Invictus

So what is this one about?
Welp, the 'flix tells us

In this sports drama based on real-life events, director Clint Eastwood tells the story of what happened after the end of apartheid when newly elected president Nelson Mandela used the 1995 World Cup rugby matches to unite his people in South Africa. Based on John Carlin's book, the film stars Morgan Freeman as Mandela and Matt Damon as Francois Pienaar, the captain of the scrappy South African team that makes a run for the championship.

Additionally, the 'flix subtitles this film as "The Human Factor." Odd.

And how much did I pay to watch?
$14.25 (YIKES) in the director's hall. And that was after we had a delicious dinner and I spent like another $30. I'm spendin' it like I've got it friends!

And what did I think?
OK. So here is the thing--and if you've been here for awhile none of this will come as a surprise to you--I love two things about this movie very much: 1) Clint Eastwood (even though he didn't grace us with his on-screen presence) and 2) South African accents. Especially the South African accents.

The story itself was somewhat trite. Not really that surprising. However, I can't call it trite because it is an actual true story. But, it is pretty much exactly what you would expect. You have a country that has been suffering under apartheid-- well, you've only been suffering if you are black; with a new black president--who the white South Africans don't like--who is about to change the entire country, a shitty Rugby team that no one likes, and the 1995 World Cup of Rugby.

Hmm, in the Hollywood movie scripting of the universe lets think about how this will go...
1) the country will unite under the president--but only after some infighting among the blacks and whites
2) the team will get better and qualify for the World Cup
3) the country will unite in favor of the rugby team
4) the team will win the world cup

And I am not even giving anything away, because I am just telling you what the Hollywood formula would be.

There was a really, really good line from Nelson Mandela in the movie though, something about forgiveness (which is super important to me) but I wasn't able to remember it or find it. I didn't write it down right away. BIG mistake.

So what is the rating? (out of 10)
I am disappointed in you Clint Eastwood--you and your old hotness--and how not innovative this movie was in either story or direction. I mean, it was ok and all, but it wasn't that new or innovative or creative or anything. Personally, it wasn't even that emotionally affecting, which is what I think he was going for. But those twit-boxes at the academy will love it. Instead of Mr. Eastwood winning for Gran Torino (which he should have) he might actually win for this. The academy is SOOOO predictable. *lesigh*

It does get a 6 though. Why? Because you know it gets an extra point for the South African accents ;)

Play Misty for Me

So what is this one about?

The beloved Netflix* tells us,

Silver-tongued radio disc jockey Dave (Clint Eastwood) can't help but notice the persistent calls from a female to "play 'Misty' for me." But when a chance meeting with infatuated fan Evelyn leads to a brief and steamy love affair, Dave quickly learns he's in for more than a little night music. Evelyn will stop at nothing -- even the return of one of Dave's old flames -- to have him all to herself. The film marks Eastwood's directorial debut.

Sweet, ain’t nothing I love more than one of those woman scorned/stalker psycho movies! (see Fatal Attraction, Swim Fan—especially good, The Crush, etc. And don’t forget that bizarre variant, the man scorned/ stalker psycho, see Fear)

*did you know that Microsoft Word recognizes Netflix as a proper noun and capitalizes it? Well it does!!

And how much did I pay to watch?

Gah! I think when I watched this I was also watching In Treatment, so maybe less because there was some serious disc shuffling. But, maybe I paid $16.99 (per month) Who knows?

And what did I think?

Well, if you didn’t know (I don’t know how that would be possible) I love Gran Torino. Kudos to Clint and all his amazingness! Then I watched The Changeling, which was also another awesome Clint movie. After that I decided to add a ton of Eastwood movies to my Netflix queue. This was one of them, I thought it sounded the most fun. Plus, it wasn’t a western, and it was his directorial debut. Well, let me tell you two things.

1) Clint Eastwood was a serious hottie when he was younger.

2) His directing skillz have VASTLY improved since his first days. And thank heavens for that!!

Play Misty for Me was so ridiculous I couldn’t believe it at times. It is funny when I watch a movie alone (which is where I watch most of them…you know, so I don’t get distracted by outside stimuli) and I laugh out loud at parts that aren’t even supposed to be funny.

I truly don’t know what Clint was thinking with this one. There is a lot of potential with the story—as we’ve seen in other movies—and the acting wasn’t horrible… Clint was good, the person who played crazy Evelyn was goodish, and the person who played his girlfriend was a little/lot annoying. But, the actual direction of visual shots and the addition of music was so irritating there were multiple times I almost (or did I?) fast forwarded through the visual/audio vomit I was experiencing.

What is that you’re saying? You don’t understand what I’m talking about since you haven’t seen this movie? I will give you an example, taken straight from Wikipedia. “The film features a romantic montage backed by Roberta Flack's recording of "The First Time Ever I Saw Your Face."” And when you follow that link over to the song wikipage you learn that the flipping song is 5:22 long. JESUS. Is that really necessary?? A five minute+ long montage where two characters are making out/doing it in the forest? I will answer for you. The answer is NO. Never is that sort of thing ok. Well, maybe in a porno, but that would be a different blog all together.

Another example? Sure. Wikipedia says “It is also notable for its use of location shooting, mostly in the area of Carmel-by-the-Sea, California, where Eastwood has long made his home, and where he was elected Mayor in 1986. Additional scenes were shot at the Monterey Jazz Festival in September 1970, featuring jazz greats Johnny Otis, Cannonball Adderley, and future Weather Report founder Joe Zawinul.” All those location shots were overly long and romantical. Soft focus and all that shit. And good god, if there is one thing I hate in movies (even in movies I like, like the Sound of Music) it is flipping soft focus!! So, add up the overly long shots of boring scenery that adds nothing to the plot and the ridiculous use of crappy music and you’ve got a movie that Julia did not like!

So what is the rating? (out of 10)

Even Clint couldn’t save this silly movie from ending up in the bottom part of my scale. I will give it a 4, because even though it wasn’t even passable as a halfway movie, it did have Clint.

I swear. *shakes head*

Changeling

So what is this one about?
Well, Netflix tells us

Christine Collins (Angelina Jolie, in an Oscar-nominated role) is overjoyed when her young kidnapped son Walter is brought back home. But when Christine suspects that the Walter who was returned to her isn't her actual child, the police captain (Jeffrey Donovan) has her committed to an asylum. John Malkovich co-stars as the crusading reverend who comes to Christine's rescue in this gripping, 1920s-set drama helmed by ace director Clint Eastwood.

And how much did I pay to watch?
Probably around $4. I guess it is still less than the $4.99 that I would have paid if I had watched it "on demand"...but still it is much more than it should be with my netflix love.

And what did I think?
Well, my love for Clint Eastwood has grown out of control (just like kudzu...). This movie looked exactly like something he would direct. It had this beautiful clear, yet smoky grey quality. It was slow and deliberate. He is an AMAZING filmmaker. In fact, I have added so many Eastwood directed films to my queue, so if there are a lot of his movies in the coming soon section, that is why.

So, what did I think? Well, when I saw the preview for this movie I thought it looked really interesting, because did her boy actually change, or was it not her son at all? I wont really give it away, I suppose, but it was rather unexpected. This movie even brought in my interest in both true crime stories and Canada! Joy! Oh yeah, and citizen activism...take that Los Angeles County!!

The costumes were amazing. I read on wikipedia (maybe) that Eastwood wanted to cast Jolie because he thought her looks fit the time period. Let me tell you, as someone interested in both decorative arts and costume/historical fashion the casting of Jolie as a woman of the late 1920s was absolutely spot on. She is the CLASSIC 1920s-1930s model type. She was a bit more glamourous than the normal woman in that time period, but I suppose Angelina Jolie has a hard time not being glam.

Eastwood even composed the music! What can that guy not do?! I will tell you what he can't do, he cant seem to get an oscar nomination for the amazing recent movies he is made. That is a flipping tragic injustice! Also, across the board, the acting was amazing. Jolie, Malcovich, Harner, and even Amy Ryan. They were all so nuanced and perfect. So subtle and powerful without being at all cartoonish. Fantastic!!

So what is the rating? (out of 10)
Changeling is pretty amazing. It is just perfectly spot on and I assign most of that to Eastwood and his incredible attention to detail and perfect astehtic eye. I give it a 9.