The film Text copyright (c) Filmverdict 2006-present. Any film titles and artwork used are copyright of their respective owners.
Clint Eastwood is a machine. That is the only explanation for how he keeps making films at a rate that puts any young pre-retirement-age directors to shame. He may have only started directing at the age of 41 (with 1971's Play Misty For Me) but he has well and truly made up for lost time. What's more, since entering his 70s (he's 78 now) he has seemingly been riding a wave of newfound inspiration; since 2000 he has averaged a film a year and has been nominated for the Best Director Academy Award three times, winning once. Changeling is the first of two new films being released a matter of months apart, the following one being Gran Torino, in which the veteran also found the time to star, so his streak of nominations looks all but certain to continue.
Changeling is not, as its title may suggest, a science fiction tale about a shape-shifting alien (maybe that's just me). Neither is it about a giant woman who eats children as its poster seems to imply. In fact, it is something like Gone Baby Gone meets L.A. Confidential: a based-on-fact story about a woman whose young son disappears, presumed kidnapped, and her frantic search to find him in 1920s Los Angeles. The twist on the usual child abduction tale, and the reason that this true story stood out for a film adaptation, is that after a five month search the LAPD claimed to have found the child, but the child who was returned wasn't her son. Angelina Jolie plays the increasingly distraught mother whose protests fall initially on deaf ears, and who is soon locked up by the corrupt police force in an insane asylum. It is a suitably emotive and shocking story for film treatment, and Jolie carries it with force and conviction even if she never quite reaches the higher echelon that warrants awards.
The film also establishes an immaculately authentic late 20s/early 30s atmosphere with the occasional CG-assisted establishing shot of the city and excellent production and costume design. Typically for Eastwood, there is little showiness in the direction, preferring smooth camera moves and efficiently attractive framing. It's basically the definition of "invisible technique" prominent in classical Hollywood. However, that also contributes to its fairly run-of-the-mill feel; the intriguing story keeps the viewer hooked but there is nothing hugely remarkable or memorable here. There's little wrong with the film - although the script does have a few clunking lines and the rather black-and-white delineation of heroes and villains seems unrealistic - but it comes across as workmanlike rather than distinctive. As has been mentioned elsewhere, it seems like a Ron Howard film, so it's not surprising to see him pop up in the credits (as producer). And that's exactly the sort of well made yet fundamentally traditional and conservative fare that the Academy loves.
The summary
A sufficiently engrossing mystery propels Clint Eastwood's latest directorial effort. Despite boasting good looks and performances, though, it's generally unremarkable.
Agree? Disagree? Say so in the Guestbook!