Read Mixed User Reviews for Richard Jewell

6

AxeTDec 13, 2019

Compelling, timely, and well acted of course under the sure hand of icon brand Clint Eastwood, it ultimately winds up underwhelming. Both the FBI and the press are in question now like never before, but the parallels of this true storyCompelling, timely, and well acted of course under the sure hand of icon brand Clint Eastwood, it ultimately winds up underwhelming. Both the FBI and the press are in question now like never before, but the parallels of this true story aren't quite enough to raise the suspense stakes in a post 9/11 world. The premiere audience seemed to love it anyway.… Expand

4 of 4 users found this helpful40

All this user's reviews

6

TVJerryDec 17, 2019

If you were alive in 1996, you probably remember the titular security guard's name. He found the bomb that exploded during the Olympics in Atlanta. This film details how his life was shattered after he went from becoming a life-saving hero toIf you were alive in 1996, you probably remember the titular security guard's name. He found the bomb that exploded during the Olympics in Atlanta. This film details how his life was shattered after he went from becoming a life-saving hero to the FBI's #1 suspect. As is often the case with films directed by Clint Eastwood, there's more information than passion. The performances are all solid (with Kathy Bates proving especially effective). The complexities of the case are laid out with plenty of blame, but the toll it took never delves the depths of emotion (even though there are some tearful moments). Like several other recent fact-based films, this is more a fascinating glimpse of a historical event, than a moving drama.… Expand

1 of 1 users found this helpful10

All this user's reviews

6

MarkHReviewsJan 4, 2020

As a director, Clint Eastwood is known and respected for his spare storytelling, getting rid of non-essential dialogue and action to focus on the essence of his characters. In “Richard Jewell,” Eastwood puts that skill set to good use again,As a director, Clint Eastwood is known and respected for his spare storytelling, getting rid of non-essential dialogue and action to focus on the essence of his characters. In “Richard Jewell,” Eastwood puts that skill set to good use again, but only inconsistently.

The title character in this film was a security guard at the 1996 Olympics. Richard Jewell was credited with discovering a bomb at the Centennial Park music venue and saving many lives by alerting authorities and helping to evacuate the area before the bomb detonated. For three days, he was celebrated as a hero. (The film uses actual footage of Jewell’s interview with Katie Couric on “The Today Show.”) Soon, however, the FBI’s manhunt trains its sights on Jewell, whose life is torn apart by the FBI scrutiny and the related media frenzy.

Paul Walter Hauser (best known for his clueless characters in “I, Tonya” and “BlacKkKlansman”) is extremely effective in the title role. He convincingly portrays Jewell’s earnest zeal to protect the public, while also embracing his tendency toward braggadocio, overreaching and general officiousness, traits that got him fired from a sheriff’s department and a university security force. However, as Eastwood compellingly points out, nobody deserves what Jewell went through.

This film could have been a lot more interesting and much more compelling if Eastwood had been equally attentive to any of the other characters in the film. The lead FBI agent (Jon Hamm) is a caricature, a bully entirely comfortable living in the gray areas of the law during his rush to build a case against Jewell. Similarly, Kathy Scruggs (Olivia Wilde), the newspaper reporter who broke the story that Jewell was under investigation, is a one-dimensional study in arrogance and ambition. In the film, she’s portrayed as sleeping with an FBI agent in order to get her story, a contention that has no basis in fact. Indeed, “The Atlanta Journal Constitution,” her employer, unsuccessfully demanded an apology from Eastwood’s production company for its misleading portrayal. Only Sam Rockwell, as Jewell’s defense attorney, uses his sardonic style to overcome this general lack of development of any of the secondary characters.

Ultimately, “Richard Jewell” advances two themes. First, the film is persuasive that, in its rush to judgment, law enforcement and the media sometimes get it wrong. And as the film powerfully portrays, by the time the wheels of justice have turned and the wrongly accused has been exonerated, nobody is paying attention any more.

The second theme of the film, equally well-developed, is that people are complicated. We’re all a frustrating mixture of good intentions, bad judgments and, often, a painful lack of self-awareness. This would have been a much better film if Eastwood had been able to address the other characters with the same observational skills, sympathy and compassion he reserves for Jewell himself.… Expand

1 of 1 users found this helpful10

All this user's reviews

5

JLuis_001Dec 21, 2019

Clint Eastwood's political and social points of view are quite clear and he has voiced them a lot of times. Unfortunately this film never ceases to feel like a vehicle for his agenda and perhaps the worst of it - besides the script - is thatClint Eastwood's political and social points of view are quite clear and he has voiced them a lot of times. Unfortunately this film never ceases to feel like a vehicle for his agenda and perhaps the worst of it - besides the script - is that almost 90% of the characters he puts on screen act and look completely incompetent. Therefore there's barely some sort of connection with the story.

And the most important thing of all, is that he never really seems to care about the main character and from the little I could read about Richard Jewell, the truth is that the script doesn't feel honest and even though you know a film can twist the real events, when the material is manipulated that way, it cannot help feeling too manufactured.

Eastwood directs fine enough but this is another forgettable film for his career… Expand

1 of 2 users found this helpful11

All this user's reviews

4

Hank59Dec 19, 2019

Excellent movie great entertainment great acting and great directing. Highly recommend

0 of 1 users found this helpful01

All this user's reviews

5

BroyaxApr 18, 2020

Quel film étrange... on dirait l'invité du dîner de cons, boy scout de son état, le petit doigt sur la couture, fidèle adhérent à la NRA, amateur invétéré de hamburgers, respect de la hiérarchie et de l'autorité, obsession des procédures...Quel film étrange... on dirait l'invité du dîner de cons, boy scout de son état, le petit doigt sur la couture, fidèle adhérent à la NRA, amateur invétéré de hamburgers, respect de la hiérarchie et de l'autorité, obsession des procédures... bref, un authentique champion qui se retrouve à l'insu de son plein gré sous la loupe du FBI !

Evidemment, ils ont tiqué lorsqu'ils ont vu un tel énergumène, un gros con de compétition pareil, ils n'avaient jamais vu ça... alors la machine infernale s'est mise en route, prête à tout broyer sur son passage... Et ¨Papy Clint de se précipiter sur ce "fait divers" pour faire oeuvre de justice sociale comme on ferait don aux bonnes oeuvres !

Lui, le type plutôt de droite voire à droite toute, le vrai patriote, le défenseur des (gros) flingues et de la légitime défense expéditive (Juge Dredd, où es-tu...) lui, le grand Clint se rend compte qu'il vit dans un état policier et paranoïaque avec les fouilles-merdes... euh je veux dire nos amis de la presse sur le qui-vive, prêts à dégainer leurs caméras et à fondre sur leur proie comme des charognards jour et nuit !

Alors, ça reste globalement assez bien fait avec une réalisation comme de coutume de grande qualité et bien sûr des acteurs tous excellents, du rôle principal au brillant Sam Rockwell qu'on retrouve ici avec joie... mais le métrage est tout de même trop long (2h10 !) et la guimauve reste trop appuyée et souvent maladroite comme (trop) souvent dans les films de Pépé Clint.

Comme je le disais au début, l'ensemble reste si exagéré qu'on se croit à un Dîner de cons (le retour) ou un Dîner presque parfait (c'est le FBI qui régale !) d'où un effet presque comique ici et là... très involontaire certes mais qui aide à faire passer le film, lui aussi à l'insu de son plein gré. Finalement.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

All this user's reviews

6

BrunoVn00May 30, 2020

It's one of those forgettable Oscar bait films. The acting is good (Kathy Bates shines and Paul Walter Hauser was really good as Richard Jewell) but Sam Rockwell plays yet again the same character he played in Three Billboards and Vice: AIt's one of those forgettable Oscar bait films. The acting is good (Kathy Bates shines and Paul Walter Hauser was really good as Richard Jewell) but Sam Rockwell plays yet again the same character he played in Three Billboards and Vice: A quirky, sarcastic man who works in some kind of public charge and deep down has a heart of gold. He's honestly becoming another Jesse Eisenberg. Besides the acting everything else was unremarkable. The story is interesting but Clint Eastwood did the bare minimum in terms of direction or screenplay. Olivia Wilde's character was a stupid cartoon character (and it actually made controversy in real life) and the cinematography is just dull. There aren't really things that are terrible but it did nothing exceptional. Clint Eastwood should retire. Literally his last good film was American Sniper. After that he has just released Oscar bait trash like Sully or 15:17 to Paris.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

All this user's reviews

5

Mauro_LanariJan 19, 2020

(Mauro Lanari)
Before considering Eastwood's heroes as Kafkaesque characters, one should prove that can distinguish Max Brod from his friend. And the latter has never written about persecution by earthly, governmental or media powers, but by(Mauro Lanari)
Before considering Eastwood's heroes as Kafkaesque characters, one should prove that can distinguish Max Brod from his friend. And the latter has never written about persecution by earthly, governmental or media powers, but by a metaphysically obscure Power. A topic that never seems to have interested Clint, who, by dint of flying low, pays the price of the maxi flop at the box office.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

All this user's reviews

5

vander1998Feb 28, 2023

What a movie!!
Catches you, takes your breath and diesn‘t let you go. This is what storytelling at its best can be: So authentic that you feel you experience the truth.
Brillant cast, otherworldly lead performance by Hauser! And the one thingWhat a movie!!
Catches you, takes your breath and diesn‘t let you go. This is what storytelling at its best can be: So authentic that you feel you experience the truth.
Brillant cast, otherworldly lead performance by Hauser! And the one thing that means: a masterful director: Clint Eastwood has truly earned his place in the Hall of Fame of Movie Directors.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

All this user's reviews

6

ArshiaBorjaliDec 26, 2020

Before talking about the movie, it can be said that "Richard Jewell" is one of those movies that proves that art does not know age. Ninety-year-old Clint Eastwood is still alive in the cinema and can make good films. The most importantBefore talking about the movie, it can be said that "Richard Jewell" is one of those movies that proves that art does not know age. Ninety-year-old Clint Eastwood is still alive in the cinema and can make good films. The most important strength of the movie is its strong characterization, so that in the very first few scenes, we get a good definition and knowledge of the main character, in a way that from the very beginning, Richard finds his place in our hearts. And we want everything that is good for him until the end of the film. This innocence of Jewell, which turns into oppression throughout the film, keeps us by his side until the end of the movie and does not allow the viewer to be indifferent to Jewell and his fate. The camera also plays an important role in completing this characterization and the viewer 's closeness to Jewell's character, from the very opening scenes that represent him, the middle of the film which is the culmination of events for him and his mother and the end of the film which is a good ending. This strong characterization has also been performed for Jewell's mother, who is also far from exaggerated and can be fully understood and believed. This point, however, is a bit weak for the lawyer, so that the reason for his acceptance of the case is a bit weak, but with the progress of the film, his efforts are somewhat acceptable, although this point still has no effect on the emotional depth of the film. The script, which is the most fundamental cinematic element of any movie, plays a very important role here as well, and this characterization comes out of it.This coherence and quality of the script makes Richard's ideals of believing in the law and the police credible And it does not let his honorable sentences in the last interrogation seem like slogans at all. In the meantime, the good acting of "Paul Walter Hauser", "Sam Rockwell" and of course "Kathy Bates" cannot be easily overlooked. Kitty's character is also somewhat good, but her sudden and emotional change at the end of the movie is not very believable. Eastwood has done well in instilling a hatred of the media in the viewer which is sometimes even more dangerous than the law and its injustice, but one downside to the film is that the federal police investigation process is somewhat vague and it is not clear exactly how and with what evidence they can advance the case so much, but this movie is enough good that these negative points do not have much effect on its quality. The final sequence of the interrogation is also a good sequence, because we see the release of real Jewell's thoughts and ideals, not slogans, through words that are still uttered innocently, like himself, and according to the characterization and script, it is not a cliché at all. Also, it should be noted that the camera works well in the same sequence and the mise en scène is also acceptable. In general, "Richard Jewell" is a good film that entertains and satisfies the audience as much as it can.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

All this user's reviews