MovieChat Forums > True Crime (1999) Discussion > The Movie is the crime

The Movie is the crime

posted 16 years ago by wfreder
40 replies | jump to latest

This one disjoined movie. Eastwood is to old to play the part. Trying to make out with a 23 year old,come on.... Then he is in bed with a another woman who is old enough to be his daughter. He just doesnt pull it off. The children are winney little brats. one is more interested in the color green than the fact her father is to be exceuted. The race through the zoo was really bizarre.Hollywoods depiction of the priest was unnecessary and added nothing to the picture other than to show their contempt for religion. I know one thing it would never have been a rabbi. The prison scenes were unreal ie when the prisoner is taken out to meet is daughter,he is brought out in chains and has two guards wow. How about the guards going out to find the crayon????? Such a trite movie the main actor divorced,a drunk,a make out artist,funky dressed,driving a funky car, this isnt even a good b movie. What a waste of talent.

[–] superbolli 14 years ago

Oh yeah! One of the worst movies i ever saw. I cringed while watching it!

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] carpet_seller 13 years ago

Not one of his best, but I enjoyed it on the whole, the acting was great from all parts, some of the Woods/Eastwood dialogue was stupid, nevertheless mildy amusing, but not enough to ruin the movie.

The whole story was workable, I had no problems with any of the scenes, they all had their parts to play in the film overall.

At the end of the day it is only a story, a fictional tale for entertainment, and it fulfilled its role perfectly on that point.

7/10

[–] Clemencedane 11 years ago

I actually enjoyed the suspense while still agreeing that Eastwood totally miscast himself in the movie. I couldn't believe all these incredibly young women would be throwing themselves at him. I also didn't think it was plausible he would have a daughter that young (seems more like a granddaughter) but then I found out it is Eastwood's actual daughter. Weird.

[–] spookyrat1 11 years ago

Whilst agreeing with many of the posters that this isn't one of his better films, the breadth and variety of his directorial work just amazes me. Yes Clint's miscast and this film is overlong with some laborious subplots. Somewhere inside this 127 minute behemoth, there's a lean, trim, 90 minute greyhound of a film wanting to leap free. But there are always interesting sidelights to admire in Eastwood's work. James Woods just chewed up the scenery and his dialogue was great. Was he improvising? One other observation. I reckon this is the first time I've seen Clint Eastwood smoke in a film (apart from chewing on cheroots in his Sergio Leone films) and from what I saw he didn't convince me he was a smoker .

[–] MadDog-ThrashTillDeath 11 years ago

I say is a nice entertaining movie ... eastwood of course has better ones ... but this one was ok ... i give it 7/10 .., yes he was miscasted but it was fun to watch him as a ladies man and making fun of Bob (im not sure of the name), and his relation with James Woods was also fun ... and the fast zoo was a fun thing to watch

[–] walkerus 10 years ago

Clint Eastwood never was a "Romantic Hero" and I think he is trying to make up for all the years he missed out by making films with him as the guy in bed with the young girl ...... pity is it does not come off, it's cringe material.
The film apart from his bedroom farces is not bad, James Woods outshines everyone else.

[–] king_cooler 9 years ago

It's pretty bad. With a younger better lead actor, some editing, and a few re-writes it could have being very good. Like a lot of Eastwood's movies it looks like a TV movie and has serious story flaws.

I mean, the black guy who's seriously worried for this girl and is trying to save her just immedietly comes out of rescue mode when he sees the white guy and runs off while this girl is dying. I didn't buy it and he lost my sympathy right there.