Forgettable and sanctimonious

Rating: 4/10 (14 January 2009)

Eastwood's movies have to have a "message", that is nothing new. Over the years, however, it seems that the message has become increasingly predictable, more boring, and its delivery hasn't improved either.
The story itself is very ordinary: old man with several regrets and a few serious chips on his shoulder makes up with life, which in this case comes to him in the form of Asian neighbors. Confrontation gives way to friendship, which sets the stage for tragedy and a poetic resolution. Tons of clichés and no surprises are the hallmark of this film. At the very end it apparently intends to surprise the audience, but anybody who has paid the slightest bit of attention to the character arc of the protagonist can see that there is only one resolution left.
To be sure, there are good moments. Eastwoods character is hilariously politically incorrect, casually filling his speech with racial epithets, and getting a number of funny lines out of it (obviously, folks who are easily offended will find it difficult to summon the required humor). Then there is a hilarious scene that Eastwood has with his barber, expertly played by the otherwise underused Lynch. It turns out to be the highlight of this movie.
Much of the movie is sanctimonious and preachy; it obviously wants to tell us something about ethnic prejudice, and even inserts some expose about the Hmong people, for no apparent reason, as whatever would follow from it does not matter to the narrative. The transformation of Eastwoods character from bitter old man who despises everything foreign (including the foreign cars sold by his son) to cheerful participant at Hmong barbecues and confidant of and matchmaker for Hmong teenagers is ludicrous, and neither the script nor Eastwoods acting can make this believable. That is too bad, as it is the anchor for the rest of the story.
Sanctimony is personified in the character of the preacher, whose offers of "spiritual" support are originally rejected by Eastwoods character, but then gradually accepted, for no apparent reason other than that this guy just won't take no for an answer and even stalks the old man to his social gatherings. The protagonist, who otherwise has no problem defending his privacy (and his lawn) by pointing a loaded rifle at an offender, reacts to this outrageous behavior by inviting the "padre" to a drink and shooting the breeze about life and death, revealing that neither of them had much to say about either of those two things, and resulting in one of the lamest simulations of "philosophical depth" on screen in recent memory.
But slushy messaging, sanctimony, and superficial dialog aren't even the worst offenders in this stinker. That distinction goes to the two key supporting acts, Vang and Her. Neither of them has the slightest clue about acting, remaining uninvolved throughout as in a middle school play rehearsal. That is bad for Eastwood, since their characters are supposedly what is melting the stony heart of his character, but it is really difficult to see how these two dull teenagers could possibly accomplish this. One of the reasons for Eastwood's lack of believability is the emptiness of their performances, particularly that of Her.
And so the story moves to its predictable finish. We even get to see a "resolution scene" showing how the old man deals with his greedy granddaughter in his testament, which feels like the closing scene in a 70s/80s TV series, when everybody gets together to share a good laugh about the final resolution.
At the time of this writing, the movie's 8.5 rating has propelled it into Top 100 territory, so obviously people like it. To me, it wasn't the worst movie I have ever seen by a long shot, although it certainly is among the worst Eastwood films.