Just Awful - Gran Torino (2009) Discussion

nm

Mai Yamane! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C-sYFirfywY&feature=related

reply

_____________________
Any last words ?
Shut the *beep* up
-Mutant Chronicles-

reply

I agree 100%. The acting was HORRIBLE on everyones account. This was supposed to be a drama, but auickly turned into a ridiculous comedy because of the poor dialogue, and horrible acting. What a joke!!! One of the worst movies I have seen in a while.

reply

[–] mama_gretch 14 years ago

I totally and completely agree. Bad, bad, bad movie, dialogue, acting. I expected a completely different movie, one that didn't make me wince every other scene. Could they trot out any more overused cliches??

reply

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] katentek 14 years ago

I was expecting this to be a bad film but actually really enjoyed it. Can't agree regarding the dialogue or acting ... I thought it was believable, real, gritty and entertaining. And a good story well told.

The only part I really didn't get was the way his Grand children treated him ... that seemed rather unbelievable to me but seeing life is always stranger than fiction I am prepared to bet there's a family somewhere in the world that would be even worse.

Anyway, just IMO.

"Everything is safe till it goes wrong" - Joe Simpson, "Touching the Void" - book only.

reply

[–] flaiky 14 years ago

Yeah, I thought it was pretty poor. I think this is the least deserving film in IMDBs top 100. I can't believe its stayed there so long. It shouldn't even be in the top 250.

reply

[–] Rhaevon 7 years ago

That said by a person who gave 5 to "Life is Beautiful" and "Shutter Island". 1 to "Star Wars Episode 3" and 2 to "A Beautiful Mind"... Okay dude

reply

[–] MorganDavies89 14 years ago

You turned the movie off? So you didn't even watch it all the way through? Well done.

The Hmong actors during the movie are to some extent sub standard, but that's because, or so i've heard, none of them (or most of them) weren't real professional actors. However, their acting is easily watchable if you engage in the film.

Clint Eastwood's performance is amazing. I cannot understand anyone that thinks less.

The cinematography poor? No. It's dark and dingy and shadowy reflecting the protagonist Walt who is alone (until he becomes friends with the Hmong), regretful for people he has killed in the war, and intolerable to a lot of things in life.

The film as a whole is in the IMDB top #250 for the reason it is a brilliant and touching film. And for whoever said that a sad death at an ending doesn't make a film a good movie missed the point of the end. The point of the end is not to upset people with Walt's death but instead to inspire people of how he died and what he died for.

reply

[–] jdbmah7177 13 years ago

Your post sums it up perfectly. I think some people get so used to these high budgeted films with special effects and big-named actors that when they see something like Gran Torino, they think it's garbage. Well, I completely disagree. I've seen this movie several times (twice in the theater the first week it came out) and each time, the story moves me and the comedic dialogue makes me laugh.

You are correct about the Hmong people; most of them had never acted before or even taken an acting class. I think that's part of what made them a little more believable. Clint Eastwood (Walt) was also great and IMO, real.

It is a brilliant film and I think it will stay in the IMDB's top 250 for long, long time.

reply

[–] 13 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Citation_Needed 9 years ago

What's brilliant about it? It's karate kid in reverse. Some whiny punk bitch gets adopted and saved by some old man who teaches him his ways. Only in this movie, the acting is abysmal and if that's the best Clint can get out of them, he's not a very good director.

reply

[–] buddyboy28 9 years ago

I think some people get so used to these high budgeted films with special effects and big-named actors that when they see something like Gran Torino, they think it's garbage

You could also reverse that and say that because Hollywood makes so many family friendly movies these days that rely far too much on CGI, that when something like Gran Tornio comes out, people just automatically praise it and call it a masterpiece.

I thought this movie was poorly acted, executed, boring and preachy.

My life fades... the vision dims... all that remains are memories

reply

[–] kadajawi 13 years ago

I totally agree. I also didn't think the acting was poor (though I watched a dubbed version, so perhaps at least the voice acting was done by professionals), and Eastwood was as great as always.

The cinematography was beautiful, it made sense.

But I can understand that some were offended by all the racism and cliches, but IMHO that seemed authentic.

reply

[–] RevelationFilms 12 years ago

As much as it is honourable to use Hmong actors, if the acting is poor then so will the film be (there are plenty of examples where 'authentic' actors have been hired and done a great job - see The Wire).

I tried to engage in the film, however I found it badly acted (wooden, with Eastwood growling his lines), poorly scripted and edited. Was I touched? No, I honestly felt embarrassed. But then maybe having watched The Wire S4 just prior to this might have contributed. Gran Torino was too simple.

reply

[–] spkeck 8 years ago

In the trivia it says the Hmong actors were treated poorly

reply

[–] Slim_Jack_Rabbit 14 years ago

Those are just sympathy votes, no one in their right minds, even if you have very little knowledge of film, would rate this dross anything above 5. The laughable acting alone would merit such a low rating. But like you pointed out, that is only the first of a long list of complaints I'd expect any serious film lover to come up with on the spot. You'd have to be pretty thick to not see it, it's not even a matter of personal opinion.

The 8.4 on this site is so utterly ridiculous, I suspect even Clint himself cannot take that seriously, so shame on the lavish acclaim. It really makes the joke even bigger than it already was.

reply

[–] Bucko-2 12 years ago

So anyone who disagrees with you by liking this film, is not of their right mind?
I don't have to read your entire post because you've discounted it after your first sentence.

I think #107 (today) is high, but it is still an excellent film.

reply

[–] numonkei 12 years ago

I've noticed that in this debate, those who argue in defense of the film list reasons. The detractors cannot seem to come up with a better reason than, "I did not like it", or "sobby death scene". I didn't find the death scene all that touching, but the scenes when Sue walks in beaten, and the final scene during the reading...they represented a strong change from bigotry that had been fostered for a long lifetime, while the former represented the uniform pain that is felt as such human betrayal, whether they are from one's own creed or not.

Personally, this is one of the better films my memory can recall. Then again, I didn't like Avatar, and think Star Wars is grossly overrated. So who knows, there is no accounting for taste. And we can fairly assume that all the flame posts on internet sites about movies and music will often see reinforcement much more when one is defending a piece, while those who detract just repeat the same sentences about 'crap, *beep* horrible, my mother didn't like it', over and over.

reply

[–] rookgaroo 14 years ago

Do you really get worked up because a movie gets a lot of stars on this site?!? The same site that was the playground for a bunch of spamming fanboys who spent weeks trying to jack up The Dark Knight so it could beat The Godfather for a day or two?
If you don't like a movie, that's fine. But when you cite a source like IMDb (or, for that matter, Yahoo! or YouTube), your credibility goes straight down the drain.
I don't care for Twilight or Harry Potter. That crap has made billions. Then again, I'm a grown man. I don't expect teenaged girls to not like what I don't like just because I don't like it.
Try thinking for yourself instead of getting all worked up over how many stars or points or thumbs-up or whatever a movie gets.

Just becuase you didn't like a movie doesn't make it bad.

reply

[–] Slim_Jack_Rabbit 14 years ago

"Just becuase you didn't like a movie doesn't make it bad."

Very true, but no one argued this. I think that's what they call a straw man fallacy, and a particular lame one at that. What's next, we 'didn't get it'?

I've been coming to this website for a long long time and truth be told, it's getting less relevant by the day due to these absurd ratings. I think that is regrettable. It's not particularly important though, after all, the're only movies, it's just a shame.

This particular movie by Eastwood is one of the worst examples of this site getting flooded with BS votes. Anyone with an ounce of brain can see this movie doesn't deserve such a high rating unless the max was 15. Maybe a lot of people sincerely enjoyed this, but 'As the world turns' also has it's share of avid fans. But no one would argue that this soap series outranks for example 'The Wire'. It would be asinine. It's simply a matter of perspective and when none is left, it just ruins the whole purpose of a site like this.

reply

[–] Broseidon 14 years ago

Well, let's put it this way: Avatar made the top 100. This film is 100 times better than Avatar because it didn't need special effects and violence to attract and entertain moviegoers. However, it doesn't matter if this film is in the top 250, what matters is your lack of understanding of a simplistic film that achieved its goals. Poor cinematography? What did you want them to do? Have some shadowy film noir shots that wouldn't have fit? Or some Michael Bay ariel views perhaps? Maybe a super pretentious, quiet, slow motion David Lynch scene? No, none of that would have fit. And poor dialogue? Sure it wasn't the best, but Walt's character said simplistic, pissed off things like that. I know a million old people like Walt who all speak that way. As for acting, the only person who I felt really sucked was the guy who played Thao, but he's young and isn't even a Hollywood actor. Hate on this film all you want, but imagine having to pitch: "A story about an old grumpy *beep* who goes down without a fight." to a Warner Bros. exec. Good luck.

reply

[–] Slim_Jack_Rabbit 14 years ago

Stop using the straw man please, it's so tiresome.

"Stop hairloss now, amazing results in just two weeks!"

reply

[–] Broseidon 14 years ago

I'm pretty sure I addressed his points head on without trying to change his own viewpoint.

reply

[–] rookgaroo 14 years ago

What is this "straw man"? Is it something you read in People Magazine? You think this movie shouldn't have been near the top of the "influential" IMDb top 250? You're right. It shouldn't have been included with previous winners like the immortal Wall-E?
Wake up and smell yourself. This site is great for finding out factual information about movies. But it's sad when chumps like you take the IMD.b ratings seriously.
Watch the movie and don't compare it to Garfield and your other favorites. You're clearly two pathetic souls: One who has seen ten movies in his lifetime, and one who has heard the term "straw man" and has no idea what it means.

If you don't like the movie, fine. Come up with a reason you didn't misinterpret from some lame blog

reply

[–] claesloof 14 years ago

"Avatar made the top 100. This film is 100 times better than Avatar because it didn't need special effects and violence to attract and entertain moviegoers."

You're seriously comparing this movie to Avatar? Good job.

reply

[–] Nizzemancer-1 13 years ago

Yeah, I know, right? Who in their right mind would compare this great movie with the likes of Avatar wich quite frankly is a pile of steaming crap covered up by CGI explosions.

Light travels faster than sound,
that's why people seem bright,
until you hear them.

reply

[–] Symarip 12 years ago

He isn't ''even'' a Hollywood actor? The MAJORITY of good actors are no Hollywood actors.

I'm the grim reaper, Lardass, and you're my next customer.

reply

[–] Broseidon 12 years ago

Let me clarify. He isn't a film actor. Look at his resume on IMDB.

reply

[–] Desertman84 12 years ago

The movie just happens to be not for entertainment and not for everyone.That is why a lot of people found it awful.

I believe that Gran Torino is a great film.In this film,Clint Eastwood finally provides not another revenge fantasies which his characters portray in the earlier parts of his character.It presents a different theme about the futility of revenge,the non-promotion of act of violence and the healing power of forgiveness.Aside from that,it also tells a story of an aging person who tries to become a better father by teaching a young Hmong teen-ager named Thao about the ways of life.It also tells a story of a man how he overcomes both his racist attitude towards others and the war experiences that have both wounded and affected him emotionally during the war.In short,the film was a humorous, touching, and intriguing old- school parable about an old man.Aside from its great story,the performance of Eastwood is definitely worth mentioning as he has proved at age 78,he still can command a great screen presence and can look credible as a movie hero.It was definitely a wonderful film that could be another classified as a cinema masterpiece that would be a fitting finale for long and illustrious career of a legendary movie actor.

reply

[–] jrtrsq 11 years ago

@ Kazuya Ryuzaki: I agree with you totally "This movie just happens to be not for entertainment..." ROTFL! Guess what? That was why I saw it, and that is why most people go to movies, but I couldn't agree with you more. Can you tell me what it WAS for? I can, it was to line everyone involved's pockets with some easy money. They hardly spent anything on the movie at all - and it wasn't worth watching, and they still came away with big bucks - and that makes me mad!!!

reply

[–] rust_the_krust 14 years ago

That's not a straw man, not even close. Stop trying to look smart by using concepts you don't even understand. It's not working.

"Anyone with an ounce of brain can see this movie doesn't deserve such a high rating unless the max was 15."

I have more than an ounce of brain, and I gave it a 9. I rarely get touched by a movie, but this one really got me. You're arrogant because you're trying to present your subjective opinion as an objective, universal truth.

reply

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] wantutosigh 14 years ago

"The Saw films are better-made than this misfire."

Haha. Just stop.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eBYznVnNTI4 RIP Bob Probert

reply

[–] cyber___ 14 years ago

Wow, there's some major hating here. Personally, I thought it was very good. I gave it an 8.

Sure, the dude who played Thao pretty much sucked, especially in the scene where he yells at Walt when he's locked in the basement, but I thought Eastwood did a good job and the other actor's were alright as well. I also thought the cinematography was very good. I saw no flaw in it.

It's no Million Dollar Baby, but good nonetheless.

There is no good or evil, only different opinions

reply

[–] Broseidon 14 years ago

Yeah I agree. By the way Penguin Tom, the fact that you put Avatar as one of the best films you've seen this year loses the small amount of credibility you had to start off with.

reply

[–] c-huddleston 14 years ago

No point in getting worked up over the sock puppet Slim Jack Rabbit. Posting history all on this thread except for a "test" 3 years ago.

It's called trolling.

reply

[–] Symarip 12 years ago

If you were no ignorant fool, you would know the Harry Potter movies are actually very well made, and are not just for teenage girls. You feeling the need to say you're a ''grown man'' makes it even more pathetic.

I'm the grim reaper, Lardass, and you're my next customer.

reply