|
Post by Nora on Dec 27, 2019 20:52:17 GMT
Really good movie, highly recommend it Should be in the Oscar race.
Go see. Clint did well again.
8/10 from me.
|
|
|
Post by Nora on Dec 27, 2019 21:07:34 GMT
amazing performances in the movie. should overhaul Irishman and Once Upon a time easy (but wont :-(()
Clint is the man.
|
|
|
Post by politicidal on Dec 27, 2019 23:41:38 GMT
I agree. Much better than anticipated.
|
|
|
Post by movielover on Dec 27, 2019 23:48:28 GMT
Just watched it today. I enjoyed it as well.
|
|
|
Post by joekiddlouischama on Dec 28, 2019 9:15:36 GMT
I viewed Richard Jewell on the Saturday of its opening weekend, and I found it "great" as well. It is the most absorbing movie that I have seen among 2019 releases, and the performances—especially from Paul Walter Hauser (as Jewell) and Sam Rockwell—are exceptional. If Hauser and Rockwell do not receive Best Actor and Best Supporting Actor Oscar nominations for their flawless, nuanced performances, that result would be a shame. Clint Eastwood directs the film simply, intimately, and unpretentiously, seamlessly weaving humor into a darkly ironic story. I noted in the thread about Dark Waters that one of the strengths of that movie was how it largely avoided conventional Hollywood melodrama and theatrics, suffering only the slight and rare lapse in that regard (for instance, a shot with a should-be horizontal image that is tilted vertically in a gratuitous attempt to convey disillusion). In Richard Jewell, there are no lapses. The film represents one of the most fatalistic stories in recent American history, a bittersweet mix of heroism and tragedy, friendship and false presumption.
Above all, Richard Jewell is a character study and a study in the dangers of profiling. Eastwood has tackled the latter subject before, in the underrated 1999 film True Crime. In that one, the victim of profiling was a black man, played by Isaiah Washington, with a checkered past. Assuming that he was the killer, based on a cursory look at his profile and some circumstantial evidence, proved all too easy, all too glib. In Richard Jewell, conversely, the victim of profiling is a white man. Assuming that Jewell was the bomber, based on some aspects of his profile, proved all too easy, all too glib, given some of his quirks and past missteps. And of course, that is exactly what the FBI investigators and certain media outlets did back in 1996. There is, in Richard Jewell, a certain cry for dignity, but it comes from a soft-spoken and overweight man reluctant to speak up for himself. To those profiling him, that reluctance made him seem all the more guilty.
Here, Eastwood paints in eloquent, minimalist strokes, allowing knowing looks and simple dialogue to reverberate deeply. That is never more so than in the coda of Richard Jewell, which is quietly resonant and beautiful. As a director, Eastwood has long excelled at codas, dating back to his directorial Westerns from the 1970s, High Plains Drifter (1973) and The Outlaw Josey Wales (1976). Richard Jewell is one of his best in that regard, with the laconic, understated, mutually respectful exchange between Hauser and Rockwell perhaps vaguely reminiscent of that between Eastwood and John Vernon at the close of Josey Wales. In short, the coda 'clinches' the overall film.
I plan to see it again this weekend.
(And regarding the subject of profiling, there is actually a deeper connection to Eastwood's cinematic past. In his first American movie as a star, Hang 'Em High [Ted Post, 1968], he played a cowboy falsely accused and lynched by a vigilante mob.)
|
|
|
Post by mecano04 on Dec 28, 2019 13:56:12 GMT
While quite "simple" and straightforward it is quite interesting.
I can see Oscar nominations for Hauser and Rockwell.
One of the best movie I've seen recently.
|
|
|
Post by Nora on Dec 28, 2019 15:37:46 GMT
While quite "simple" and straightforward it is quite interesting. I can see Oscar nominations for Hauser and Rockwell. One of the best movie I've seen recently. I acually really enjoyed the simplicity of it. A great Class on filmmakig on its own.
|
|
|
Post by mecano04 on Dec 29, 2019 2:32:53 GMT
While quite "simple" and straightforward it is quite interesting. I can see Oscar nominations for Hauser and Rockwell. One of the best movie I've seen recently. I acually really enjoyed the simplicity of it. A great Class on filmmakig on its own. I'm not saying it's a bad thing just that personally it took me off guard a bit.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 29, 2019 12:59:14 GMT
What do you get when you try to make a srs movie out of Mall Cop? You get the Atlanta bombong!. But in all srsness what was up with those FBI? It seemed like they got bit by a special zombie that causes a desire to frame innocent people in the most idiotic ways possible, like on the level of "let's wait until the guy's lawyer has left the room so we can try to trick him with donuts" absurdity. Maybe they can take a tip from the democratic party impeachment playbook!
Nice movie overall. The crying bit at the end materialized the whole film for me.
|
|
|
Post by joekiddlouischama on Jan 1, 2020 10:13:31 GMT
What do you get when you try to make a srs movie out of Mall Cop? You get the Atlanta bombong!. But in all srsness what was up with those FBI? It seemed like they got bit by a special zombie that causes a desire to frame innocent people in the most idiotic ways possible, like on the level of "let's wait until the guy's lawyer has left the room so we can try to trick him with donuts" absurdity. Maybe they can take a tip from the democratic party impeachment playbook! Nice movie overall. The crying bit at the end materialized the whole film for me. As dubious as some of the bureau's conduct may have been, the FBI was not attempting to "frame" Jewell. Nor is there any parallel between this film and what is occurring today; as Watson Bryant states in the movie, the FBI could bug Jewell's apartment and conduct such an invasive investigation "because people like you don't matter." It is the powerless who suffer from profiling, not the powerful. Indeed, consider the fate of O.J. Simpson (a book about whom is mentioned in the movie) versus that of the average black man facing a similar predicament. I agree with your point about Jewell shedding tears. His vulnerability and melancholic catharsis, along with Bryant's response, is quite affecting.
|
|
|
Post by joekiddlouischama on Jan 1, 2020 10:33:08 GMT
While quite "simple" and straightforward it is quite interesting. I can see Oscar nominations for Hauser and Rockwell. One of the best movie I've seen recently. I acually really enjoyed the simplicity of it. A great Class on filmmakig on its own. Having viewed Richard Jewell again, there is a "classic" or "classical" quality to it. Some shots are stylish, but the stylishness is subtle and brief: an early closeup of the video game gun, wielded by Jewell, surrounded by darkness and pointed toward the camera; in the following scene, a quick subjective tracking shot around a corner, from Jewell's point of view, toward the desk where Watson Bryant is working—darkness illuminated by a desk lamp with a glowing green cover; much later, a short exterior shot of Jewell's mother, played by Kathy Bates, peering between blinds in an image that is quite haunting; later still, after Jewell and Bryant depart the FBI's formal interview, a lingering closeup of the bureau's seal, which Jewell has just discussed. Speaking of Bates, she too is excellent, and I am not sure that there is a film from 2019 that features a pair of performances as stellar as Hauser and Rockwell. Perhaps DiCaprio and Pitt in Once Upon a Time... in Hollywood would be in the discussion, albeit in a very different mode of performance for a very different style of movie. And then there would be DeNiro and Pacino (or Pesci) in The Irishman, along with the satirical Pattinson and Dafoe in The Lighthouse, but for naturalism and nuance, I would have to go with Hauser and Rockwell. Overall, Richard Jewell can bring a smile to one's face and a tear to one's eye almost simultaneously, and that feat is not easy to achieve.
|
|
|
Post by joekiddlouischama on Jan 1, 2020 10:42:53 GMT
On another note, I noticed a quick clip of a Jimmy Stewart movie (in color) on the television in Jewell's apartment at one point. Can anyone identify the movie? (I am not referring to Sands of Iwo Jima, starring John Wayne, which receives extended airtime on the same television later. The closing credits cite Sands of Iwo Jima, but not the Stewart film.)
Upon my second viewing, I also noticed from the closing credits that the Kenny Rogers performer is not actually Kenny Rogers, but a Rogers lookalike. You could have fooled me ...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 1, 2020 12:23:35 GMT
What do you get when you try to make a srs movie out of Mall Cop? You get the Atlanta bombong!. But in all srsness what was up with those FBI? It seemed like they got bit by a special zombie that causes a desire to frame innocent people in the most idiotic ways possible, like on the level of "let's wait until the guy's lawyer has left the room so we can try to trick him with donuts" absurdity. Maybe they can take a tip from the democratic party impeachment playbook! Nice movie overall. The crying bit at the end materialized the whole film for me. As dubious as some of the bureau's conduct may have been, the FBI was not attempting to "frame" Jewell. Nor is there any parallel between this film and what is occurring today; as Watson Bryant states in the movie, the FBI could bug Jewell's apartment and conduct such an invasive investigation "because people like you don't matter." It is the powerless who suffer from profiling, not the powerful. Indeed, consider the fate of O.J. Simpson (a book about whom is mentioned in the movie) versus that of the average black man facing a similar predicament. I agree with your point about Jewell shedding tears. His vulnerability and melancholic catharsis, along with Bryant's response, is quite affecting. what were they doing then? They made him record his voice saying theres a bomb in centennial park.
|
|
|
Post by Nora on Jan 1, 2020 16:22:52 GMT
As dubious as some of the bureau's conduct may have been, the FBI was not attempting to "frame" Jewell. Nor is there any parallel between this film and what is occurring today; as Watson Bryant states in the movie, the FBI could bug Jewell's apartment and conduct such an invasive investigation "because people like you don't matter." It is the powerless who suffer from profiling, not the powerful. Indeed, consider the fate of O.J. Simpson (a book about whom is mentioned in the movie) versus that of the average black man facing a similar predicament. I agree with your point about Jewell shedding tears. His vulnerability and melancholic catharsis, along with Bryant's response, is quite affecting. what were they doing then? They made him record his voice saying theres a bomb in centennial park. you can do that as a part of the investigation for voice analysis however the problem was he didnt have his lawyer present.
|
|
|
Post by DC-Fan on Jan 1, 2020 17:26:43 GMT
what were they doing then? They made him record his voice saying theres a bomb in centennial park. you can do that as a part of the investigation for voice analysis however the problem was he didnt have his lawyer present. Because no competent lawyer would've allowed their client to do that. It would be so easy to have a "mixup" in the original tapes and somehow Jewell's recording ends up being labeled as the original tape and then the FBI could claim the voices matched.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 1, 2020 18:45:42 GMT
what were they doing then? They made him record his voice saying theres a bomb in centennial park. you can do that as a part of the investigation for voice analysis however the problem was he didnt have his lawyer present. well he was a prime suspect. So then am I mistaken in thinking FBI was being weird or was it actually Jewells lawyer being weird?
|
|
|
Post by Nora on Jan 1, 2020 18:47:41 GMT
you can do that as a part of the investigation for voice analysis however the problem was he didnt have his lawyer present. well he was a prime suspect. So then am I mistaken in thinking FBI was being weird or was it actually Jewells lawyer being weird? the FBI was being weird the lawyer had the full right of being there to oversee what evidence they were collecting and how. The FBI lnew he wouldnt likely allow it or not under these conditions so they tried to get it this way which if used would probably be inadmissible anyway.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 1, 2020 18:52:53 GMT
well he was a prime suspect. So then am I mistaken in thinking FBI was being weird or was it actually Jewells lawyer being weird? the FBI was being weird the lawyer had the full right of being there to oversee what evidence they were collecting and how. The FBI lnew he wouldnt likely allow it or not under these conditions so they tried to get it this way which if used would probably be inadmissible anyway. mkay so maybe there was some credence to their actions. I'm not sure if I should feel like an ass for thinking the FBI were being asses.
|
|
|
Post by Nora on Jan 1, 2020 19:22:18 GMT
the FBI was being weird the lawyer had the full right of being there to oversee what evidence they were collecting and how. The FBI lnew he wouldnt likely allow it or not under these conditions so they tried to get it this way which if used would probably be inadmissible anyway. mkay so maybe there was some credence to their actions. I'm not sure if I should feel like an ass for thinking the FBI were being asses. but they were, at least at the part when they wante him to waive his rights o councel and god knows what else they wanted him to sign was entrapment and also wouldlnt likely hold in court IF it was examined/attacked properly. plus they were pushing it too much, not primarily conducting a objective/ legitimate investigation.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 1, 2020 21:43:49 GMT
mkay so maybe there was some credence to their actions. I'm not sure if I should feel like an ass for thinking the FBI were being asses. but they were, at least at the part when they wante him to waive his rights o councel and god knows what else they wanted him to sign was entrapment and also wouldlnt likely hold in court IF it was examined/attacked properly. plus they were pushing it too much, not primarily conducting a objective/ legitimate investigation. yeah but there was just a bombing. It could gave been an act of terrorism. Actually it was an act of terrorism. Sometimes whole wars start from thing like this, see 9/11 and iraq war. So it might have been expeditious to get the much evidence from Jewell as possible given the opportunity.
|
|