First, it was clear that Clint was not playing the part of a guy who is a shell of himself - he was a guy who was a shell of himself playing a part. It was sad to see.

Second, has anyone connected in any way with the game of baseball ever referred to a fat 3rd baseman as a "5-tool" player? Why start now?

Third, said fatty had obvious personality/family issues that Ray Charles would have spotted in his first 10 seconds of screen time. I'm glad we had the grizzled Jedi of the intangible to let us know that he would be a problem.

Amy Adams is cute, though.

Love Amy Adams, like baseball, but there's no way. It looks wretched.

Second, has anyone connected in any way with the game of baseball ever referred to a fat 3rd baseman as a "5-tool" player?

no

Third, said fatty had obvious personality/family issues that Ray Charles would have spotted in his first 10 seconds of screen time.

I think the character was a mash-up of two prospect archetypes, he had Jeremy Brown's body and Bryce Harper's (alleged) attitude...

First, it was clear that Clint was not playing the part of a guy who is a shell of himself - he was a guy who was a shell of himself playing a part. It was sad to see.

It was sad to see when Eastwood was making shabby, horribly written and acted muck where he was a shell of the original role and mailing it in, like with the fourth Dirty Harry, Sudden Impact, and a similar piece of crap, the DH knock-off The Gauntlet. That was 35 years ago. What a turd that was.

For a guy who was capable of knocking out two good movies per decade Eastwood made mind-boggling amounts of crap.

Next week Posnanski reviews such recent releases as Pride of the Yankees, The Babe Ruth Story, and The Bingo Long Traveling All-Stars & Motor Kings

FTFA:

The plot -- and there will be all sorts of "spoilers" in here, so stop if you want to see this movie, though I will say this movie seems kind of spoiler proof since you see everything coming long before it arrives -- the plot is built around an old scout named Clint Eastwood who is played by Clint Eastwood and looks just like Clint Eastwood. I guess the guy's name in the movie wasn't Clint Eastwood, it was something else, but there is literally not one second when you don't think of him as Clint Eastwood. The movie begins with him trying to pee, and you think: "Hey look, Clint Eastwood is trying to pee." It's like that throughout. Hey Clint Eastwood is eating a hot dog! Hey, Clint Eastwood is breaking a bottle!

This is true of every movie Eastwood makes since A Fistful of Dollars (1964) a half century ago, and certainly no later than Dirty Harry (1971). It's probably the essence of stardom (which is the pleasure of watching a person) as opposed to acting (which is the pleasure of watching a person submerged).

How many movies are there where Eastwood appears in a film and "there is literally not one second when you don't think of him as Clint Eastwood"? (I'm not sure it's a particularly useful criticism of a major star, and it's not really why many people go to movies. They go to movies to SEE Clint Eastwood. Not to see him disappear into character.)

I suppose that happens occasionally in The Unforgiven, where rolling around in pig shit and having two young children plays against the type of iconic tough guy loner, but his physique and height are so unusual that he never really disappears. I suppose someone has written something on the difference between stars who can disappear into roles even after they become well known (Streep, Hackman), and those who can't (Eastwood, Pacino, though even Pacino does a nice job of disappearing into character in People I Know in a way Eastwood can't). It's an interesting distinction.

If you RTFA, he makes a lot of strong points about how dumb the plot is, and how the movie could have been much better without actually changing anything significant. Hollywood is so massively inefficient and wasteful that I really wonder when we're going to get a Moneyscript. No wonder they're all Democrats, they adore inefficiency and incompetence.

No wonder they're all Democrats, they adore inefficiency and incompetence.

Clint Eastwood of course being a noted Democrat.

The Gauntlet

Hey, don't knock The Gauntlet, it's one of my guilty B movie pleasures.

And did you just complain that the 4th sequel in a film series was a bad film? And that an actor who has been working since te early 60s and been in near a hunnerd movies made a few stinkers?

Thank you Lieutenant Obvious, that one was too much and you are now demoted from Captain.

10: heh. I think pointing out that Eastwood has made about 2 good movies a decade means that what is left constitutes a little more than a 'few stinkers'. It's interesting--there are some stars who are smart, and when they're involved in movies that don't turn out all that well for whatever reasons, they at least manage to avoid being associated with utter shit; Eastwood's not all that smart*** and he hasn't avoided that problem. (First, stretching a bore like Harry to five films was a filmically depraved thing to do. Second, the dialog in the fourth outing of Friday the 13th was vastly better than the fourth time Eastwood propped up the corpse of Harry Callahan, who in small doses is at least a little interesting.)

I have no problem at all with guilty movie pleasures, but if The Gauntlet is one of yours, I'm concerned for you. It's criminally dull. Even the orgiastic, blasting at the bus sequence is stupidly done. Blah and boo, sir!


***In context, of course. Anyone who can organize the making of a major film, even when a lot of that work is delegated, is unlikely to be profoundly stupid, though there are exceptions.

Clint Eastwood of course being a noted Democrat.

Republicans demand tons of money regardless of the value, or lack thereof, they create. To deny them that is communism.

Once again I raise a glass to you, KT.

I went into Trouble with the Curve specifically choosing to forget everything I knew about baseball since I didn't want to judge it on whether or not it was an accurate portrayal of baseball scouts.

As Posnanski notes, even by that standard it was still a terrible movie.

Gran Torino is awesome, the part where Clint comes out with the Garand and tells'em minority kids to get off his lawn is classic Clint

Edit: Amy Adams is Jenna Fischer but not having been on a decent TV show

I'm not sure it's a particularly useful criticism of a major star, and it's not really why many people go to movies. They go to movies to SEE Clint Eastwood. Not to see him disappear into character.

In the last fifty years, maybe Harrison Ford when he was doing Mosquito Coast. He seems to be trying again with his portrayal of Branch Rickey in 42. I remember Ford was a boring interview, which I used to take as a sign of a good actor in that the character was interesting, not the actor. Then I realized some actors are just plain boring.

Robert DeNiro is famous for disappearing into character, although he isn't in the same starpower class with Clint Eastwood. Do you think De Niro could be believable out of typecast like an old money WASP CEO?

I thought of two other baseball scout movies - The Scout and A Talent for the Game. Are those any good?

Edit: Amy Adams is Jenna Fischer but not having been on a decent TV show

To be pedantic again (it seems like all I do recently!) Amy Adams has been on a decent TV show. In fact, the exact same decent TV show Jenna Fischer was/is on.

Of course, in the real world, it's pretty clear exactly what you mean. I just thought that was a neat little element to the thought.

Every time I see the movie's name, I think of Black Randy & the Metrosquad's "Trouble at the Cup." Which, considering the movie's lack of quality, I gather amounts to a defamation of Black Randy's memory. *sigh*

(For movie buffs, said band can be seen performing in Ladies & Gentlemen, the Fabulous Stains, which I see has been legitimately issued on DVD fairly recently -- a development I of course hastened by paying $20 or so for a DVD-R not too long before that, as is my unfortunate wont.)

Robert DeNiro is famous for disappearing into character, although he isn't in the same starpower class with Clint Eastwood.

Really? Maybe I'm out of touch with popular opinion but I think he is.

I like Robert DeNiro like any American male should, but how did he win anything for Silver Linings Playbook? What a nothing role.

It's kind of startling how low Poznanski has sunk on the journalistic scales the past few months. For somebody who supposedly takes himself seriously as a baseball writer, what the hell is he doing reviewing a 3rd rate movie that apparently nobody ever saw, with good reason?

FWIW, I did see it, the only reason being that I get all the movie channels and, after channel surfing, I stopped to watch it for about 15-20 minutes. That's all I could take. The plot was about as formulaic as you could get. I found myself reciting the lines of the characters before they were actually spoken.

Eastwood has apparently decided that his character formula for the remaining years of his career is going to be a lonely, grizzled old guy estranged from his daughter. Seen it before, Clint. Now try something else.

Robert DeNiro is famous for disappearing into character, although he isn't in the same starpower class with Clint Eastwood. Do you think De Niro could be believable out of typecast like an old money WASP CEO?

In "Limitless" De Niro plays a powerful businessman named "Van Loon". Old Dutch money is even older than WASP! I liked it though he mainly just had one big speech.

It's kind of startling how low Poznanski has sunk on the journalistic scales the past few months. For somebody who supposedly takes himself seriously as a baseball writer, what the hell is he doing reviewing a 3rd rate movie that apparently nobody ever saw, with good reason?

Taking a break from his series of position-by-position analyses of historical standards at the HoF for writers vs other electing bodies?

This just in! Writers nowadays sometimes have "websites" or "blogs" where they write about whatever they want!

Is $5,000 + salary + development costs for a guy who had what amounted to a season of ineffectual major league performance really a good deal? Seems to me, unless a player gives a team major league performance worth more than his aggregate costs of development and salary, it's a bad deal.

People try to distinguish star quality and acting quality in a way that always leaves me cold and unconvinced. It’s making a distinction in kind that only exists in degree as to particular qualities.

Stars can act; all actors have some quality which if possessed to a greater degree would make them a star. (Or if a greater audience came to appreciate that quality.) In fact, you see this with really memorable character actors. (Bogart is a good example here; memorable character actor for a long time who parlay those qualities into stardom.) To a great extent, being a star means filling a niche, and there is only a limited supply of those. And he has something to do with that niche becoming fully marketable.

The best way to think of what either stars or actors do is to look at it as giving performances that audiences (viewers) respond to. That means it’s not so much about what they do or don’t do (although that’s interesting as an exercise in study); it’s about how they make people feel. That’s what decides. What counts is not the performer’s method or approach; it’s how he makes the viewer respond. How and to the extent he makes the viewer feel something. And whether star or mere actor that’s not a categorical difference. Stars or journeyman actor, they all try for that.

Robert DeNiro is famous for disappearing into character, although he isn't in the same starpower class with Clint Eastwood.

What the what? DeNiro crushes Eastwood on peak. It remains to be seen how he holds up in longevity, but considering Eastwood has played a parody of himself for the last 20 years, DeNiro should easily catch him on that too. Eastwood has no role that can match DeNiro in Godfather 2, Raging Bull, Taxi Driver, The Deer Hunter, Casino, etc.

Deniro's face is on a Macau casino

What the what? DeNiro crushes Eastwood on peak. It remains to be seen how he holds up in longevity, but considering Eastwood has played a parody of himself for the last 20 years, DeNiro should easily catch him on that too. Eastwood has no role that can match DeNiro in Godfather 2, Raging Bull, Taxi Driver, The Deer Hunter, Casino, etc.

What the what?

When did actual acting ability have anything to do with starpower?

Eastwood's been a bigger star than DeNiro for almost 50 years.

Furthermore, even on the acting front, they've both been playing essential variations of themselves for the last 30 years; it's not like DeNiro's been Daniel Day-Lewis, for example.

First, stretching a bore like Harry to five films was a filmically depraved thing to do.

Eastwood agreed to make the last Dirty Harry movie in exchange for the studio agreeing to let him direct "Bird." I don't see how you can criticize the man for that.

It's kind of startling how low Poznanski has sunk on the journalistic scales the past few months

I liked his previous piece on Trouble With the Perv much better.

What the what? DeNiro crushes Eastwood on peak. It remains to be seen how he holds up in longevity, but considering Eastwood has played a parody of himself for the last 20 years, DeNiro should easily catch him on that too. Eastwood has no role that can match DeNiro in Godfather 2, Raging Bull, Taxi Driver, The Deer Hunter, Casino, etc.

I don't necessarily disagree with you, but to say that Eastwood has no role that can match DeNiro in something like Casino (basically the same role he had already played in Goodfellas) or Godfather 2 (of which he appears in maybe 30 minutes of) is a bit much. Eastwood's role in The Man With No Name trilogy is one of the most well known and archetypal in cinematic history.

Eastwood agreed to make the last Dirty Harry movie in exchange for the studio agreeing to let him direct "Bird." I don't see how you can criticize the man for that.

Perhaps you can't criticize him for it but what does that say about his star power, that he had to sell out in order to get financing for a low-budget indie movie? DeNiro didn't have to do that when he made A Bronz Tale.

You could argue that Deniro got lucky early by falling in with Scorcese but I have never seen him in a film where you're asking yourself "Why did he sign on for this piece of crap?". You could say that for about half of Eastwood's movies. I mean, Every Which Way But Loose? That's like the cinematic version of Heehaw.

I wonder if it's a generational thing as well. For most people I know under the age of 30 DiNero vs. Eastwood isn't much of a contest. It's DiNero in a walk and a confused look as to why you bothered asking.

I have never seen him in a film where you're asking yourself "Why did he sign on for this piece of crap?".

You can count yourself lucky you never saw New Years Eve.

You could argue that Deniro got lucky early by falling in with Scorcese but I have never seen him in a film where you're asking yourself "Why did he sign on for this piece of crap?".

Ever seen Analyze That? Or Meet the Fockers? Or Red Lights? He's done plenty of terrible movies, like all actors have.

Perhaps you can't criticize him for it but what does that say about his star power, that he had to sell out in order to get financing for a low-budget indie movie? DeNiro didn't have to do that when he made A Bronz Tale.

Nope, but DeNiro totally leveraged his star power to get A Bronx Tale made. Chazz Palminteri refused to sell the rights to his one-man play of the same name unless he could write the screenplay and star as Sonny. DeNiro offered to meet those conditions in exchange for also starring in it and directing it. He even used his star power to get a license from the NYCTA to be able to drive the bus in the film.

Also agree with #33. I am far more familiar with the complete works of DeNiro than Clint Eastwood. I have only seen a handful of the films that made Eastwood famous, and when I was coming-of-age film-wise, DeNiro was king. I think I speak for most of my generation when I say we didn't start visiting Eastward's oeuvre until later in life (I'm 34).

I'm no movie buff, but isn't a guy like Daniel Day-Lewis, like, five times the actor either Eastwood or DeNiro? Isn't this discussion less about who is a better actor, and more about who is a bigger star?

I like them both, but I think how you judge DeNiro depends a lot on how good you think he is his comedic roles, like Meet the Parents. I personally don't care for him that much in such roles, so I think he is somebody who basically excels at playing the same kind of character (smart-alecky, "who you lookin' at?!" kind of tough guy) in a ton of movies.

Eastwood's advantage, I think, is that he doesn't play one type of role as well as DeNiro plays one type of role, but Eastwood plays more types of roles better than DeNiro. For example, could DeNiro remotely play a character like Eastwood's in The Bridges of Madison County? I'm not seeing it.

On the topic of big-time actors, where does Tom Hanks fit in all this? Is there any actor in the last several decades who went on the kind of successful run (in terms of awards and box office receipts) of Hanks in the 1990s? Philadelphia. Forrest Gump. Apollo 13. Toy Story. Back-to-back-to-back-to-back. Two Best Actor Academy Awards in a row - one of only two do pull that off - in totally different roles. (Forrest Gump after playing a guy dying of AIDS?! Then he plays an astronaut? Then the voice of the lead character in one of the biggest animated films in history? WTF?!)

And I'm not even talking about Sleepless in Seattle, You've Got Mail (that's the same move two times). Da Vinci Code and Cast Away, though...I mean, who is pulling that #### off in the last half-century?

I can't believe he was the co-star of Bosom Buddies.

I forgot about Analyze This. Ugh.

Perhaps you can't criticize him for it but what does that say about his star power, that he had to sell out in order to get financing for a low-budget indie movie?

I think it says that the studios were far more interested in a gangster movie starring Robert DeNiro than in a jazz movie not starring Clint Eastwood.

DeNiro is like Ernie Banks. He is going to the Hall of Fame for the first half of his career.

Eastwood in his day could get people into the movie theater to watch his movie while De Niro never really could do that. Films that made money in which De Niro was in tended to be ensemble casts. He's a character actor that somehow became an A-lister. He's William H. Macy but with all the kudos of being an A-lister.

Is $5,000 + salary + development costs for a guy who had what amounted to a season of ineffectual major league performance really a good deal? Seems to me, unless a player gives a team major league performance worth more than his aggregate costs of development and salary, it's a bad deal.

Compared to payers who were drafted and got more in signing bonus and salary bonus and never sniffed the majors, yeah, it is.

Ever seen Analyze That? Or Meet the Fockers? Or Red Lights?

Or Little Fockers? Or Righteous Kill? Or Hide and Seek? Or 15 Minutes?

Or The Adventures of Rocky and Bullwinkle???

DeNiro's been mailing it in with express postage for a quarter ####### century ...

DeNiro's a better actor, Eastwood a bigger star/draw (and better director, though DeNiro's only done two).

And yeah, DeNiro was basically a big-time character actor. Which is what made him so good at his best. Eastwood did the star thing very well for a very long time, too. But Eastwood doesn't have a Mean Streets/GF2/Taxi Driver/Raging Bull era to point to, even though his 60s films (especially the trilogy) were fantastic. (And yes, he wasn't the star of GF2... that's why he won the Supporting Oscar.)

And yes, DeNiro's had lower lows recently, for sure. But unlike WAR, the Fockers series doesn't subtract from the quality of a Raging Bull.

DeNiro's a better actor, Eastwood a bigger star/draw (and better director, though DeNiro's only done two).

I feel like Eastwood's last 10 or so movies have been giant turds delivered on an unsuspecting public. I also liked the DeNiro-directed movie about the CIA from a few years back a lot. So I'll go with DeNiro over Eastwood as a director for the last decade.

I liked Mystic River and Letters from Iwo Jima just fine.

Eastwood's advantage, I think, is that he doesn't play one type of role as well as DeNiro plays one type of role, but Eastwood plays more types of roles better than DeNiro.

Totally disagree about this. It would be impossible to disagree more. If there was any actor who played the same guy in every film, it was Eastwood. Deniro's roles have been much, much more varied- This Boys Life, The King of Comedy, Awakenings, Mad Dog and Glory, Men of Honor, etc, etc. Eastwood would #### his pants if he had to do and accent, for instance, or play a physically frail character.

Clint Eastwood is John Wayne without the cancer.

Ehhh, Letters From Iwo Jima though it isn't any great shakes, face rapes The Good Shepherd into the toilet, Rocco Siffredi style ...

Eastwood would #### his pants if he had to do and accent, for instance, or play a physically frail character.

Or a homeless person, a la Being Flynn.