Hey,

What struck me halfway through this film was that it would’ve been really good if it were made in the mid-1950s with Robert Mitchum, Katy Jurado, and some backlot, child star wannabe with dyed black hair and covered in Man Tan. The story is as old as the Hollywood Hills: A man in recovery – a severe back injury from his rodeo days – is hired by his former boss to go to Mexico City and retrieve his 13-year-old son who the boss hasn’t seen in years. The boy’s mother – who has renounced him – tries a very unsubtle way to seduce the man. The man finds the kid at a cockfight and tries to convince him to come back to his father. He finally does and in one of the lulls in this movie, a Latina cantina owner puts the blast on the man.

What follows is a nicely shot road movie that ends at the US / Mexico border where the father will be waiting. Along the way, there are thugs and attacks and one of them involves the rooster named “Macho.” What is distracting in all of this is the 90-year-old elephant in the room. One of Clint Eastwood’s characters once said, “A man’s got to know his limitations.”

He should have listened.

Directed by Clint Eastwood from a screenplay by Nick Schenk and N Richard Nash based on Nash’s novel. Cinematography by Ben Davis and music by Mark Mancina. Starring Clint Eastwood, Dwight Yoakam, and Eduardo Minett, among others.

On 9/23/21 7:14 PM, william ahearn wrote:
> Hey,
>
> What struck me halfway through this film was that it would’ve been really good if it were made in the mid-1950s with Robert Mitchum, Katy Jurado, and some backlot, child star wannabe with dyed black hair and covered in Man Tan. The story is as old as the Hollywood Hills: A man in recovery – a severe back injury from his rodeo days – is hired by his former boss to go to Mexico City and retrieve his 13-year-old son who the boss hasn’t seen in years. The boy’s mother – who has renounced him – tries a very unsubtle way to seduce the man. The man finds the kid at a cockfight and tries to convince him to come back to his father. He finally does and in one of the lulls in this movie, a Latina cantina owner puts the blast on the man.
>
> What follows is a nicely shot road movie that ends at the US / Mexico border where the father will be waiting. Along the way, there are thugs and attacks and one of them involves the rooster named “Macho.” What is distracting in all of this is the 90-year-old elephant in the room. One of Clint Eastwood’s characters once said, “A man’s got to know his limitations.”
>
> He should have listened.
>
> Directed by Clint Eastwood from a screenplay by Nick Schenk and N Richard Nash based on Nash’s novel. Cinematography by Ben Davis and music by Mark Mancina. Starring Clint Eastwood, Dwight Yoakam, and Eduardo Minett, among others.

Hey, I guess *you* at least listened when I dared you to say something
consequential. Beyond that, blaming Clint for what I feel is a somewhat
weak adaptation of a novel isn't too smart. My hunch is Schenk wrote
the original script which somebody--Clint or another involved in the
production--found lacking and the author of the novel was brought in to
punch it up. That's a minor criticism. The thing that reviewers seem
to have missed is Clint is known for Dirty Harry and the Man with No
Name, a couple of shoot 'em dead guys, and instead this is a character
that can only be described as a really nice guy, and this is the
sweetest, most family friendly movie I've seen from him. If this is his
last film it's a heck of a way to go out. Probably not Oscar material,
but pretty close.

On Friday, September 24, 2021 at 9:27:25 AM UTC-4, gmsin...@gmail.com wrote:

> Hey, I guess *you* at least listened when I dared you to say something
> consequential. Beyond that, blaming Clint for what I feel is a somewhat
> weak adaptation of a novel isn't too smart. My hunch is Schenk wrote
> the original script which somebody--Clint or another involved in the
> production--found lacking and the author of the novel was brought in to
> punch it up. That's a minor criticism. The thing that reviewers seem
> to have missed is Clint is known for Dirty Harry and the Man with No
> Name, a couple of shoot 'em dead guys, and instead this is a character
> that can only be described as a really nice guy, and this is the
> sweetest, most family friendly movie I've seen from him. If this is his
> last film it's a heck of a way to go out. Probably not Oscar material,
> but pretty close.

You're deluded. Nobody listens to homophobic, anonyshit trolls like you. Sometimes I post mainstream films that I've seen here after I post on FB. That's it. God, you're an asshole.

On 9/24/2021 10:45 AM, william ahearn wrote:
> On Friday, September 24, 2021 at 9:27:25 AM UTC-4, gmsin...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>> Hey, I guess *you* at least listened when I dared you to say something
>> consequential. Beyond that, blaming Clint for what I feel is a somewhat
>> weak adaptation of a novel isn't too smart. My hunch is Schenk wrote
>> the original script which somebody--Clint or another involved in the
>> production--found lacking and the author of the novel was brought in to
>> punch it up. That's a minor criticism. The thing that reviewers seem
>> to have missed is Clint is known for Dirty Harry and the Man with No
>> Name, a couple of shoot 'em dead guys, and instead this is a character
>> that can only be described as a really nice guy, and this is the
>> sweetest, most family friendly movie I've seen from him. If this is his
>> last film it's a heck of a way to go out. Probably not Oscar material,
>> but pretty close.
>
> You're deluded. Nobody listens to homophobic, anonyshit trolls like you. Sometimes I post mainstream films that I've seen here after I post on FB. That's it. God, you're an asshole.
>

Like all Usenet dipshits you are completely lacking in self awareness.

On Friday, September 24, 2021 at 3:28:53 PM UTC-4, gmsin...@gmail.com wrote:
> >
> Like all Usenet dipshits you are completely lacking in self awareness.

That BS was old and tired over two decades ago. You're empty. Nothing worse than a shriveled troll.

On 9/24/21 5:00 PM, william ahearn wrote:
> On Friday, September 24, 2021 at 3:28:53 PM UTC-4, gmsin...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>
>> Like all Usenet dipshits you are completely lacking in self awareness.
>
> That BS was old and tired over two decades ago. You're empty. Nothing worse than a shriveled troll.

I'm challenging you again: can you sum up your behavior in this little
incident or not? If you go to the right doctor perhaps you can have you
ball reattached. You must be pissed because the movie wasn't called
"Cry Effeminate."

On Saturday, September 25, 2021 at 5:24:53 AM UTC-4, gmsin...@gmail.com wrote:
> On 9/24/21 5:00 PM, william ahearn wrote:
> > On Friday, September 24, 2021 at 3:28:53 PM UTC-4, gmsin...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>
> >> Like all Usenet dipshits you are completely lacking in self awareness.
> >
> > That BS was old and tired over two decades ago. You're empty. Nothing worse than a shriveled troll.
> I'm challenging you again: can you sum up your behavior in this little
> incident or not? If you go to the right doctor perhaps you can have you
> ball reattached. You must be pissed because the movie wasn't called
> "Cry Effeminate."

There you go, obsessed with my balls again. Pity, Shriveled Troll.

On 9/25/21 9:39 AM, william ahearn wrote:
> On Saturday, September 25, 2021 at 5:24:53 AM UTC-4, gmsin...@gmail.com wrote:
>> On 9/24/21 5:00 PM, william ahearn wrote:
>>> On Friday, September 24, 2021 at 3:28:53 PM UTC-4, gmsin...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>
>>>> Like all Usenet dipshits you are completely lacking in self awareness.
>>>
>>> That BS was old and tired over two decades ago. You're empty. Nothing worse than a shriveled troll.
>> I'm challenging you again: can you sum up your behavior in this little
>> incident or not? If you go to the right doctor perhaps you can have you
>> ball reattached. You must be pissed because the movie wasn't called
>> "Cry Effeminate."
>
> There you go, obsessed with my balls again. Pity, Shriveled Troll.

Shriveled? How about your balls currently residing in a medicine jar
some place?