Gran Torino MIYST

   Though many who have seen the movie “Gran Torino”  believe that it is an ugly movie, I see the beauty in the truth.  This movie has an interesting irony, bringing back the Korean War to America as we see the conflict unfold between the patriotic conservative (Clint Eastwood) and the growing population of Korean descendants. 

         

  It is obvious to anyone who has seen this movie that Clint Eastwood plays a racist.  His character’s racism is particularly shown in comments given towards Koreans, though other racial slurs are said towards the Jewish, Irish, blacks etc..  I believe this is an essential truth that needs to be shown for this movie to have any credibility or impact. 

       

     The well acted/directed movie, brings realism, bravery, nobility and change of heart.  I loved watch the affect that the boy and his family had on Clint, especially since they were the people he felt threatened by.  It exemplified the classic saying “Don’t judge a book by its cover”.  Clint’s change of heart, as affected through the Korean boy and his family, allows him to use his attributes of bravery and nobility in a fight for his neighbor’s safety. This was a fight that he otherwise may not have paid much mind to prior to meeting the family and experiencing their kindness. The kindness that was shown to this cranky old man set him free to do good for the people he hated. 

           

Another reason I liked this movie was that Asian culture is intuitively interesting to me and I enjoyed seeing the mix of Asian culture with American.  This is a classic conflict within our nation's history that is not always addressed in the best way.  What I liked about this movie is that Clint Eastwood showed the truth in the conflict. 

This is my third time watching Gran Torino and it is still my favorite.  I am glad I had the opportunity to watch it again through this class because it allowed me to view like a real critic!  I noticed lots of things I didn't before. 

 I think that Clint Eastwood is trying to leave society w/ something from his era. They make the disrespectfulness of the younger generation very obvious and apparent. He shows his disgust and also what a little discipline can do for our generation. But, he also shows how the younger generation can show something to the older generation just as they did with their kindness.  

He also shows that no matter what your age is the mixing and harmony of cultures can be difficult but prosperous. Both sides (Caucasians and Mung people) benefited by the end of the movie. 

I finally figured out the line! "The thing that haunts a man the most is what he isn't ordered to do".   This is a line a i didn't really understand when i watched it the first two times so I really thought about it this time through.  He delivers this line to the priest of the town and they are talking about the Korean war and the horrible past that burdens them.  He is talking about the guilt that a soldier feels when he has to do an appalling act in combat and is not ordered to do it. The guilt must be much stronger because if the he was ordered to do it then the solider could just deal with that by Saying they had to. But if they aren't then there is always the feeling of what if they had done it differently or let the person live?  

I give this movie 5 stars out of 5! I loved it!
Go Clint!

Spencer Wawak

9/2/13

Review of the Reviews

We’re the Millers

            http://christylemire.com/were-the-millers/

http://www.timeout.com/london/film/were-the-millers

1.  Both of these reviews are in paragraph form.  The critics basically re-tell the plot of the story, which was a predictable one.  They talk about all of the events taking place in this movie and while projecting their opinions through comments on the choices made by the writers, directors and actors. 

It was very clear which one was negative and which one was positive.  The negative one had sarcasm evident throughout, making fun of the climax, and making it seem unworthy.  The positive one focuses on their pleasure of seeing Jennifer Aniston pick this role whereas the other one does the exact opposite. 

The positive one is definitely a lot smarter than the negative one based off of their word choice and flow throughout.  Both of the people were focusing on Jennifer Aniston, whether it be positive or negative cementation is not the question at hand.  The point being that they do not pay much attention to the non- “big name” players in this film.  That tells me that there were no surprises which I find interesting because I thought Will Poulter did an excellent job. 

2.  A negative review of We’re the Millers states “Their high-risk strategy is to go deep undercover – disguised as wholesome midwestern American tourists. A couple of delinquent teenagers (Emma Roberts and Will Poulter) are roped into playing their fake kids. They’re the Millers”.  This is obviously a very sarcastic and smug comment in which the critic was attempting to take a jab at this films dignity.  I agree with them when the critic is implying that the plot was obvious before you even saw it but the connotation is just flat out incorrect and misused.  The Positive Critic said,  “Will this fake family end up functioning as a real family in time? Of course they will. It’s pure formula — you can tell where “We’re the Millers” is going from the billboards alone. But to its credit, the comedy from director Rawson Marshall Thurber, from a script by small army of writers, stays mean and maintains a bit of an edge even when it threatens to go all soft and gooey”.  This critic says that it is predictable but the connotation of this person is completely the opposite.  They say that it’s okay because the director made it happen. 

3.  The negative one would be more convincing because it is very far that way.  It says that it is horrible and basically recommends no one see this movie.  But, the positive one says that its good, even though it is predictable.  In this case the person is not ecstatic about this movie but it is likeable.  I would probably side with the negative one if I had never seen this movie because of the strength of its hatred. 

4.  I would include all of the outstanding performances by the actors, directors and writers, whether it be good or bad.  I would also include what I think the meaning of the film was in order to stir thought in the minds of my readers.  Finally I would elaborate on the themes that were evident in the film in order to give a deeper understanding to the meaning.