One of the trailers I have really been anxious to see. Does it have Oscar written all over it? Or will it suffer from being so obvious that Oscar is written all over it?
Wow. I'm generally not a fan of Eastwood-directed movies, but it certainly is a good trailer...
Yeesh. Jolie should stop prostrating herself before the feet of the Academy.
I was hoping this was going to be a remake of the 1980 horror film "The Changeling" starring George C. Scott (wtf?). But this looks alright. It actually looked really good until the fire hose clip brought a women-in-prison vibe to the trailer. But everyone involved with this film is probably offering the Academy a foot massage right about now.
I thought it was going to be a remake too! That's the only reason I was excited about this movie. Eastwood doing a horror film seemed intriguing - a new direction. But Eastwood doing an ultra-dramatic period piece makes me want to take a nap. That being said, I'll definitely see it.
I've liked all of his films since Mystic River no matter the direction they have taken, so I am expecting the streak to continue. This is melodrama sure, but it is damn good. I think this trailer is f'ing intense...I'm pretty excited.
The whole "I want MY son back!!" slowmotion fade to black is a little much, but we can't judge a movie by the trailer, I guess. I thought this was a remake to. Definitely disappointed.
I'm not hating on Eastwood for making melodramas. I love melodramas. What kills me about him is that he is one of the few directors who I feel makes straight-up prestige films. Every film he has made since Ungorgiven has just felt like it was catering to the half-assed popular conception of what elite art is. If Eastwood had the balls to make a straight melodrama, I would praise his bravery, but e makes such stylistically lukewarm films. I never feel any real artistic drive in them - just a drive to seem Oscar worthy. This looks no different to me.
Yeah . . .
Anonymous,The studios didn't want to back MR and MDB? But they did, didn't they? And they were nominated/won Oscars, didn't they? I don't think incidentals of "studios didn't want to back them", which is shown to be untrue because, well, studios backed them, is much of a talking point. Eastwood made Oscar worthy films because they were deemed Oscar worthy by the Oscars. Brandon isn't exactly calling a cow a duck here. He's calling an Oscar movie an Oscar movie. What interests Eastwood is besides the point to the criticisms raised. I don't even agree with Brandon on this, but if he thinks Eastwood's films are "stylistically lukewarm", and, undoubtedly, style is an important part of film because otherwise you might as well watch a play, then the criticism is valid.Also, if you are going to call us ignorant and stupid then you probably shouldn't write sentences like "Would that more filmmakers - including a few you no doubt rate highly - would shed their appalling self-indulgence & follow Eastwood's path." That isn't a sentence, and barely counts as a lucid thought. And, if you wish to call us ignorant, then make sure you fact check. Eastwood released two films in 2006 and none in 2007. Releasing two this year, which is 2008, is not "two years running." Plus, we should all know making a lot of movies doesn't equate to making a lot of good or great movies, i.e. Woody Allen. Prolific, sure, but not necessarily great.If you're going to anonymously bash people and their opinions...yes, OPINIONS...then at least do it intelligently.
Post a Comment