I don’t know much about Clint Eastwood’s “Hereafter” and I don’t know why Warner Bros. felt the need to screen it uber early to Big Picture columnist Patrick Goldstein, but if you’re interested in a “first!” reaction to the film, here’s what he had to say:
On Tuesday, I caught an early screening of Clint Eastwood’s upcoming film, “Hereafter,” and though it’s too early for a mini-review, let’s just say that Eastwood, who turned 80 this year, is still The Man when it comes to making movies, showing off a range and depth that puts him right up there with John Huston, Robert Altman and the other great old masters from past ages.
“Hereafter” is set for release October 22. It comes from an original script by Peter Morgan and stars Matt Damon, Bryce Dallas Howard and Jay Mohr. We’ll see.
[Photo: nkohk]
Comments
14 responses to “Vague ‘Hereafter’ praise”
I hate that this is the first thing I thought, but…Jay Mohr? Really? I’m sure the movie will be fine (or, rather, I guess it will be), but Jay Mohr? Sigh.
Wow, Josh… when I read your comment, I thought I had just written it. Great minds huh?
While Eastwood’s mostly mediocre output in the last decade makes it hard to get excited about this, the supernatural elements in the story have me intrigued. But I don’t give a shit about what Goldstein thinks. And what kind of blurb is that anyway? Eastwood is still “The Man when it comes to making movies”? What does that even mean? Either offer up an actual analysis of why you think the film is so good, or don’t even bother.
My guess on the blurb’s intent: “I’ve seen it! Look at me! I’ve seen it!”
There are supernatural elements here? What plot elements do we know? Until this post, I knew it was Eastwood and Damon. I’m more wary now if there’s a supernatural bent.
I have read the script and unless they have made changes the only supernatural part is that Damon’s character talks to the dead.
I had this film getting a Best Pic nomination in my preliminary predictions. It was nothing more than a hunch, of course, but I would be glad if this praise holds up.
There were people throwing about “The Man” claims when “Invictus” first screened, so I’m not believing anything about an Eastwood film until I see it with my own eyes.
When Patrick Goldstein says : ” The Man when it comes to making movies ” , its meaning is quite simple actually. Not to mention what he adds after those words which whould make it even clearer. It means he is a great filmmaker, since I have to write it even more clearly. And in the last decade he directed MYSTIC RIVER, MILLION DOLLAR BABY, the IWO JIMA movies, GRAN TORINO and THE CHANGELING which do not qualify as ” mostly mediocre output in the last decade “. It works with basically all movies directed by Ron Howard, Rob Marshall or Stephen Daldry, but not by Clint Eastwood. I don’t know how HEREAFTER will turn out but his resume is prette decent, to say the least.
[…] Patrick Goldstein screened an unfinished cut of Clint Eastwood’s Hereafter and his two sentences about it are highly praising of Eastwood. [Los Angeles Times] […]
I love Clint, but if by “the last decade” Filmoholic means 1999-2009, then “mostly mediocre” is pretty apt: Invictus, Gran Torino, Changeling, Letters from Iwo Jima, Flags of Our Fathers, Million Dollar Baby, Mystic River, Blood Work, Space Cowboys and True Crime. There are only (at most) four great films in that list, and the rest are mediocre (at best).
Eastwood has always been mediocre. When will people stop championing this bland director?
Clint Eastwood is one of the best directors alive. PUNTO.
I do acknowledge that some of Clint Eastwood’s films have flaws when it comes to the writing ( Million Dollar Baby would have been far better with a more subtle approach ) but his sense of filmmaking can hardly be descibed as weak. How can you say ” vastly mediocre ” and claim that he directed 4 great movies in the last decade ? Even if you dismiss the majority of his movies from the past decade, how many directors have directed 4 great movies in the last ten years ? His sense of cinema may come from the golden age of cinema but it does not mean he is an archaic director. Old fashioned is not a synonym of old age. When you see one of his movies ( I’ll grant you, maybe not Invictus ), there’s a man behind the camera who knows his job. There are not many directors like him nowadays. I am not claiming he should be worshipped but he should at least be respected.