The Mask of Zorro vs The Legend of Zorro

He's been the star of 60 stories, been the main character for 40 films, has been in both live action and animated tv shows, and has been the inspirations for countless comic strip/comic book characters. Relax I'm not gonna make you guess. I'm referring to Zorro which is spanish for fox. He made his debut in 1919 in the serialized story The Curse of Capistrano. Zorro is the alter ego of Don Diego de la Vega a nobleman and master with the sword and the bullwhip during the Spanish colonial era of California. In the 90's the big screen rights to Zorro became available. On a documentary that I saw on the dvd for what became 'The Mask of Zorro" I learned that lots of studios and production companies were vying for these rights. The people in charge of them sold em for less because one leading industry light promised his personnel involvement in the film. Who is individual? It was Steven Spielberg who served as executive producer. I don't think I need to explain who Steven Spielberg is. Nor do I need expound upon his enormous contributions to cinema. With him on board the everything went pretty smooth. First there was the choice of director. It was decided that Martin Campbell would man this important post because he had just help relaunch the Bond franchise. With that issue settled next came casting. Anthony Hopkins was approached for the important role of Don Diego de la Vega because of the prestige he would bring to the project as well the gravitas he would provide. He initially declined the role because he was suffering from a back condition. However he had back surgery which alleviated the condition and allowed him to take the role. Next came the role of the younger man who would take over the mantle of Zorro. For this role it was another easy choice Antonio Banderas. He made history as the first Hispanic to play this role. With those two on board Spielberg exerted his influence and had cast as the leading lady a young actress he had seen in a tv movie about the Titanic. Her name was Catherine Zeta Jones and this provided to be her big break. By the way Steven if you should see this post please contact me I have a few ideas for movies. Folks this film was the reason movies were made. Three powerful actors who have a great screenplay at their disposal and are being guided by a man who knows how to get the best out of both them and the screenplay. Plus Banderas and Zeta Jones don't just have chemistry they smoulder in each other's presence. I doubt you will ever see two people who look more right together but also intellectually and emotionally belong together. The stunts are phenomenal. This picture also took the time to build in humor. This adds to the picture's enjoyment. Rarely have I ever enjoyed myself more at a movie. If only they would make more movies like this than film would be a better place. This film was hit with the public ($250,288,523 worldwide) as well as the critics (85 % of critics gave it a favorable review according to Rotten Tomatoes an on-line movie critic database). Not surprising in light of this success a sequel was planned and made. If only this wasn't the case. The first film can be summed by Catherine Zeta Jones' character after her sword fight with Zorro "vigorous." This one "The Legend of Zorro" can be described by one I ascribed to it-paunchy. That how Antonio Banderas looks and that how he and the film act. The smoldering chemistry that existed between him and Zeta Jones has evaporated. This film really suffers from the loss of Anthony Hopkins whose character died at the end of the first one. To be fair it took seven years for this follow-up to made. In Hollywood the rule of thumb is to try not to take longer than five years to make a sequel. Otherwise the public might forgot. The plot is so convoluted I'm not even going to attempt to describe it. The first one had a good one about Hopkins and Banderas wanting revenge against the two main villains for personnel reasons and the villains trying to buy California from Mexico with stolen gold from Mexico that Mexico didn't know about. In addition to the lack of chemistry that now exist between the two leads; the writers who wrote the first film, but this time around only came up with the story had the stupid idea of seperating them. This diminishes any chance Banderas and Zeta Jones might have had of regaining their chemistry. The way they are separated might be the most ludicrous in film history. So bad is the plot and this movie I had forgotten that one of the villains in this movie was in it! I had my memory jogged on this point when I was looking up info on wikipedia. The lead villian the always excellent Rufus Sewell is even defeated. If you want to see how great a villian he can be see either "A Knight's Tale" or "The Illusionist". The film resorts to the cliche of the super kid. He happens to be the son of Zorro. Wisely the filmmakers drop this before it gets too irritating. While the film did ok at the box office ($142,400,065 worldwide) it was dud with the critics (25% gave it a favorable rating according to Rotten Tomatoes). When a sequel is this bad it almost kills the pleasant memories of the first film or films. Its because of sequels like this that sequels have the bad name they do and usually deserve. With this said please do yourself a favor and see the first one. You'll be glad you did. On the other hand please do yourself a favor and skip the second one. You'll be glad you did!

Gregory's Girl: Young Love at its best on the Big Screen

The young man's whole world is falling apart. He's lost his spot on the soccer team to of all things a girl. He takes his friends' place in the less glamorous position of goalie. He's very gawky because he's in the middle of a growth spurt. Thus he's getting used to his new body. He doesn't seem to have much of relationship with his parents. We see only see his father once and his mother never. If that's not enough he develops a crush on the girl whose taken his place on the team. He talks to his best friend about this but he's no help because he's never been in love. His other friends don't seem interested in girls or can't get girls interested in them. This is the major thrust of the charming film "Gregory's Girl." While all this sounds serious, it's played for laughs and it works spectacularly.

When he doesn't know what to do he turns to his kid sister for advice who proves to be a sage. There are lots of charming and humorous situations in this film. There is a student in a penguin suit who walks around the school. The student is constantly being redirected. Two of his friends are running two different rings out of the school. One is running a bake goods ring and the other's ring is of pictures of Dorothy (Dee Hepburn) the girl Gregory (John Gordon Sinclair) has a crush on. The school headmaster is seen playing a lovely piece on a piano. I was unable to find the name of the piece. I read on youtube the piece was composed by the actor playing the headmaster Chic Murray.

Another sequence involves two of Gregory's friends (Andy-Robert Buchanan and Charlie-Graham Thompson) trying to hitchhike to Caracas (with a misspelled sign!) because Andy heard there was a higher ratio of women to men there. Gregory finally gets up the guile to ask Dorothy out. To his surprise she accepts. He waits at their agreed upon place when he is informed by a friend of her's-Carol (Caroline Guthrie)-that Dorothy's not coming. He is clearly disappointed but Carol convinces him to go to a fish and chip shop. When they get there, she changes clothes, informs him she's got a date, and handles him off to her friend Margo (Carol McCartney). They walk and talk while heading to the park. Once there he is handed off for the final time to Susan (Claire Grogan). It then that he learns and so do we that this was the plan all along.

While Gregory is getting passed off Andy and Charlie see this. While in the park Gregory and Susan have a scene that best illustrates young love. He talks to her about gravity. He then lies on the ground and gets her to do the same. They wave their arms and the sun is seen setting in those beautiful colors that occur when the sun is setting. So beautiful shot is this scene and so powerful/charming is this scene that is used in the trailer for this movie. They get back to his house where they kiss and agree to go back out. Now in a normal film this where it might end or it might end with him going back out with Susan. Instead we see a sign that shows the direction to the next biggest or closest towns in the area. Spray painted on it is Caracas and the distance it is from their town. This ties in brilliantly to the funniest part of the movie which is Andy and Charlie try to hitchhike there.

 Both John Gordon Sinclair and Clair Grogan are spot on in their roles and have a very believable and palpable chemistry. In fact every one save Dee Hepburn as Dorothy are spot on in their roles. She done in by her choice of hair style and by the fact she's not much of an actress. Claire Grogan is much prettier than her, a better actress, and has chemistry galore with John Gordon Sinclair. I saw no reason for Gregory to have a crush on Dorothy other than the script called for it. In case you can't tell I've got a crush on Miss Grogan. The reason most people haven't seen or heard of this film is because this is a foreign film. Its from Scotland which really isn't known for its film industry. Because of this and because most people have a problem with the Scottish brouge might be why people haven't seen it. It was dubbed in a more understandable accent. This is the version I have seen.

 Those who have seen it mostly critics give it high marks. According to Rotten Tomatoes (an on-line film critic database) 92% of critics gave a favorable review. I also read on wikipedia that Entertainment Weekly rated 29th on its list of 50 greatest movies. I would have rated it higher but its amazing it even made the list. You will probably never seen a better depiction of young love on the big screen.

The Amazing Spider-Man

The Spider-Man films are one of the most success film franchises in film history with a gross of $2,496,346,518 worldwide; that this is the case is only appropriate. Spider-Man as a character broke all the rules of a comic book character. He was a teen. Teens couldn't be the lead character they could only be sidekicks. He had problems (i.e. he was a nerd so he was bullied and didn't have a girlfriend). He lived with his aunt and uncle. Plus he got his powers from a spider (albeit a radioactive one). People didn't like spiders. For these reasons Stan Lee the editor and main writer of Marvel comics was told he couldn't make a Spider-Man comic. But so strong was the lure of this character that in order to get it out of his system Lee decided that Spider-Man would make an appearance in the last issue of Amazing Fantasy which would be issue #15. The issue came out in Aug 1962 and when the sales figures came back it was discovered that this issue was one best selling in company history. Spider-Man quickly got his own series and he became Marvel's flagship character. While the character had problems in the comic pages it also enjoyed problems when attempts where made to bring it to live action life. There was a failed 70's tv series. Numerous attempts to make a movie were thwarted because the property rights kept going to different studios. Because of this a golden opportunity was missed when James Cameron the Oscar winning editor,writer,producer, director of Titanic planned on making Spider-Man his follow-up film to Titanic but was unable to do so. Eventually Sony made a deal to the property rights. They assigned veteran producer Laura Ziskin (Pretty Woman and As Good as It Gets) to oversee the project. Then two unconventionally choices were made for director (Sam Raimi) and leading man (Toby McGuire). They were unconventionally choices because while they had directed and appeared in A-List movies neither had directed or starred in a hit. The first film while solidly made doesn't feel like it firing on all cylinders. The director while talented didn't know how to stage action scenes to their zenith. Plus as good as McGuire (Peter Parker/Spider-man) and Kirsten Dunst (Mary Jane Watson) are; enjoying a very believable chemistry, it doesn't seem like they have their characters entirely locked in. Contrast with James Franco (Harry Osborn) and Williem Dafoe (Norman Osborn/Green Goblin) who do have their characters locked in. The film also suffers because when Dafoe is in his Goblin costume the mouth piece on the mask doesn't move. Plus while he is good he does go slightly over the top when in Goblin mode. Despite these problems the action sequences are good enough especially the one at the end when the Goblin dies which comes directly out of the comic book. The concluding scene when Peter must rebuff Mary Jane after she expresses her love for him is quite strong. The film was hit with both public (first film to gross over $100 million dollars in one weekend-$114,844,116 & 403,706,375) and critics (90% of critics gave it a favorable review according to Rotten Tomatoes, which is an on-line movie review database). Spider-Man 2 is a high performance machine operating at maximum peak efficiency. Everything in this film works. Both McGuire and Dunst had their characters locked in. Raimi directed this film with surgical precision. But the biggest reason for the improvement is because of the villian Doc Ock played by Alfred Molina. As played by Molina Doc Ock is touching, tragic, and villainous. The film makers made the wise decision to spend more time on Doc Ock before he became the villian which benefits the character, the film, and viewer. We see him with his lovely wife played wonderfully by Donna Murphy. The love they show for each other prior to her death is very believable and palpable. That it was the result of the Doctor's experiment is more tragic. While Doc Ock does villainous things they are done to fund his experiment. When he dies to save Peter and other people its very touching. If they decide to bring him back I for one would be in favor. The final scene where Mary Jane jilts her fiancee at the alter then declares her love for Peter and he accepts if that doesn't touch you than your made of stone. It was too was a hit with both fans and critics ($373.5 million and 93% according to Rotten Tomatoes.) Two minor problems are not enough of James Franco and the actor that plays Mary Jane's fiancee isn't convincing as a rival. Unfortunately Spider-Man 3 ends this winning creative streak. While the series regulars are all strong its the new cast additions with the exception of one that are bad. Its the classic case of too many ingredients spoiling the broth. James Cromwell, a very good actor, is wasted in cameo. Bryce Dallas Howard who makes charming use of her scenes is badly used so as result is negated. She could really have made a convincing rival for Mary Jane but this isn't allowed and I doubt she will be back for the planned Spider-Man 4. This is a shame because with better use she would make a good addition to the cast. Topher Grace's character only seems to exist for the sole purpose of being spun-off into his own movie which is planned. At no time does he make an impact on the movie or is he convincing as a villian. However Thomas Haden Church as the Sandman makes a very convincing villian. He also brings some of the humility to his role that Alfred Molina brought to Doc Ock. Changing the story to make him the man who killed Peter's Uncle Ben is unnecessary. It reopens a wound which had been closed in the first film. While the film was hit having the biggest opening weekend ($117 million) it was the lowest grossing of the series ($336) and did the worst with the critics (62% according to Rotten Tomatoes). When the new Spider-Man film comes out lets hopes it learns from the previous one. Here are some suggestions 1)Limit the amount of new characters, 2)Focus on the new villain's previllian life, 3)Don't let him go over the top, 4)Give Mary Jane Watson something to do other than be a perennial victim. Oh one other suggestion use either the Vulture or the Lizard as the villain.

Star Trek III:Unfairly Labeled

To anyone whose familiar with the Star Trek film series there's a belief that if its an odd number film (Part I better known as the Motion Picture, Parts III, V, VII IX) its bad. Whereas if its an even number film (Parts II, IV, VI, VIII) its good. That is until Part X Star Trek: Nemesis (2002) came out. This film was mind numbing terrible. It was insult to both hard core Trek fans as well as the causal ones. It was also lowest grossing film in the series ($43,119,879 million on a budget of $60 million) This film put the film series in moth balls until the release of the eleventh film simply titled Star Trek on May 8, 2009. This film was hit both at the box office (close to $300 million in the US. I will give a final total when it is released on dvd.) As well as the critics. According to Rotten Tomatoes, an on-line film critic database, 95% of critics gave it a favorable review. As of this writing its the highest grossing film in the series. Thanks to these films the belief in the odd films being bad and even films being good was altered. I have always felt that one of the odd numbered film part III:The Search for Spock has been unfairly included in this belief. This film is criticized for what its not. Its not an action packed science fiction yarn with poignant moments and a bad ass villain (Khan Nooninen Singh) like its predecessor The Wrath of Khan. Nor does is it contain great character interaction that is minded for humor with an eco-friendly message like its successor The Voyage Home. Instead it is a well executed film that contains main positive attributes that serves as a bridge to parts II, IV. Among those attributes:beautiful cinematography, great special effects from the best special effects house in the film business-ILM, and of course that striking, stirring score. The last part is courtesy of composer James Horner who got his big break on part II was wisely retained for part III. He would go on to win an Oscar for Titanic. Another important element of this was the hero moments given to the supporting actors. This was no accident. According to Leonard Nimoy (Mr. Spock as well as the film's director) in his autobiography I Am Spock this was intentional. This is best illustrated in two scenes. The first is when Sulu helps Kirk spring McCoy from prison. Earlier in the scene Sulu says to a guard whose yawning "Keeping you busy?" The guard stands up to show how imposing he is height wise and replies "Don't get smart tiny." As Kirk is escorting McCoy out of the prison after getting him out of his cell Sulu flips the guard over his shoulder. He then pulls out a small laser and destroys the guards' console. Before leaving he retorts "Don't call me tiny." The other is when Uhura is at a beaming station and the young man station with her is complaining that he doesn't see any action there. Just then Kirk, McCoy, and Sulu walk in. Uhura pulls out a phaser and orders the young man into the closet. He does so and she beams her ship mates aboard the Enterprise. The film also introduces another element into the film series that would be fully exploited in the next film-humor. I will give my two favorite examples. McCoy is a prison cell because he tried to charter a flight to a forbidden plant Genesis. Kirk gives him injection so he can be taken to Genesis by Kirk. McCoy ask why and here's what he is told. Kirk "Your suffering from a Vulcan mind-meld , doctor." McCoy "That green blooded son of a bitch! It's his revenge for all the arguments he lost." The other is when Scotty is aboard another ship and trying to get to the Enterprise. The elevator ask for what level and Scotty says transporter. The elevator says thank you and Scotty replies 'Up your shaft.' The film also contains some very poignant moments. The scene when Kirk and Sarek (Spock's father) mind meld then learn who Spock mind melded with before he died. The death of David (Kirk's son) and Kirk's reaction to this news. And of course when Kirk decides to self destruct the Enterprise. This was before The Next Generation made this standard procedure. This generally sad moment is heighten by a scene (which is enhanced by a magnificent special effects shot by ILM) of the Enterprise burning up in the atmosphere of Genesis. Upon see this Kirk says "My God, Bones . . . what have I done?" To which McCoy replies "What you had to do. What you always do:turn death into a fighting chance for life." The film does suffer from one huge problem the villain isn't very good. Despite Christopher Lloyd's considerable skill as an actor being a good villain isn't among them. As I learned in the book Star Trek Movie Memories he wasn't the original choice for the Klingon villain Kruge. Leonard Nimoy reveled in the book he wanted Edward James Olmos (Miami Vice) for the role. He felt that Olmos had the requisite gung-ho intense attitude the part called for. He was overruled by the film's producer Harve Bennett. Bennett was in the power position because he had produced part II which was a hit and had written part III. Believe it or not the producer is the most powerful person on a film set. Because they are in charge of the budget they can fire anyone including the director. Bennett wanted someone who was more physical imposing than William Shatner (Kirk) and Olmos wasn't. When it was reveled that Lloyd was interested in the part he got it. The film got good reviews from the critics, according to Rotten Tomatoes, 76% of critics gave a favorable review. Most importantly at the box office the film grossed 67,458,579 vs Wrath of Khan's gross of 78,633,541. Not bad considering how much higher regard the Wrath of Khan is held in over the Search for Spock. These are the reasons why the Search for Spock doesn't belong in the category of odd numbered Trek films are bad.

Superman vs Superman

"Superman the Movie" is the best super hero film every made. Which is pretty remarkable because it was made over 30 years ago (1978 to be precise). Why is this? The answer is simple; unlike other super hero films this one has managed to do something others haven't. Its an epic, it has sweep and grandeur. By having these elements "Superman the Movie" accomplices the main mission of a comic book which is to be modern day mythology. This is only appropriate because Superman is the one comic book character that transcends his medium. He is the gold standard of comic book characters. That I like this movie as much as do is pretty remarkable because I can't stand Superman the comic book character. He's a goody too shoes, his only weakness is courtesy of rock from his home plant of Krypton, and his main villain (Lex Luthor) has no super powers. His motivation for hating Superman as I once read (and agree with) is the worst motivation for a super villain ever. He lost his hair as a result of Superman. Let's not forget Superman's clever disguise for his secret identity consists of a pair of glasses and him slouching. The movie counteracts all these problems by making us care about the character. Plus there is the joy factor. Superman enjoys being a super hero and because he does we enjoy him. There are other positives about this film. The cinematography is amazing, the special effects hold up over 30 years later (they received an Oscar ), and of course that iconic score composed by John Williams (Oscar nominated). I reserve my highest praise for two other important components-the directing and the acting. Richard Donnar was the right person with the right approach. The wrong direction would of sunk the movie. Instead it received the right direction so the movie soars. As for the acting, gold medals both to late Christopher Reeve and Margot Kidder. Kidder isn't the prettiest woman but what does have going for her is two great attributes. A great attitude (she very determined) and an intelligence that suits the character. Because of this we understand why Superman would fall for her. As for Reeve what is there to say. He is the physical personification of the character. Plus he so relishes playing not only Superman but Clark Kent its infectious. As for "Superman Returns" nothing in it goes right. Which is shame. It seemed like the right approach (pretend that parts 3 & 4 never happened; we could be so lucky.) Instead it is set 5 years after the events of "Superman II" (one of the best sequels ever made) and the events of this film transpire from there. It was directed by Bryan Singer who seemed like the ideal choice for this role. He enjoyed both critical acclaim (for his film debut the "Usual Suspects") as well as box office success due to his helming the first two "X Men" movies. ("X2" is one of the best super hero films every made). He was the one who came up with the film's approach which would wind up handicapping it. He seemed to be guided by the principal of W.W.R.D.D. (What would Richard Donnar do). He should have used his own style. Instead he tried to replicate someone else's. The film is totally miscast. Poor Brandon Routh tries so hard as Clark Kent/Superman. Which is his problem. He acts as if the weight of the world is on his shoulders. Christopher Reeve on the other hand is Clark Kent/Superman. He accepts his role and doesn't let it take away from the joy that can be derived from it. Kate Bosworth as Lois Lane, while prettier than Margot Kidder, has neither the determination nor intelligence that Margot Kidder brought to the role. She has no chemistry with Routh which is one of the cornerstones of the Superman saga. Reeve and Kidder had it in spades. Than there's the fact that she portrays a mom in this film. I think the fact she isn't a mom in real life hurts her portrayal. I don't think a person has to be a parent to effective portray one but it certainly helps. I say that a different Kate should have been used-Kate Beckinsale. She every bit if not prettier than Bosworth. She's a mom so that would not have been a stretch. She would have brought the determination and intelligence to the role that Kidder did. Plus she has a sci-fi connection due to the "Underworld" films. I always felt that one of the few weakness of "Superman the Movie" was Gene Hackman as Lex Luthor. I wanted him to play the role more seriously not so broadly. But after seeing Kevin Spacey play the role this way I'm no longer certain if that's a valid concern. The scene where he stabs Superman with kryptonite seems out of place and just plain vicious. If that had occurred in just about any other super hero film it would seem in keeping with the average comic book. But Superman is more mythical than the average comic book. Therefore a scene like that can't exist in the Superman universe. Another problem is the film's length. It runs 154 minutes compared to Superman the Movies' 143 theatrical cut and 151 in its restoration cut for DVD. This was keeping with Singer wanting to replicate Donnar. The original was epic so this one must be. It fails. You feel all of the 154 minutes. Whereas with the original you hardly feel the length. I say hardly because the opening sequence on Krypton feels a bit ponderous due to the acting. This is offset by the striking cinematography, costumes, and production design. Plus you get a glimpse of General Zod, the outstanding villain, who is showcased in part II. Lastly the story is a retard of some of the best elements of the original. Superman saves a space shuttle that's about crash (an airplane in the original), he takes Lois on a romantic flight, and thwarts Lex's attempt to create new real estate. I was once told 'don't try to be just be.' "Supeman the Movie" is and "Superman Returns" tries to be; that's the difference.

A Few Good Men-vs-Unforgiven Battle for OSCAR Gold

1992 was going to be Rob Reiners year. He was finally going to put an end to "Meathead" the nickname of the character he played on the classic TV series "All in the Family". The TV show had been very good to him. He had won Emmy Awards for Best Supporting Actor in both 1974 and 1978. He was now a highly successful movie director who showed great versatility and enjoyed increasing commercial success with the following movies: "This is Spinal Tap", "The Sure Thing", "Stand by Me", "The Princess Bride","When Harry met Sally"and "Misery". Now he was poised to enjoy his greatest commercial success as a director. He also stood to score some Oscar Nominations and very likely Oscar Gold. The vehicle of all this was courtesy of a Broadway play brought to him by a veteran producer know as "having the best nose in the business." That producer's name was David Brown. He originally started out as an executive at 20th Century-Fox. Where during his time the studio produced some hits but enough flops that he along with future producing partner Richard Zanuck were fired. The films they produced together were: "Jaws 1 and 2", "The Verdict", "Cocoon 1 and 2" and "Driving Miss Daisy". They shared the Irving G Thalberg award in 1990 which is awarded for best body of work. The play was "A Few Good Men" which was about some Marines who killed another Marine during a hazing incident and the attempt to clear them by their hot shot defense attorney. It is discovered that more than these two Marines are involved. When Rob Reiner decided to make it a movie and added a can't miss cast-Tom Cruise, Jack Nicholson, and Demi Moore it was considered a hot commodity with "Oscar Buzz". That was until a cowboy rode onto the horizon. The cowboy was none other than Clint Eastwood who got his start in Hollywood with a deal at Universal Pictures to be a contract player. After minor roles in a few movies he was cut. The reason for his dismissal was his adam's apple was too big. After struggling for years in more minor roles he got his big break when he was cast in the TV western "Rawhide". The show was a hit and he was on it from 1959-1965. In 1964 the film that made him a star was released-"A Fistful Full of Dollars". In it he played the iconic Man without a Name. He would play the character in two more films "For a Few Dollars More", and the "The Good the Bad and the Ugly". Then in the 70's he become an even bigger movie star. The main reason for his success was another iconic character San Francisco Police Inspector Dirty Harry Callahan. He would play this role in "Dirty Harry" (1971), "Magnum Force" (1973), and the "Enforcer" (1976). It was during this time he took on the ultimate actor cliche; he became a director. He made his directing debut in 1971 with "Play Misty for Me" which is about a woman (Jessica Walters) who becomes obsessed with a DJ (Eastwood). As it moved into the 80's he would score other hits with "Any Which Way You Can" (1980), "Sudden Impact" (1983), and the "Dead Pool" (1988). The first film was a follow-up to "Any Which Way But Loose" while the last two were more Dirty Harry Films. However outside of those films nothing did well either at the box office or with the critics. Plus when he was elected mayor of Carmel, CA it seemed he might end his end his career. He didn't but he might as well have because by 1992 he had starred in "Pink Cadillac" (1989) and "The Rookie" (1990 which he also directed) both of which were bombs. That was when he made the decision to do another western. It was "Unforgiven" which was released in August of 1992. The film was well received by the critics according Rotten Tomatoes,which is movie critc database, 96% of critics enjoyed it. It was also a box office hit grossing $101,157,447. The film would provide a boost not only to Eastwood but two other well know movie actors-Gene Hackman and Richard Harris. It would provide another career highlight for Morgan Freeman. By comparison "A Few Good Men" wasn't received as well by critics; only 83% enjoyed it according to Rotten Tomatoes. "A Few Good Men" grossed more money $141,340,178. However where it really counted "Unforgiven" really prevailed. It received nine Oscar nominations to Men's four Oscar nominations. However Rob Reiner wasn't one of them. Meathead was still alive. Prior to the Oscar ceremony Clint Eastwood would win the Director's Guild Award which in all but about four cases when a director wins this award he wins the Best Director Oscar. That trend held true. The film also won Best Editing, Best Supporting Actor (Gene Hackman beating Men's Jack Nicholson) and the big one Best Picture. Not only that but history has been better to "Unforgiven. " It was on the AFI Top 100 films of All Time (#98) which was released in 1998, when the list was redone in 2008 the film placed higher (#68). It was #4 on AFI's Top 10 Western's of All Time. In 2005 Time.com named it one of the Top 100 films of the past 80 years. By the way as to which film I like better its "A Few Good Men." I found it far more entertaining, better acted, and better written. I could watch it a few times a year not so much with "Unforgiven. " Therefore I disagree with the winner of 1992 Best Picture Winner.

Movie Guru