jannagal

Let me preface by saying that I am an Eastwood fan. His films are thoughtful and purposeful; and they explore characters, their motivations, histories and relationships. They have action, but not just mindless car chases and explosions. That said, Gran Torino is a terrific film, but it may not appeal to everyone.

You may be uncomfortable with some of the dialog and characterizations in the film. You may not like some of the bitterly racist comments that Walter Kowalski(Eastwood) utters in the film, but then that's partly the point of the film, isn't it? Walter, ("don't call me Wally") recent widower, is an apparently bitter racist, one of the last of his kind on his block in an inner city neighborhood. The film explores his relationships (or lack of them) with his family, and with the Hmong family next door. Slowly, the reasons for his bitterness(actually self-loathing) are revealed.

The acting was generally very good. Eastwood convincingly plays his part with both strength and vulnerability. Even at his age, his toughness is believable, facing down various street gangs as well as his own family. Thao(Bee Vang) and Sue (Ahney Her), the young Hmong siblings from next door, have no acting credits listed in IMDb, but they have proved that they deserve more opportunities to act in future films. Vang especially convincingly demonstrated a range of emotions, from a meek timidness to an anger demanding vengeance (and a lot in between).

The film also explores the plight of older people and their changing status, poignantly revealed when one of Kowalski's sons brings his father a "grabber" and a telephone with huge keypad for his birthday presents, some items Kowalski obviously doesn't feel ready for.

The film loses some points for a little too much sentimentality (especially from Kowalski's overly-emoting canine friend, Daisy), and for some characterizations that are too extreme, almost cliché. But if you are honest about it, you might see people you recognize in the film--you might even see some of your own relationships or situations. That's really what I like best about Clint Eastwood films, and I hope you do too!

As other reviewers have noted, this movie is a cross between (i.e. stolen from) stories we have seen before. Specifically, this looks like Clint Eastwood in High Plains Drifter inserted into Mad Max. Remove Clint's cigar, and replace with a cigarette; remove his horse and give him a high-tech motorcycle, and voilà, an updated drifter. In this movie, the "hero" is even more blatantly a "Savior" than High Plains Drifter. Now our hero has long brown hair, suffers a wound to his left side, and his entry into town is preceded by a plea for "salvation" by the surviving townspeople--a pretty transparent reference to a "Second Coming." I watched the movie on a hot, humid morning. Sleep was impossible and upon arising at 4:30 am, there was nothing else on TV. So the movie served its purpose. While unoriginal, with characters that are almost comic caricatures, the movie is still somewhat entertaining...at least at 4:30 in the morning.

I watched Superman Returns in Imax 3D. First, a discussion of the movie, then the Imax.

The movie is long, but because of very good special effects, an excellent sound track, and strong visuals, the movie holds the viewer's interest most of the time. There are a couple of anti-climatic endings, but these were probably necessary to tie up loose ends, and to leave some things open for more sequels. There were scenes with enough comic relief to bring laughter from the audience. For the most part, the acting was good to adequate. Frank Langella is one exception. Langella is an excellent actor, and as a vampire excelled. In this movie, however, he was less than adequate as Perry White. He seemed considerate and almost gentle at times--not the gruff, cigar-smoking editor of the Daily Planet. The portrayal of Jimmie Olsen likewise more annoying, and less naive than the comic book version. Now for the major roles: Christopher Reeve was a very good Superman. Brandon Routh is a very good Christopher Reeve, meaning that he played the role well, but his physical appearance uncannily recalled Reeve. I'm not sure if that's detrimental or advantageous, but you definitely recall Christopher Reeve. Kate Bosworth performed well, but seems too young and definitely much better looking than Lois Lane of comic books. Kevin Spacey, one of my favorite actors, as Lex Luthor did not seem menacing enough. In summary, for acting 2 stars out of three.

For film production, 3 stars out of three. For story, 2 stars of 3. Extra credit for holding my interest: 1 star. Total=8 stars out of 10.(That breakdown is just to reveal how an 8 rating was derived.)

Now for the Imax 3-D. The 3-D sequences (there were only 3 major scenes in 3D) were a major disappointment. The scenes in 3D gave a very good 3D effect, but the scenes included a lot of high-speed action. This tended to give choppy 3D that gave an unpleasant viewing experience. The coming attractions for 3 upcoming animated features were all in 3D, and they had a better overall 3D effect.

I would recommend the movie to anyone who enjoyed the first Reeve Superman, or the television version years ago. But I would recommend that you save some money and skip the Imax 3D. Of course, I'm entranced by 3D and would see it again. Just realize before you go that some of the best scenes that might lend themselves to 3D will not be in 3D; and some very choppy action scenes are shown in 3D.