and died. However, it is predicted that her soul will return in another body. In the farm which Captain Vidal has made his headquarters there is a labyrinth into which Ofelia goes and meets a faun who tells her she has the soul of princess Moanna and must complete 3 tasks to return to her fathers realm.

So what did I not like about this film? Very little. In fact I can only think of one criticism which is that there are numerous small plot holes or parts in the film that didn't quite make sense. For example, when Mercedes, the house keeper who is spying for the guerrillas, manages to make a deep cut through Vidal's mouth with her knife why did she not kill him? Especially as she could have got away more easily because Vidal's body wouldn't have been discovered for some time giving her a chance to escape rather than him telling the guards to get after her immediately. However, these points are always small and don't ruin it too badly although they can occasionally take you out of the film which can ruin the enjoyment somewhat.

The Faun- a blend of makeup and CGI

This film is technically great with all the monsters and fantastical creatures of Guillermo del Toro (the director and writer of Pan's Labyrinth) imagination brought to life by a combination of makeup, animatronics and CGI. Pan's Labyrinth is also beautifully shot too. What is most noticeable about the cinematography in this film is how it defines the space whether it be the small cramped tunnels of the tree, the high arched room of the fantastical realm's golden throne room or the matching dinner table shots of the Pale Man and Captain Vidal. The acting in this film is also of a very high standard with Ivana Baquero giving a brilliant performance as the young Ofelia. Sergei Lopez is also superb as the cold and psychopathic Vidal. Much of the tension in the film derives from the knowledge that Vidal makes every situation unpredictable. The casualness with which he kills people perfectly encapsulates the captain's character. However, what could just be made into a cliched 'bad guy' becomes much more. He is a convincing real psycho, obsessed with his own death. This is a film about fairy-tale and Vidal is the villain of it. If Ofelia is Red Riding Hood, then Vidal is the Big Bad Wolf.

But what is Pan's Labyrinth actually about? Well it is about the struggle of power between fascism and imagination. Vidal represents fascism (as he would being a staunch supporter of Falangism). It is his struggle to be in control and have everything in order that juxtaposes the imagination of Ofelia. This is shown in the very first scene in which we see Vidal. Vidal is standing upright, in his immaculate uniform awaiting the arrival of Carmen and Ofelia. He looks at his watch and tuts saying '15 minutes late'. By this we see that Vidal is orderly and wants everything in the way it should be. When Ofelia gets out of the car she holds her left hand for the captain to shake. He grabs it and says 'It's the right hand. You use the right hand'. We see here Vidal's obsession with order and his frustration when the correct protocol isn't followed. In contrast we see Ofelia clinging onto her fairy-tale books. This symbolises her hope and imaginative freedom against the oppression and control of Vidal.

Sergei Lopez and Ivana Baquero as Vidal and Ofelia

The film is also about death. The ideas of death in Pan's Labyrinth are closely associated with time. Vidal is constantly checking his watch throughout the film.When Vidal is hosting a dinner party we hear a story about Vidal's father who died and broke his watch. Later in the film, when Vidal is shaving, he draws his blade across his throat. What this all means is that Vidal is waiting to die. He is obsessed with time because he knows that at some point he will die and he is just counting down the seconds until it happens. When fighting the rebels he bravely charges up the hill towards them telling his men 'This is the only decent way to die'. Then at the end, he says the only thing he wishes his son to be told about him is 'The time at which I died'. This shows that all Vidal can think about and all that is important to him is death. This is wound up with the idea of the Pale Man who kills innocents. The Pale Man sits at the head of a rich table (one directly mirroring the table at which Vidal sat). It could be linked that the Pale Man kills without caring just as Vidal kills others without caring for the same reason- that everyone has a time to die.

The Pale Man

Pan's Labyrinth is also making a point about imagination and fairy tales. In the film the tasks respond to Ofelia's fears and own personal life. The toad poisoning the tree is a metaphor for Vidal poisoning her mother for his own gains, namely a son. This is shown through the representation of the crack in the tree as a vagina. We therefore see that the task that Ofelia must complete by overcoming the frog is her own fantasy version of overcoming the fearful Vidal and saving her mother. Similarly, in the scene with the Pale Man, Ofelia is again showing her fear of Vidal. However, her eating of the grapes from his table also shows how she is under his protection- she eats his food and sleeps in his house. What Del Toro is trying to say is that fairy-tales and stories are shaped to our own needs and desires- imagination is our way of creating our own world where we are the heroes and overcome our fears. In this way Ofelia has far more hope than Vidal. Vidal is simply restricted to this life, waiting for his death, with the only way he will survive being through the continuation of his name (hence his obsession with having a son). Ofelia on the other hand, will live forever in the land of her imagination, much like her story about the rose with no-one daring to touch it. The men scared of picking the rose and therefore failing to gain immortality represent Vidal and his fear of anything that is outside of the norm. However, for the imaginative, those who do not 'obey orders for orders own sake' as the doctor puts it, may find eternal happiness in their own imagination. In that way the film, despite its destruction and bleakness, is very uplifting.

I would also like to add that the Pale Man is one the most imaginative and scary creations I have ever seen. He is vile and the scene with him is just perfect. Fantastic film making right there.

I again haven't managed to explore everything that could be said about this film, purely because it is so rich with content. I really loved Pan's Labyrinth. The strange mix of fantasy and harsh reality may put some people off but this is a tense, moving, intelligent but, most of all, beautiful film which is a must watch.

Ratings: Entertainment: 9 Technical: 5 Intelligence: 5= 19/20 *****









http://movierehab.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/Pans-Labyrinth-Giveaway-2.jpg
http://randomfilmmusings.files.wordpress.com/2012/02/panshands.jpg
http://turmsegler.net/img/pans-labyrinth-8.jpg
http://vigilantcitizen.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/09/pans-labyrinth-3.jpg

Being John Malkovich- 4 Stars

Theatrical Release Poster

Being John Malkovich is the most surreal film I have ever watched. It is about a down on his luck puppeteer Craig Schwartz (John Cusack) who finds a portal into the mind of John Malkovich. And if that wasn't surreal enough, John Malkovich (John Malkovich) finds out about this and turns up to stop it- hence you get John Malkovich in a film about John Malkovich.

 The film is very entertaining and funny although perhaps it is a special taste. The film's humour is a certain kind of wacky, specialist humour, for example the boss who thinks he has a speech impediment because his secretary is deaf. The main premise of the film, the idea that there is a portal into John Malkovich's brain, is also so bizarre that it is funny. The fact that nothing can be predicted also makes the various abstract twist and turns all the more entertaining. The joke does wear a bit thin in the middle but it picks up again towards the end to create a thoroughly entertaining film.

The film can be isolating however. Its completely strange premise and absurdist humour can easily alienate the viewer. Therefore, whether you enjoy this film is very much up to personal taste. However, I would hope that even if the film is not found enjoyable it is appreciated for its originality and intelligence. The film is of course far from perfect. Apart from the aforementioned drag in the middle it also suffers from fairly basic characterisation with the stereotypical down on his luck Schwartz and his weak wife. However, credit to Kaufman that he develops these characters well and by the end they become more complex. It may be Cameron Diaz's below par performance that makes Lottie (Craig's wife) character seem more simple. That said, Catherine Keener's brilliant performance as Maxine is only aided by her characters fascinating complexity. Her character is both sleazy and likeable at the same time.

John Malkovich as John Malkovich

So what is the film actually about? Well the major theme is identity. Schwartz is a puppeteer, a craft he enjoys because it makes him feel like someone else. Schwartz hates his life and he escapes it by pretending to be others. His wife also finds relief from her unhappy marriage by being someone else (although this time it's Malkovich). Inside this theme of identity is a closely connected desire for control. Craig likes controlling puppets and other people (especially Lottie) because he himself is and has not been empowered his entire life. This goes for Lottie as well. In contrast, Maxine lives her own life to the full and never feels any desire to be someone else. By the end of the film, it is apparent that Kaufman believes that a compromise between these two sorts is the best way forward with Maxine becoming less self absorbed and Lottie becoming more confident in herself. Craig, on the other hand, does not overcome his self-loathing and becomes obsessed with the charismatic Maxine who represents everything he wishes he had. This sets up the rather creepy ending which shall not be spoiled.

So in conclusion, Being John Malkovich is a very wacky and funny film with intelligence. It might not be your particular cup of tea but if you feel in the mood for an unusual comedy with added brains then this film will suit your needs.

Ratings: Entertainment: 9 Technical: 4 Intelligence: 4= 17/20 ****





http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/5/55/Being_John_Malkovich_poster.jpg
http://img2-3.timeinc.net/ew/i/2012/05/09/being-john-malkovich_320.jpg

American Beauty- 5 Stars

Theatrical Release Poster

My first reaction after watching American Beauty was 'Wow, that might just be my one of my favourite films ever'. And indeed, it is a very good film. However, upon reflection I have realised that perhaps the film wasn't as great as I thought.

American Beauty focuses on Lester Burnham (Kevin Spacey) who hates his job, his wife, Carolyn (Annette Bening), and his life in general. He is going through a midlife crisis. However, he finds his younger, more passionate self when he sees his 16 year old daughter's, Jane (Thora Birch), friend, Angela Hayes (Mena Suvari). He begins to obsess over Angela sparking him to start living life more. Sound creepy? Yes it is meant to be. But such is the performance from Kevin Spacey that despite Lester actually being pretty horrible and weird throughout the film, we are still rooting for him and sympathise with him.

A sweet romance or cliched? Ricky and Jane

So what are the films flaws? Well the first is the various stereotypical characters. Living next door to the Burnhams is a retired soldier and his family. The retired soldier is a very strict dad who beats his son. The whole lighting of the house is set up to show that the family has a troubled relationship caused by the fathers brutishness. It is all very cliched. The relationship between the son of this family, Ricky (Wes Bentley), and Jane is also rather fake, forced and a little bit cliched. It does feel real and is well done in places, but the sanctity of it (it is the relationship the writer obviously thinks is the best and idealises) just makes it feel a bit stupid and out of place in this otherwise rather cutting and satirical film. I suppose it's there as a glimpse of hope but it could have been less in-your-face and still have kept that positive edge to it. Another problem with the film is the rather over the top Carolyn. She does feel real and has a purpose thematically but really she could have been toned down a bit. She is obviously meant to be sympathetic- she is neither a 'good' nor 'bad' person (as people are in real life)- but she just gets so annoying that it is quite difficult to feel for her. The idea of good and bad is another point that I dislike about the relationship between Ricky and Jane. Whilst everyone in the film, from the strict retired soldier, to the strange Lester, to the arrogant Angela, have some bad features but also redeeming ones, the relationship between Jane and Ricky is just good. It feels like a bit of a cop out from the writer to create a story so rich with real characters to then just insert some plain good guys. I personally find that off-putting.

Kevin Spacey as Lester Burnham

Now onto the raving. I really do love this film. The cast are all very good and Sam Mendes is a superb director. Kevin Spacey must be singled out for special praise however, because he is simply amazing at showing the complex character arc of Lester. Lester goes from being a boring middle class man, to a more rebellious young adult (not physically but mentally of course) and then, at the end, becomes a man again. However, this time he is both invigorated and responsible (as opposed to the mature but weak man at the beginning and the sensual but irresponsible man in the middle). Mena Suvari also deserves praise for making her character seem seductive and desirable most of the way through the film, whilst giving Angela the childlike qualities which make the ending of the film so good. Annette Bening also gives a good performance- she is very annoying as Carolyn which I am sure (or at least hope) is the intention. Thora Birch is also good as Jane showing the growth of Jane's confidence from a child with low self esteem to a more mature young woman.

Kevin Spacey and Mena Suvari as Lester and Angela

Thematically American beauty is about the dullness of suburban life, ideas of beauty and about life in general really. Lester is at first shown to be trapped by his life, unable to really live. This is shown expertly by Mendes who puts Lester in several enclosed spaces such as the shower. This shows Lester's imprisonment. There is also a wonderful showing of Lester's computer where the lines of text seem to form bars over the reflection of Lester's face again showing that Lester is trapped in his dull, middle class life. Lester then decides to try and go back to a simpler time when he was young and all he cared about was parties and drink. This is shown through the music choices- Lester starts playing hard rock songs- and his decision to take a job at a fast food joint in the position with 'the least amount of responsibility'. He becomes an irresponsible young man again as shown through his obsessing over Angela. Now my favourite part of the film is the end and I will have to talk about that now so spoilers until the end of the paragraph. SPOILER ALERT. At the end of the film Lester and Angela are in the Burnham's house alone.We have heard Angela previously boasting about all her sexual conquests to Jane and how much she'd like to have sex with Lester. However, when it comes to it she reveals to Lester that she is a virgin. This, coupled with her fragile body and small breasts being exposed make Lester realise that she is in fact a child. Instead they take on more of a father-daughter relationship- the kind that Lester perhaps wishes he had with his daughter Jane. It is just such a beautiful moment in the film- we see Angela's weakness and Lester's fatherly strength. It is uplifting and moving, truly great film-making.

Who is the beauty in American Beauty?

The film also ask the question what is beauty? Is beauty the physical desire for Angela that Lester feels? Is it Carolyn's beautiful roses? Or is it, as Ricky would claim, the simple plastic bag floating in the wind, or the dead bird? Ricky's idea of beauty is that there is some kind of goodness in everything- especially in the freedom and carelessness of the floating plastic bag. In a way the plastic bag represents everything Lester is not at the beginning of the film- free and without a care in the world. Instead every other character is caught up with their own appearance- their own beauty. Carolyn and Lester have to pretend that their marriage is a loving one for appearances sake because that is what is expected by society. Even the gay couple next door, the people who are separated from the social norm by their sexuality, strive to be 'normal' i.e. to fit into the social bounds. In the end Lester realises not only stupidness of this but that actually one can be a good father and man and still not obey the arbitrary social expectations (this in contrast to when he regresses and disobeys the social expectations but is immature and irresponsible). The true beauty is not in Angela's sexual desirability but instead lies in the loving relationships Lester has had with his family. As his desire for Angela and her beauty is fake, so to is the kind of socially accepted etiquette which Carolyn serves.

There is so much more that could be said about American Beauty. It has a lot to say and is a very intelligent film. Again, like Apocalypse Now, I don't really have the energy or space to write about all the things it is trying to say in just this one review. All I will say is that if you are looking for a intelligent but funny, moving but uplifting film American Beauty is perfect. It is well shot, brilliantly acted and a pleasure to watch. Aside from some cliches and one dimensional areas and characters, this film is perfect.

Ratings: Entertainment: 9 Technical: 5 Intelligence: 4= 18/20 *****






http://www.impawards.com/1999/american_beauty_xlg.html
https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhqY8F7C5VPeegpbUYEt99GIKq0k2TbYoIuu7ofX4viggXeeMNIEUH0ofGCknYdUI2zF1LlqVLXZ-zYUZfkeqh7tomc6AT7mrQvYHYPnNeYD6x7X9jHoPB8fxy3on1WgvwtQu5xq8Q1kGY/s1600/American+Beauty+screen1.jpg
https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi3ec54WsejuShwwj-WpEd-gDwRLyX2rnJclW3myODxpsNz4R_T6W85JYp6kFJaIN2s2AtJ6kTeVvRj7Ns2ZxucjQx2RoHjW4GqTF0Y6jDefqS-1J1Z0OoiL4u52g9dCQxmh0MKANYuIcAM/s640/57.Jane+and+Ricky.png
http://cdn.ilcinemaniaco.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/american-beauty.jpg
http://doublefeatureshow.com/images/covers/american-beauty.jpg

Gran Torino- 4 Stars

Gran Torino is a refreshing and original drama film about a cranky and racist Korean vet, Walt Kowalski (Clint Eastwood) who, when a Hmong family move in next door, realises that perhaps immigrants weren't as bad as he thought. The trouble starts however, when relatives of the Hmong family start disturbing the teenage son of the Hmong family, Thao (Bee Vang), things soon escalate causing Walt to intervene.

Theatrical Release Poster

Gran Torino is an enjoyable, very watchable and, on occasion, a moving film. However it does have several problems. The first is I am not sure how one dimensional the racist and bigoted character of Walt is. He is at first a grumpy old man who hates his Hmong neighbors but eventually (and predictably) he realises that the Hmong aren't actually too bad after all. Now this isn't too one dimensional and at least Walt has a character arc. The only problem is you can basically see this arc from the first 10 minutes of the film. Now whether or not this is a problem or not is up to the viewer and their expectations of the film. If you are simply looking for a feel good drama then this is fine and indeed preferable. However, if you are looking for something more intelligent and darker, as the dark and brooding lighting of the film and poster portend, then the predictability of Walt's character arc may frustrate. It does feel rather Hollywood. This normally wouldn't be a problem and as I said in a classic Hollywood film it would be fine. But the film pertains to be something more by its dark lighting and religious imagery and message. Therefore I would say that Walt's character arc does let the film down somewhat.

Thao getting mugged by the baddie Hmong gang

I also feel that the film suffers more generally from cliched Hollywood drama writing. Even though the film is showing up white-supremacy attitudes, it does take the elderly and white Clint Eastwood to save the day. In the end many of the Hmong characters are either annoying, underdeveloped or played off for laughs. Sue Lor (Ahney Her), Thao's older sister, is obviously meant to be a real and strong woman. And at first she is, with her verbal sparring with Walt being entertaining and the kick starting his realisation that perhaps the Hmong aren't quite as inferior as he first thought. However, about halfway through the film she disappears for about 20 minutes. Then, when she reappears and makes the same jokes, she seems slightly annoying and irrelevant which means the dramatic moment (SPOILERS) when she gets raped is not quite as hard hitting as it might have been because we don't care for the character as much as we should do. I like the character of Thao/Toad, he feels real, but the mother and Toad's girlfriend Yamyam (I have no idea if that's how you spell it or not, apologies) are both underwritten and Toad's grandmother is played off for cliched and not very funny moments of comic relief. Therefore, in a film that purports to be supporting the Hmong and raising awareness of their culture, there is only one convincing and real Hmong character...and even he is badly acted! That is another point, the actor who played Thao, so the second biggest role in the film, was very shaky and there were times where I was not convinced by his acting.

Clint Eastwood, director, producer and star

Now onto the good bits. Well whatever doubts I have about the character of Walt I have nothing but praise for Clint Eastwood. Eastwood has an amazing screen presence and, to put it bluntly, when he is not on screen the film sucks. The entire film is carried on the back of Eastwood's performance in a role he truly owns. He makes an impressive action hero considering he was in his 70s at the time. The thing I liked most about this film was the way that Eastwood was almost satirising his earlier roles such as Dirty Harry and The Man with No Name. He still kept the masculine power and authority of these characters but at the same time, with his coughing up blood and not being able to move his dishwasher, he is also weak and old. The ending of the film, my favourite part, nails this on the head even more so spoilers until the end of this paragraph. SPOILER ALERT. At the end of the film Eastwood and the gang harassing Thao have a stand off (much like the one at the end of The Good, The Bad and The Ugly). Eastwood uses his hand as an imaginary gun and pretends to shoot every gang member in turn. He then goes in his pocket to, we presume, pull out a real gun (he did the finger-gun thing earlier in the film and on that occasion he pulled out a real gun straight afterwards hence our expectations this time). He is then shot by the gang but it is revealed he was, in fact, reaching for his lighter- he didn't even have a gun on him. This first of all shows how stupid and unrealistic the whole hero vs a gang situation is. The other theme is that the childish act of using the hand as a gun shows how childlike and just stupid this kind of suburban violence is, or even violence in general perhaps. It is also the final step in the character arc. Walt has come to terms with his age and weakness- he knows he can't win by fighting. This is in contrast to the still young and naive Thao who wants to rashly fight the gang. It's amazing how one simple thing can mean so much in a film.

In conclusion, this film has flaws, but it is has a star in Eastwood and its well paced drama and heartfelt emotion means it is well worth a watch despite some dodgy acting and cliched character arcs.

Ratings: Entertainment: 8 Technical: 4 Intelligence: 3= 15/20 ****




http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/02/clint-eastwood-gran-torino.jpg
https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjhiiJQjn0-UxH7vgRKlvObOcKwRd_piOQg-TKa29I0Yef8QixnAcpiS34dwJkxjusYHmy3_VOWqFqkvG-vNhb8rixLgMHxzYe17dgbhIY1HqGgXYOJur1zO4tKpZlcgPtViwP02ZrslwU/s1600/6a00df35215aa888330111685060af970c-500wi.jpg
http://www.masculinity-movies.com/wp-content/gallery/gran-torino/gran_torino_3.jpg