Rating of
3/4
A Solid Movie, But Eastwood Doesn't Change
Alex - wrote on 11/16/08
The story itself is pretty good. Since it is a true story and is based in one of my favorites Cities, L.A. it lends quite a bit of credibility. I like Clint Eastwood sometimes but I don't think he has made a good movie since Mystic River - which may be hist best movie.
The acting is solid for the most part. Angelina Jolie over acts a couple of times but she reminds me of Linda Hamilton in T2 through out the movie. My only complaint is the acting of some of the children - specifically the child who escapes...from a certain area. I won't name names as it will reuin the story.
Overall this movie is very good. But, like "Things We Lost in the Fire" I don't know what its re-watch value is. The one advantage that it does have over Things We Lost in the Fire is that Eastwood is much more artistic and does a better job bringing interest to an average story line. Still, I think th re-watch value is very low. Which brings me to my next point.
Eastwood is a good director but I would never call him great. He has some great cinematography at times. He does a great job of depicting the era in this film. Very grainy, very blue and great depression era looking. He also uses long fades between scenes (which were also present during the times). For that I commend him. But it always seems (with maybe the exception of Mystic River) that he just doesn't quite have it like Coppola once did, or Scorsese almost always does. I guess I can tell him to keep trying, but I am not sure if he will ever directs a movie that makes it into my top 100.
Maybe he should try a western again?
