Director: Clint Eastwood (Mystic River, Million Dollar Baby, Letters from Iwo Jima)
Screenplay: Nick Schenk
Starring: Clint Eastwood, Ahney Her, Bee Vang, Christopher Carley
MPAA Rating: R
Running time: 116 min.
Is there any actor in Hollywood more iconic than Clint Eastwood? He has accomplished more in his life than most in Hollywood could ever dream. He’s acted. He’s directed. He’s composed music. He’s done it all very well and won five Oscars in the process. He’s even served a term as mayor of a small California town. At nearly eighty years old, he shows no signs of slowing down, seemingly still at the pinnacle of his career. With Gran Torino, he provides us with another worthy, but flawed film to add to his already impressive filmography.
In the film, Eastwood is Walt Kowalski, a retired Korean War veteran living in Detroit whose wife has just passed away. Due to a promise made to Walt’s wife, the good intentioned Father Janovich (Carley) begins to pay constant visits, much to Walt’s annoyance. He seems fine enough with his life as long as he has his dog, his car, his gun, and his beer. When a gang shows up at the house of his neighboring Hmong family and begin to assault the teenage Thao (Vang) on the front lawn, Walt interjects with his gun, providing the very Christian Bale Batman-ish “Get off my lawn” to the Hmong gangmembers - not out of concern for his neighbors, but simply because he really just wanted them off his lawn. Soon, the all of the Hmong in the neighborhood begin to thank him and hail him as a hero, despite his insistence that he isn’t one. Before long, he, Thao, and his sister Sue (Her) begin to form an unlikely friendship.
Walt Kowalski is one of the more entertaining and interesting characters of the year, which is no surprise with the demigod that is Eastwood delivering the lines. He’s old. He’s viciously cranky. He’s blatantly racist. He does things his own way. He mumbles and grunts his way hilariously through the film. Through his interactions with others everyone in the film - from the Father, to his son, to his Hmong neighbors - much is revealed about the man that is Walt. He doesn’t care much for his family, who he believes only deal with him when it benefits themselves. He seems rather to cling to two things in his life. His Gran Torino car, which he bought during his days working in the Ford plant, and his gun, left over from his days in the military. They are symbols of a past that he doesn’t seem able to let go, a blockade to his ability to accept change in the world and his life. At nearly eighty, it is hard to believe that someone can be so intimidating… so absolutely badass.
Still, come Oscar time, I wouldn’t expect to see any other Oscar nominations outside of Eastwood. It’s not that the performances are unbearably awful, but none of the other characters are rather memorable either. This is partially because Walt is the only character that is really developed. This is also large in part be due to Eastwood’s casting of relative unknowns in almost all of the roles (including the two main teenagers who have never appeared in a feature film before). They are not all bad, but when it came right down to it, none of the actors were able to provide the emotional punch needed in many of the scenes (unlike, say, Sean Penn’s explosive performance in Eastwood’s Mystic River).
The story itself plays out almost as a Biblical parable. By the end, you’ll understand the lesson, as Eastwood both entertains and hands the message directly to the audience. It’s pretty in-you-face, not sugarcoated or danced around in the least - which could easily have made the film come off as preachy or pretentious had Eastwood not had the talent he has in both directing and acting. The film has its numerous flaws, from some amateurish and clichéd writing, some clunky performances, and some unbelievable and abrubt moments - but none of it is so outrageous that it is unforgivable.
As the film’s credits begin to roll, a song titled Gran Torino, sung by Eastwood himself, begins to play. His voice is shaky, its rough, it’s almost sad - but it is still put a smile on my face and it provided a fitting ending to the film. While Gran Torino won’t be up for Best Picture at this year’s Oscars and may not stand alongside many of Eastwood’s greats, it is still a more enjoyable and funny film than the majority that came out this past year. Unlike many aging stars and directors, Eastwood has the ability to pull an otherwise mediocre script out of mediocrity. Here, Eastwood only adds to his ever-growing list of reasons as to why he redefines what it means to be cool. He is the epitome, after all.
The only think I know is at least out of context, that the Gran Torino song is one of the most laughable, most awful things I’ve ever heard.
Comment by Goon — January 7, 2009
Comment by Andy — January 8, 2009
Comment by Henrik — January 8, 2009
If Eastwood gets a nom for this, then you can consider Bale’s Batman performance a snub.
Gran Torino is SHIT. Absolute SHIT, easily the worst movie I’ve seen to pick up some noms here and there. I was trying to give Eastwood the benefit of the doubt and even with lowered expectations, I’m blown away by how awful the script of this movie is - saying everything in your head out loud, working the rule of three that if you keep bugging someone they will eventually let you in. The racism and shit like that doesn’t turn me off in some politically correct way - especially after just plowing through Generation Kill - it’s simply that it’s so obviously and lamely inserted.
“Okay, we have a scene where Eastwood first comes across his Hmong neighbors, what kind of thing can he say that almost nobody would say out loud, to make it clear he’s racist?”
The stuff with his son and daughter at the funeral and the garage - oh dear god it’s so over the top and lame to push the generation gap themes.
It’s heavy handed, obvious and hackish, like Linkin Park lyrics, like the use of flashbacks in “Ray”, like Dirty Harry fanfiction written by an amateur, like a Canadian TV movie. But you have Eastwood’s team making it look nicer than most movies, and the usual gang of people kissing Eastwood’s ass, and bam - awards?
I consider myself a big Eastwood fan, but I can’t make apologies for this garbage.
0/5
Comment by Goon — January 8, 2009
Comment by Andrew James — January 8, 2009
Now:
“saying everything in your head out loud”
Old people, especially lonely old people (like Walt), often do this. In this case, he didn’t have anyone else he wanted to talk to besides his dog. I know one old man in particular who used to come into my work every day to eat and he’d sit by himself and comment out loud about what was going through his mind.
I agree the scenes with the granddaughter and son are awful at points, especially the one in the garage. But again, I don’t really give a damn. It was really enjoyable for me.
Comment by Jonathan B. — January 8, 2009
I do love that car though. Just for the car, which we don’t see enough of, it gets a 1.
Comment by Marina Antunes — January 8, 2009
“Old people, especially lonely old people (like Walt), often do this.” They don’t do it every second word. I mean “lets get some of that good gook food”? The fucking barbershop scene with that other guy? it was like something out of “Showgirls”, in that their actions, emotions, etc all change on a dime. It’s fucking ridiculous.
And as I said before I saw it, that Gran Torino song is one of the worst things I ever heard.
Comment by Goon — January 8, 2009
http://mrbrownmovies.com/movierpt08-12.html#torino
“For a while, it looks like Clint Eastwood has slickly pulled off a fast one, passing off as awards bait what is a hilarious, double-edged parody: that of his iconic macho screen image, and a send-up of the constant jokes these days about his advanced age. As a bigoted, recently widowed grump who tosses out racial slurs and generally profane insults like they’re going out of style, a growling, grunting, grumbling, glaring Eastwood seems to have a lot of fun wringing laughs from a terrible caricature of a character and overwrought, on-the-nose, spell-it-out screenplay. But then the obvious earnestness of writers Nick Schenk and David Johannson comes crashing down like a lead balloon, clashing uneasily with the broader moments and resulting in a muddle where half the time one wonders what the hell is intended. As Eastwood reluctantly takes the quiet Hmong teen (Bee Vang, showing every last bit of his acting inexperience) next door under his wing, there is the expected, slow and sincere “enlightenment” of this old, narrow-minded curmudgeon; but then there are bizarre moments that just deep-sixes any sort of serious intent where Eastwood teaches the kid to “be a man” by becoming a profanity-spewing asshole; then there’s the troubling contradiction of looking at the Eastwood character’s racially bigoted views as clearly, if comically, wrong, only for the film to then portray any characters of color aside from the neighbors as stereotyped gangbangers and/or thugs. When the sober earnestness expectedly–and disappointingly–takes over in the final stretch, Eastwood’s heart clearly isn’t in it, and as such the finale unfolds in a predictable manner devoid of any impact, clearly suggesting that he isn’t so interested the “serious drama” of the piece but rather its hyperbolic comedic possibilities. After all, what else could explain Eastwood himself, in a monotone croak, warble about his “heart locked in a Gran Torino”–seriously–over the end credits, playing like a parody of maudlin, self-important, Oscar-whoring “emotional” ballads?”
Comment by Goon — January 8, 2009
probably enjoy it well enough.
Comment by Andrew James — January 8, 2009
Comment by Andrew James — January 8, 2009
Comment by Shannon the Movie Moxie — January 8, 2009
Liking this movie earnestly is like considering the Wicker Man remake as a good film and not simply as a hilarious pile of shit.
Comment by Goon — January 8, 2009
Comment by nicangel — January 9, 2009
chuck
Comment by entertainmenttodayandbeyond — January 9, 2009
Comment by Goon — January 9, 2009
Thanks for posting.
Kate
Comment by Film Producer — January 11, 2009
Comment by mr 64 — January 12, 2009
Comment by Mike Rot — January 12, 2009
A phrase I saw used for that movie is “sitcom perfect”, and it is most insultingly that.
yeah sure, clint just accepts Thaos’ help because the lady insists, and he warms up to him that fast. everything is so convenient.
Comment by Goon — January 12, 2009
yeah, the movie isn’t great. but is it good? certainly. you don’t have to like it, but you are talking about it as if it is on par with a Wayans brothers movie.
Comment by murph — January 12, 2009
Comment by murph — January 12, 2009
I would like to grow up to be like Clint Eastwood. Eastwood the director, Eastwood the actor, Eastwood the invincible, Eastwood the old man. What other figure in the history of the cinema has been an actor for 53 years, a director for 37, won two Oscars for direction, two more for best picture, plus the Thalberg Award, and at 78 can direct himself in his own film and look meaner than hell? None, that’s how many.
Comment by Marina Antunes — January 12, 2009
Murph, I am talking about it as if it is on par with the Wicker Man and Showgirls. That may seem like a complete insult, but consider both of those movies are not made by hacks, they are made by directors who have made great films (In the COmpany of Men, Starship Troopers, Robocop, etc)
The story they have presented in both of those cases though, are “sitcom perfect”ly asinine, their scripts are atrocious, and the performances are bizarre. But they are both presented in such a sharp, watchable way that someone could maybe wonder if its secretly a good movie, because the person making it usually knows better. On this level, I LOVE Gran Torino and actually encourage people to see it.
At the same time, I think because of its themes, its like Crash all over again, and its only on that level that I absolutely loathe it and encourage people to avoid it like the fucking plague. It’s overwrought, obvious and thinks it has something to say that comes across as extremely phony and fraudulent to me, to the point its offensive.
And somewhere in the middle is my understanding and acceptance of it the same way I maybe understand why people liked Archie Bunker. I’m cribbing from Klosterman here again, but yeah, people knew he was a negative figure, and so they felt okay watching him, and even felt okay laughing at his bigoted gripes.
Listen, with each day that passes I believe Gran Torino is a more and more interesting and perhaps even vital movie to watch. But I certainly don’t think it is good on its own intended merits, and think anyone who actually does is fooling themselves.
however
“he accepts the boys help because he has the boy fix up his neighobors’ houses because he was sick of looking at them. what is so hard to understand about that?”
whats hard to understand is your sentence. try again without two ‘because’s in it. if i lop up the first half though and try to understand what your’e saying, it still isn’t plausible to me other than that, again, ’sitcom perfect’ way - he has to accept his help because otherwise the plot doesn’t move forward, and that’s it.
Comment by Goon — January 12, 2009
When you put Eastwood with non-actors, Eastwood doesn’t look like a better actor, he just looks silly, and I mean Nick Cage silly, and his dialogue simply sounds read. I actually think much less of Eastwood as an actor after this, thinking he really needs to be surrounded by good performers to look good. He’s a Muppet, and the song at the end confirms it.
Each of the Hmong actors are sooo bad, and even every good review acknowledges this. the priest character and actor who plays him as well, is awful. there are times where because of his two-take philosophy, they seem to be forgetting their lines halfway during the read, and fight to finish sentences. When Thao has to show emotion and rattle the screen, you can’t tell me you actually feel anything there. you can’t tell me that isn’t simply funny. you can’t tell me the teenage girl in the garage isn’t funny, and you can’t convince me that it was on purpose. Eastwood hasn’t shown any sense of humor in years, and there’s no reason to think he’s started now. But I suppose if you can be fooled into thinking for 2 hours that old dog like Walt can actually learn new tricks, you can be fooled that Eastwood as a director has too.
Sorry, he just hasn’t.
But mentioning plot points and specific scenes I hope someone makes a compilation of all the awful awkward moments in this film, and I will hold them on par with “Get off the Bike”, “I used to love Doggie Chow”, Nick Cage’s awkward dive into the water, the “God Damn It!” shock cutaways, those hilarious unintentional ’shocking’ moments in TV shows where people get hit by buses out of nowhere. It’s just flat out silly. Whether its the moment when Thao walks into the barber shop, the look on the girls face as the will is read, the will itself, the song, the way the girl describes her culture in the truck and brushes everything off…
it’s retarded. I have no other word for it. This movie has brain damage.
Comment by Goon — January 12, 2009
I guess a lot of it does boil down to that.
If you can actually watch this and actually think Clint sounds mean and comes across like a badass, rather than a ridiculous old Muppet, you are much more likely to earnestly like this movie.
Comment by Goon — January 12, 2009
Having to give a one word, “bad or good” review of the film, I’d say it’s bad. However, the last 40 minutes or so pick up steam and I did like the ending. And I disagree with anyone who says the songs sucks. It was great.
Eastwood pulls off this role alright and I got a real kick out of seeing what happened to Dirty Harry in his old age, because that’s all this is. Which is fine. I had a good time with it.
BUT - the supporting actors in this movie are shit. SHIT. I mean absolutely GOD AWFUL. The teen kid has to be the worst performance of the year. I can’t express how bad it is. The girl isn’t much better and the priest is beyond terrible. I am ASTOUNDED that Eastwood allowed these actors to be cast in his film. They are shit shit SHIT!
Next is the screenplay. I don’t mean the racial slurs, I knew that was coming and as over the top as it is, Eastwood somehow pulls it off without it sounding too hokey. I’ve known some older folk who are a lot like that actually. But the conversations that are had felt like I was watching a morale lesson tale put on by the kids on Sunday afternoon at the local church. I mean the scene where the girls explains what Hmong people are… God it’s eye-rolling. Or when she’s being harassed by the black guys. It looked like a school play.
Still, the ending won me over and I liked the idea of Eastwood sotrt of becoming an unorthodox father to this family (helping the kid get a job and showing him how to talk like a guy were fun sequences).
The kid ruined the movie though. Put an actor in there with just 30% more talent and this movie would be a lot better. Again though, the ending won me over and it went places I wasn’t expecting.
done.
Comment by Andrew James — January 15, 2009
Comment by Jonathan B. — January 16, 2009
Shit, even Burt Reynolds talking about agriculture on his death bed in “Dungeon Seige Tale” was decent acting. Ridiculous and corny, but he sold it for what it was.
This is just unbelievable amounts of crap-tacular-ness.
Comment by Andrew James — January 16, 2009
Scary thought: maybe he did.
there’s a few particular parts of Clint’s performance that I find the most obviously funny and strange. They were growled in such a ‘reading the script’ way that was particularly unnatural
In the truck:
“Huh-mong, I mean “Mong”
and theres a point where he actually fake laughs with a “heh heh heh”
So strange.
Comment by Goon — January 16, 2009
But here’s the thing, despite the shitty (SHITTY!) performances and a mess of a screenplay, I’m liking the movie more that I think about it.
An excerpt of an email I had with a friend today:
** MINOR SPOILERY **
For instance, the only good thing about Gran Torino is the ending. It goes where the audience doesn’t expect and probably to a place they don’t want. That’s good. I want a movie to surprise me (not in a “twist” sort of way, but in a fundamental/human way). If this had been a giant “blockbustery” movie, Eastwood would have gone on a rampage and killed everyone and the story would be over and boring as fuck because we’ve seen that kind of thing a million times. What he does in that movie is so much more heroic and thought provoking on a lot of levels. I’m starting to appreciate the movie more as I think about it solely because of the ending. It is the opposite of pandering.
Comment by Andrew James — January 16, 2009
Anyways, the second they started doing the slow pull out of his jacket again, it was obvious he was going to get blown away.
The whole will read is definitely ‘pandering’ in the classic Halfyard definition. It’s not thought provoking, it’s not heroic, its just a case of writers going “What would Paul Haggis Do?”
Comment by Goon — January 16, 2009
**spoiler**
**spoiler**
“Anyways, the second they started doing the slow pull out of his jacket again, it was obvious he was going to get blown away.” - well yeah. It’s easy to predict something 3 seconds before it happens. You don’t see that coming 3 minutes before it happens.
You see him cleaning his guns and talking about what “needs to be done, etc.” Not to mention the film is titled Gran Torino, I thought that was supposed to be a bad ass title for what Eastwood was going to do while in his car. SO it might be Haggis-esque, but sacrificing yourself send all of these assholes to jail without actually killing anybody is pretty damn heroic (or suicidal) and definitely a direction of the story I didn’t see coming.
Comment by Andrew James — January 17, 2009
I mean exactly, the show working on the guns as blatant misdirection, they have Thao go way over the top banging against that door like a hilarious idiot, and when he does that motion before he’s even blown away I’m thinking of what a stupid script this is that they’re doing the repeat motion from earlier in the film. It’s like when a character gets a piece of advice that keeps coming back, and then they dump it on you at the end as a “SEE THIS WAS IMPORTANT”…
like the 3 musketeers in Slumdog Millionaire
- apparently a book they read to kids in India, and also hard enough to be the final question on Millionaire? Unless that question was rigged to get him to lose? I don’t know, that wasn’t exactly clear there either. Assuming it was rigged he knew 2 of the 3 already, if you were going to rig something there’s a zillion hard questions out there.
So for me it was just a big groaner. You know in Crash when they make you think X person gets killed via slow motion except its person Y and the way its over the top filmed and slowed down is supposed to ‘blow your mind’? He pulled that shit here.
Clint falls into a fucking christ pose. It’s vomit inducing cheese.
Comment by Goon — January 17, 2009
**spoiler**
Maybe throw a tag on the post above too.
…also, there’s the over the top deification of this guy as its happening and afterwards…
You know, maybe if they went a little further trying to make Walt look flawed beyond racial slurs, because really that’s all he has that you’re supposed to get over (unless I guess, you’re religious and need to see that conversion or something). You’re otherwise supposed to think he’s charming, manly, by the end he’s treated as some avatar for an entire American generation who “Kids these days” just don’t respect… the soldier snare drum, he says frigging “Hail mary full of grace” right before he gets blown away, the priest says “I didn’t know anything about life or death until I met Walt!” - I wish I had a screen shot of that christ pose, because it is so apparent, and extended, and the blood dripping down into his palm doesn’t help much either.
It’s not nearly about making peace with the next generation or different races so much as its about him. I think people even praising it for the message are severely misguided.
Only the old white guy can save the Hmong neighborhood from the ’spooks’. Only the white guy can teach the only Hmong kids who aren’t in the gang about life and being a real man. The neighborhood can only get cleaned up because the old white guy has Thao do it to pay off a debt. Only the old white guy can get Thao a job. And after teaching all this shit to Thao, Thao doesn’t even play even a minor role in the final “heroic act”
Am I saying the film is racist? It may look that way, but not really, and at worst I don’t believe it was intentional. If you look at the way Clint’s “black friend” is treated in Million Dollar Bag - like his dog - you could arrive at weird conclusions. I’m just saying that I don’t get how one could get some feeling about generations learning from each other.
I’d say the Hmong people learn and get a lot more out of Walt than Walt does out of them as far as ‘change’ goes. It’s not a proper back and forth. Walt doesn’t really learn anything from his visit to their house other than that he likes “gook food”. And all this after years of racial slurs and disrespect that never actually ends, and this understanding never would have happened if Walt didn’t want to kill the people on his lawn.
The whole thing is pretty fucked up. I don’t get how at any point anyone is actually supposed to grow to like Walt in any way shape or form, other than the built in love people have for Clint, or using this character as an avatar for their beloved old bigot grampa who they know is good deep down in side. The movie is ridiculous.
Comment by Goon — January 17, 2009
Comment by Goon — January 17, 2009
Opinions are like asses, we all have one, they are all divided, and some of them smell.
Comment by Kowalski — February 23, 2009
Comment by Kurt Halfyard — February 23, 2009
Never enough.
Comment by Goon — February 23, 2009
On the other hand, he might be like my autistic nephew. He goes on and on about how bad Springsteen is, this is mostly to try to piss people off. But he was first in line when the tickets to his concert were released. Maybe this goon guy is like him, who knows..
Comment by Kowalski — February 23, 2009
It’s funny how some people just intuitively don’t get the point of a site like this.
Comment by Rusty James — February 23, 2009
Comment by Kurt Halfyard — February 23, 2009
On this board at least we don’t worry about being swamped with arguments, we unleash praise or hell on anything we watch, so long as we have something to say. It’s one of the best ways to truly excerise not only your debating skills, but how you came to like or dislike a piece of art, and why you let certain things pass in one film that you wouldn’t let in another.
You act as if I would go on and on about ANY movie I disliked. Nope. Gran Torino gets the essay treatment because while I think its a failure, its still very very interesting and has a lot to discuss - and the fact that there are defenders of it makes an actual debate. If everyone agreed there’d be no content.
But if its more interesting to you to compare people who disagree with you to an autistic child than actually chime in at length about the film, well… fuck off? We tease the shit out of each other on this forum, sometimes even go too far, but you don’t get away with just walking in, making fun of the other guy, and taking off.
Comment by Goon — February 23, 2009
And don’t get him started on democratic societies. You don’t want to go there.
Comment by Rusty James — February 23, 2009
Btw, No Country For Old Men was a total piece of shit.
Comment by Cpt. Ahab — February 23, 2009
That said I have not seen Gran Torino, so in this case I have no opinion.
Comment by rot — February 23, 2009
really, i take it as this: it does what Crash does, except with more humor, a more interesting character than any that are in Crash, and it doesn’t take itself nearly as serious.
is the acting bad? well yeah. from everyone but Clint, although not nearly as bad as some of you suggest. that is the chance you take working with unknowns, i guess. sometimes it works (Slumdog) sometimes it does not (this).
for me, it worked. for goon, who i admit, is overreacting or just plain nuts for having such strong feelings… thinking less of Clint as an actor? pretty silly, and some others, it did not work.
to me, it doesn’t matter that it was predictable. we knew where it was going, but they weren’t trying to conceal it. it wasn’t about the boy. it wasn’t about the hmong’s. it was about a man’s redemption.
not sure what kowalski is getting mad about though. isn’t that the point of a discussion based site? it’d be boring if we all thought the same thing about this movie.
Comment by ralph — February 24, 2009