E.R. Torre's Blog, page 113

Now You See Me 2 (2016) a (mildly) belated review

Back in 2013 the movie Now You See Me was released and became, at least to my mind, something of a surprise hit.  My daughter saw it and recommended it and, while I haven’t seen the full movie, I caught most of it one day on cable and found it an entertaining diversion…though just about everything that happened within the film would have been impossible for a group of four magicians to accomplish without some major cash and an army of assistants.

But I’m getting ahead of myself.

Now You See Me was about four magicians (played by , , , and ) who are engaged in a “Mission: Impossible” type …uh… mission and use their skills to expose nefarious deeds perpetrated by the film’s villain(s).

If my plot description sounds rather vague, this is on purpose.  I don’t want to get into too many details for those who haven’t seen the film and are curious to do so as there are plenty of revelations along the way and not everyone is who you think they are.

Again, what I saw of that film (roughly the last 2/3rds) was enjoyable.  Further, the film did well enough at the box office to merit a sequel.

2016’s Now You See Me 2 brings the whole gang back minus Isla Fisher’s Henley Reeves character.  She is replaced by as Lula, who plays another highly skilled female magician.

If you liked the original film, Now You See Me 2 will probably appeal to you as well though this time around the revelations and surprises aren’t quite as “big” as they were in the first film.  Given what happened in the first film, I suspect there was no way they could be.

Yet the film, as directed by (taking over for the original’s ), is a slick concoction that moves moves moves along at a heart-racing pace and is enjoyable enough…though it lacks the freshness of that first film.

In a piece of sly casting, everyone’s favorite wizard joins these proceedings as the movie’s main villain and he’s decent in a role that doesn’t ask all that much of him except to be the bad guy.

Is the film worth seeing?

If you have the free time, it is but the fact is that as slick as this movie is, and as neat as some of the sequences are (there’s one involving a card which is very slick indeed), this film is the definition of disposable entertainment.  What you have in Now You See Me 2 is a sugary concoction that won’t make you hate the fact that you gave a little over two hours  of your time watching it yet it won’t linger all that long in your head.  If it does, the only things you’ll think about are the movie’s many impossibilities.

Still, you could do far worse than spend time watching this film, though if you haven’t seen either it or the original I’d recommend seeing the first one and, depending on how much you like it, only then giving the second a try.

Which is my long winded way of saying I give Now You See Me 2 a mild recommendation.  Brainless, slick fun that you will enjoy…provided you don’t take it too seriously.

They didn’t say no so that means…yes?!

I love Pink Floyd.

Love them.

I distinctly recall first listening to their seminal album, The Dark Side of the Moon, while in High School (I wasn’t in the U.S. for most of the 1970’s and therefore didn’t catch the latest/not so latest music of the times until I started High School).  The album, to say the least, blew me away.  It was lyrical, haunting, emotional, beautiful, and, above all else, a musical work of art.

Those there are those who love the bands earlier works -and I certainly won’t argue with them!- it is my opinion the band’s “golden years” started with the underappreciated album Meddle and continued through the next four albums, The Dark Side of the Moon, Wish You Were Here, Animals, and, finally The Wall.

An incredible run which, unfortunately, came to an end because of internal divisions within the band.

The fact of the matter is that Roger Waters, one of the band’s founders, and David Gilmour, the man who stepped in when Syd Barrett left the band for mental issues, had a falling out.  The Final Cut, the album that followed The Wall, was essentially a Roger Waters solo album and the last to feature Mr. Waters in the band.  The following “Pink Floyd” albums were, conversely, more like David Gilmour solo albums.

Anyway, the years passed and attitudes and old hurts appear to have faded with time and, while the old band could never be again (keyboardist/vocalist Richard Wright passed away in 2008), the remaining three members of the band, Roger Waters, David Gilmour, and drummer Nick Mason could, in theory, reunite one last time…

And according to this article by Ed Mazza on Huffington Post, there just might be a possibility of that happening…

Great Gig in Glastonbury: Is a Pink Floyd Reunion in the Works?

I must admit, the article’s headline certainly got me excited but reading the article itself…I dunno.

According to the article, David Gilmour considers himself “retired”.  Roger Waters is about to release a new solo album and I suspect promoting it will take up a good deal of his current time and therefore maybe doing a Pink Floyd reunion may not be on his mind.

Then again, what better way to promote your new stuff by reminding everyone where you’ve come from and what you’re best known for?

Regardless of whether this will indeed happen, what is most startling, at least to me, is the passage of time.

When I was young and just getting into Pink Floyd, it was as if I was listening to the music of the Gods themselves.  This stuff was timeless and, in my young mind, would be listened to for generations.

And then time passed and, while not forgotten, let’s face it, Pink Floyd is a band that appeals to a certain audience and I suspect there are many young folk out there who don’t appreciate it anywhere near the way my generation did/does.

I saw Pink Floyd in concert in the late 1980’s, after Roger Waters left the band, and must admit the concert was one of the best I’ve ever seen (I was never a big concert goer, but did manage in those years to see David Bowie and Fleetwood Mac as well as heavy metal acts Megadeth, Anthrax, and Slayer among others).

If Pink Floyd were to reunite, I suspect they’d do so on a very limited basis, perhaps a group of concerts (if that!) limited to some very big venues.

I might try to catch it, if I could.

I just might!

Yet more politics…

It’s been, astonishingly, 27 days -not yet a month- since Donald Trump became president of the United States of America (Curious how long he’s been President?  Click here).

Feels like a lifetime since then and certainly much longer than 27 days!

The news outlets like to show how the job of President “ages” the people on the job.  Someone far wiser (and clever…wish I knew who!) than me noted that this time around, the country is going to age during his term.

Giving Mr. Trump some props, he decided yesterday to have a long (77 minutes, in the end) press conference and answer many, many questions from reporters.

Again, I have to give Mr. Trump some props for doing this.  The administration has been in turmoil of late and for him to go out there and answer questions from reporters was, if nothing else, a brave thing to do.

However…

If the press conference was intended to show Mr. Trump in charge and ease any fears people have that his government is stable…he pretty much blew it.

One of the reactions, from Stephen Collinson from Mr. Trump’s hated CNN, offers this:

Donald Trump -under fire- returns to the campaign

Others laid into his performance, like S.V. Date for Huffington Post…

Trump blames media, judges, Democrats in Chaos Theory Tour-De-Force

Also from the Huffington Post, twitter reactions…

Scarier than Psycho: Twitter erupts over Trump’s “Bat#$@” press conference

My favorite reaction, from Gary Cooper, offers the following gif and these words:

SNL writers at the moment…

Yup.

Though if you think about it, the writers at SNL still have today and tomorrow to see what further madness might occur which they can find humor with.

Speaking of which, thank the Gods its Friday.  To everyone out there, have yourselves a nice, relaxing break.

 

The Continuing Story of Mel Gibson

Yesterday the rather shocking news of being considered for director of Suicide Squad 2 was released.  Some, like Megan Reynolds at Jezebel.com, reacted…quite negatively:

Great, Mel Gibson is in talks to direct a Suicide Squad sequel

Today comes an article on comicbook.com and written by Jay Jayson notes that Mel Gibson himself has confirmed during a screening of his film Hacksaw Ridge that he was in consideration for the movie’s director.  While Warner Brothers is in contact with other potential directors, Mr. Jayson’s article states that the job is his “if he wants it”:

Mel Gibson confirms he is in talks with WB to direct Suicide Squad 2

Now I’m slowly, inevitably, becoming an old fart.  I know it, my body reminds me of it constantly (damn it!), and the greys in my hair and the wrinkles I see in the mirror reinforce this fact.

I point this out because unlike others, I’m old enough to have lived through Mel Gibson’s entire career arc.

My first big exposure to him was in local theaters via what I consider one of the all time best action films ever made, the 1981 flick The Road Warrior (aka Mad Max 2)…

So impressed was I with Mel Gibson that I eagerly sought out the first Mad Max film, released in 1979 and found it a great first stab at the world of Max.  I caught him in some other films, most notably the now forgotten Attack Force Z (also released in 1981)…

I point out Attack Force Z because this film was essentially an Australian version of The Dirty Dozen, the film which I strongly suspect was on the mind of John Ostrander, the writer who co-created the modern super-villain version of The Suicide Squad…

Fast forward many years and I watch as Mel Gibson becomes a box office behemoth.  His Lethal Weapon films are incredibly successful while he expands his career between action/adventure films and more “serious” dramatic roles such as those in The Year of Living Dangerously (1982), Mrs. Soffel (1984) and Hamlet (1990).  Then, in 1993, Mr. Gibson acts in and directs his first film, The Man Without a Face.  While that film isn’t particularly well remembered today, his follow up certainly is, 1995’s Braveheart.

Since then, Mr. Gibson’s directed The Passion of the Christ, Apocalypto, and, most recently, Hacksaw Ridge.  While The Passion of the Christ was not without its controversy, almost every one of Mr. Gibson’s directorial films, whether they feature him in the lead role of not, has been met with considerable critical acclaim, even his most recent films.

This despite what is clearly on everyone’s mind when they think of Mr. Gibson: The meltdown he experienced back in 2006.

Let’s be damn blunt here: Mr. Gibson’s actions back then were vile.  While Mr. Gibson has repeatedly apologized for his grotesque behavior and racist rants and noted they were made at a time he abused alcohol and was in the throes of emotional problems, the fact is that when most people today see or hear about Mr. Gibson, that’s what they think about.

So its not all that surprising there’s already a negative reaction to the idea that he might be involved in Suicide Squad 2.

Me?

Perhaps because I’ve followed his career for so long I’m a little more forgiving.

Anyone who’s been around here any length of time knows I enjoyed Batman v Superman.  Suicide Squad, on the other hand, is a much harder film to defend.  From a story standpoint, the film was a complete mess.  What made it tolerable was the fact that it had considerable energy, humor, as well as fun acting by Will Smith and Margot Robbie.

Yet one can’t help but feel this was a missed opportunity.  Looking at The Dirty Dozen (or, indeed, Attack Force Z), there is a way to make a Suicide Squad film that is gripping, humorous, blunt, and, once it finishes, leaves audiences satisfied.

Given Mel Gibson’s career, both as actor and director, I’m inclined to think he easily has the skills to make a Suicide Squad film that works.

The question is whether Warner Brothers can take the critical heat from the public while the film is being worked on…and whether they can do this while allowing Mr. Gibson a free hand at making the type of film he will surely want to make.

Assuming all this is possible and Mr. Gibson releases a *gasp* good Suicide Squad film, is it possible Mr. Gibson, the person, can be redeemed in the eyes of the public?

That most certainly remains to be seen.

Oh my…

Its getting really hard not to get political around these parts, as much as I am loathe to do so.

Politics, especially nowadays, are incredibly polarizing and if you’ve followed my writings for any length of time you know where I stand.

Having said that, to those who are on the right, politically, I can’t help but wonder when you look at all the news floating out there about President Trump and, especially of late the resignation/firing of General Flynn and the hints at collusion between Russia and Mr. Trump’s people, does it not at least make you a little queasy?

Just a little bit?

I mean, its been roughly three weeks since Donald Trump has become President and the news cycles have been filled with mostly bad, worse, and terrible news regarding his Presidency.

Going back to General Flynn, this is the sort of thing he did back on the campaign trail…

I especially love the very first words he utters in the clip above:

We do not need a reckless President who believes she is above the law.

Wow.

Projection much?

I may have noted this before, but in my other life, I studied Psychology and one of the most interesting “defense” mechanism I encountered was that of Projection.

In a nutshell, Projection is used by people to defend themselves “against their own unconscious impulses or qualities (both positive and negative) by denying their existence in themselves while attributing them to others.”

So therefore when General Flynn talks about a “reckless” President who believes herself “above the law” and then looks at what Mr. Trump has done in the past three weeks, can we not agree at the very least it has been reckless and there has been a disregard for the law (“So-called judges”)?

This isn’t unique in General Flynn.

Donald Trump often used this, insulting others with phrases that seemed more apropo to himself.

We’re only three weeks in, folks, and with General Flynn’s resignation/firing for having talked to the Russians before the actual election and then lying about having done so the media and members in Congress are beginning to wonder the exact extent of Mr. Trump’s relationship with Putin and the Russian power base.

Perhaps the biggest unanswered question, and a frightening one it is, is this: Did Donald Trump and his staff know that Russia was trying to sabotage Mrs. Clinton’s campaign by hacking her people’s computers and then releasing the information to the media?  Did he not only agree to this but encourage it?

And if that’s the case, what does it say about our media when there were hints about this already there, during the election, and no one seems to have taken them seriously until now?

Frightening, frightening stuff.

Well that’s interesting…

If you spend any amount of time on Reddit, you may find interesting stories like this one:

Man escapes African desert doom by turning wrecked car into DIY motorcycle

The above article, written by Meghan Neal and found on nydailynews.com, concerns Emile Leray, a Frenchman who found himself driving in a restricted area of Africa and twenty miles from the nearest village when he wrecked his car.

As the title of the article states, he then turned the wrecked car, a Citroen, into a motorcycle and used that to get himself to safety.

Granted I’ve spoiled most of the above article but you should give it a look-see for the various details.  I’ll spoil the article a little bit more and offer the following photograph, which shows the DIY motorcycle Mr. Leray made from his wrecked car:

The LEGO Batman Movie (2017) a (just about right on time) review

When I first heard about 2014’s The LEGO Movie, I shook my head and arrogantly thought: This sounds like childish trash.

Then the movie was about to be released and I was incredibly surprised to find critics nearly unanimously loved the film.  (At this point in time, the movie has a 96% positive among critics and an equally impressive 87% positive among audiences over at Rottentomatoes.com)

Yet I didn’t see the film when it was released.

A few months later, it so happened the family and I were (don’t be jealous) vacationing in England and on the very long flight over there I checked out the films available for me to see and one of them was The LEGO Movie.  I decided to give it a try because, frankly, I was curious why the critics so liked it.  I still couldn’t believe it could be any good, yet I gave it a try and…

…I was smitten.

The film was incredibly creative, original, and hilarious.

One of the best things about the film was the way it incorporated so many characters into the story.  Characters like, you guessed it, Batman.

In fact, its safe to say that of all the special guest stars within The LEGO Movie Batman was the most consistently amusing, which is why it isn’t too big of a surprise that the studios realized they had a damn good thing on their hands and green lit, and this past weekend released, The LEGO Batman Movie (I’ll refer to it as TLBM from now on).

Here’s a “Behind the Bricks” featurette:

Once again featuring Will Arnett voicing Batman, TLBM also features a host of other well known actors voicing other characters.  There’s Michael Cera as Robin/Dick Grayson, Rosario Dawson as Barbara Gordon, Zach Galifianakis as The Joker, and Ralph Fiennes as Voldemor—no, he played Alfred (why exactly didn’t he voice Voldemort, whom he played in the Harry Potter films?!  Oh, they got Eddie Izzard to do that!).

The big question is: How does TLBM compare to The Lego Movie?  Is it on the same level?  Is it as good, as creative?

Sadly, the answer is no.

That’s not to say TLBM is a bust.  Far from it.

The movie’s first half, in particular, is incredibly amusing and often laugh out loud funny.  Unfortunately, somewhere along the line this film, at least to me, lost its momentum and, while its second half wasn’t bad, neither was it quite as sharp and amusing as that first half.

Please don’t misunderstand me: TLBM is a damn good film and easily recommended to not just those who like the LEGO world but to anyone who wants to see a good comedy (it helps if you have a geek’s awareness of many of Batman’s iterations, too, especially the Batman TV show of the 1960’s).  Just don’t expect the sustained highs of The Lego Movie.

Recommended but with that one little caveat.  (BTW, and without spoiling too much, the absolute best joke comes at Marvel’s expense.  Loved it.)

2017 Grammy Awards…

Watched only a few minutes of it (obligatory “I’m really out of synch with today’s music, etc. etc. grumble grumble get off my lawn) but afterwards read how the late David Bowie won every Grammy his last album released a mere two days before his passing, Blackstar, was nominated for (the below link is for the article found on Slate.com and was written by Matthew Dessem)…

Even Death Couldn’t Stop David Bowie From Sweeping His Grammy Categories

While astonishing to find Mr. Bowie’s final album won all five Grammys it was nominated for (Best Alternative Music Album; Best Rock Performance; Best Engineered Album, Non-Classical; Best Rock Song; and Best Recording Package), it was disheartening to read in the very same article the following, the very first lines in this article:

Over the course of his decades-long career, David Bowie earned critical and popular acclaim for his extraordinary songwriting, singing, and performance. What he didn’t earn was a Grammy—at least not for his music. (He won in 1985 for Best Video, Short Form, and was given a lifetime achievement Grammy in 2006.)

He previously won Grammys for Best Video?!  In 2006 he received a “lifetime” achievement?

Yet not one of his albums, many of which are stone cold classics, merited any Grammy love until now?

Mr. Bowie, of course, isn’t unique in the entertainment field with respect to getting respect.  A couple of days ago I found a short interview on the Guardian with Mel Brooks (you can read it here) and he noted this regarding Alfred Hitchcock…

In his opinion, Hitchcock is “the greatest director ever. The stories, the way he set up shots, everything.” Yet Hitchcock never got the respect he deserved. “In France they worshipped Hitchcock,” Brooks says. “But as he once told me, ‘In England and America they view me as an entertainer.’”

While Mr. Hitchcock was nominated for “Best Director” for five of his films (Rebecca, Lifeboat, Spellbound, Rear Window, and Psycho), his only Oscar, kinda/sorta like what Mr. Bowie received, was the Irving G. Thalberg Memorial given in 1968 for “Creative producers, whose bodies of work reflect a consistently high quality of motion picture production.”

Like Mr. Bowie (until this Grammys, of course), he was awarded for his body of work yet was never given an award for his individual works

Mr. Brooks goes on to talk about how good actor Gene Hackman was in his hilarious cameo role in the movie Young Frankenstein and why he didn’t do more comedies.  Mr. Brooks talked about how hard it is, as an entertainer, to pull yourself out of audience expectations:

So why didn’t Hackman make more comedies? “…it’s all baggage. Once they (Hollywood) see what you can do, that’s all that they’ll let you do. I could produce The Elephant Man as part of Brooksfilms. But Mel Brooks couldn’t direct The Elephant Man. I had baggage.”

Its worth mentioning, as if the above should clear any doubt, that Mr. Brooks loves film and, while primarily known as a comedy writer/director/actor, he has produced some very serious films yet is forced, because of his name and, as he puts it, the “baggage” attached to it, to hide his involvement in more “serious” works because of fears audiences will think its a comedy or at the least couldn’t possibly be serious.

Mr. Bowie, during the first decade of his career, was a trailblazer.  He flaunted his sexuality (and possible homosexuality/bisexuality) when just about no one dared do so.  But while the images he projected were daring, his music was, IMHO, incredible.  Especially for those times, he was a controversial figure and I can’t help but think because he was so “out there” in his looks and stage presence that staid organizations like the Grammys perhaps didn’t dare take note of him.

In doing a Google search of David Bowie nominations for Grammys, it was even more shocking to find the following:  Mr. Bowie had a total of 19 Grammy nominations, the first three of which came for his 1984 album, and two songs on, Let’s Dance!

So, get this: Mr. Bowie’s first nominations to the Grammys happened to be for what was arguably his most audience friendly (some say it was his first “sell out”) album.

Think about it.  Until Let’s Dance, the Grammys never thought him worthy of nomination for his glam rock years (The Man Who Sold the World, Hunky Dory, Ziggy Stardust, Aladdin Sane, Diamond Dogs), his venture into soul (Young Americans), his incredible -though drug fueled- album Station to Station, his highly rated “Berlin Trilogy” (Low, Heroes, and Lodger), and the early new wave Scary Monsters.

While The Man Who Sold The World was all but ignored by audiences and critics alike upon its initial release (though it gained much more love since), all ten of the albums following that one were critically and, for most, commercial hits.  There is a wealth of great music in all those albums and, while not denigrating Let’s Dance (I happen to love the album even thought others do believe Mr. Bowie was selling out), it is astonishing that each and every one of those albums didn’t merit any Grammy love.

Ah well.

I suppose its better late than never and I suppose it helps to die just days after releasing your last (and, again, critically lauded) album.

Legion (2017) pilot, a quick review

Is actor a chameleon or what?

My first big exposure to him was in Downton Abbey though this was far from his first screen appearance.  Then, when watching the 2014 film The Guest, I just knew I recognized the actor who played “David”, the mysterious homicidal killer.  It was, of course, Mr. Stevens, this time very buff compared to his more doughy look in Downton.

Well, he’s about to appear in the Emma Watson starring Beauty and the Beast (and he plays the Beast!) but, in the meantime, we have the premiere, yesterday, of Legion, an FX series with ancillary ties to the famous X-Men universe wherein Mr. Stevens plays the show’s primary role, that of the mutant David Haller.

Once again Mr. Stevens disappears into the role.  Unlike both Downtown or The Guest, here Mr. Stevens looks, dare I say it, scrawny and his character has great difficulties dealing with reality.  His telekinetic mutant powers, however, may well be among the strongest in this show’s universe, and that makes him a target of at least two rival forces.

I enjoyed Legion, though the first half of the premiere episode, IMHO, was much worse than the second half.  There was a little too much crazy in that first half but once the plot started to reveal itself the show became very intriguing.

Having said that, what’s also intriguing, at least to me, is the influence David Cronenberg’s early films, particularly his 1981 film Scanners, continues to exert.  The fact of the matter is that one could almost view Legion as a modernized update of Scanners, complete with telekinetic mutants and shady government forces try to control them…

Granted, the X-Men comic books came before Scanners, first appearing waaaaay back in 1963.  However, it wasn’t until around the time Scanners first appeared (a little earlier, granted) that they became very popular.

Was Cronenberg influenced by older X-Men and then the newer, more popular X-Men were influenced by Cronenberg?

The timing is curious, to say the least.

Anyway, Legion’s premiere was intriguing and, at times, quite humorous.  Kudos to for playing one of the inmates in the mental ward who has the ear of David.  The third biggest character in the premiere is Syd Barrett (her name being an obvious nod to one of Pink Floyd’s founders who dropped out of the band after he had mental issues…and was a great source of inspiration to the band during their golden years).  Ms. Keller has an intriguing screen presence and I’m curious what we’ll learn regarding her character.

I don’t know how close Legion is to the various X-Men related comics out there.  Frankly, I’ve never followed them all that closely though I have read some of the “classic” stories, including all the Neal Adams illustrated issues as well as most of the Claremont/Byrne issues, which included the famous Dark Phoenix and Days of Futurepast storylines.

If you haven’t done so already, give Legion a try.  If you’re anything at all like me, the first thirty or so minutes of the premiere might try your patience but stick with it.  Things come together quite nicely by the end.

The Beguiled remake has a trailer!

A while back, at the end of last March, I wrote about how director Sofia Coppola was remaking the Clint Eastwood starring, Don Siegel directed 1971 film The Beguiled.  (You can read that original article here)

Those who know absolutely nothing at all about this film, quite understandable as I freely admit it isn’t one of Mr. Eastwood’s best remembered works, nonetheless are missing out on what is probably the weirdest film Mr. Eastwood ever made post stardom.

The Beguiled tells the story of John McBurney, an injured Yankee soldier during the Civil War, who is found by a Southern girl’s school and nursed back to health…and the sexual tensions/games played between this officer and the women around him.

This is a dark, dark, dark erotic fable which, because of the presence of Mr. Eastwood in this Civil War setting, plays on your and subverts your expectations (by this time Mr. Eastwood was very well known for his westerns, including the justifiably famous The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly, a film which took place at roughly the same period of time).

In my original posting I noted Mr. Eastwood essentially was a “bad guy” in the film…or at least that’s what he ended up being in the end.  However, to ascribe “good” and “bad” labels to characters in this film, in retrospect, is probably counterproductive.

This film goes beyond regular movie tropes and delivers a story which, it can be argued, is quite original and not easy to categorize.

Anyway, last March we got the news of Sofia Coppola doing a remake of the film and that it would star Nicole Kidman, Kirsten Dunst, and Elle Fanning.  There was no word on who would play Mr. Eastwood’s role, at least at that time.

Now, with the release of the remake film’s trailer, we know: Its Colin Farrell…

I…I dunno.

I don’t dislike the casting of Mr. Farrell and certainly have nothing against him…

…but…

The original film benefited immensely from the casting of Clint Eastwood.  Putting such a screen icon (he was most certainly there at that point) and having him play a character with such nuance was an incredibly risky move, one that I felt paid off very well.

So risky was the move that it should not be surprising to learn the original film was a box office failure.  That same year, 1971, it is worth noting Mr. Eastwood and Siegel would also collaborate on and release Dirty Harry.

I suppose I’m willing to give the remake a try.  I just don’t know if it can hold a place next to the so damn dark original.

Here’s a trailer for the original film.  It sucks.

Clearly the studios had no freaking idea what they had with the original film and didn’t have a clue how to market it.  Still, the film is worth a look see, especially if you are a fan of Clint Eastwood’s acting.