... " In life, do you know, there is always a place for feats, says Izergil. And those who do not find them for themselves are simply lazy or cowards, or do not understand life. . .
The Richard Jewell case looks like a very strong movie, but, alas, leaves nothing behind. This is not the best way to spend 2 hours. However, not every viewer expects this from a film in the genre of drama. And the answer is why I have so many options. The first is a failure on the part of the director. After all, this is the story of how the life of a guy who did everything right was turned into a nightmare for a month (or so) by the powerful. But as a spectator, you are unlikely to experience the discomfort of this nightmare. Surrounded with TV cameras, wrote badly in the newspapers, took things from the house, staged some interrogations... well, that’s all, in general. The director also tried to link heart problems and the imminent death of the real prototype of the protagonist, but these attempts looked weak. To be completely cynical, then, given the circumstances of the hero’s life, it is tempting to say, “Well, but something interesting happened in his life.” Another possible reason is the script. Having not the most powerful material on his hands, the writer needed to make more efforts to get a drama that could truly hook the viewer.
I liked acting without any 'buts'. I chose the movie because of Sam Rockwell... well, he’s good too. I guess Clint Eastwood doesn't have a hard time putting together a great cast, which he did. I only want to mention Olivia Wilde. I used to think her main advantage was that she was pleasant to look at. In this film, she was not inferior to colleagues and as an actress, in my opinion. I hope she will have a decent role in the future. I have a feeling that her character could have been better revealed, but I tend to think that this is more of a flaw of the director and writers. In general, there is a feeling that all the characters could be revealed better.
Summing up, we have that rare case where as a viewer you know how many points to stick to a film with an accuracy of tenths. There are no outstanding qualities or gaping holes.
7.2 out of 10
An ordinary security guard Richard Jewell is quite complete and a lover of snacks, must have been forced from childhood to endure ridicule and humiliating nicknames for dignity, and as an adult faced the same and even with discrimination by the authorities in the service. He has few friends, difficulties in communication: he is over 30, and he is not married, lives with his mother. Unsurprisingly, he developed a character with some oddities - a hypertrophied sense of duty to state laws, an overzealous desire to suppress manifestations of aggression, causing disrespect for people. On this basis, he had conflicts with others and with the authorities in the service. Maybe if his circle of communication was wider, like that of an ordinary person, and his horizons would be wider, and these oddities would not appear. And Richard had to get into the center of public attention: guarding his plot of the park territory, where a festive event was held and a lot of people gathered, he discovers a backpack with an explosive device left by a terrorist and, thanks to his perseverance, prevents mass casualties. Richard becomes a hero, but only for three days. The FBI investigation team, in search of the perpetrator of the attack, quickly comes to Richard (they did not have any other candidates) as a possible candidate, relying in their choice on the "strangeness of his personality and behavior." He just “perfectly fits” the pattern of a failed terrorist attacker who wants to become famous at any cost. An unscrupulous employee leaks information about the FBI investigation, and an unscrupulous, greedy to popularity journalist publishes a provocative message in a reputable publication. Richard becomes an enemy of the state, the people and the free press. His life and that of his mother turned into a nightmare. It is only thanks to the tenacity and dedication of the lawyer, who was one of Richard’s few sincere friends, and the courage and endurance of Richard himself that he was able to prove his innocence. Their duet (Paul Walter Hauser – Paul Walter Hauser – Richad Jewel, G. Watson Bryant Jr. – G. Watson Bryant Jr. – Richard Jewell’s lawyer) – the central in the film, successfully succeeded. Most valuable of all, they represent human beings, not robots designed by a writer and director. Although, in my opinion, the championship is still for Paul Walter Houser - the lead actor - played brilliantly! I would definitely recommend watching the film.
The film quickly plunges into the story of what is happening, despite the fact that the dynamics of events has an average or rather leisurely speed. I have not stopped so long on the scenes when the hero is thinking about the painting or at the moment when the lawyer gets out of his car and goes to the office without suspecting anything.
Creativity Clint Eastwood over the years and experience acquired different facets and this film became a real treasure in the treasury of his works.
The combination of the plot tempo, incredible detail, absolute coincidence and sustained line of behavior of each hero creates the impression that you find in the same city at the time of the incident.
There were a few moments during the film when he took his breath away from the feelings that Richard and his mother felt. And each time corresponds to the second accuracy of the frame and detail. One of those moments was the scene when the FBI returns boxes of confiscated items to the house and the mother, who was worried about the containers, takes one of them, looks at it and tries to wipe the serial number that is put on it. Absolute hit and detailed description of the behavior of the character. Movies that respect and so accurately reveal the character of each character, I want to review several times, which I will do. I am sure that with each view I will notice more and more unique details.
If you are white and fleshy, you will be a terrorist.
- Let’s go to William of our Shakespeare.
Okay, Shakespeare is not Shakespeare, but to remember that 'little man' has always been at the center of literary and cinematic classics, never too late. To the possible question: why exactly did the fate of a small person attract and continue to attract, even Dostoevsky with his "Poor People" & #39; even Chaplin with his unfortunate hero? - let us simply answer: a small person is always a cut from most ordinary people. Thus, the little man is almost always ' I' because insanely brave and brave, rich or brilliant people are comparatively less dense. That is why it is more interesting for us to look at the military actions, say, not through the eyes of the commander-in-chief who issues orders to the lower ones, but through the eyes of the semi-educated bastard Bezukhov, the brave soldier Shveik, the Red Army soldier Sukhov or the fantasy Hobbit and even Harry Potter - all these are small people, all of us or those who inspire us.
The general motive behind Clint Eastwood’s appeal to the image of Richard Jewell, a modest fat man whose dream is a police badge on his chest, is clear. The hero is so archetypal that he can easily be compared, even with Ivan the fool, even with Red Riding Hood: she had a goal to reach her grandmother, this one had a hat and a badge - it does not matter, it is important that wolves attacked on the way to the goal. They attack. But why did C. Eastwood choose such a classic and traditional, one might say, a lubricant hero? There, already Anna Boleyn plays an African-American and Fairy, godmother of the new Cinderell(s), can play a person without gender.
Yes, Richard Jewell, whose role was simply stunningly played by the little-known actor-comedian Paul Walter Houser, is a real person; and the whole story: about how an unsympathetic glutton, interrupted by the work of a security guard during the Atlanta Olympics in the mid-90s, and saved dozens or even hundreds of people by finding a suspicious backpack in which there was a self-explosive – the whole story is real. But the fairy godmother Cinderella was once a pretty woman. It’s not just the authenticity of the prototype, but the authenticity of principled, if you will, malicious. Because today the discriminated & #39; minorities & #39; – despite the numerical majority – belong to these white fat trusts, disliked patriots from the lower social classes, supporters of Trump with his slogan to make America great again.
Why else would you choose this one out of all possible stories if it wasn’t ' speaking' a metaphor for our reality? In fact, today, lynching a black man without consequences will not work, to run into a fem-activist or a person with a non-traditional orientation will not work - it is too dangerous to get in response to the horn on the whole world. But to sue the average white American, unresponsive in its simplicity, destroy his reputation, erase his identity, presenting him as a terrible monster-killer and villain – easy. And so, first, the crooks from the FBI, and then all the media, without finding any other leads, declare Richard himself a terrorist. It was he, a scumbag, for the sake of achieving his petty-popular goal himself and planted explosives, in order to then find it and be called a hero. How simple and, most importantly, effective! And it does not matter that there is no evidence against him, it does not matter that his elderly mother, who worked hard all her life, raised her only son, raised him in a conservative way, in what other, tea, not stars, instilled in him patriotism, and she herself blindly believes in the president and in human justice (especially in law and order). It can be easily trampled and overlooked. And if it weren’t for the lawyer (Sam Rockwell) who took over Richard’s case, it probably would have happened. He would have been waiting for the electric chair and the posthumous glory of a terrorist. And his poor mother - lifelong contempt and hatred of fellow citizens - well, at best, the subsequent rehabilitation of an innocently convicted son.
This is what Clint Eastwood, a brilliant old man, drew attention to when he turned to this simple story of an unremarkable guy who, however, unlike many, many thousands of people, saved dozens, perhaps hundreds of lives. And perhaps if he had chosen again and knew in advance what would follow, he would have chosen again to experience all the shame, humiliation, human hatred and meanness, but he would have saved people. Or not? No, I would, they are such fools.
10 out of 10
The main advantage of this film is acting, all the actors in the main and secondary roles look great and really believe them. Paul Walter, who played the role of Richard Jewell, perfectly got used to the role of a clumsy man who believes in a right cause, tries to do everything right, but causes bewilderment among others. Whether it's the scenes at the beginning of the film where Richard tries his hand at different jobs, whether it's the scenes when he's a suspect, in every scene you don't see a cardboard character, but a real, living person who wants to empathize. Sam Rockwell, who played Watson, a lawyer and lawyer, and most importantly a friend of Richard, steals every scene, his character is one of the brightest in the film. Seeing Watson’s character, you understand, he will literally fight to the last to protect his friend from accusations and lawlessness from the authorities.
Clint Eastwood decided to film the story of Richard Jewell, which happened to him between June 27 and October 26, 1996, in the Park of the Century in Atlanta. Namely, how honor and respect can be sharply replaced by contempt and the desire to put you behind bars.
The plot of the film revolves around the explosion in the Park of the Century in 1996 in Atlanta. Where the main character Richard finds a homemade bomb and prevents much greater losses than occurred in the explosion. After that, he becomes a hero and gains fame, but this moment of his life does not happen for long, the media and the FBI attack him, who think that he staged that terrorist attack.
In my opinion, Clint Eastwood wanted to show how the media could easily and simply ruin the life of a person who was just doing his duty. It featured Richard, played by Paul Walter Hauser, a responsible young man who believes in the fairness and integrity of law enforcement. In my opinion, due to the genre of cinema, they both succeeded. Sam Rockwell, best known for films like Moon 2112 and Three Billboards on the Border of Ebbing Missouri, played Richard’s lawyer, who defended and defended his innocence to the public, as I think he did his job. Deon Ham played the role of the FBI who blames Richard, as in my opinion he handled his role, he played a clichéd agent who will disgust you throughout the film. Olivia Wilde played the role of a journalist who wrote an article and launched a cycle of harassment in the media. In general, the acting is good, you empathize with someone and wish success, you despise someone.
As for me, this story about people, about how they are influenced by the media, and what they are willing to go to for recognition, it left me with the residue that life can change in an instant, and you will either beat yourself an honest name or go after the public and become the main antagonist of the story you got into.
I want to highlight one disadvantage, in the history of the film lay the real story of a real person, and you need to treat him with some understanding, since the story is not completely conveyed as it was in reality, it is quite difficult to do. For me, the film is worth watching in the evening, alone or in good company.
Such a good movie in the style of “late Eastwood”. Based on the true story of a ludicrous security guard in an Atlanta park during the Olympics finding a draw backpack under the bench and evacuating concertgoers, even though everyone said he was an idiot. And then the backpack exploded and it turned out that only two people died because of it. But he had only 4 days to be a hero, after which the FBI, without having tattoos on the author of the explosion, made a psychological portrait, which said that Richard was the most convenient suspect “a liar who thirsts for fame.” And the guy began to promote in full, including the dirty press, which was only happy to cling to the victim. According to the lawyer, against him were the two most powerful forces in the world – the US government and the media. The movie is about how the lawyer fought for the name of Jewel, including himself. The classic "late Eastwood" is a trohistorian, a little man against the system, and "deep America against the insensitive machine of the new America."
Everyone played great, every single one of them. Not the slightest claim. But Eastwood, like any genius, reveals many planes in the problem. And it is not the fact that he set all these tasks for himself. The callousness of the system, the meanness of the FBI, who chose a victim and spit on the search for a real killer, a wolf, or rather, the essence of the media - all this in the plane of the first row. But Jewel is more versatile. Yes, he is honest, sincere, straightforward, simple. He is the personification of that deep America for which Eastwood so longs and seeks it everywhere. But he's an outspoken fool. Jewel, I mean. In the medical sense of the word. He is not simple, he is even smart, and he knows a lot. But he has a real mental retardation. No one takes him seriously. Well, "special," as they say now. But this "special" is, first of all, smarter than normal colleagues, because he strictly follows the rules. And most importantly, he's a former sheriff's deputy, and then a real cop. Well, isn't that America's verdict? Any downer who follows the rules, according to Eastwood's doctrine, deserves to represent the law, not these cunning cattle of the federal bureau. "I'm just a cop like them," cries Jewel. “No, you’re just a fat piece of bacon they want to fry,” the lawyer says. “They represent the government,” Jewell said. “They do not represent him. These are just three stupid bastards who work for the government, says the lawyer.
Deep America, according to Eastwood, is a ridiculous dude with a weight of 200 kilos, a hamburger processing machine and a mandatory member of the NRA (National Rifle Association, if anyone does not know). This sincere simpleton has a gun house - like in the gun room at Fort Bragg, he knocks 99 out of 100.
Clint pits the two Americas against each other. America is a fool of Jewel and America is a jackal of feathers and “wolves pressed”. And, you know, if that's the case, then I feel sorry for Jewell's America, because she's got no chance against a second America. Biden-Harris ate Trump.
The only time I felt like shouting "I don't believe" was when journalist Olivia Wilde, cynical and cold as a March snake, suddenly forged and burst into tears during a speech by the brilliant Katie Bates, Jewel's mother. Nah, Katie's always amazing. But people like that don't do that. A wolf will not cry from the tears of a lamb and will not go to clover.
Clint Eastwood is obsessed with real stories and forgets that he does not make documentary films, while distorting historical facts at the expense of artistic content.
'You don't need to understand the mechanism of the clock - just look at the time' - says the director.
Digesting the impressions of what you see, it is impossible not to play by the rules of the director and not to focus on historical facts.
By removing important nuances from the chronology, which, on the contrary, would help to reveal the characters, increase attention to the injustice of the system and show the real power of information publications, Clint Eastwood kills all interest in this story, it will be faster and more informative to read articles on the Internet. What does the film have to do with it?
Here are just 3 reasons why the film 'The Richard Jewell case' doesn't catch anything.
1. cliché, cliché and cliché again
Good and evil, we are used to it. As a rule, we always stand on the side of the good, but what is the good in this film?
A chubby loser who sincerely believes in the valor of the law enforcement system, who dreams of protecting citizens, but is unable to stand up for himself and his mother, and in the true story also his wife? What's evil? A cop checking every possible version of a crime under the law? Or a career journalist typing FBI insiders? Or could there be dozens of journalists occupying the GG house for a month?
Who do you care about?
What really stands out from these silly clichés on which conflict is impossible is Sam Rockwell's pretentious play. A cynical character, unable to say ' thank you' for the bars, gratuitously pulls out his acquaintance. A character who has the core and motivation to follow after the movie. Thank you for the brilliant actor.
2. Useless scenes
A $100 debt, two tourists in the park, a walk with a dog, a polygraph with a former agent, the breakup of a journalist and an agent, the tears of this journalist during her mother’s speech. Why are these scenes? They do not complement the storyline, do not develop characters or conflict.
An hour of timekeeping about the searches and interrogations and only 2 strong scenes - a public appeal of the mother and the only resistance of GG to the "final interrogation" '.
3. The banality of the denouement
So what's the whole story? In contrast between hero and suspect, and period!
In fact, the euphoria of heroism was replaced by a routine test of one version of the crime. Everything was decided thanks to time and the phrase ': What can you show me? '
Looking at the main character, can you imagine that he sued the news outlets and the college four times? The answer is obvious. Thank you to the director for your time.
With the actors hit the point: Sam Rockwell's lawyer, Richard Jewell's mother, and the solemn Paul Walter Hoiser as the main character is just chic.
I won’t touch the plot, watch it yourself or have already seen it, it doesn’t matter, in general, a lot has been changed for the sake of the film, for example, the last interrogation actually lasted as much as 6 hours, and in the film there are very emotional 5 minutes, there are plenty of such moments, but this does not break the story and the film.
The main plus is the acting and the chemistry of the characters, and let’s say, I grew up without a father, and I really understand when only your mother will support you always no matter what, and Katie Bates and Paul Walter played great. The moment he knocked on the door to apologize is the most touching part of the film, I really let a tear in.
Of course, the lawyer in real life did not yell constantly, Sam added something of his own, but this did not prevent his hero.
Of course, the story is plus the film, it happened after all, in fact, Richard's experiences, I would not advise anyone to go through, all the hat of the world poured into him, everyone was against him, he was made a villain, everything came up in the tutelage, that he wants to become a policeman, was fired for exceeding his powers, etc.
In general, I want to write more, but without spoilers can not do.
Conclusion: 8.5 out of 10. A very strong film, but part of the film is fiction to please the film. A hero who became a villain. I advise everyone to look, but not when you are in a good mood and in company, look alone or at least alone with your loved one.
Such people abound in history, friends, before blaming someone, you should understand this, and then there will be sad consequences, because Richard Jewell lived 45 years, he undermined his health due to stress, hell that lasted 2 months.
Clint Eastwood is already 90 years old, and he continues to steadily release his own films on the big screens, constantly confirming how time has no power over him. And it’s okay to live to such an advanced age, because Hollywood knew veterans and older (Kirk Douglas, for example, died last year at the age of 103), but to maintain consciousness so that you can manage big Hollywood projects, akin to some incredible miracles! Projects are almost always chic, and if this or that Eastwood work does not get at the box office, as, for example, the film ' The case of Richard Jewell', then the audience and critics are often well received. In his latest film about a somewhat bizarre office manager who dreams of working in the police and one day prevents a major disaster at the Olympics, Eastwood turns to very topical topics. Here you can find such, unfortunately, fashion trends as: bullying, pressure, the harsh influence of the press on popular sentiments, double standards, stereotypical public views and many other bad things that still reign, it would seem, in civilized countries.
More than 20 years have passed since then, but who can say that this cannot happen now? Who is insured against the fact that he could be hanged overnight by brutal crimes, investigators who want to report quickly and journalists who are hungry for at least some material? Especially if you are completely open, like a child, in your gut, remind someone of a crazy moron, and this someone does not understand how you can be so polite, kind and honest, conscientiously doing your job and sincerely helping others. Who's going to believe you wanted to save people from an explosion, not the other way around, blow the hell out of everybody? - To save? You, with your maniac and greasy look? No, man, you're clearly lacking attention. You're gray and wretched - you must have started an explosion, so that your flawed person would be trumpeted from all the irons! Throughout the film, our hero tries to prove that he is not an elephant & #39; Faced with the terrible injustice of those he had always looked up to, Richard stubbornly suppressed his feelings of frustration, justifying their actions by the specifics of such cases. And law enforcement agencies, television and even ordinary people, continued to rot him and put various, unrelated to reality, labels. And it's very scary, because you never know what might be attributed to your supposedly unusual personality if you were in the wrong place at the wrong time? After all, when people do not understand something, they are afraid - they try to understand all this, drawing all sorts of pictures through the prism of their own perception and delivering ' sofa-expert' verdicts. And the truth is simple - a person is such in himself, and his inherent unusualness, is not a reason to consider him a sick psychopath, eager to avenge everyone for the grayness of his own being.
Eastwood is still a cunning, through the story of Jewell, he very deftly draws parallels with the current situation in America, when a person with an unpopular opinion can easily turn into a victim of ruthless bullying - as an example, the recent situation with Gina Korano. In today's world, Richard would have doubled. Judge for yourself: he is a man, white, dreams of a career in the police and, apparently, also a conservative, add to this the main victims of the terrorist attack - it is not just the director several times allotted screen time to two African-American women - and get the perfect meat for bullying. Would he be able to get out of it today, when even the absence of clear evidence is often not evidence of innocence? And how boldly and even frankly played! Paul Walter Houser just looks perfect in the image of Jewell, both externally and relative to the inner qualities of the hero. Before us, the image, which is based on a certain contrast, when a somewhat repulsive personality, irritating with excessive annoyance, on the other hand, causes deep sympathy and makes one empathize, because behind all oddities lies a very sensual and caring nature, sincerely wishing everyone only good.
I would even call ' The Richard Jewell Case' a kind of Hollywood fairy tale. Despite the brutality and seriousness of the situation, there is something about it that is usually absent in such detective thrillers. For example, love, tenderness and a pinch of magic. Richard’s kindness brought him to a very promising lawyer, to whom he gave chocolates, trying as an office manager to show concern for employees. And when all the dogs were brought down on Jewell, this man zealously began to protect the poor guy, growing confidence and strength in him along the way. He cared for him like he was his own son - isn't that love? The attitude of the hero to the mother, who was given a little pride in her son, and then trampled her feelings, accusing her boy of a killer-explosive - so careful and attentive even in the most difficult times - is it not tenderness? And finally, the story itself, in general reminiscent of a fairy tale about a kind of Hunchback from Atlanta, behind the repulsive appearance of which the best intentions are hidden, which will be rewarded in the end - is it not magic? I also want to praise the authors for the lack of heavy conceptual solutions in the tape. Despite the serious plot canvas, it looks completely easy and pleasant. The beginning and at all resembles such lamp and leisurely film stories from the last century, when directors did not yet seek to run ahead of the locomotive, immediately coloring their films in basic, often oppressive tones, but opened them gradually, making the viewing infinitely soulful and cozy.
P.S. The story of Richard Jewell is a sad example of how life is sometimes cruelly treated by those who do not fit the standards of the majority. However, do not forget that under the influence of fashion, or any other factors, these standards can change over time. And no one is safe from becoming another victim of bullying, being accidentally found in certain circumstances or expressing an unpopular opinion. Eastwood’s tape not only interestingly builds the events of 20 years ago, filling them with all cinematic goodies, but also draws parallels with today’s realities, reminding that the problem has not only not disappeared, but has pretty much evolved.
7 out of 10
- I was taught to respect authority. The authorities want to destroy you!
It is indisputable that Clint Eastwood is an icon not only of Hollywood, but of the whole world cinema, and perhaps even beyond the limits of the planet. Meanwhile, he is already 90 (!) years old, but he does not stop his professional activity, however, he practically retired from acting and is closely engaged in directing, combining this role with producing his own films. And at the same time, the quality of his work, with rare exceptions, is below the expected high level, so that Clint Eastwood and his films are frequent guests of prestigious film festivals, taking away valuable awards in the form of various figurines.
And there is a feeling that quite recently Eastwood tapes were at the box office ' Miracle on the Hudson' (2016) and ' Drug courier' (2018), which deserved flattering reviews both in the critical environment and in the audience, so he offers us another picture, which received the name ' The Richard Jewell Case' which again was honored to be nominated for many authoritative world film forums, including the deserved Katie Bates in the second category;' The Best Role in the shortlist ''' Although recently ' Oscar' raises more questions, but in this case everything is relevant.
Screenplay ' Cases...' lies in the outline of the biographical history of the guard in ' Sentenial Park' which began in the summer of 1996 during the start of the Olympic Games in Atlanta. Then an unknown and inconspicuous law enforcement officer, the owner of excess weight and a kind boy expression, Richard Jewell, following the established rules and orders, after finding a suspicious backpack, calls the police and sappers. No one thought there would be an explosive device in the backpack, and if not for the foresight combined with Richard’s professional approach to the case, there would be many more victims. Overnight, Jewell becomes a hero of the nation, but as it turned out, this medal has a flip side - after a while he becomes the object of harassment by FBI agents investigating this case, and the media led by the enterprising Katie Scruggs.
Clint Eastwood remains true to himself: he does not see the United States as the abode of democracy and justice, he literally pokes the nose of all those involved in the violation of human rights, arrange shows, ruin his life, to the point of complete destruction. At the same time, they all try to maintain equanimity, parrying on all subsequent accusations that they were only doing their job. In 'Dele...' Eastwood, without a shadow of embarrassment, exposes the raised to an unattainable height of fame and respect for the FBI, where only by compiling a psychological profile, everyone for some reason decided that Jewell was guilty of preparing the explosion. This is as ridiculous as the agents have come to this case with confidence. A character named Katie Scruggs is a different story. There is no respect for this person, but, rather, on the contrary, such a person causes only hatred, because in the pursuit of sensation, she is ready to go to any tricks. That is, she will go to the corpses just to achieve that very glory.
The film methodically rocks the whole boat of democracy, which politicians and officials so tenderly built before ordinary people. And engaged in an unequal fight against the armed forces of the FBI apparatus, a little man named Richard Jewell evokes sympathy. This approach is not new to Eastwood, and some would like ' to shut his mouth' but it's Eastwood, who's going to fall for it? Here are approximately such feelings are overcome while watching the tape 'The case of Richard Jewell' The story of a little man in a pool of lies, aggression, pressure and destruction.
And a lot for the picture is done by actors who have successfully prescribed roles. If Katie Bates does not need special performances, this is a wonderful actress who made the image of Bobi Jewell memorable, multifaceted in emotional terms and very realistic, then other actors clearly pleased. Olivia Wilde is close to the status of a movie star, but not all her works are perceived as successful, here she embodied such an image that from disgust I still want to spit. I think it’s an achievement for Olivia, and I think it’s an achievement for her. John Hamm in the role of a confused FBI agent also does not attract sympathy with his character and wonders when you look at him - for what such merits they are kept in the Bureau? And again, Hamm plays hard - you need to make the viewer feel emotions towards the character, otherwise everything is meaningless. Of course, comedian Paul Walter Houser as Richard Jewell is a godsend, and the approving criticism in his direction is well deserved. But for me personally, Sam Rockwell is a complete and violent delight. I confess that I had previously treated the actor not very well, for subjective reasons I did not like him, but after his roles in ' Three Billboards on the border of Ebbing, Missouri' (2017), ' The Woman Walking Ahead' (2017), 'Jojo Rabbit' (2019) and, in fact, in 'The Richard Jewell Case' my opinion about Rockwell has changed strictly in the opposite direction and now I boldly assert that he is the best actor in today’s life and deserves praise.
The verdict is as follows: 'The case of Richard Jewell' you can and should watch, it is based on a story from which goosebumps run through the skin from the abomination done by people, from continuous bullying, grew out of the incompetence and cynicism of some personalities. And Clint Eastwood once again confirmed his high professionalism, status and authority, losing his nose to all the punks who call themselves almost new missions for cinema. And the performance of all the actors is great in 'The Richard Jewell Case' but the most striking is the skill of Sam Rockwell.
This is a story about a judicial error, taken from real life, a parable about the evil of “big government”.
It's a fascinating case that writers Billy Ray and Eastwood want to bring to life for us, and in many ways it's a very good story, effectively told - and that's down to Paul Walter Houser's superb and very believable performance (Richard Jewell). He's a heartbreakingly sad guy who in many ways is a de-caricatured version of the criminal conspirator he played in Tonya vs. All'. Sam Rockwell (Watson Bryant) plays a grumpy, unceremonious lawyer who takes on the case of a loser. He's a real figure, too, even though there were many more lawyers working on the case.
Two key supporting roles went to the winner of the award 'Oscar' Katie Bates as Richard Bobie's mother and Nine Ariande (Nadia) as Watson Bryant's assistant lawyer. Bates starts out as Richard's loving and simple mother, but her press conference shows her character in a new light. This is a powerful and heartfelt performance. Nina Arianda brings a bit of warmth mixed with coveted sarcasm to her role. Houser plays great in every scene, and when these four are together, it’s a pleasure to watch them.
John Hamm (Tom Shaw) has perfected the role of a self-assured FBI agent, and here he plays as a man entirely focused on proving that Richard Jewell was a criminal.
Every time Richard says, ‘I’m law enforcement, too,’ 39, it breaks our heart and opens up the FBI’s ability to manipulate him. The profile of a single white man living at home with his mom, carrying frantic dreams of a career in law enforcement, gathering weapons and knowledge about bombs and police procedures, makes Richard Jewell look like a guy who would do something to get attention. However, both the film and the real-life story highlight the dangers of premature harassment, especially in public. These days, the race is always about who is first with history, not who is right. Haste in judgment can be seen as an abuse of power, whether in the media, law enforcement, or people on social media.
Great movie. A simple guy, a hero, becomes a victim of the system. Thanks to sensationalists and law enforcement officers, even a real hero can easily be made a criminal.
Clint Eastwood's new film met all expectations. It was amazing and painful to watch a hero turn into a victim in a moment. The film makes you think about the foundations and values of society. I recommend it!
On the night of June 27, 1996, Richard Allensworth Jewell, working as a security guard at the events of the Summer Olympics in Atlanta, discovered a backpack under the bench in Centennial Park of the Olympics. Inside was a homemade tubular bomb. Jewell immediately alerted the U.S. Bureau of Investigation. After 9 minutes, an unknown person called 911 and reported an explosive device in Centennial Park. By that time, the evacuation of people was already in full swing. Four minutes later, the bomb exploded. One person was killed and hundreds were injured. Richard Jewell was celebrated as a hero who significantly reduced human losses for exactly three days, after which he began to appear as “Suspect No. 1”.
Clint Eastwood (Grand Torino) loves and knows how to make smart movies, emphasizing the heroism of individual people, from whom you often do not expect such. So it was in “Miracle on the Hudson” about the famous heroic act of Captain Sally, who made an incredible emergency landing in the waters of the Hudson in the middle of New York, and in “Sniper”, which described the real feat of sniper Chris Kyle, and in the real-life “Train to Paris”, where three young people prevented a terrorist attack on a train in Europe. The maestro again took up the history of uncompromising heroism before fulfilling his professional duty from a man in whom, perhaps, only his mother believed. And it was perfect again.
Now for a little bit of everything.
1. SOURCE
Two screenwriters were responsible for transferring the story of what happened to Richard Jewell to the big screens: the feverish Billy Ray, who was nominated for an Oscar for Captain Phillips and at the same time managed to get into the weak Gemini and soulless Terminator: Dark Fate, and Marie Brenner, whose most striking work was Michael Mann’s “Your Man.” They did great. Of course, there was a powerful source - a book by Kent Alexander and Kevin Solven, but it still had to be translated into the pages of the script - and they succeeded.
And then Eastwood's genius got involved. To make a heavy social drama, which you watch in one breath from the first to the last minutes, from the plot of the hour-long serial release of the American version of “Man and the Law” – so can not many directors. Eastwood is good at dramaturgy, pumping, character development, close-ups. He perfectly uses the language of cinema and conveys many emotions by the construction of the frame and the entourage of the stage.
2. Actor's Game
Despite the magnificent cast and famous actors, the main asset of the film is Paul Walter Houser (Black Klan Man), who played Richard Jewell himself. It is unknown what was in Eastwood’s head when he took the lead role, though similar to his prototype, but rather strange comedian, a year before that played in the vile and stupid comedy “Superpolice 2”, but the result was magnificent. Houser is so lively and sincere in his role that you worry about him even when you know the outcome. It really gets painful and scary for him. Sometimes you want to get up from your seat behind the screen and give him a friendly shoulder. Eastwood gave Houser a chance, and he used it 200%, becoming the brightest star of The Richard Jewell Affair.
Katie Bates, who played the mother of Richard Jewell, embodied one of her best roles in the last fifteen years. She was definitely and remains a venerable actress, capable of diverse roles and many will have crazy Misery in their hearts, but Katie Bates invested in this role to the fullest (which even received an Oscar nomination for best supporting role). Her character is strong and selfless, and the speech that the viewer will hear near the end of the film, takes for the soul.
Also worth noting is Sam Rockwell (Green Mile) - his Watson Brownt is smart and at the same time comical. Rockwell, with his charisma, manages to both bring a smile and be serious sympathizer at the same time, which he also brilliantly managed in Three Billboards on the Border of Ebbing, Missouri.
The rest, whether it’s the handsome John Hamm (Baby on Drive), who embodied a biased FBI agent on the screen, the big-eyed Olivia Wilde (Dr. House), who played a fussy journalist, or the cheerful Nina Ariadne, who turned into a sarcastic assistant lawyer – they are all in their places, and everyone plays smoothly and brightly.
3. Not before anyone
The film received mixed reviews in the United States. The main claims to the film among public figures were accusations of homophobia and racial discrimination. As for the first, in the film, Jewell repeatedly states that he is not homosexual. This caused unrest in human rights circles. However, such words on the part of the real Richard Jewell took place and are not a fiction of the authors, which speaks in favor of a real reflection of events. As for the second, Eastwood was accused of racial discrimination due to the absence of black actors in the main roles. The question also lies in the real reflection of cases, if you take photos of the defendants in the cases, unfortunately, human rights defenders, black people will not be found. Many directors would make concessions by reversing the real facts to please the screaming crowd. But Eastwood wanted to make a genuine film reflecting real events, so the director did not go on the occasion of human rights activists and contrary to his conscience and shot as he saw fit. Perhaps because of this, the film did not reach the box office in the US film market.
The Richard Jewell Affair is a film made by a man who loves people and loves cinema, for those who worship cinema. The art of artistic storytelling of a real story here is kept at a high level, and sometimes I would like all films of this genre to also punch the audience for emotions.
Summary: a film for an evening thoughtful viewing followed by an expedition to the bowels of Wikipedia (better in such an order as not to spoil anything).
A good movie, worth watching.. watched with great interest, and even where you could fall asleep from chatter - the film cheerfully kept your attention! So it is safe to recommend, especially fans of the genre!
To be honest, I don’t like movies like that, because I’ve never had so many disappointments. A year or two ago I read about this film and expected a good drama, perhaps a detective, but the film tells a completely different story, while its plot can be described in a couple of lines.
Plot.
The biggest disappointment was naturally him, I was willing to forgive any flaws in this film if it showed the interesting story he hinted at in the trailer. Let me remind you that it could be concluded from him that in the movies brave cops and the authorities will put pressure on an innocent person who will have to literally fend off these kites. That’s the message I put into my head at the end of the previous year, and from that point on, all the details dropped and it was the only thing I remembered. And then, when my hands got to this 'a masterpiece of cinematography', I remembered the trailer. More to the point, the film is not about what it claims to be. The trailer tells us about the confrontation, the abuse of power, the terrible infringement of constitutional rights, how the media easily control public opinion. Of all the above, there is only the last one in this film. Although you know, if I wanted to see how the media manipulates public opinion, I would open the first channel, it would at least be free.
Characters and Actors.
I don’t know, maybe old Eastwood always has such characters (I, fortunately, only know him as an actor), but you need to try not to do it so stupidly, look at how Richard Jewell looked in real life, this is like John Goodman, with whom I do not want to talk again, but what did they do with it ' sweetie' in the film? Apparently, the drama really requires erecting everything into the absolute.
- Have you ever had weight problems in your life? - Congratulations, your character will be as similar as the type of fat guy from elementary school. Kamon, guys, a man in his 30s, and he's called fat and fat, a man who doesn't know how to defend himself, and who's at the same table with FBI agents telling them he's not gay. Did you make a comedy or a drama? I think if there were villains in the American pie, they would look like this: plump, insecure, ' not gay' The actor himself does not know who to play, he plays an insecure and downtrodden puff, while in the film he has no reason to be such.
In general, the whole film could be driven under the bar of character growth, they say that at the beginning of the film he was more like a mama's son, who willingly tolerated humiliation and everything else, and by the end of the film he became ' a real man TM' who began to adequately look at life, evaluate people not by their token, but by their qualities, which can be understood from the last scene with the FBI, but damn, is this really the growth of the character at once? This growth has no prerequisites, only sometimes the character of Sam Rockwell yells at the main character, apparently using the methods of some secret Soviet upbringing. And all right, Richard just gets cool at one point, starts making a gesture with the FBI, and at that point the movie actually ends, the last scene doesn't make sense at all. Even my girlfriend saw her and asked, ‘Why did he go to the police after all this?’ & #39 And it's really incomprehensible why he went to work as a cop after everything the movie shows us? Maybe it was a little different in real life? Because in the film it looks terribly antilogical.
His lawyer is a separate story, my God, how much pathos poured out of his mouth during the film, although by the end of the film you understand, cut him out of this film and nothing will change at all, look for yourself, the FBI initially did not and did not have any evidence, in our reality, Richard was only a suspect, as well as everyone who was there at the time of the explosion, and all that the executors of the law do is to act according to protocol, and in the film to justify the actions of the characters, it is not enough to cross the line of normal actions, to show how he was beaten, for the sake of false testimony, for example, I doubt that there was a complete compliance with reality here.
And you can see how the director wants to show something extraordinary, but the frames that he puts himself for some reason do not allow him to make unnecessary movements. The constant touch of pathos in the lawyer’s speech seems to hint at what the film should have looked like according to the director’s idea: pretentious, with strong heroes who will resist the system, protecting themselves and their loved ones, with a pinch of drama, for which the film was started, but how the final creation differs from the ideas. The whole film of the hero is trying to show as pathetic as possible, there is no moment when this could not be noticed, here he is like a fool trusted, here he was called, here he is not considered a person, here he is so kind, and all so bad and evil. And in this case, the film can only be liked as a comedy, an example is Alan from a bachelor party in Vegas, but certainly not as a drama.
Total:
Expectation: the plot of the film will be such that the hero will have to look for the guilty to remove the blame from himself / about how the hero will zealously fight his freedom and innocence.
Reality: a film about a sloppy, about a loser lawyer, about their, apparently, friendship (???), the background of which is given 3 minutes from the force, about how this friend makes in fact GG career (??). Yes, ask me at least now, I will say frankly that I do not know what this film is about, I do not know why this film is, and I do not know why you should watch this film.
Look at something else.
Contemporary classic of American drama Clint Eastwood in 2019 presented the film biography The Richard Jewell Case. In Russia, the show took place in January 2020.
In the center of the events is an awkward, strange man living with his mother and obsessed with the dream of returning to the police to save people. “Be afraid of your desires – they tend to come true,” wrote the wonderful Russian writer Mikhail Bulgakov. Richard gets a job at Centenial Park as a security guard during the Olympics. And of course, during one concert, Jewell finds a backpack with a bomb. And then his dream comes true. Richard manages to save the lives of many people and becomes a national hero. But his fame did not last long. The FBI clings to the beautiful image of a terrorist hero - a loser living with his mother and dreaming of becoming famous, could well have staged an explosion in the park to save people and bathe in the glory. The initiative was picked up by local journalist Katie Scruggs (Olivia Wild) and covered the whole city with news about the main suspect. From that moment, Richard Jewell found fame, but not the one he dreamed of.
The viewer is used to seeing in films (mostly American-made) the heroism of both law enforcement and journalists showing the world the truth, whatever it may be. In this film, the director boldly shows us the dark side of these “servants of truth.” The media in pursuit of any sensation, based only on cheap guesses, can easily break the life of a good person.
The story of Richard Jewell is the story of any little man who falls into the hands of amateurs, who has little power over the public.
Clint Eastwood speaks the language of classic Hollywood drama, where people are not afraid of silent scenes and long monologues (like the speech of Richard’s mother (Ketty Bates), who could, but unfortunately did not bring the actress an Oscar), where morality is shown simply and clearly, bypassing any allegory.
Along with modern, philosophizing and constantly demonstrating films, The Richard Jewell Case looks quite winning. The director reconstructed the old meanings, outdated concepts of the “hero”, and presented it not on a gold plate, but on an ordinary white plate, which gives the viewer a better view of the contents.
Clint Eastwood's Richard Jewell Affair is moderately dry, unsmeared, and at the same time sympathetic, sincere drama that embodies the idea of simple human courage.
Richard Jewell, an obese man in his 30s, sits in a diner and eats his cake. He slowly bites it, chews it and can not hold back tears from resentment and anger. As a security guard at the '96 Olympics, he just did a good job, and risked his own life, saved hundreds of lives, and in return received real bullying from the media and law enforcement. The latter was the most painful, because he always respected them and dreamed of even becoming one of them, and they accused him of organizing a terrorist attack and through the media trumpeted about it to the whole world.
While Marvel shoots multi-million-dollar sagas about fictional, cartoonic heroes, with square chins and superpowers, Clint Eastwood continues to tell simple, but real-life stories about real heroes. Richard Jewell is one of them. He also has a nickname for the Marvel characters. Due to his observation and serious attitude to work, he was nicknamed Radar. However, unlike the muscular characters of the comic, he has a comic appearance of a fat man, because of which people usually laugh at him, look down on him and do not take seriously. But despite this, Richard always sought to serve society, to stand guard of order and do his job well.
All these qualities, plus his bravery, saved the lives of hundreds of people during the attack. He became a real sensation and instead of honoring him as a true hero, he was subjected to an even more violent bullying than before. Two of the most powerful forces have now joined the bullying: the US government and the media. He had to go through universal condemnation, insults, accusations of terrorism, psychological pressure, humiliation and interrogation, and all because he is a little different from ordinary people in appearance and behavior.
The problem of bullying raised in the film is serious and relevant to this day. Clint Eastwood does not give an answer how to cope with it and its consequences, or how to stop this negative phenomenon at all. But we learned the name of a real, not fictional superhero. And if you suddenly meet in the diner funny fat man with tears, eating cake, do not rush to laugh at him. There may be an unrecognized true hero in front of you.
'The Richard Jewell Affair' - a film shot at 90th year of life by one of the fathers of world cinema Clint Eastwood. A famous director and a chic cast, coupled with a rather interesting story based on real events, personally I warmed up a great interest in this picture. In a nutshell about the film we can say the following: Clint Eastwood and the 9th ten does not cheat, releasing another slow drama in dark colors, telling about the troubled fate of people. And this tape, of course, falls into the category of successful.
Now let's go. Highlighting the pluses of the picture, the most powerful cast confidently breaks out in the first place. Paul Walter Houser, Sam Rockwell, Katie Bates, John Hamm and Olivia Wilde. Everyone coped at a decent level, although the intensity of the drama in the film does not force you to pour tears and hold your breath to worry about the main characters, and the characters in places sag in the excessive stereotyping of their images and actions resulting from them, there is still an immersion in the action taking place on the screen and after watching it is simply impossible not to single out the top five characters. Especially harmonious look duet Paul Walter Hausera and ' King of the second roles'Sam Rockwell.
It is also worth noting that the narrative of the film-drama with a timekeeping of more than 2 hours, is built quite dynamically and constructively, viewing does not evoke a feeling of boredom, but on the contrary causes interest in what is happening. In principle, a long-beaten, but always relevant, and in our time especially, the topic of confrontation of the most ordinary person with the system falling on him is raised.
Of the drawbacks of those who jumped into the eye, the following stands out: this is the template of the characters. As in the textbook, the main character of the film is a good-natured and ridiculous fat man, without any negative sides, he loves his mother and invariably believes in the power of the law, excessive ' cleanliness' the character, personally from me, killed vaib throughout the entire film, which did not allow him to fully plunge into the story and worry about the hero, an FBI agent without positive sides, ready to break people by order, but with all the means of a sexually interesting woman
Presenting a full opinion of the film, we can say that the picture turned out quite successful, with its strengths and weaknesses. Yes, this work definitely will not get even in the top three films Clint as a director, but the main thing is that Eastwood continues to please us and does not change itself, shooting an interesting acute social story that raises current problems of modern society.
So, acquaintance with another, rather fresh work of the master, honored veteran of Hollywood, and just a talented and prolific director - Clint Eastwood.
I will try to convey my impressions in the form of a certain structure, and in the end I will make a short conclusion based on my impressions.
So ' input ' - during a concert in the park, one of the guards pays attention to a forgotten backpack. As a result, the backpack turns out to be an explosive device, and only thanks to the attention of this guard, the explosion takes the life of only one person.
Now a little bit about personalities. The guard's name is Richard Jewell. The guy is 33 years old, he is not cute, his stomach can serve as an anti-advertising for all American fast food in its history, the guy lives with his mother, he has no girlfriend. And the guy has some ugly moments in the biography. At one time he worked as a security guard, but clearly exceeded his powers. Even there was a case, posing as a policeman, although he was not. In general, the image of Richard Jewell acquires very certain features: a loser, an unpopular person with the opposite sex, working in various small positions, dreams of becoming a police officer or even a cooler agent of the NSA or the FBI. A man fixated on the service, and frankly short-sighted, and frankly - Eastwood Richard even gives the impression of a slightly mentally retarded guy. He also has a good arsenal of weapons and fake grenades at home. It's for the whole picture.
Who is on the opposite side? FBI agents handling the bombing case. And chief among them is an impressive man, clearly not without intelligence, Agent Shaw. The show is actually not without reason, suggesting that it was Richard who planted the explosive device itself. The motive in principle is simple and, given the biography of the guard, it seems quite logical - an unknown loser who wanted to become a hero and savior. Eastwood of course keeps us all the time ' on the side ' Richard. But from the point of view of Agent Shaw, who didn't know Richard was innocent at the time? Agree, the picture is not so unambiguous, and all searches and suspicions against the hero no longer seem so far-fetched.
Of course, the media is also involved. And they are represented by audacious, determined and willing to do anything for the sake of ' hot' articles and a loud headline of the journalist. She's beautiful, she's smart, she's audacious, she's the opposite of Richard Jewell. In the process, I even got the impression that Eastwood deliberately played on this very contrast between the narrow-minded, naive but innocent protagonist and the Predatory & #39; vultures in the face of two huge forces - the state machine and the media.
A separate paragraph is worth noting the play of Sam Rockwell, who caught my attention with a brilliant supporting role in ' Three Billboards'. He has a completely different type of character. However, at the same time with the role of a somewhat eccentric, but intelligent and able to defend his point of view lawyer, he masterfully coped.
So the conclusion is, what did we end up with? A two-hour film about a simple and kind guy who really wanted to serve the law and enforce it. I had the misfortune of being in the right place at the right time. Or in not necessary time - it depends on which side to look. As you watched the film, naturally, there was a constant association with the Hudson Miracle'. In their drama, these two paintings are almost ' twin brothers'. The film is frankly heavy, it is somewhat boring, the plot is completely logical and predictable, this is a fact. But in another way and not to take a picture of such events. On the other hand, Eastwood, as usual, is able to touch on quite important issues and topics. The first is about the media, which can print any information based only on assumptions for the sake of circulation of their publication. But these same media, as stated in the film, form the image of the guilty or the hero. And there is also a reflection on the helplessness of one small man, not exposed by any great mind or big money, when the state machine takes over him. After all, it is worth noting that Jewell was not even formally charged, that is, theoretically he could continue to work, rest as he likes, communicate with whomever he wants. But in reality, his life has become a nightmare, with reporters on endless duty at home, and the speculations of journalists broadcast on television. And the third thing to think about is what the protagonist said in the final scene: '. Or will he decide to go somewhere far away and not mess with himself so as not to become the new Richard Jewell?'
What's my verdict? The movie about a small man turned out to be good for Eastwood, as usual, this cannot be taken away. Is it worth watching? You should. But be patient, and be prepared for the slow development of the plot, without bright moments and dramatic turns.
The story of Richard Jewell, who worked as a security guard at the 1996 Atlanta Olympics and spotted a backpack with a bomb, managed to evacuate people in time. However, universal gratitude did not last long: in a few days, Jewell himself became the main suspect and victim of derogatory & #39; bullying & #39; by the media.
The film is based on a magazine article, and describes those events that for its time - were ' a real sensation'. Richard Jewell is a well-fed and quiet modest, calm and fair son of his mother. At the beginning of the film, he works as a janitor in the same service, along with his future Savior & #39; and his closest friend, lawyer Watson Bryant (another beautiful and profound role of Sam Rockwell, who in this film, apparently replaced Leonardo DiCaprio who, along with Jonna Hill, turned into producers). Jewel studies legal documents, in his spare time shoots at slot machines, saying that "#39; get ready to protect peaceful, American citizens." Before leaving the service, Bryant tells Richard that “a drop of power is turning a man into an asshole.”39 But the new job does not bring moral satisfaction: the new boss dismisses him for ' harassment' ' drunken students' in the dormitory. As a result, Jewell began working as a security guard at the 1996 Olympics, which began in Atlanta. In a local park, he guards a square with a grandstand, and one evening during a concert he discovers a strange backpack under the bench. He immediately called the police, and they just refused: saying that there are local fans forgot the beer. Jewell strictly follows the rules of his work, and performs it simply and clearly. Timely withdrawal of people to a distance - saved many lives, despite the explosion of 3 explosives stuffed with nails. After this event, everyone’s gratitude begins: all the media want an interview with him, and publishers write books. 'The real heroes are doctors and cops, and I just found a backpack!' says Jewell in an interview. However, the FBI begins their own work - suspecting the relationship of a hero they believe is ' false' and wants ' to confuse' them. The perfect suspect has been found. FBI employee Tom Shaw (the beautiful John Hamm) ' leaks ' information familiar to journalist Katie Scruggs (the unexpected and profound Olivia Wilde) - who in this film becomes ' the embodiment ' the non-parade side of journalism - when it becomes ' yellow' A few days later, Jewell himself turns into the main suspect and, together with his mother (the beautiful Katie Bates), into a victim of derogatory & #39; bullying & #39; by the media.
Live ' classic ' Hollywood director Clint Eastwood continues to create social and simple films about the simple and undescript ' heroes of his time ' 'Let me be crazy, rather than report a suspicious backpack!' says Jewell during another 'interrogation' by the FBI. This is the story of a simple, heroic act, without snot, but unexpectedly touching, and touching something remote and restless in you. The main actor of this 'actor's film' - Paul Walter Hauser - very subtly portrays his hero, who is simply impossible to empathize with. If instead of a backpack with a bomb -- there was a man with a gun -- Richard Jewell might have done everything he could to stop him. And after all, no one would doubt that he - ' a true hero'.
Richard Jewell is a little naive, but not stupid security guard who dreams of becoming a police officer again and a loving mother. Suddenly, in the Olympic Park, he finds a backpack with a bomb and thanks to his efforts, at least a person dies, but a couple of days before the new hero is dug up by the FBI, and then the whole world. -
I have great respect for Clint Eastwood. This year he will be 90, and he managed to become a legend of the wild west, a cop, the creator of arthouse and dramatic films and this time he again released a good movie. "Richard Jewell" is actually a biopic and it's surprisingly well shot and shown.
Lately, Clint is already shooting high - not particularly chasing either awards or fame, or trying to catch a hype. Actually, the hype is exactly what we are talking about in this film. And I have almost no complaints about how the story is told in the film. Nothing looks as if Eastwood forgot or did not want to say something, the dialogue is full of emotions, sometimes they bring to extreme sadness, sometimes humorous. And the film doesn't try to defame anyone or put forward fantastic theories. The film shows Clint’s thoughts, his attitude towards Richard and the media is clearly expressed as a bullet in Sentententz, even if the characters of the FBI and the journalist are somewhat standard. But it is ironic how the themes of public opinion and the transience of rumors are relevant for Eastwood, who tells the story of the 90s.
The actors are excellent, especially Paul Walter Hauser, who was undeservedly deprived of attention at the awards, but he just perfectly plays the role of a simple, but good-natured and decent security guard. Well, my beloved Sam Rockwell shines, I wish he had danced.
And plus camera and installation work. Both do not stand out for something special, but when necessary, you can see that everything is done perfectly, for example, the scene of a terrorist attack.
Verdict: The film is unlikely to be great and has not received much attention, but it is made exceptionally well. A well-told real story, great actors and almost no mistakes in the narrative, even if the main idea is hardly particularly original or complex. This is a perfect, albeit imperfect biopic from the already legendary director.
8 out of 10
Dude is good at playing a loser mattress with a "serve and protect" ambition. The journalist’s remorse at the end is far-fetched and looks unnatural and false. What was nominated for Oscar Bates is not clear, probably for the call-up scene at a press conference or maybe because she is already old and perhaps the last attempt to celebrate the award, but in general played well. It turned out an interesting story as the press and biased stupid opinion can spoil the life of a near-sighted person and so not the most successful.
This is not a large-scale canvas, but rather a nice modest sketch. One very personal story of abuse of power. One story of struggle. What can a victim do in a fight with violent hawks? It's going to be a lot subjective.
But for Eastwood, such stories are very close. This was the case with 'Substitution'. These were 'Absolute Power' and 'Grand Torino'. And if we abstract from the work of the master, the film is quite consistent with the film ' Portnoy from Panama' John Burman, and recently filmed ' Officer and spy' Roman Polanski. It’s not even about corruption, no. This is about the crimes of those who represent the authorities and their total intoxication with their impunity. We can assume that Eastwood wants to tell us about things completely different, but the format of the movie sets its rules.
Richard Jewell’s story is more entertaining than political. We are immersed in this difficult case, in all its details and forced to empathize. The world is divided into good, bad and misunderstanding. Definitely, Eastwood chooses 'red pill'. Therefore, Richard’s incoherent honesty, as well as his mother’s monosyllabic straightforwardness, can be considered to some extent a disadvantage. They are too perfect and unsophisticated.
However, on the other hand, this interpretation makes the film sincere, soulful and fascinating, and therefore accessible to the widest audience. Then why not? In any case, Clint Eastwood stands for quite decent, eternal values.
8 out of 10