Unforgiven (1992)

Twenty-four years after the release of “Unforgiven,” Clint Eastwood is widely recognized as a decorated director, actor, and producer. He’s also a familiar Oscar contender for movies like “Mystic River,” “Million Dollar Baby,” “Letters from Iwo Jima” and “American Sniper.” To older audiences, he is The Man with No Name of the 60’s spaghetti westerns and Dirty Harry of the violent cop movies in the 70’s and 80’s. Clint Eastwood is a cultural icon.

“Unforgiven” is the hinge. It’s the springboard. It connects the famed cowboy of the mid 20th century to the award-winning artist of the 21st. And it’s brilliant that not only is this film an artistic masterpiece, it’s a Western.

Eastwood directs and stars in the story of William Munny, famed for his cold-blooded murders of the past and now a repentant widower raising two children. He’s left his life of thievery and violence for hog farming, though it’s apparent the profession doesn’t suit him well.

The crux of the plot centers around events occurring in 1800’s Big Whiskey, Wyoming. A reward is out to kill two cowboys who disfigured prostitute Delilah Fitzgerald (Anna Levine) after a lenient sentencing from local sheriff Little Bill Daggett (Gene Hackman). Munny is approached by the Schofield Kid (Jaimz Woolvett) to bring him out of retirement and partner up for one last ride. There are other characters along the road including Munny’s old friend Ned Logan (Morgan Freeman) and gunfighter English Bob (Richard Harris). But everything else is a side story. The film specifically zeroes in on Munny and Little Bill.

After watching it twice, what resonated with me the most may seem surprising. Certainly the sombre tone and the epic final showdown are noteworthy, as is the layered yet subtle performance of Clint Eastwood. No, it was the actual title of the movie that seemed to pack the biggest punch. It’s the four-syllable word: Unforgiven.

Forgiveness is a noticeable theme woven in the different storylines. The women refuse to forgive the cowboys. Little Bill refuses to forgive English Bob. Though Munny was forgiven by his late wife, he couldn’t forgive himself. It’s as though he tried to believe his wife by honoring her request to abandon his life of cruelty and violence. But when push came to shove, he quickly and naturally fell back into a routine of killing and living without remorse: the guilt that haunted and overshadowed him eventually overpowered him.

In fact, there are no real heroes in “Unforgiven.” There are certainly villains. Gene Hackman, who today is far-too underrated, won an Oscar for his performance as the twisted sheriff. We want him to die, but it’s still bittersweet when it’s at the expense of Munny’s ultimate betrayal of his vow to change. It seems unfair that Munny should live for killing while Logan died for not. But this is very thing that juxtaposes Munny’s final decision to kill Little Bill and sealed Munny’s fate as a damned, unforgiven soul.

This depth sets “Unforgiven” apart from most other Westerns. It’s a Western that can be honored and remembered because it isn’t about the violence and the gunslinging (though there’s plenty of violence to be had). It’s about complex characters with hopes, fears, and hearts. The cinematography of bleak grays and browns beautifully contributes to the dark tale. I was swept by the overall mood and caught up in deeper thoughts about morality and humanity. Can we be forgiven? Do we prevent ourselves from finding forgiveness? Do people change? 9/10

Other notes:Directed by Clint Eastwood
Won Academy Awards for Best Picture, Best Director (Eastwood), Best Supporting Actor (Hackman), and Best Film Editing (Joel Cox). Nominated for Best Actor (Eastwood), Original Screenplay (David Webb Peoples), Cinematography (Jack N. Green), Sound, and Art Direction
Ranked #98 in AFI’s Top 100 Years… 100 Films list in 1998, #68 in 2008.

Oblivion (2013)

The year is 2077. It's very interesting to me how these dystopian post-apocalyptic films want us to feel uncomfortable by always choosing a year that's not so far in the future. Why not 2248? Why not 2301? No, filmmakers want us to connect. They want us to feel ownership of our mother earth. 2077, this is us and our children we're talking about, here. We're nervous and uncomfortable because the 2077 Earth is much different than the earth we all know and love. It's an earth that's covered more with radioactive waste than it is people after a bunch of alien scavengers attacked it and strip it of its resources. 

Jack Harper (Tom Cruise) (why is EVERYONE named Jack?) is one of the last remaining people around. He chills in his little floating house in the sky with his working partner Victoria (Andrea Riseborough) while he repairs drones (little robot dudes) and gathers more resources from the planet. He is part of a massive operation to help prepare the way for the rest of Earth's population to make it to Titan, one of Saturn's moons. His memory has been wiped of the tragic war, and he's got questions with no answers. He doesn't go prying too far, though, until he finds a crashed spaceship with human survivors and he realizes that nothing can be taken at face value.

Oblivion is a fun film. It is a visual, sensational treat. I watched this cold turkey and please, if you're into sci-fi stuff, and if you've never heard of this before like I hadn't, then don't read this and go watch that instead. It's a good film experience. Then come back and we can talk about it some more. And if you've never seen Blade Runner, 2001: a Space Odyssey, I Am Legend, Prometheus, Wall-E, Minority Report, District 9 or especially Moon (I could keep going), then you'll probably leave thinking this is the greatest sci-fi film ever made. But... really, you should probably watch those first.

That being said, there will be spoilers.

So yeah, it's fun. But I found myself wondering the whole time whether all of this was going to come together or if any of it was going to make any sense and if I was ever going to care about any of it making sense. It's all surface. It's all superficial.

Let's talk about the plot: it's a good idea. It's a really good idea that Joseph Kosinski (TRON: Legacy) is executing for a great sci-fi film however let's be real, it's 2001 and we all KNEW the second there was an alien or robot or drone or whatever it's called we all knew that it was Hal 9000, red light and everything. Of course the aliens were the enemy! All of this Jack memory loss bull was a red herring that anyone with half a lick of sci-fi knowledge could pick out. All of the big reveals, all of the twists were predictable as anything. Yes, the alien is the enemy. Yes, Jack isn't who he thinks he is and there's a much bigger thing going down here. Yes, the Russian is his wife. I mean, he finds this random chick who's been asleep for 60 years, obviously she's important to the story I mean he was DREAMING about her. We're supposed to be surprised she's his wife? 

My other big complaint has to do with character. Granted, it's probably part of the plot and Jack's character concept that we don't relate to him or feel any connection to him at all. He's, like, a clone and stuff. (Though if you watch Moon, it doesn't HAVE to be that way. Kids, just watch Moon, it's way better). But all of the characters were wooden. They could have all been clones, it was really hard to tell the difference. I didn't feel anything for any of the characters at all. The golden opportunity for contrast and emotional involvement is wasted when we are introduced to a bunch of human survivors on Earth. I think of A.I.: Artificial Intelligence (2001) and the masterful contraposition illustrated when we go to the big bad real world. It's in those transitional moments that we feel connected to the characters and understand where the plot is headed. In Oblivion, even when they were being killed by drones, I felt nothing. I didn't connect with Morgan Freeman, I didn't even connect with the wife with Julia (Olga Kurylenko) or whatever her name is. I mean, Jack's a clone, but Julia's human! You'd think that she'd have some sort of emotional response, something to SAY at least when she finally sees her husband after 60 years in cyber sleep.

However, the visuals are absolutely breath taking. I was taken in and completely captivated by the beauty - I feel like everything was made by Apple. The camerawork, lighting, and first 12 minutes of the film were completely incredible, and those were all big pluses. Also, M83's music was pretty sweet. Claudio Miranda won the Academy Award for cinematography for Life of Pi (2012) and it's clear that he's the man who takes our breath away. I just wish there was some heart below the beautiful surface that we could connect with and wish to come back for more. But when all acting is wooden, and when there are way too many plot holes, and when it rips off some of the greatest sci-fi movies of all time, I must say my patience was tried. And for reals, the movie is too long! 4/10

Invictus (2009)

I think the key to my experience with this film was entering the film with the right expectations.  I’d heard many complaints that it wasn’t “as good as Remember the Titans” but I also heard “Gee, I thought this was gonna be a Nelson Mandela biography – what’s all this rugby doing in there?”  Knowing that it was a mixture of the two helped me a lot.

As for myself, I thought it was great.  Not without flaws to be sure but I found it very inspiring.  Morgan Freeman stars as Nelson Mandela, recently elected president of South Africa.  As the country struggles with racial division, Mandela rallies the national flop of a rugby team the Springboks to go against all odds and win the 1995 World Cup and unite their country through their victory.  Impossible much?  Especially when you consider their opponents: the New Zealand All Blacks.  I’ve been to New Zealand.  They’re crazy.  Rugby’s their national sport.  It’s, like, you hear rugby and you think New Zealand.  Ironically, the film failed to mention that 3/4 of the acclaimed team were extremely ill during the match…  Although this would have been worth the mention, what the heck.  It’s cinema.

Consider this film to be yet another success for director Clint Eastwood.  Ultimately, this is not your ideal tough-guy rugby movie, it’s much more than that.  Mandela was a real person, and if this movie does nothing but make people think “Is this Mandela guy for real?” then it has succeeded.  This is where films do so much more than just entertain, but they provoke thought and further interest in a real-life event.  It’s excellent.  Morgan Freeman’s flawless portrayal of Mandela was, without doubt, worthy of an Oscar nom.  He was the heart of the show, portraying an authoritative but empathetic man.  As the Springboks’ captain Francois Pienaar, Matt Damon contributes surprisingly little, and I mean this based on quantity, not quality. Matt Damon is universally popular, that’s certain, but he has proved himself as one of today’s most versatile actors.  He deserves an acting Oscar one of these days.

Consensus: the acting was superb, the cinematography commendable, and the direction top notch.  What makes it special is its uplifting and inspiring message.  “I am the master of my fate, I am the captain of my soul.” Invictus is a triumph in my book. 7/10