Has anyone been out to see this film yet? I have always been an Eastwood fan, he is my Dad's all time favorite, so I grew up watching all the old spaghetti westerns. Anyway, the girlfriend and I saw it last weekend, went to Warren first was going to catch the 4:20 showing on Saturday, but it was way too crowded so we hit Harkins, much better. I really enjoyed the movie, Eastwood plays his typical hard ass self, and i laughed a lot more than I expected too.
This is definitely a movie i want to see again, in my eyes it was great.

Was just wondering how others viewed the movie.

Big Eastwood fan here too. However, I thought this movie was terrible. The story was fine and even Eastwood carried it along. I don't know if the supporting actors were really bad or if it was the script and editing. I know the writer is a virtual nobody and the audio was edited so choppy it was distracting. I also hate the way it was filmed. Did not have a film look at all. Felt more like it was shot on digital tape. I usually go completely against critics but several have pointed these flaws out and I totally agree. The editorial review in the Gazette this week is spot on. Save your dough and rent it for a dollar at Red Box in a couple of months.

Has anyone been out to see this film yet? I have always been an Eastwood fan, he is my Dad's all time favorite, so I grew up watching all the old spaghetti westerns. Anyway, the girlfriend and I saw it last weekend, went to Warren first was going to catch the 4:20 showing on Saturday, but it was way too crowded so we hit Harkins, much better. I really enjoyed the movie, Eastwood plays his typical hard ass self, and i laughed a lot more than I expected too.
This is definitely a movie i want to see again, in my eyes it was great.

Was just wondering how others viewed the movie.

i thought it was awesome, and laughed laughed a lot too. already told a couple of people to go see it.

OK movie, NOT great. Kinda ODD message depending upon how you interpreted the movie

The reason the acting is bad is because they aren't actors. Eastwood insisted on casting unknowns that had never acted before.

The reason the acting is bad is because they aren't actors. Eastwood insisted on casting unknowns that had never acted before.

That's true about the locals. Also, imo, Clint Eastwood was born for this part. I think it may be one his best performances over his long career. I heard someone say they thought he was bad in this film. What? He pulled this guy off perfectly. If you want Clint Eastwood and bad, go back and watch the Dirty Harry movies. I actually think Eastwood is a better director than he ever was an actor, but he's incredible in Gran Torino.

i liked it quite a bit... good story. thought-provoking message. decent editing, imo... the story broke into detail where it needed to and took a brisk pace where it needed to... i thought it was pulled off quite well. didn't notice any of the issues with sound, etc. maybe it won't go down as my favorite film of all-time, but i definitely thought it was well-acted and well-directed.

-M

I'm so glad the Academy saw through the hype and realized the movie for what it was - not a single serious nomination.

Disagree with ya bail...4 of us went to the Warren and we all thought it was very good...Definitely the right character for Clint to go out with and it was actually a pretty funny flick

Pretty moving at the end and there was a full 2 or 3 minute pause before anyone stood to leave...Kinda weird

Oh no, I liked Clint's character and like I said I even liked the story and the setting - I just agree with the critics that attacked the script and supporting actors. I think the Academy agreed. Which is odd because this type of no frills movie seems right up their alley. But hey, they didn't seem to like the Dark Knight much either.

Was a pretty good movie, although I was a bit dissapointed with the ending..I gotta say it did accurately depict the life style of the retired polish guy in Detroit,people that took pride in their homes and property, hard working people that had good values and work ethics and accurately depicted what Detroit is really like, as did 8 Mile with Marshall Mathers...both of which were filmed here.

I thought it was a great movie. The acting was really good. I also enjoyeed watching the characters become close. Great film overall.

I too thought this was a great movie. I thought Eastwood was spot on in his depiction of the character. The movie could have gone wrong in so many ways, however I think Eastwood did an incredible job of walking a fine line with the character and he played him with realism, not as a cartoon, which would have been easy to do.
As far as being nominated for an Oscar, I think that is the fault of the studio. I don't think they had much faith in it. It didn't even go to wide release until Jan 9th. It has proved them wrong so far by grossing more than 100 million dollars.

Clint was awesome...the rest of the actresses/actors were okay.

If you really think about it - there are many neighborhoods across the nation where gangs are just like how it was in the movie. It isn't fancy and awesome looking like how majority of the movie graphics and actions show.

Clint made the movie seem more real - like this can happen in my own backyard type stuff.

I agree applepearberry....in some movies the gangbanging lifestyle seems a little over glamorized where as in this film it showed a lot of the true nature of what goes on everyday all over the nation in every city and state. Just some punks being punks for whatever reason.
I loved this movie and can't wait to see it again. probably my favorite since There Will Be Blood