ClintEastwood Tagged Articles at Cinematical

I think the mania for Sergio Leone is stronger than it's ever been. It's undoubtedly due to the championing of Quentin Tarantino, and films like Sukiyaki Western Django and The Good, the Bad and the Weird, which are driving fans to seek out where they borrowed their serapes and squints from. There also seems to simply be a hunger for good adventure stories and rugged antiheroes, and there's no better place to get sated than Leone's films. If you feel like spending two hours in the broiling sun with a man who'll shoot you as soon as look at you, then you'll love today's free flick: For A Few Dollars More.

For A Few Dollars More might be my favorite of the Dollars Trilogy. I love them all on their own merits, but this installment stands on its own (I hate saying it, but Fistful is decidedly less cool after multiple viewings of Yojimbo), and is less operatic than The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly. More also tips the balance thanks to the way it adds a little to the Man with No Name. Here, he's dubbed Monco (Spanish / Italian for maimed) due to the way he keeps his right hand hidden, and he doesn't just ride quietly out of the dust. Now he has a trail in a score of bloody newspaper clippings which suggests he could afford more than one serape. Ennio Morricone fans will also appreciate the little flourish he gave to Monco's gun hand

Even if you hate Westerns, you should watch it. Leone called his films "fairy tales for adults," and that's really what they are. They feel like every genre rolled in one, and have been borrowed from 1965 onward. Fans of everything from Tarantino to Pirates of the Caribbean will see something they recognize here.

Watch For A Few Dollars More on SlashControl!

While Morgan Freeman has dabbled in comedy in his long and illustrious career, I don't think he's ever really gotten a chance to really cut loose. He certainly hasn't gotten to play in the raunchy end of the pool, but it sounds as though he's taking the leap in Dirty Old Men. The Hollywood Reporter says that he's attached to star as an aging playboy in the tentatively titled project, and we'll either be laughing or horribly traumatized by his efforts.

Men was penned by Josh Cagan and Greg Coolidge, and is said to be similar in tone to The Wedding Crashers and The 40 Year Old Virgin. It centers on two aging playboys who have been each other's wingmen for over 40 years. One of them meets the love of his life, leaving the other (played by Freeman) to chase skirts on his own. Well, that just won't do. The lonely playboy does everything he can to break up the new couple. I will bet money there's at least one I-hid-the-Viagra scenario. No, I don't like to think about it.

Peter Segal is in talks to direct, and the hunt is on for the playboy-husband-to-be. Warner Bros is hoping Jack Nicholson will take the part and reteam with his Bucket List buddy. But if he turns it down, may I humbly suggest they look to Freeman's real life wingman, Clint Eastwood? If Viagra jokes must be made, let them be the two that make them.

August gave us the voice of Matt Damon in Ponyo, September gave us the inner voice of Matt Damon in The Informant!, and now October has brought us a look at his next two performances.

Clint Eastwood's Invictus is one of the last big likely contenders of the awards season, though it is as of yet unseen (unless those very few who have seen it are very good at being very quiet). Damon plays real-life rugby captain Francois Pienaar, whose team saw the support of Nelson Mandela (Morgan Freeman) as a rallying point around which they might lift the spirits of South Africa in the wake of apartheid. It's political! It's underdog! It's opening in December! It's Oscar bait for certain, and Apple has the exclusive trailer.

Paul Greengrass' Green Zone, on the other hand, was shuffled out of the Oscar race once Universal decided to sort out its slate after a lackluster summer at the box office, and that may have been a wise move. Yahoo's trailer (which is also embedded below) comes across as more of a straight-up actioner than a ready-made contender, with Damon back in Bourne mode as a betrayed soldier on the hunt first for WMDs, and then for answers. Based on the best-seller Imperial Life in the Emerald City, it opens on March 12, 2010.

Reading about movies, you hear stories of some films shot in five days and other films shot over three years. Some of the poverty-row directors and B-movie makers cranked out as many movies as they could during a calendar year, while filmmakers like Charlie Chaplin and Stanley Kubrick waited years between projects (making each release a new "event"). Most filmmakers, I think, given the chance would probably release one film per year, keeping their toes in without burning out. But sometimes, whether it's a trick of the calendar, or some peculiar rhythms of timing, some of the greatest directors manage to release two films per year. And even less often, both of these films turn out great. The following is my not-exactly-extensive, but enthusiastic celebration of the one-two punch or the director's double-whammy.

1. Jacques Tourneur: I Walked with a Zombie and The Leopard Man (1943)
The world has frankly been a better place to live since Warner Home Video released the five-disc, nine-film DVD "Val Lewton Horror Collection" box set in 2005. I have often promised myself that, if ever en route to a desert island, it would be the first thing I'd grab (provided that said island came with its own entertainment system). Four directors worked on those nine great horror films (counting poor Gunther von Fritsch, a footnote in film history for being too slow, getting fired from The Curse of the Cat People, and thus launching Robert Wise's career). But Jacques Tourneur -- son of silent era filmmaker Maurice Tourneur -- is undoubtedly the most talented of the group. He started the cycle with the extraordinary Cat People in 1942, and followed it with this one-two punch in April and May of the following year. Sure, they're cheap, quickly-made B-movies, but few films have ever been made -- in any genre, for any price -- with so much textured atmosphere and such a resounding sense of dreamy dread.

Once Clint Eastwood casts you in a movie, you're his friend for life and you'll probably enjoy a steady supply of work until the terrible day he decides to retire. (If I was a young actor at Warner Bros, I would just happen to walk by his office with bagels and coffee, just in case he was hungry and casting.) Thus, it's almost no surprise that Eastwood's next film will share the same leading man as his last. According to The Hollywood Reporter, Matt Damon, soon to be seen in Eastwood's Invictus, will take the lead in Hereafter.

The plot of Hereafter is being kept under tight, tight wraps. All anyone knows about it is that it boasts a script by Peter Morgan and is "a supernatural thriller in the vein of The Sixth Sense." (Movieline, though, snagged a copy of the script and offered up some more details, including the following: "After two tense set pieces that leave its main characters changed forever, the film becomes a quiet drama about three people trying to figure out what, if anything, exists after death." Oh, and Matt Damon sees dead people.)

It's also being executive produced by DreamWorks and Steven Spielberg. They were the original owners of Morgan's spec script, but happily handed it to over to Eastwood and Warner Bros, with Spielberg and Kathleen Kennedy staying on as executive producers. It'll be the fourth film Spielberg and Eastwood shared producing credits on. (The others are The Bridges of Madison County, Flags of Our Fathers, and Letters from Iwo Jima. You might need that for a trivia contest someday.)

As I drink my fourth cup of coffee and contemplate a nap, I look to my right at smiling, dapper Clint Eastwood and desperately want to know his secret to life. Because he's already finished his Nelson Mandela biopic / rugby film, and is probably prepping Hereafter or casting around his desk drawers for another script to film as he casually puts it on the awards path. How do you do it, Clint? How?!

According to Variety, Invictus, formerly The Human Factor, will arrive in theaters on December 11, 2009. Starring Matt Damon as rugby player Francois Pienaar, and Morgan Freeman in the daunting role of Mandela, it's based on John Carlin's book Playing the Enemy: Nelson Mandela and the Game That Made a Nation. It follows Nelson's release from prison, his election as president, the fall of apartheid, and his use of the 1995 Rugby World Cup to heal the nation. Its new title comes from the the William Ernest Henley poem which Nelson has recited often. And while that's a lot of history for one movie, this is also the director who did two WWII movies in one year.

Invictus' release date pits it against the long awaited The Lovely Bones, which is also being groomed for award season. Who will be victorious? Who will fail? Who cares, as long as Eastwood's still in the game, right?

400 Screens, 400 Blows is a weekly column that takes an in-depth look at the films playing below the radar, beneath the top ten, and on 400 screens or less.

I suppose everyone knows by now that Gran Torino (218 screens) was Clint Eastwood's final screen appearance as an actor, and that he plans to concentrate on directing from now on -- though the film's nearly $150 million gross and a spot at #77 on the IMDB All-Time Top 250 will probably result in many phone calls begging him to reconsider. But this raises an interesting question: was it Eastwood's appearance onscreen make the movie such a popular favorite? Does he still have all the right stuff, 40 years later, to rank as one of the all-time great movie stars? Or was it his skill as a director that paid off?

Any actor who also decides to direct must eventually face the choice of whether or not to direct his or her own performance. There's a long list of people who chose one side or the other with varied results. But though it's probably the more difficult choice, I think any actor would agree that it's easier to sell the film with his or her face onscreen. Even Spike Lee admitted to this when he acted in his first three films, up to and including his masterpiece Do the Right Thing. And certainly when someone like Woody Allen initially decided not to appear in his films, his fans did not take it well.

If a movie is really only as good as its villain, the summer of 1993 proved it with the double-whammy of In the Line of Fire and The Fugitive in July. Everyone else had Jurassic Park fever, but I was swept up by these two excellent, evenly-matched bouts. The latter, The Fugitive, reveled in some gray areas; Tommy Lee Jones's character wasn't all bad, but in In the Line of Fire, John Malkovich was pure bad. (They were both nominated for Oscars, and Jones won.) Malkovich plays Mitch Leary, a former military man who feels the need to assassinate the current U.S. president (Jim Curley -- who looks a bit like John McCain). Clint Eastwood plays aging Secret Service Agent Frank Horrigan, who blames himself for allowing JFK to be shot, and is determined not to let it happen again. Mitch knows all about Frank's history and leaves him clues, taunting him and even talking to him on the phone. Frank, of course, is no slouch and can taunt back, causing Mitch to tip his hand, revealing just a hint of the years and years of anguished buildup that brought him to such a fate.

Note for note, the film itself is little more than a superbly made thriller -- directed by Wolfgang Petersen -- but its relationship between pursuer and quarry is something truly great and altogether rare in films. My definition of a truly great villain is one that can sit down for a cup of coffee with the hero. (It's like that old Warner Bros. cartoon in which the coyote and the sheepdog go to work together and punch the time clock before they get down to business.) Technically opposites, these two actually live in similar worlds and acknowledge each other as co-workers and colleagues. It's a very effective way of measuring the hero's humanity and making him far more interesting. Most movies settle for sneering, cackling villains who are nothing more than pure, distant evil. But the greatest enemies are kept close, closer even than friends.

Check out the clip after the jump: first we get Mitch demonstrating his evil, and then a full-blown phone confrontation with Frank.