Skip to main content

I don’t care if his name is Colonel Sanders. Just get his ass back there.

Cry Macho

(SPOILERS) I wouldn’t have credited the director of the very good Richard Jewell with late onset senility, but I can find little other explanation for his disastrous central casting decision, one that destroys any chance Cry Macho has for credibility or dramatic integrity. Towering hubris, perhaps, of the kind that saw Clint, in his previous starring vehicle (The Mule) proving ever-so satisfying and virile while servicing a couple of hookers. That, at least, was a mere interlude. Here we’re supposed to believe Marta (Natalia Traven, about fifty) is so desperate for companionship, she’d see a ninety-year old man as a prize catch. Or any kind of catch.

So yeah. Perhaps the hubris thing. Perhaps Clint doesn’t think he looks ninety, or moves like a ninety-year-old, or talks like a ninety-year-old. I mean, fair dues, anyone reaching that age in a fully functioning state deserves credit. Maybe, in his mind, he’s a human dynamo, but if so, he’s the only one fooling himself when he looks in the mirror. It seems he originally considered the project – an adaptation of N Richard Nash’s 1975 novel, itself based on a rejected screenplay – in the ’80s, opting for The Dead Pool instead (and why not; it boasts a classic car chase). Clint thought he was too young (at 58 or thereabouts). This wasn’t a case of a fine wine like Unforgiven, though. He wasn’t sitting on it, biding his time for that moment.

Production started with Roy Scheider (two years Clint’s junior) in 1990, but fell apart (I could find no mention of the director). Arnie was going to make it twice (in 2003 and then 2011, so around his mid-fifties or mid-sixties). You get the idea. Somewhere around Million Dollar Baby, this ceased to be a serious proposition for Clint. And yet, he persevered (“It’s fun when something’s your age, when you don’t have to work at being older”).

Paul Schrader, who knows a thing or two about indulgently shitty movies (First Reformed is a particularly steaming crock, mystifyingly venerated), took exception to Cry Macho as a whole – “It fails in every area: screenwriting, lighting, locations, sets, props, wardrobe and casting” – but focused on probably the least problematic part of Clint’s Mike Milo (“a shrunken Dirty Harry”): “Clint is given a few cliché-ridden passages about the futility of machismo but... These character insights had value 30 years ago. It was like listening to a criminal apologise to the family of his victims in hopes that the judge will cut him a lesser sentence”.

Mike’s antiquated nonagenarian holding regressive views is fairly inconspicuous when placed next to the sum total of Cry Macho’s problems. Which, rather than “every area”, come down more precisely to writing (Nick Schenk adapted the screenplay, having previously worked on Gran Torino and The Mule) and direction. None of the supporting cast are great, but since they’re required to perform their way through a series of clichés, any failings can’t really be laid at their door.

But Clint, as director, seems oblivious to Clint the actor’s inability to walk, speak, dance or ride a horse (a very obvious close up of Clint NOT rodeoing a bucking bronco) in anything other than the manner of one about to keel over permanently at any moment. This isn’t entirely Eastwood’s malaise; Scorsese seemed conspicuously indifferent to De Niro gumbying about in The Irishman, supposedly in his forties or fifties but looking not a day under seventy. We should just be grateful there was no scene of post-coital delirium with Marta (and while we’re about it, an early scene has Leta – Fernanda Urrejola, forty – throwing herself at someone about as irresistible as Julian Beck in Poltergeist II: The Other Side; in her defence, however, Leta at least appears to be completely insane).

The saddest thing is, Clint simply can’t act any more, unless he’s acting very, very old. Which is a significantly more limited range than he had only a couple of years ago. The plot itself is resoundingly dumb too, doubly emphasised by playing out in the slow motion of a ninety-year-old’s subjective space. For some reason, Dwight Yoakam considers it entirely viable to send someone who should be in an old folks’ home to Mexico, in order to retrieve his son Rafael (Eduardo Minett) from loco mum Leta. Inevitably, Mike takes his sweet time getting back, during which he mostly foils inept hoodlums – usually with the help of Rafael’s rooster Macho – and woos, in sepulchral fashion, Marta. Yeah, Clint extols “This macho thing is overrated”, but I doubt Rafael, who most likely has to escort gramps to the men’s’ room every five minutes, is under any illusions.

There might have been a movie here, had it focussed on the disparity between an old man’s fantasy of his current life versus the reality, of seeing himself dancing with a young dame or slugging a guy half his age, before realising, respectively, that he’s having his dribble dabbed or has just voided himself, but I don’t think that would be especially rewarding. Not with Clint anyway. He probably should have called it a day with Gran Torino, really. Unless he’s making The Zimmer Man, he should stay on the other side of the camera from now on.

Popular posts from this blog

If I do nothing else, I will convince them that Herbert Stempel knows what won the goddam Academy Award for Best goddam Picture of 1955. That’s what I’m going to accomplish.

Quiz Show (1994) (SPOILERS) Quiz Show perfectly encapsulates a certain brand of Best Picture nominee: the staid, respectable, diligent historical episode, a morality tale in response to which the Academy can nod their heads approvingly and discerningly, feeding as it does their own vainglorious self-image about how times and attitudes have changed, in part thanks to their own virtuousness. Robert Redford’s film about the 1950s Twenty-One quiz show scandals is immaculately made, boasts a notable cast and is guided by a strong screenplay from Paul Attanasio (who, on television, had just created the seminal Homicide: Life on the Streets ), but it lacks that something extra that pushes it into truly memorable territory.

Your Mickey Mouse is one big stupid dope!

Enemy Mine (1985) (SPOILERS) The essential dynamic of Enemy Mine – sworn enemies overcome their differences to become firm friends – was a well-ploughed one when it was made, such that it led to TV Tropes assuming, since edited, that it took its title from an existing phrase (Barry Longyear, author of the 1979 novella, made it up, inspired by the 1961 David Niven film The Best of Enemies ). The Film Yearbook Volume 5 opined that that Wolfgang Petersen’s picture “ lacks the gritty sauciness of Hell in the Pacific”; John Boorman’s WWII film stranded Lee Marvin and Toshiro Mifune on a desert island and had them first duking it out before becoming reluctant bedfellows. Perhaps germanely, both movies were box office flops.

Piece by piece, the camel enters the couscous.

The Forgiven (2021) (SPOILERS) By this point, the differences between filmmaker John Michael McDonagh and his younger brother, filmmaker and playwright Martin McDonagh, are fairly clearly established. Both wear badges of irreverence and provocation in their writing, and a willingness to tackle – or take pot-shots – at bigger issues, ones that may find them dangling their toes in hot water. But Martin receives the lion’s share of the critical attention, while John is generally recognised as the slightly lesser light. Sure, some might mistake Seven Psychopaths for a John movie, and Calvary for a Martin one, but there’s a more flagrant sense of attention seeking in John’s work, and concomitantly less substance. The Forgiven is clearly aiming more in the expressly substantial vein of John’s earlier Calvary, but it ultimately bears the same kind of issues in delivery.

Haven’t you ever heard of the healing power of laughter?

Batman (1989) (SPOILERS) There’s Jaws , there’s Star Wars , and then there’s Batman in terms of defining the modern blockbuster. Jaws ’ success was so profound, it changed the way movies were made and marketed. Batman’s marketing was so profound, it changed the way tentpoles would be perceived: as cash cows. Disney tried to reproduce the effect the following year with Dick Tracy , to markedly less enthusiastic response. None of this places Batman in the company of Jaws as a classic movie sold well, far from it. It just so happened to hit the spot. As Tim Burton put it, it was “ more of a cultural phenomenon than a great movie ”. It’s difficult to disagree with his verdict that the finished product (for that is what it is) is “ mainly boring ”. Now, of course, the Burton bat has been usurped by the Nolan incarnation (and soon the Snyder). They have some things in common. Both take the character seriously and favour a sombre tone, which was much more of shock to the

Say hello to the Scream Extractor.

Monsters, Inc. (2001) (SPOILERS) I was never the greatest fan of Monsters, Inc. , even before charges began to be levelled regarding its “true” subtext. I didn’t much care for the characters, and I particularly didn’t like the way Pixar’s directors injected their own parenting/ childhood nostalgia into their plots. Something that just seems to go on with their fare ad infinitum. Which means the Pixars I preferred tended to be the Brad Bird ones. You know, the alleged objectivist. Now, though, we learn Pixar has always been about the adrenochrome, so there’s no going back…

I’m just the balloon man.

Copshop (2021) (SPOILERS) A consistent problem with Joe Carnahan’s oeuvre is that, no matter how confidently his movies begin, or how strong his premise, or how adept his direction or compelling the performances he extracts, he ends up blowing it. He blows it with Copshop , a ’70s-inspired variant on Assault on Precinct 13 that is pretty damn good during the first hour, before devolving into his standard mode of sado-nihilistic mayhem.

No one can be told what the Matrix is. You have to see it for yourself.

The Matrix  (1999) (SPOILERS) Twenty years on, and the articles are on the defining nature of The Matrix are piling up, most of them touching on how its world has become a reality, or maybe always was one. At the time, its premise was engaging enough, but it was the sum total of the package that cast a spell – the bullet time, the fashions, the soundtrack, the comic book-as-live-action framing and styling – not to mention it being probably the first movie to embrace and reflect the burgeoning Internet ( Hackers doesn’t really count), and subsequently to really ride the crest of the DVD boom wave. And now? Now it’s still really, really good.

Twenty dwarves took turns doing handstands on the carpet.

Bugsy (1991) (SPOILERS) Bugsy is very much a Warren Beatty vanity project (aren’t they all, even the ones that don’t seem that way on the surface?), to the extent of his playing a title character a decade and a half younger than him. As such, it makes sense that producer Warren’s choice of director wouldn’t be inclined to overshadow star Warren, but the effect is to end up with a movie that, for all its considerable merits (including a script from James Toback chock full of incident), never really feels quite focussed, that it’s destined to lead anywhere, even if we know where it’s going.

When we have been subtle, then can I kill him?

The Avengers 6.16. Legacy of Death There’s scarcely any crediting the Terry Nation of Noon-Doomsday as the same Terry Nation that wrote this, let alone the Terry Nation churning out a no-frills Dalek story a season for the latter stages of the Jon Pertwee era. Of course, Nation had started out as a comedy writer (for Hancock), and it may be that the kick Brian Clemens gave him up the pants in reaction to the quality of Noon-Doomsday loosened a whole load of gags. Admittedly, a lot of them are well worn, but they come so thick and fast in Legacy of Death , accompanied by an assuredly giddy pace from director Don Chaffey (of Ray Harryhausen’s Jason and the Argonauts ) and a fine ensemble of supporting players, that it would be churlish to complain.

Tippy-toe! Tippy-toe!

Seinfeld 2.7: The Phone Message The Premise George and Jerry both have dates on the same night. Neither goes quite as planned, and in George’s case it results in him leaving an abusive message on his girlfriend’s answerphone. The only solution is to steal the tape before she plays it. Observational Further evidence of the gaping chasm between George and Jerry’s approaches to the world. George neurotically attacks his problems and makes them worse, while Jerry shrugs and lets them go. It’s nice to see the latter’s anal qualities announcing themselves, however; he’s so bothered that his girlfriend likes a terrible TV advert that he’s mostly relieved when she breaks things off (“ To me the dialogue rings true ”). Neither Gretchen German (as Donna, Jerry’s date) nor Tory Polone (as Carol, George’s) make a huge impression, but German has more screen time and better dialogue. The main attraction is Jerry’s reactions, which include trying to impress her with hi