The 15:17 To Paris Is Well-Intentioned But Ultimately Proves To Be A Massive Creative Misfire For Director Clint Eastwood

      Every great filmmaker makes a film that despite their most noblest efforts to make it succeed, just doesn't end up doing well for various reasons or ends up succeeding just enough to shake off the flop label, but still manages to pale in comparison to the rest of their work. For director Clint Eastwood, The 15:17 To Paris unfortunately proved too be not just a major cinematic disappointment from the acclaimed and highly-skilled filmmaker whose been on a roll in regards to making stellar movies since 2003's Mystic River with few missteps, it also raises the question of whether the legendary actor and director has hit his peak with delivering stellar projects and should consider retiring from directing. What should've easily been one of last years first real award season contenders, turned out to be a major disappointment as the name behind the directors chair and the story should've been a sure bet to be a success with audiences. What killed the movie audiences may find themselves asking: The answer basically is poor storytelling and replacing actors with the real people in the roles although requiring them to act somehow removed the realism and made it feel staged.

      For those coming to this realization upon watching the new Eastwood directed biopic, the results are surprising but not so much as Eastwood has churned out a number of gems over the past decade such as Mystic River, Million Dollar Baby, Flags Of Our Fathers, Letters From Iwo Jima, Changeling, Gran Tarino, Invictus, American Sniper, and Sully while also having his share of misfires such as Hereafter, J Edgar, and Jersey Boys. With The 15:17 To Paris, Eastwood tries to be ambitious with his efforts to honor the real heroes of his story, but those efforts are undermined by an unfocused narrative and a misguided decision to cast the real life heroes in the roles of playing themselves in the film without any prior acting experience with the latter showing in the final product. The story for The 15:17 To Paris focuses on a pair of three American Marines discovering a terrorist plot on a Paris-bound train. It is not a question of whether the actual true story is captivating enough to be put on film (It's more than worthy), however Eastwood's decision to stray away from the actual events on the train and give the audience endless flashbacks of how the three young boys met in school or their struggles growing up takes away from the central focus of the film, making it less exciting and ultimately boring which a story like this one should never end up being the case.

      The biggest problem with the film is the fact that it doesn't feel spontaneous or real but rather feels staged. This can be attributed to the fact that Eastwood decided to make a bold decision by casting the actual persons in the story to play themselves. Watching the movie, one can clearly see what Eastwood was trying to do in regards to placing the real people in the story as he wanted it to feel genuine for the audience and recapture the same kind of emotions during the train sequences but instead of doing just that, the opposite effect happens here where it feels like everything is rehearsed rather than drawing the audience into the moment. This method of bringing realism to the story has proven in the past to be a dicey move as the results have either been very successful such as Paul Greengrass 2006 drama United 93 utilized real Air Traffic Control employees to act in the film to reenact the tension and confusion of what happened that day with the end result being the film ended up becoming one of the most critically adored films of that year. The second movie that attempted to utilize this strategy and ended up failing was 2012's Act Of Valor placing real Navy SEALs in the roles with the end result being the film received largely negative reviews despite it's noble intentions. 

      It's not a question that Eastwood wishes to honor the heroes behind the films story, but he also fails to understand surprisingly the difference between his previous directorial film Sully proving to be a hit with audiences while The 15:17 To Paris failing to leave the same impact. Sully was a success because it showcased Eastwood's craftsmanship as a director while joining forces with Tom Hanks and utilizing his phenomenal acting talents as well as Aaron Eckhart. Eastwood and Hanks drew the audience back to the event in question and made them believe they were on the plane when it landed in the Hudson. Eastwood used top notch actors to help bring the emotion and realism of the story to the big screen. With The 15:17 To Paris, the audience never gets the feeling that they are on the train with the three young men. The film also suffers from an uneven narrative as the film detours from its main storyline to show the developing friendship of the three young heroes Alex Skarlatos, Anthony Sadler, and Spencer Stone. While there's nothing wrong with wanting the audience to become acquainted with our main characters and get a feel for who they are, the moments on the train are compelling but end up becoming too few in between the rest of the movie that has a lot of unnecessary exposition and build up. One wonders if the film would've been more powerful if Eastwood focused the story moreso on the train, and let the event unfold with the audience getting to know the characters while on the train with professional actors playing the real life heroes.

      The 15:17 To Paris despite being a huge cinematic letdown and disappointment, was made with intentions no less than honoring whats unquestionably a true act of heroism. By casting the real life heroes in the film, Eastwood's clear goal was to reach for the stars but by doing so ended up falling far below the full potential the story carries. The film lacks true momentum in terms of building up suspense and is poorly written rather than being set-up for the main characters to relive their trauma on
the train as well as a moment of selfless heroism. The tragedy is not that the film itself is bad, its that it was placed in the hands of an amazing director and still turned out awful. Somehow the movie feels like a wasted opportunity rather than leaving an impact upon audiences the way Eastwood's most recent films American Sniper and Sully did.

 The train sequences despite feeling staged are interesting and somewhat exciting to watch giving audiences a small glimpse of the film they could've had if the script placed more emphasis on the moment rather than giving us tons of unnecessary background information on the three heroes (Did anyone really need to see their trip in Paris up to them getting on the train? It wasn't necessary). Eastwood doesn't show us the motive behind the attempted terrorist attack on the train nor do we see the terrorists perspective unlike Paul Greengrass United 93, which gave an extremely well-balanced viewpoint of both sides behind its story. Sadly The 15:17 to Paris proves to be a creative failure for Eastwood, making audiences ponder the question of whether he's losing the momentum he's been riding on since Mystic River. While The Mule was a significant improvement over his work here, it still doesn't touch the quality of some of his strongest films from the early 00's era. For now, The 15:17 To Paris ends up being one of the biggest cinematic misfires of 2018, which is a shame because this film had potential to be great.  

                                                                     
 Final Verdict: SKIP IT

Death Wish 2018 Is Surprisingly Decent Remake To its Classic Yet Controversial Predecessor

       Remakes to old Hollywood movies are a dime a dozen nowadays. For some strange reason, the powers at be in Hollywood feel that audiences want to see remakes to classic movies despite most cases being the films never reach the same level of quality as their predecessors and end up underperforming. In regards to action movies being remade and modernized, the result is almost a unanimous failure with the remakes of Robocop and Total Recall not only underperforming financially but also falling far below the quality of their predecessors, both of which have become classics by today's standards. The remake of Death Wish is one in which no one asked for not just because the first one is a classic by the same standards the original Robocop
and Total Recall are held to, but the film also contains undertones with its plot that don't sit very well with today's political climate. What made the original Death Wish a classic to action movie fans was its shock value regarding the films level of violence, that made it highly effective while retaining an exploitation feel. The original was certainly not a film for everyone as its ultimate message puts off large portions of its audience despite being entertaining with its less strong remake being no different. Although Death Wish 2018 doesn't match the sheer shock value of its original and comes across as being rather generic at times, it still maintains a reasonable amount of entertainment despite the films plot feeling a little too close to home with today's world.

      Based on the 1972 novel by Brian Garfield much like the original, the plot for Death Wish centers around a wealthy surgeon taking matters into his own hands after the police prove to be useless when his family is brutally attacked in their home leaving his wife murdered and daughter in a coma. What the story for the new Death Wish does best is taking the concept of the original and modernizing it by placing it in today's world and surrounding it with today's politics giving it a feeling of realism to its story (The film is set in Chicago, further giving it relevance with its issue regarding gun violence). Director Eli Roth enhances that feeling by incorporating the internet to the story as well as the inclusion of a radio talk show debating the actions of the the vigilante unbeknownst to them is Bruce Willis character. He keeps much of the same plot elements of the original intact with Bruce Willis character being a well-established individual in society, who experiences a personal tragedy with the audience witnessing his growing frustration with the lack of action being taken in addressing the attack on his family before finally deciding to take the law into his own hands in the form of vigilantism. Much like Death Sentence and The Brave One with Jodie Foster, all three movies play off the concept of innocent civilians experiencing tragedy and seeking personal revenge with them all being pushed to A.) Purchase a firearm and B.) Shoot the first person who looks at them funny or who they see performing wrongdoing to another person. The message behind Death Wish is one that says taking the law into one's own hands is a dangerous proposition, that should only happen in movies and never real life. While its entertaining to watch Willis character shift into vigilante mode, one also finds the glorifying of his actions in the movie a bit chilling considering the story almost feels as if its promoting the idea that people should no longer rely on the police and take action like Willis character does. While it works great for fantasy and entertainment standards, its a bit eerie given the recent uptick in the number of  gun violence occurring on a regular basis. Whereas Charles Bronson's character in the original is shown getting used to performing the acts of being a vigilante and somewhat enjoying it for the thrill while feeling justified when hearing the amount of crime in the city going down because of his actions, Willis character feels more like he's out for personal vengeance in a style similar to Marvel's Punisher. He never comes across as someone who enjoys what he does but wants some kind of justice for what was done to his family. It almost feels like he looks for justification of it by listening to radio talk interviews discussing his actions. If one looks at Death Wish with the angle that its plot was made specifically for entertainment purposes, then it works as a dark twisted fantasy. If one looks at it as justification for wanting to purchase a gun and walk around hoping to get the opportunity to use it then the films concept comes across as being rather questionable

      In addressing the films acting performances, Bruce Willis gives a solid performance in the main role as Paul Kersey despite his character feeling a bit miscast. This feels like a Liam Neeson vehicle that he either turned down or somehow slipped under his radar as the guy literally made his action movie career revolving around the theme of revenge. Neeson would've felt more in line with the character Charles Bronson did so well at playing decades prior. Despite that, Willis still manages to work and make his character believable, sympathetic and likable whether you agree with his methods or not. Elisabeth Shue does well playing Willis characters wife even if her character doesn't have much to do in the story other than to advance the plot. Daredevil's
Vincent D' Onofrio does a fine job playing Paul's brother Frank Kersey, whose unaware for the most part of his brothers vigilantism on the side. Him and Willis share great chemistry together making the audience believe they are siblings. Camila Morrone does well playing Willis daughter Jordan with Breaking Bad's Dean Norris and Kimberly Elise playing strong supporting roles despite their characters coming across as being rather generic detectives who don't see the answer to their questions staring at them right in the face. As a whole, the cast of Death Wish proves to be effective for the most part with everyone seeming to have fun with the source material while bringing their own style of energy to the film.

      As far as the films directing and writing goes, Eli Roth proves to be effective in bringing this story to modern times making it shockingly violent and gory, although his work here feels a bit tamed compared to his other films ( Hostel anyone?). As an action film, Death Wish feels pretty standard despite its level of violence with the plot hitting the same beats as the other revenge films mentioned. The writing by Joe Carnahan reinforces the generic feel of the story with the detectives coming across as being clueless stereotypical figures. The storyline for the new Death Wish remains almost the same with a few key differences, the main example being Willis character is a surgeon compared to Bronson's character being an architect. Much like the original, the main villains who attacked Willis characters family are kept in the background until the climax, allowing for Paul's character to exact revenge and perform his acts of vigilantism on the streets. Much like the first Death Wish, Paul's acts are random like Bronson's keeping the audience on the edge of the seat. While the original was more thrilling in terms of the unpredictability regarding Bronson's character, Eli Roth and Joe Carnahan do a reasonably decent job of trying to retain the spirit of the original. They also create the new story in a way that leaves it up to the audience to decide whether Paul's actions are justifiable or not.

      The original Death Wish was no stranger to controversy. Upon the first films release, it was criticized by gun control advocates for its portrayal of a vigilante hero with the ultimate message saying that regular citizens should take matters into their own hands. The original also had underlining bits of racism incorporated into its story with the side characters delivering dialogue stating that people of color are more inclined to commit crimes than whites, particularly African-Americans giving justification for Bronson's character to arm himself. The original shocked audiences with its unapologetic nature in telling its story because that type of film was never seen before and was successful enough to spawn several sequels. Fast-Forward to 2018, the remake carries virtually the same message as the original, prompting another conversation regarding the rights and wrong of Willis character while potentially spawning another gun control debate. It doesn't have the exploitation fell of the original and feels more serious in it's tone, but it carries with it an emotional weight that was largely absent from the original despite being a classic. Not everyone will enjoy the remake and take issue with it's main themes, but the overall film isn't that bad and ultimately is a decent remake to the 1974 classic. Despite a good performance from Willis, his character doesn't have the everyday feel of someone like Brosnan's whom you wouldn't expect to perform the acts he does whereas Willis character looks like he's ready to fight someone on the street. One wonders how it would've fared if someone like Liam Neeson had the part instead. Regardless,
Death Wish 2018 is a reasonably decent remake to its original classic despite lacking the originals humor and exploitation feel. It however works as effectively as films such as Death Sentence and The Brave One in regards to telling its story while getting its questionable message across.

Final Verdict: If you loved the original Death Wish, the remake is worth checking out as it retains much of what made the original a hit in the first place.

Ralph Breaks The Internet Is An Entertaining And Worthy Sequel To Wreck It Ralph

       One of 2018's biggest animated films has finally landed on home video with Ralph Breaks The Internet, the box office smash and critically acclaimed sequel to the 2012 hit original Wreck It Ralph. Released on Thanksgiving weekend in November 2018, the film received an Oscar nomination for Best Animated Film but ultimately lost to Sony's Spider-Man: Into The Spider-Verse. Released a total of six years after the original, Disney finally gives audiences the long-awaited sequel to the first with the end result being an entertaining and strong sequel to the original film overall that's funny, heartwarming, and continues the jab at poking fun at pop culture with its endless amount of references. One of the things that made the first Wreck It Ralph appealing to audiences is not just its colorful universe that appealed to video game and pop culture fanatics, it also had unique and likable characters the audience grew to care about while becoming invested in their relationship, particularly that of Ralph and Vanellope. Ralph Breaks The Internet continues that relationship as well as expanding on the universe developed within the first movie with the same amount of heart and charm being put into the story, making it a worthy extension of the first film. Ralph Breaks The Internet wasn't the strongest animated film released in 2018, but it still ended up being one of the best as well as being a sequel worthy of the wait. 

      The plot for Ralph Breaks The Internet takes place after the events of Wreck It Ralph, with Ralph and Vanellope, now becoming friends, uncovering a Wi-Fi router in their arcade, which allows them to gain access to the internet. The first Wreck It Ralph was a surprise in terms of how entertaining it was not just for kids, but also for adults with its clever use of pop culture references (It was a kick to see Dr, Robotnik at one of Ralph's therapy sessions). The characters were not only charming and appealing to watch but had heart, making the audience care about the friendship between Ralph and Vanellope. Ralph's transformation in the first one was touching as he went from being viewed as a bad guy to ending up becoming a good person deep down, who cares about his friends. The first film was cleverly written because of how it merged both audiences together with how it appealed to young kids while playing off the nostalgia of their parents, particularly gamers. It was definitely one of the strangest efforts to come from Pixar thus far, but it proved to be one of their most unique and creative ones despite being a tad manipulative with its reference to popular arcade games such as Pacman and Mario-Kart. The secret about both Wreck It Ralph and Ralph Breaks The Internet, is they are mature films for adults disguised as kids movies (The techno soundtrack is another giveaway to that realization). Ralph Breaks The Internet continues the adult style tone of the first film with the growing friendship between Ralph and Vanellope, even if the concept of a grown Hulk-size man befriending a young girl comes across as being a bit weird. The sequel gives audiences more of the same but enlarges the heart of the first while turning up the charm meter with both its characters as well as its visually dazzling world. Almost everything one loved about the first film is here with a a few nice surprises and newer characters that remain interesting.

      As far as the acting performances go, John C. Reilly once again does a fantastic job playing Ralph with Sarah Silverman doing great once again playing Vanellope. The two showcase wonderful chemistry together and are hands down the heart and soul of the movie. There's really no one else that one can picture playing these parts as they both bring a lot of humanity and charisma to their roles. The same can be said for Gal Gadot as Shank, she does a very good job going from being an antagonist to Ralph and Vanellope to becoming an ally as well as a voice of reason for the latter when her friendship with Ralph stalls once again like the first movie. Taraji P. Henson shines in her small role as Yess with Jane Lynch and Jack McBrayer giving notable performances. Alan Tudyk shines in his supporting role of Turbo/King Candy with Alfred Molina as slug-centaur Double Dan. In the voice acting department, everyone did an excellent job here bringing new characters to life while giving old ones more of a complex. Audiences are sure to get a kick out of the newer ones as everyone brings a fresh sense of energy and excitement to their parts.

      In the directing and writing department, Phil Johnston and Rich Moore return to their duties from the previous film and continue to build upon the universe they created. While some argue that the new film is nothing more than one giant product placement piece with how it advertises Google, Ebay, Amazon, and Yahoo, that isn't the case as those are worked cleverly into the story making them feel both instrumental to the plot and fun for the main characters to come across along with the audience to laugh at. Whereas video game elements played a large part of the first film, the new film capitalizes on the internet world. It's a fitting change as the sequel attempts to do something different with its new storyline while presenting it as an upgrade. The screenplay by Phil Johnson and Pamela Ribon is strong and does a reasonably decent job of continuing the adventures of Ralph and Vanellope, though Ralph's character arc isn't as strong in this one as it was in the original. The first movie showed a full transformation of Ralph's character with him learning from his past mistakes yet here he makes similar ones that come across as feeling repetitive making his character feel clumsy all over again and halting his progression. Vanellope also feels like her character somewhat takes a step back in growth as she's shown abandoning her friends to pursue a dream that's rather unrealistic. Wouldn't it have been just as powerful to show that she doesn't need to pursue that dream in the end because she realizes that she's right where she belongs with her being with Ralph. After all, the first movie showed that the two needed each other for their game to function. That would've been just as powerful and leaving the door more noticeably open for a third movie compared to the way this one ends. It also would've made Vanellope not come across as being rather selfish by ditching her friend to pursue her own desires . Despite these issues with the character motivations with the sequel, the relationship between the two in the film is still strong and ultimately works. Another issue with the screenplay is how often it leans on the original film for comfort with its plot feeling like the first movie repeated with the only difference being it revolves around the internet now rather than inside a video game. The inclusion of the Disney princesses is a nice touch and makes for a cute and charming scene with Vanellope. Some may find their cameos to be a mockery of their roles in their own movies, but it works great here as another pop culture reference, one of many sprinkled throughout the film that are more than welcomed. This movie was designed by its filmmakers to poke fun at pop culture, even Disney itself while paying homage to them.

      On a technical note, Ralph Breaks The Internet has animation that is beautiful to watch showing great passion and creativity that went into bringing this world to life. The film is colorful and easy on the eyes with the return of the retro gaming characters being a plus. The design of the background is amazing with such attention being given to detail with the films pacing moving fast though giving the impression the film is trying to squeeze everything into the confines of its running time. The amount of creativity that went into bringing the internet world to life is unreal with the film being one large showcase of imagination. The soundtrack by Henry Jackman proves to once again be highly effective while properly fitting with the films tone. As far as Pixar films go, this is one of their boldest and most creative works visually making both Wreck It Ralph and Ralph Breaks The Internet go so well together back to back as one continuous story regarding friendship and pursuing ones dreams.

      It's quite shocking to see how much criticism has been aimed at this movie by audiences as many have taken issue with its "product placement", making it feel like Disney was deliberately advertising the internet throughout the film while teaching kids they must have a credit card to buy something off Ebay and Google. Many accuse the film of being a cash grab and citing how the film was designed to be one big nostalgic ride for audiences without leaving much room for an actual plot other than closely mirroring the first movie. While its true the movie is full of product placement and brings all the Disney princesses together at one point, the filmmakers present both in forms that act as tools to the overall plot. The story for Ralph isn't a bad one, its just nothing groundbreaking other than being another fun adventure for Ralph and Vanellope. The message of the film basically says that friendships ultimately change but the real ones always grow stronger. Friendship is a key element of the plot as Ralph and Vanellope are both characters, that are shown to want more out of life while seeking change but ultimately find that letting go is hard but sometimes necessary to let others grow as evidenced by the films touching finale. Although it's not as good as the first Wreck It Ralph, Ralph Breaks The Internet comes very close and remains a strong sequel that retains much of the heart and charm of the first while being just as much fun to watch, carrying the same emotional weight. The Easter eggs and nostalgia references are more than enough to keep the fans happy while distracting from some of the screenplays minimal flaws such as the lack of a truly compelling reason for Ralph and Vanellope to venture off into the internet. Regardless, the plot still works and the overall film is a sequel worthy of being a continuation of the first film though one will be curious to see how Pixar plans on continuing the story from where Ralph ends.

Final Verdict: If you loved the first Wreck It Ralph, this is a must see

The Mule Is A Reaffirmation That Clint Eastwood Remains One Of Cinemas Greatest Stars And Filmmakers

      When audiences think of an almost 90-year-old actor and movie star that could play a leading role requiring drama, humor, and a performance that's engaging, there seems to be no one that comes to mind other than Hollywood legend Clint Eastwood in the Twilight years of his acting/directing career. With a resume that spans over 50 years, Eastwood remains one of the most prolific actors of his generation as well as a director whom audiences loyally flock to see his films when they see his name involved in the credits. When audiences see the name Clint Eastwood in the directors chair, the chances are they are going to get a top notch quality film despite the actors hiccups in between with his missed opportunity films. The Mule serves as being Eastwood's second directorial debut in 2018 after the critical and box office failure of his real life drama, 15:17 to Paris. The Mule has Eastwood once again returning to the directors chair with him inserting himself in his first official acting performance since 2012's Trouble With The Curve. Here he chooses another real life story that he found intriguing enough to make into a Hollywood film. Eastwood's recent trend of directing films lately, has been to bring real life stories involving real people to the big screen, even if sometimes the stories he picks are more interesting to him than his audience though he carries a loyal fanbase, that will always see whatever films he acts and directs in. With The Mule, Eastwood once again shows Hollywood as well as the audience that he's in a league of his own as an elderly movie star, who can still carry a film on his shoulder both as an actor and director. On the acting side, Eastwood is terrific as usual, on the filmmaking side, The Mule isn't among his strongest works but remains a fairly entertaining biographical drama revolving around a man performing a crazy task while realizing through his experience that the most important thing in life that matters is family.

The plot for The Mule centers around a 90-year-old horticulturist and Veteran of the Korean War (Played by Clint Eastwood), losing his business and home, ultimately turning himself into a drug mule for a Mexican cartel gang when he discovers what he's been transporting in his pickup truck. As the shipments become larger, he becomes tracked by DEA agents (Played by American Sniper's Bradley Cooper, Crash's Michael Pena, and Matrix's Laurence Fishburne). The storyline for The Mule essentially works as being Breaking Bad except the star of the movie is a 90-year-old Hollywood legend. Only Eastwood could play this part and deliver the film justice by bringing it to the big screen as he's more interesting as an elderly actor than someone like Robert Redford at this point in his career. Whereas most drug tales are full of action and suspense, this one is a soft-hearted tale about an old man attempting to re-establish the bridge between himself and the family he's neglected over the years. The character is shown to be well aware of the items he's transporting and chooses to continue doing so, ignoring the moral implications of it and having no regrets until the end. The film is not one that allows for action to develop, but rather comes across as a slow burner and character study revolving around Eastwood's character Earl. The character of Earl feels similar to that of Walt Kowalski from Gran Tarino in the fact that both elderly men are old-fashioned and out of touch with reality. An example is Earl talking smack to strangers and making comments that often feel like Eastwood taking a shot at today's PC culture. Those moments come across as being comedic and fitting the compass of the character given his age and set of beliefs that don't align with today's culture. Eastwood makes Earl's character sympathetic and understandable of his decision to become a mule by showing his livelihood being threatened, pushing him into the path of transporting drugs for a Mexican drug cartel throughout the Midwest. As his character demonstrates his worth, his runs become longer and more profitable with the more trips he makes. Despite the story being based on an actual one, this is Eastwood's show and he centers the story around the character of Earl putting the audience through his experience while placing every other character in the backseat.

      As far as the films acting is concerned, Eastwood once again dominates the screen and is terrific to watch as usual with his steady direction guiding him throughout the picture. His character is convincing and believable despite times where Earl comes across as goofy or a little too shocked to discover he's been transporting drugs the whole time he's been making his runs. Dianne Wiest does well playing Earl's ex-wife though her character feels like she's been underused in the story. The same can be said for Bradley Cooper's character as the DEA agent pursuing Eastwood along with Laurence Fishburne and Michael Pena. Ignacio Serricchio shines in his supporting role as the hardened member of the Cartel whose been assigned to watch Earl complete his drives while growing to respect him. Andy Garcia has a minimal role but makes the best of it by playing the leader of the Cartel, who takes notice of Earl's successes at transporting the goods from one area to the next. Cesar De Leon and Allison Eastwood shine in their roles as well with the main cast as a whole delivering strong performances regardless of the capacity of their roles. Even though some of the high profile actors may appear to have small roles here, they all serve their purpose of driving the main central focus of the story which is the story of Earl and his bizarre Breaking Bad episode while finding his own path to personal redemption.

      In terms of directing, Eastwood once again brings his directorial talents to the project, giving the story a steady focus while making the pace of the film move slow enough to fully develop Earl's character. He delivers intensity in key moments such as Earl coming across the Cartel gang and him discovering that the items he's been transporting back and forth are drugs. He also provides humerous moments that channel Walt's character from Gran Tarino such as Earl assisting an African-American couple with fixing their tire and dimwittingly stating without a second thought "I'll Help you negroes out." Much to the shock of the African-American couple, they correct him by saying they are people just like him with Earl's character brushing it aside as no big deal and resuming fixing their tire. Other similar moments with Eastwood's character using similar rhetoric is when arguing with the Cartels and proclaiming how they all look similar. Whereas Eastwood presents these moments in a fashion that comes across as being humerous given Earl's cartoonish yet provocative nature, he also uses the character of Earl to showcase the glaring cultural division within the U.S with another example being his character stumbling upon a biker gang of lesbians. The script by Nick Schenk and Sam Dolnik, based off a New York Times Magazine Article titled "The Sinaloa Cartel's 90-Year Old Drug Mule", is fairly strong with the intent being it was designed to place the spotlight on Eastwood. The writers show Eastwood's shock at first to discovering he's transporting drugs to him taking the passive route and enjoying the realization that he has money coming in with the story ending with him experiencing the regret of not being there for his family as well as accepting consequences of his actions. Earl is portrayed as not being a bad person, but someone whose been down on his luck and chose to perform an illegal act in order to make ends meat while helping his friends and family along the way with the money he's got coming in

      Overall, The Mule doesn't rank among Eastwood's best works as the story while being an interesting one, wasn't fully developed to its full potential. There are moments where Earl's character is shown to be singing to music in his truck that serve little to no purpose with the rest of the plot, and the characters surrounding him, particularly the Cartel members as well as his ex-wife and DEA agents pursuing him, feel underused despite everyone delivering strong performances. The films pacing is a slow-burner, which may make the story come across as being boring for audiences looking for more intensity and action but The Mule works best as being a strong character study of Eastwood's character Earl. Despite the films shortcomings, the end result is an entertaining film that has moments where the audience will be concerned about the main characters safety when meeting with the Cartels while laughing at Earl's absurd antics or ridiculous commentary. The heart of the film lies within the story and how Eastwood was able to make a man wishing he could turn back the clock resonate with audiences the way he does here. One feels that Eastwood much like Gran Tarino was wrongfully snubbed of a Best Actor nomination for his work on both movies as he presents two flawed men at the end of their ropes finding unusual yet effective pathways to redemption in the end. For fans of Clint Eastwood (Putting his political and personal views aside) as well as audiences in general, The Mule is worth watching as it's an entertaining and reasonably decent biographical drama, that shows how people when pushed into corners can do the most extreme things while also feeling the pain of regret in the end.

Final Verdict: For Clint Eastwood fans, its worth a watch.