Schrader was in movie-review-mode this weekend as he went to post his negative take on Clint Eastwood’s just-released “Cry Macho.” A film much-maligned by critics and audiences alike, and which even Eastwood apologists have admitted is subpar: “I can appreciate the inclination to give Clint Eastwood a pass but has an important American director made a film as bad as Cry Macho since Howard Hawks’ Man’s Favorite Spot? It fails in every area: screenwriting, lighting, locations, sets, props, wardrobe and casting. When, early on, Eastwood employs an under the car shot of a boot hitting the ground I thought, “Great, he’s going to riff on the stylizations of macho westerns”–but that was the last interesting composition in the film. Sure, Clint is given a few cliché ridden passages about the futility of machismo but these only have value because a shrunken Dirty Harry is giving voice to them. These character insights had value thirty years ago. It was like listening to a criminal apologize to the family of his victims in hopes that the judge will cut him a lesser sentence.” Although I have been an adamant supporter of Eastwood’s late-career films — watch “Richard Jewell and “The Mule,” please — “Cry Macho” did strike me as a lazy effort by the 91-year-old actor-director. I agree with Schrader about most of the points he makes here, but he fails to mention just how bad the acting is in “Cry Macho” (particular from the boy actor). I’m sure we’ll have another Eastwood film to dissect sooner rather than later, and that it’ll hopefully cleanse the stench ‘Macho’ has left in its wake. Contribute Hire me
Advertise Donate Team Contact Privacy Policy
