Cry Macho reviews

[Greg]

But a filmmaker who prizes efficiency the way Eastwood does will sometimes let less than good work from an actor slide in order to stay on or ahead of schedule, whereas he might be able to salvage something by going for a third or fourth (or tenth) take.

On the other hand, limiting takes prevents burning out actors. Here are two quotes from a 1989 Los Angeles Times article about Eastwood shooting Pink Cadillac: https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm ... story.html

“I [Eastwood] find with a lot of films, if they’re overly set up, or if the director insists on a lot of takes, or if things just move along real slow, the lack of energy shows. They become vacant films. They’re technically nice but their soul is gone"
“[Bernadette Peters] And you do work fast, which Clint has a theory about. It’s so you don’t hang around all day waiting for the set-ups. You don’t get sluggish. You don’t get distracted or lose interest. You don’t forget where you are. It’s a good way to work.”

I once talked with someone who was making a short independent film who said that every shot needed at least three good takes, a close-up, medium, and long shot. Sometimes even more if you wanted to try different camera angles. Then, you would choose what good takes to use when you are editing. I would think it would be better to have annotations for the camera lengths, camera angles, etc., for all the shots in the shooting script. If, while you are shooting, you decide there are better lengths and angles to use, you can change; but, you do not need to waste great amounts of time obtaining multiple good takes for every shot.

[Big Magilla]

N. Richard Nash (Nora Prentiss, The Rainmaker) wrote this in 1980 when he was 67. He died twenty years later at 87. Presumably he based the main character on someone his own age at the time which makes Clint Eastwood, who is at 91 and looks it, way too old for the character he plays.
He should have directed it with an age appropriate actor like Kevin Costner playing the part.

This puts a definite damper on what should be the sweetest part of the film, the blossoming romance between Eastwood's character and the middle-aged, at best, Natalia Traven. Unfortunately, they come across as an old man and his granddaughter whose kids would be his great-grandchildren. It just doesn't compute.

I thought that Eduardo Minnett was okay as the kid, but his line readings were obviously those of someone struggling with a language that was not his own. He should have been looped in post-production. The really atrocious performances were those of Dwight Yoakam and Fernanda Urrejola as the kid's parents.

[dws1982]

If this entire movie had been about Eastwood hanging out in that small village with Marta (Natalia Traven, excellent) and her family, soaking up his golden days, playing veterenarian, it would've been great. This is where Eastwood comes alive as a filmmaker, and while he's overall really good throughout, his work in this section is excellent as Mike Milo and Clint Eastwood become one and you really get the sense of someone enjoying and savoring a life that they know is fleeting. In this section it doesn't matter that Eastwood is, by any standard, at least twenty years too old for this role. If The Mule was an elegy, a reckoning with past sins, these scenes are a celebration of life, and they are excellent. He may be getting ready to go to work on his next movie right now, but at its best, this feels like an appropriate final statement from Eastwood, like the final grace note to The Mule's atonement.

But unfortunately, there's a story to tell, and Eastwood is absolutely not interested in telling it.

On a plot level, there's not much to defend, and there's also barely a plot. It's set in 1980 for some reason, not at all necessitated by the plot, probably because this screenplay (written by someone who's been dead for over twenty years, and touched up by Nick Schenk) has been kicking around since 1980. It definitely has the feel of something that was written forty years ago, especially in the Spicy Latina Villainess portrayal of Rafo's mother in the early scenes. Those scenes are as broad and as bad as anything Eastwood has ever done. And as I've already mentioned, the kid is terrible, awful. And as I've said, on a plot level, Eastwood is far too old for the part. The premise is that Dwight Yoakam's character wants him to go to Mexico to bring his son back, but why? He's old and frail and looks it. Why does he not go himself? Why do you want someone who is probably a World War I veteran, someone who was probably born around the Cleveland administration, to do this? Every plot element of this film is bad, worse than the potboilers Eastwood was making 20 years ago, and you get the feeling Eastwood knows it.

[dws1982]

The downfall of Eastwood's efficient shooting schedules is that, if you're only shooting a few takes of each scene, it can really come back to bite when you get an actor like Eduardo Minett, who gives one of the most uniquely terrible performances I've seen in some time. More to come.

Wouldn't that be a problem with bad casting and not efficient shooting schedules?

Well, both. He never should've been cast in the first place. But a filmmaker who prizes efficiency the way Eastwood does will sometimes let less than good work from an actor slide in order to stay on or ahead of schedule, whereas he might be able to salvage something by going for a third or fourth (or tenth) take.

[Greg]

The downfall of Eastwood's efficient shooting schedules is that, if you're only shooting a few takes of each scene, it can really come back to bite when you get an actor like Eduardo Minett, who gives one of the most uniquely terrible performances I've seen in some time. More to come.

Wouldn't that be a problem with bad casting and not efficient shooting schedules?

[dws1982]

The downfall of Eastwood's efficient shooting schedules is that, if you're only shooting a few takes of each scene, it can really come back to bite when you get an actor like Eduardo Minett, who gives one of the most uniquely terrible performances I've seen in some time. More to come.

[Reza]

I gave up on this movie after 15 minutes. Old mode Eastwood and a smart-alec kid. Couldn't take it.

[Sabin]

dws1982 wrote
I still haven't really returned to theaters yet; Nomadland is the only new release I've seen in theaters since last March. Part of it is that I've gotten out of the habit of going (and a couple of the theaters I frequented have closed), and part of it is that I have some health issues that make me a little cautious, and I'm constantly exposed at work every day.

It blows my mind how quickly it's taken so many people, including myself, to just get out of the habit of what used to be my favorite thing in the world. It's very sad.

Thoughts and prayers.

[dws1982]

This seems like one even an in-theatre guy like me could safely watch on HBO MAX. (dws of course exempt from this line of thinking.)

I will also catch it on HBO Max!

I still haven't really returned to theaters yet; Nomadland is the only new release I've seen in theaters since last March. Part of it is that I've gotten out of the habit of going (and a couple of the theaters I frequented have closed), and part of it is that I have some health issues that make me a little cautious, and I'm constantly exposed at work every day. Our school district does not have a mask mandate, and most students are not wearing them. I'm vaccinated but almost every teacher we've had who's been out with Covid this school year (we started in mid August) has been vaccinated, and it's been like 20% of the teachers already. Also, nothing about Cry Macho really got me excited, despite still loving Jersey Boys a few weeks back. Maybe it was the obvious de-aging, maybe it was the Nick Schenk screenwriting credit (the two Eastwood films he wrote are two that hold up the least well to rewatches in my mind). I don't know. I know it may very well be Eastwood's last film and I should try to see it in a theater, but all of the advertising and everything surrounding it reminds me of what someone here once said about Woody Allen: it seems like a movie made by someone who just needs to make movies.

I will be watching it this weekend though, maybe even tonight. And I do plan to get back to a theater soon...hopefully over our Fall Break (in three weeks).

[Mister Tee]

This seems like one even an in-theatre guy like me could safely watch on HBO MAX. (dws of course exempt from this line of thinking.)

[Sabin]

Seems more like The Mule than Million Dollar Baby.

https://variety.com/2021/film/reviews/c ... 235065157/

Adapted from N. Richard Nash’s 1975 novel (the script is by Nash and Eastwood regular Nick Schenk), it’s friendly and diverting and formulaic, in an inoffensive and good-natured way, and it’s a totally minor affair.

https://www.avclub.com/clint-eastwood-r ... 1847675901

To an Eastwood fan, much of Cry Macho will feel like a minor-key variation on familiar motifs, with the sentiment laid on thick. Though he is forever enshrined as Harry Callahan and the Man With No Name, the actor-director has at this point spent decades deconstructing the iconography that made him a star, making movies that tell us, in one way or another, that heroism is momentary while regret tends to be a lifelong affair, and that those who hide behind toughened exteriors end up looking back on emptiness.
Grade: C+

https://www.indiewire.com/2021/09/cry-m ... 1234664630
Grade: B