Paul Walter plays Richard Jewell SO WELL. Fantastic supporting cast as well. The narrative while a bit conventional, offsets any critique because of the fact it's based on a true story. One of my top 2019 films.
I was 16 when the Atlanta story happened, and my memory of the events (until this movie was being discussed) was actually the false story that Jewell was the bomber. They got me :/
I know people like this, I worked security while at Ottawa U, I was in the Afghan War and work in a high security environment. These guys try so hard to be in the right place, their soul is there but the rest of them isn't. That being said on your worst day when SHTF it's that guy that's still there. Richard Jewell is a man who wanted to be a hero and found it. In the end the public became the villains .
I agree - the focus should have been solely on how Richard Jewell's life was all but destroyed by both the initial FBI investigation and by the media, instead on this minor element that distracts from Jewell's mistreatment. Eastwood is a solid and very good director, but he can insert elements to a story that miss the mark and again; distract from the essential story.
She died in 2001 so I'm not sure she's in a position to argue about it. That being said she trusted her CIA source that they had a strong case against him and her editor ultimately made the decision to run the story. Whether she was at fault is pretty debatable.
It is ironic that the reporter is portrayed as doing something that never happened, sort of the same thing she and her colleagues did to Richard. Fair game I say, take a bit of your own medicine.
I've always felt a bit troubled by Eastwood's directorial efforts, they're always quite well dramatically and technically executed but they often deal with very heated and complex subject matter and leave room (or some cases directly encourage) for extremely regressive world views to come out feeling validated. It's tricky because a person who doesn't hold these views is able to view the film and see these things and read it as an example of a cautionary tale but there isn't any or enough textual material showcased for someone of the opposite persuasion to walk away feeling challenged rather simply thinking they are the choir that has just been preached to. Or perhaps I'm giving Clint too much credit and the messages I see as appalling are intentional. I'd like to believe that's not the case.
I find it interesting that the reporter has no issue with the way that Jewell is portrayed (as someone who takes his security job way too seriously, and is crazy naive), but it believes that the portrayal of the reporter isn't accurate. HINT: if the story treats its lead character with that much of an unflinching eye... it *just might* be looking at the reporter with the same unflinching eye.
In the past few years there has been an overwhelming number of allegations of people being sexually abused or exploited by their employers, much of them very recent. So I don't really understand why I as a viewer I should be shocked and outraged and immediately in denial that something like this could have happened. Besides, where is the statement from FBI about how they are dissapointed they are portrayed as a grossly unprofessional meat heads? p.s. I somewhat lose respect for them when actors make retroactive claims they did not agree with the movie or the director or whatever, and are actually on the same side with their critics. I mean, you could just chose not to do it (I believe the script for RJ was quite straightforward), or else all you had to say was that you needed this paychek - this would be way more understandable.
She still read the script though and she still took the paycheque right? Feel it’s a bit rich to make the film, having read the script before, and then start to complain about the sexuality of the character.
Kermode's regurgitation of the usual accusations by the woke critics of Clint as a 'Trump Alt-right propagandist', the man is a self avowed Libertarian, is most definitely influenced by his own biases as a proud feminist. It is also no coincidence that Kemode's wife is a feminist professor. Consequently, Kermode had to posture and grandstand or else he would have had to sleep on the couch for the next three years. Kermode's review is biased in the extreme. He should acknowledge it. Isn't' it interesting that this Scruggs character has all these white knights going on a posthumous crusade to preserve the honour of this virtuous maiden and a beacon of professional integrity. Nobody knew about her existence till Clint's movie but they're are all 100% sure that she never set a foot wrong. By the some token, every single movie based on a 'true story' must be scrutinised and fact checked with the same pedantic obsession. We know that is not going to happen, post structural sectarians are not known for their integrity. This was a global concerted effort to teach Clint a lesson. He is one of the last unapologetic men not bending the knee to the post structural sectarian cultist bullies and their tyrannical demands. The Scruggs cretin is a side note in the story. The corrupt FBI goon has a much more prominent role in the story. Overall, a very good movie about the average man fighting oppressive hooliganism of corrupt officials.
Terrific movie! Eastwood at his most efficient, just let his stellar cast do their thing. Box office was probably hurt more by excessive f-bombs and using The Lord's name in vain than it was by Olivia Wilde controversy. Maybe American Sniper was the same, but seemed out of place here. Eastwood has a built-in conservative audience that he chased away this time..
Clint was born in 1930. I think it's fair to say he gets some things wrong. In Sully, as well as R.Jewell. I was concerned about Wilde's performance egged on by Eastwood.
Wilde's response to the controversy is very good. Is it possible there were other scenes about her character that got cut? Also I'm not sure about seeing this film. The acting in the clip is really good, and swayed me a lot, but in all honesty Sully bored me and this looks like it might as well (also its title is shite)
this is one for the age of trump..i imagine more than a few americans will be raising a few eyebrows , provocative by eastwood and probably deliberately so :(
![VICTOR Denmark Open 2024 | An Se Young (KOR) [1] vs. Gregoria Mariska Tunjung (INA) [5] | SF](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/Y3QEyCih85s/mqdefault.jpg)
You've got to hand it to Clint. 89 years old and still doing what he loves.
Agreed. 👍👍
Paul Walter plays Richard Jewell SO WELL. Fantastic supporting cast as well. The narrative while a bit conventional, offsets any critique because of the fact it's based on a true story. One of my top 2019 films.
I was 16 when the Atlanta story happened, and my memory of the events (until this movie was being discussed) was actually the false story that Jewell was the bomber. They got me :/
I know people like this, I worked security while at Ottawa U, I was in the Afghan War and work in a high security environment. These guys try so hard to be in the right place, their soul is there but the rest of them isn't. That being said on your worst day when SHTF it's that guy that's still there. Richard Jewell is a man who wanted to be a hero and found it. In the end the public became the villains .
I agree - the focus should have been solely on how Richard Jewell's life was all but destroyed by both the initial FBI investigation and by the media, instead on this minor element that distracts from Jewell's mistreatment. Eastwood is a solid and very good director, but he can insert elements to a story that miss the mark and again; distract from the essential story.
Ironic a newspaper guilty of stitching someone up doesnt like being stitched lol
A reporter who ruined someone's life doesn't want her own life ruined.
Funny.
She died in 2001 so I'm not sure she's in a position to argue about it. That being said she trusted her CIA source that they had a strong case against him and her editor ultimately made the decision to run the story. Whether she was at fault is pretty debatable.
It is ironic that the reporter is portrayed as doing something that never happened, sort of the same thing she and her colleagues did to Richard. Fair game I say, take a bit of your own medicine.
man falsely accused... woman most affected...
I've always felt a bit troubled by Eastwood's directorial efforts, they're always quite well dramatically and technically executed but they often deal with very heated and complex subject matter and leave room (or some cases directly encourage) for extremely regressive world views to come out feeling validated. It's tricky because a person who doesn't hold these views is able to view the film and see these things and read it as an example of a cautionary tale but there isn't any or enough textual material showcased for someone of the opposite persuasion to walk away feeling challenged rather simply thinking they are the choir that has just been preached to.
Or perhaps I'm giving Clint too much credit and the messages I see as appalling are intentional. I'd like to believe that's not the case.
I find it interesting that the reporter has no issue with the way that Jewell is portrayed (as someone who takes his security job way too seriously, and is crazy naive), but it believes that the portrayal of the reporter isn't accurate.
HINT: if the story treats its lead character with that much of an unflinching eye... it *just might* be looking at the reporter with the same unflinching eye.
I really want to see this. The trailer sold it to me big time.
Rotten Tomatoes 96% positive audience reviews (9,000 so far)
In the past few years there has been an overwhelming number of allegations of people being sexually abused or exploited by their employers, much of them very recent. So I don't really understand why I as a viewer I should be shocked and outraged and immediately in denial that something like this could have happened. Besides, where is the statement from FBI about how they are dissapointed they are portrayed as a grossly unprofessional meat heads?
p.s. I somewhat lose respect for them when actors make retroactive claims they did not agree with the movie or the director or whatever, and are actually on the same side with their critics. I mean, you could just chose not to do it (I believe the script for RJ was quite straightforward), or else all you had to say was that you needed this paychek - this would be way more understandable.
Saw this tonight excellent performances. But my ticket , a coke and a bag of sweets were 25 euro! Wait to watch it on tv .
This is not a movie review
Paul Walter was brilliant.
Paul Walter Hauser will always be Richie the Juggalo to me.
Saw it today. Straight to the top of this year’s list!
Well worth seeing: very interesting and an excellent cast. So glad we saw this film.
Excellent film but it’s Clint so what would you expect. Sam Rockwell is great. Jon Hamm makes a good corrupt agent too.
Excellent film, really enjoyed it.
Going to watch tonight.
Could I watch it and dismiss that it was based on actual events but enjoy it for what it is...a movie with a narrative about a wrongly accused man?
480p??? I need to see Marks quiff in HD
Clint is amazing. He could have dementia but he is pushing out so many films. 😉😉
Media types report each other.
She still read the script though and she still took the paycheque right? Feel it’s a bit rich to make the film, having read the script before, and then start to complain about the sexuality of the character.
Unfortunately Mark's political correctness means he can't give a honest review anymore
"The writer from 'Captain Phillips'..."
.
(if you din't know, the Captain Philips movie is a pack of lies)
Kermode's regurgitation of the usual accusations by the woke critics of Clint as a 'Trump Alt-right propagandist', the man is a self avowed Libertarian, is most definitely influenced by his own biases as a proud feminist. It is also no coincidence that Kemode's wife is a feminist professor. Consequently, Kermode had to posture and grandstand or else he would have had to sleep on the couch for the next three years. Kermode's review is biased in the extreme. He should acknowledge it.
Isn't' it interesting that this Scruggs character has all these white knights going on a posthumous crusade to preserve the honour of this virtuous maiden and a beacon of professional integrity. Nobody knew about her existence till Clint's movie but they're are all 100% sure that she never set a foot wrong. By the some token, every single movie based on a 'true story' must be scrutinised and fact checked with the same pedantic obsession. We know that is not going to happen, post structural sectarians are not known for their integrity. This was a global concerted effort to teach Clint a lesson. He is one of the last unapologetic men not bending the knee to the post structural sectarian cultist bullies and their tyrannical demands. The Scruggs cretin is a side note in the story. The corrupt FBI goon has a much more prominent role in the story. Overall, a very good movie about the average man fighting oppressive hooliganism of corrupt officials.
Terrific movie! Eastwood at his most efficient, just let his stellar cast do their thing. Box office was probably hurt more by excessive f-bombs and using The Lord's name in vain than it was by Olivia Wilde controversy. Maybe American Sniper was the same, but seemed out of place here. Eastwood has a built-in conservative audience that he chased away this time..
Clint hasn't made a decent movie for quite some time . . . . Guy in main role and Kathy Bates both seem very good . . . I might give it a look
Clint Eastwood makes a media hating, FBI hating overtly sexist film? Colour me shocked...
Looking forward to this Clint can do no wrong in my eyes 👌🏻
Good good film I thought 👍👍👍
Where did clint go wrong
Clint was born in 1930. I think it's fair to say he gets some things wrong. In Sully, as well as R.Jewell. I was concerned about Wilde's performance egged on by Eastwood.
Once again Clint’s outdated views on women/politics ruins his film. Just him yelling at an empty chair again...
Wish Eastwood would just get back to making films wholly based in fiction rather than continuing down this based on a true story claptrap.
Wilde's response to the controversy is very good. Is it possible there were other scenes about her character that got cut?
Also I'm not sure about seeing this film. The acting in the clip is really good, and swayed me a lot, but in all honesty Sully bored me and this looks like it might as well (also its title is shite)
Stick with ‘The Lost Honour of Christopher Jefferies’, then, is it?
kermode working for the BBC.... the irony
Think I'll give this a pass and wait for Netflix. Many of Eastwood film have to deal with authority and patriotism.
Clint is still yelling at an empty chair....it makes his films ridiculous.
Super film but MK gives far too much away in the review drives me mad! Just talk about acting - direction etc no need to tell the story - v annoying
this is one for the age of trump..i imagine more than a few americans will be raising a few eyebrows , provocative by eastwood and probably deliberately so :(
crap like parasite is a best pic candidate, but jewell isn't on the main lists...wtf?? rockwell was so good. clint, still on top of his game.