Changeling review (eastwood's new movie)
11-01-08 | 02:48 PM
#1
Thread Starter
DVD Talk Special Edition
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 1,923
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Changeling review (eastwood's new movie)
I caught this during the weekend. I was wondering how Eastwood would follow up on his ambitious Iwo Jima two film project, I thought Changeling would be a step back from that scope, but in fact it is an extension of that ambition, in a seemingly smaller story.
I walked out of it feeling kind of meh, but lots of scenes stuck with me, now I am much more enthusiastic. I think it represents the best and worst of his directorial renaissance. The script has a lot of Paul Haggis-esque stupidity, such as the cliche mental asylum sequences, bad callbacks and frequent crowd pleasing pay-offs at the expense of all subtlety. I would be surprised if he didn't do an uncredited re-write.
The best scenes for me were the first few, with just Angelina and her son, when the scope expands, it gets a little lost. There are several scenes I am surprised an editor didn't point out, that they were completely unnecessary... the pace is poor. Wikipedia said Clint Eastwood shot the first draft, and it shows.
As I said it represents the worst and best of Eastwood's talent, the performances are all great, it is beautifully made, and there are a lot of bold, striking and surprising sequences. It is the failure of a very solid artist and shows Clint Eastwood is still a major force. It got better reviews in Cannes, where it lost the palm d'or by only 3 votes, I can see both sides. Though I doubt it will achieve best picture or director nomination, it will probably end up in the top ten of the year for me.
I walked out of it feeling kind of meh, but lots of scenes stuck with me, now I am much more enthusiastic. I think it represents the best and worst of his directorial renaissance. The script has a lot of Paul Haggis-esque stupidity, such as the cliche mental asylum sequences, bad callbacks and frequent crowd pleasing pay-offs at the expense of all subtlety. I would be surprised if he didn't do an uncredited re-write.
The best scenes for me were the first few, with just Angelina and her son, when the scope expands, it gets a little lost. There are several scenes I am surprised an editor didn't point out, that they were completely unnecessary... the pace is poor. Wikipedia said Clint Eastwood shot the first draft, and it shows.
As I said it represents the worst and best of Eastwood's talent, the performances are all great, it is beautifully made, and there are a lot of bold, striking and surprising sequences. It is the failure of a very solid artist and shows Clint Eastwood is still a major force. It got better reviews in Cannes, where it lost the palm d'or by only 3 votes, I can see both sides. Though I doubt it will achieve best picture or director nomination, it will probably end up in the top ten of the year for me.
Last edited by CloverClover; 11-01-08 at 02:54 PM.
11-01-08 | 05:30 PM
#2
Member
Joined: Aug 2008
Posts: 59
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I caught this during the weekend. I was wondering how Eastwood would follow up on his ambitious Iwo Jima two film project, I thought Changeling would be a step back from that scope, but in fact it is an extension of that ambition, in a seemingly smaller story.
I walked out of it feeling kind of meh, but lots of scenes stuck with me, now I am much more enthusiastic. I think it represents the best and worst of his directorial renaissance. The script has a lot of Paul Haggis-esque stupidity, such as the cliche mental asylum sequences, bad callbacks and frequent crowd pleasing pay-offs at the expense of all subtlety. I would be surprised if he didn't do an uncredited re-write.
The best scenes for me were the first few, with just Angelina and her son, when the scope expands, it gets a little lost. There are several scenes I am surprised an editor didn't point out, that they were completely unnecessary... the pace is poor. Wikipedia said Clint Eastwood shot the first draft, and it shows.
As I said it represents the worst and best of Eastwood's talent, the performances are all great, it is beautifully made, and there are a lot of bold, striking and surprising sequences. It is the failure of a very solid artist and shows Clint Eastwood is still a major force. It got better reviews in Cannes, where it lost the palm d'or by only 3 votes, I can see both sides. Though I doubt it will achieve best picture or director nomination, it will probably end up in the top ten of the year for me.
I walked out of it feeling kind of meh, but lots of scenes stuck with me, now I am much more enthusiastic. I think it represents the best and worst of his directorial renaissance. The script has a lot of Paul Haggis-esque stupidity, such as the cliche mental asylum sequences, bad callbacks and frequent crowd pleasing pay-offs at the expense of all subtlety. I would be surprised if he didn't do an uncredited re-write.
The best scenes for me were the first few, with just Angelina and her son, when the scope expands, it gets a little lost. There are several scenes I am surprised an editor didn't point out, that they were completely unnecessary... the pace is poor. Wikipedia said Clint Eastwood shot the first draft, and it shows.
As I said it represents the worst and best of Eastwood's talent, the performances are all great, it is beautifully made, and there are a lot of bold, striking and surprising sequences. It is the failure of a very solid artist and shows Clint Eastwood is still a major force. It got better reviews in Cannes, where it lost the palm d'or by only 3 votes, I can see both sides. Though I doubt it will achieve best picture or director nomination, it will probably end up in the top ten of the year for me.
