Rating: 
Summary: remake of CALL NORTHSIDE 777 (1948)
Review: I agree with all of the criticisms, especially of Clint Eastwood's appearance (get a new hair & makeup man, Clint, or at least look in a mirror), especially since he looked just right, & his romance was believeable in: IN THE LINE OF FIRE.But this movie is a lot of fun, and compelling, too-the journalists are overpaid crumbs, but they always are. Ditto the law enforcement establishment. But the on-scene crime investigation he does, the bits and pieces he fits together are just as thrilling, and even more compelling, than what Jimmy Stewart did in the same role in CALL NORTHSIDE 777.All these things are so well done, and the prisoner and his family so unique and real, that you wonder if the rest of the film is a mess, or just a comment on the reporter (Clint Eastwood's) messed up life. In contrast, the death row prisoner has his life in order and is a clear, compelling personality, a worthy successor to Richard Conte's portrayal of the lifer in CALL NORTHSIDE 777. In the 1948 film, Jimmy Stewart seemed to have it made in a comfy marriage to a lovely woman, so maybe Clint Eastwood's fractured life just reflects present-day realities. But the fascinating thing in both films is how the freewheeling reporter characters bounce their egos off the helpless convicts', and seem to have met their match in courage and screen charisma.
Rating:
Summary: a remake of CALL NORTHSIDE 777 (1948)
Review: I agree with all of the criticisms, especially of Clint Eastwood's appearance (get a new hair & makeupman, Clint, or at least look in a mirror), especially since he looked just right, & his romance was believeable in: IN THE LINE OF FIRE.But this movie is a lot of fun, and compelling, too-the journalists are overpaid crumbs, but they always are. Ditto the law enforcement establishment. But the on-scene crime investigation he does, the bits and pieces he fits together are just as thrilling, and even more compelling, than what Jimmy Stewart did in the same role in CALL NORTHSIDE 777.All these things are so well done, and the prisoner and his family so unique and real, that you wonder if the rest of the film is a mess, or just a comment on the reporter (Clint Eastwood's) messed up life. In contrast, the death row prisoner has his life in order and is a clear, compelling personality, a worthy successor to Richard Conte's portrayal of the lifer in CALL NORTHSIDE 777. In the 1948 film, Jimmy Stewart seemed to have it made in a comfy marriage to a lovely woman, so maybe Clint Eastwood's fractured life just reflects present-day realities. But the fascinating thing in both films is how the freewheeling reporter characters bounce their egos off the helpless convict's, and seem to have met their match in courage and screen charisma.
Rating:
Summary: great flic to own
Review: I agree with reveiwer Dan40 about the two best scenes of the film. I was going to mention the Eastwood/Wood battle of the wits as MY favorite. I haven't seen comedic timing like that in a long time. I laughed for a half an hour...one joke being added to my own "repetoir". Overall, it was well acted and suspenseful enough to keep you watching from start to finish with no "potty breaks", and it was nice to see that the good guy sometimes does win (this isn't necessarily in reference only to the man on death row either). The cast is great and Eastwood did a good job directing it , in my opinion. Don't skip over it like I nearly did because of box office feedback.
Rating: 
Summary: Great Movie
Review: I first saw this movie on tv so it was cut and edited, but I enjoyed it so much that i decided to rent it on DVD. It was great on DVD with all the extra stuff to do, and the movie just explodes with action and suspence. The movie is about an undercover agent. I wish I could tell you more but Iam in a hurry. So...I recommend this movie to all thoes who like goverment type movies with cops and seceret agents and stuff like that.
Rating:
Summary: Just relax and let yourself be caught up in the story
Review: I like Clint Eastwood, and wanted to see this video even though the reviews had been lukewarm at best. However, I found myself relaxing and getting into the story although the suspense was non-existent, the story full of cliches, and the casting weak. Eastwood plays a reporter who saves a black inmate (Isiah Washington) from death row. From the beginning the inmate is portrayed in a sympathetic fashion, as is his wife (Lisa Gay Hamilton) and young daughter visit him on the day of the execution. There are a lot of interesting details about how an execution is carried out and the warden as well as the prison guards are portrayed as real human beings with internal conflicts of their own.Eastwood was born in 1930, but this role as a womanizing reporter who beds young women should have been played by a younger man. James Woods is the newspaper editor and the two of them exchange bawdy one-liners that seem more suited to adolescents than to grown men. There are a few scenes where Eastwood takes his young daughter to the zoo. She's about 5 years old, and I remember thinking that he is much to old to play the father. However, I later found out that the little girl cast in the role actually is his real-life daughter. But real life does not equal a good movie. In spite of these many faults I liked the movie. Why? Maybe because I always yearned to be a journalist myself. Maybe because I like Eastwood's strong presence, although I do not now nor did I ever find him sexy. Maybe, because in spite of the lack of suspense, I found the tempo and cadence of the film relaxing. There are a lot of reasons to watch a video. One is to leave the world behind for a little while and let yourself get caught up in a story. This is a story that's been told before. And will be told again. It is the story of the underdog (the reporter) whose life is a mess, and through this good deed, redeems himself and achieves reward and recognition. I recommend this film for what it is and not what the critics would like it to be.
Rating:
Summary: I liked it
Review: I liked it for reasons others might not: The characters were monumentally flawed, except perhaps for Eastwood's wife. And it was refreshing to see overpaid movie actors not playing the perfect people they usually insist on playing (William Goldman, the screenwriter, says he has to write novels, because just writing screenplays means writing only perfect people, and gets tiresome). Regarding the comment about Eastwood in bed with the thirty-ish woman: the woman looked pretty beat up to me, too, and possibly forty-ish. But Eastwood should have kept his shirt on. He lifts weights, and has muscle bulk, but the skin on his torso looks too old to show off. But I'd rather see Clint Eastwood with his shirt off, than Marlon Brando with his! Anyway, Eastwood plays a guy who is really a jerk (like in the "speed zoo" scene) a lot of the time, and I found that interesting. Personally, I think Eastwood is a sloppy director. His movies he's directed have a clunky feel, and this one had that too, but not so much that good aspects of his direction weren't evident. (His sloppiest direction effort was the pathetically clunky one he did two pictures ago, where Gene Hackman plays the President, and whose title escapes me). Logic was stretched in this film, but it was believable enough for me.
Rating:
Summary: Eastwood still good
Review: I think that this film demonstrates Clint Eastwood's continued improvements as a director well. Of his latest efforts it is one of my favourites. The cast are great (James Woods and Isaiah Washington shine), and Eastwood himself is particularly good when acting against them (I think acting with good actors always brings Clint's performances up several levels). The DVD has some decent extras, but the film is the reason for watching it. Overall a good story, very well directed and acted.
Rating: 
Summary: Awful!
Review: I was astounded that a major studio/star cast could make such a worthless film. The plot is as old as the hills: innocent man wrongfully convicted of murder awaits excecution on death row - innocent man is saved at the last minute by the good guy(s). This movie gives you cheating wives, cheating husbands, irresponsible fathers, paper thin plot, superficial characters, and boring dialog. I totally lost my respect for Clint Eastwood after viewing this - and "Unforgiven" is one of my all time favorite films! How can a person be so inconsistent? (I think I know the answer; it's called "a slump.")
Rating:
Summary: Awful!
Review: I was astounded that a major studio/star cast could make such a worthless film. The plot is as old as the hills: innocent man wrongfully convicted of murder awaits excecution on death row - innocent man is saved at the last minute by the good guy(s). This movie gives you cheating wives, cheating husbands, irresponsible fathers, paper thin plot, superficial characters, and boring dialog. I totally lost my respect for Clint Eastwood after viewing this - and "Unforgiven" is one of my all time favorite films! How can a person be so inconsistent? (I think I know the answer; it's called "a slump.")
Rating: 
Summary: Clint Not Hot at 80, But Still a Must-See
Review: I watched this movie this afternoon, catching it after finding Eastwood shirtless in the sack with the woman with whom he was sleeping. I have never found him attractive, so I was about to change the channel when I saw Denis Leary. I love him! Then I saw James Woods, whom I love for the same reasons. In the end, I am thrilled I didn't change the channel, because this is hands-down the best movie I've seen all year. I cried more than I did in "The Green Mile" & "My Dog Skip"! I will say this: as the postergirl for Christian Republican women, I will point out that every time I see one of these capital punishment movies, I believe in it less & less . . . Great movie!
|
