Contrived, Stereotypical, Coincidence-Ridden Tragedy

Rating: 5/10 (2 January 2009)

"Gran Torino" is one of the worst racial bound films I've ever seen. I thought "Crash" and its heavy-handed symbolism and enormous cast was bad, but "Gran Torino," shockingly enough, makes "Crash" look like a masterpiece. Both have plots that rely on contrived coincidence after contrived coincidence. Both play on stereotypes to nauseating levels. Both have characters overcoming their bigotry to make happy endings.
Where "Torino" truly separates itself from another kind of awful is in the acting and the writing departments. The writer (whose name I wont even look up) has no real views on the different races brought up in the film. He or she simply goes off of all the stereotypes he or she is aware of. It's so bad that we get racial slurs dominating prolonged statements from the cast members-- mostly coming from Eastwood. I don't know how many times I heard the term, "Zipperhead." The problem with "Crash" is that you had people talking in politically correct racism. They didn't bother to use racial slurs, which made the authenticity of the characters bigotry feel artificial. Those actors felt very restricted. Almost as if they didn't want to be too racist-- it didn't help that the writer / director was preachy and overbearing. Eastwoods character, however, uses so many slurs, so often, that is makes his characters bigotry also seem fake and artificial. It became laughable. And just to make sure they weren't picking on just the "Spook's" and *beep* they also slurred the "Mick's," "Polak's" and "Dago's" I'm sure the writer didn't want to come off as too racist, so he threw everyone under the bus. All these characters, with the lone exception of Walt (Eastwood), are cookie cut-outs that have no depth and provide no cultural impact to the film (even though one character explains the actions and the values of her ancestry).
The ensemble cast is amongst the worst in film history. The casting director should be shot in the face. The acting from pretty much every supporting role is bordering on horrendous if not well beyond horrendous. These actors are just inexperienced and way over their heads. Some of these young actors can't even say their routine lines with any sense of rhythm, then you ask them to have an emotional breakdown? Not happening.
Eastwood is bad. Don't buy into the hype. Much like De Niro and Pacino playing cops in "Rghteous Kill," Eastwood is just twenty-five to thirty years too old to play this part. His constant scowling and groaning under his breath becomes tiresome and it feels lazy. This is one of his worst performances of his career, and the guy has never been much of an actor to begin with. I felt his character had absolutely no depth to speak of. His character is actually the only thing that's fairly well written, but Eastwood leaves his performance on the page. He shows no range with this character. He never does anything in the movie but scowl and then put someone down. Well, he has a few bright spots with the young kid. This was a big missed opportunity for an actor in their 50s that fit the part to give a truly great performance. The two brights spots, Christopher Carley (the Father) and Brian Haley (Mitch), give the two best performances.
The films premise actually makes for, what-could-have-been, a solid film. It has a great story with an excellent arc in the hero and a great ending. The ending is very good, and is the only thing in the film getting this any stars or credit. The ending is the reason why this film is getting praised by critics and completely overblown. I have no idea why they're calling Eastwood good, because he's embarrassingly bad. The Dirty Harry days are over. It just goes to show that people still love redemptive endings no matter how awful the rest of the film is.