A Perfect World (Eastwood, 1993)

[Fletch F. Fletch]

I was watching this film again recently and was struck by how good it was and did some digging and found that is has been sorely neglected by the many critics and the public at large. At the time, Eastwood was enjoying a resurgence in popularity with Unforgiven winning three Academy Awards and the commercial popularity of In the Line of Fire. I read that Eastwood anticipated only directing A Perfect World because, at the time, he was making Line of Fire and promoting Unforgiven's Academy Award nominatons but that when Kevin Costner came on board, he persuaded Eastwood to take on a role in the film.

I like how this film is essentially a road movie but there is so much more going on. For example, I find it interesting that its set in Texas in 1963, three weeks before the Kennedy assassination. And this oh-so subtly hangs over the film with a kind of ominous foreshadowing.

Thematically there is much more going on as the film wrestles with father/son relationships, child abuse and religion. The most important aspect, to me, seems to be the relationship between Costner's character and the little boy (played very well by T.J. Lowther) and how it develops over the course of the film. I find it interesting that early on, the boy seems to immediately trust Costner's character despite he and his escaped convict partner roughing up his mom. The fact that Costner is able to convince Lowther's character to give him a gun that has fallen on the ground during a scuffle seems to me to be a crucial moment because it establishes early on the instant bond between the two characters. Despite the circumstances, there is something about Costner's character that Lowther's character intrinsically trusts. And the film proceeds to explore this in more detail as the film progresses.

And this happens is what I like so much about this film. Eastwood takes his time and lets us get to know these two characters and we gradually learn what motivates them to do the things they do. This is due in large part to John Lee Hancock's screenplay is also filled with some really clever dialogue, like when Costner's character espouses his theory about how a car is a time machine. Everything behind them is the past, everything in front is the future and inside the car is the present. I always liked that.

Anyways, I could babble on about this movie. Anyone else a fan?

[domino harvey]

pretty sure Cahiers put this in their Top Ten list, but they like nearly all Eastwood films

[pianocrash]

I caught up on this one recently, and I wanted it to be a gem (which, sadly, it is not). True, there are a few moments of greatness here & there, but the longer stretches are nearly unbearable (welcome to plot-point hell). I kept wanting the whole thing to be looser (even at 160min), a little more free & easy, and less drowned in its own greatness (swooping score & crane-shots galore!). The story allowed for a potentially dynamic and adventurous film, not its snappy, by-the-numbers result. I guess I should go rewatch "blood work"?

As for underrated, what about "every which way but loose"? Really.

[lord_clyde]

My third favorite Eastwood film (The others being Unforgiven and Josey Wales), and it is precisely because of how underrated it was that is hit me so hard. Not only was the movie fantastic, I was impressed with Kevin Costner's performance. Not that I think Costner is a bad actor, but I've found that if a movie is subpar and has Kevin Costner, then he's usually subpar in it (Waterworld being the example that comes to mind).

[BusterK.]

pretty sure Cahiers put this in their Top Ten list, but they like nearly all Eastwood films

Les Cahiers du Cinéma had voted it the best movie in 1993.

[Roger_Thornhill]

I was impressed with Kevin Costner's performance.

As was I, this might not be saying much, but I think this is easily Costner's finest performance and a performance that is crucial to the overall success of this film. Eastwood must've done something special because Costner can be awful if he's not properly directed. Even in some of his good films, like Open Range, which he directed, he can be so terrible that it pulls you out of the film, such as during the shoot-out near the end where he wants to execute one of the gunman and Duvall tries to dissuade him. Duvall does his best to make that scene work, but Costner's acting sinks it.

Getting back to A Perfect World, I have to disagree with pianocrash, I think this is one of Eastwood's more laid back films that takes it's time to develop the relationships between the characters, most importantly Costner and the boy. I'd even go so far as to say this may be Eastwood's most lyrical film.

The region 1 DVD is so reasonably priced (under $6 at some places) that's its a no-brainer to pick it up.

[jackson_browne]

pretty sure Cahiers put this in their Top Ten list, but they like nearly all Eastwood films

Wow, they even put Space Cowboys in their top 10 in 2000.

Also, how do you prounce the name of that journal?

[Fletch F. Fletch]

As was I, this might not be saying much, but I think this is easily Costner's finest performance and a performance that is crucial to the overall success of this film. Eastwood must've done something special because Costner can be awful if he's not properly directed. Even in some of his good films, like Open Range, which he directed, he can be so terrible that it pulls you out of the film, such as during the shoot-out near the end where he wants to execute one of the gunman and Duvall tries to dissuade him. Duvall does his best to make that scene work, but Costner's acting sinks it.

Good call on Open Range. I was dreading this film, expecting another bloated Dances with Wolves type epic but I was quite impressed by it... almost like Costner's version of Unforgiven. Annette Bening was good in this as well.

Costner I can take or leave, mostly leave but he's had a handful of decent performances (Fandango, Bull Durham, No Way Out and JFK come immediately to mind) but I was quite impressed with what he did A Perfect World. On the surface, his character seems like one of Costner's cocky, cool characters that he is often known for (i.e. Fandango, Silverado or Bull Durham), yet underneath lurks a darkness that surfaces when he sees a child being abused (the sure sign that his character was probably abused as child as well). Eastwood never lets us forget that Costner's character is a criminal. And I liked how Costner was able to balance this element of danger with his trademark charm, like when he helps his fellow escapee differentiate between a fact and a threat in a scene that is slightly threatening because violence is involved but is funny as well because of the almost absurd tone.

Getting back to A Perfect World, I have to disagree with pianocrash, I think this is one of Eastwood's more laid back films that takes it's time to develop the relationships between the characters, most importantly Costner and the boy. I'd even go so far as to say this may be Eastwood's most lyrical film.

I agree. I also like how, visually, the film ends as it began with a slow motion shot of Costner lying in a field with money floating around him in the wind but by the film's conclusion we know how and why he got there. These sequences feel like something out of a dream and coupled with the film's leisurely pace probably didn't endear it to mainstream audiences who were expecting another crowd-pleasing popcorn movie like In the Line of Fire.

[Polybius]

Probably Clint's single most underrated film, superior in my mind to the somewhat overrated Unforgiven and the greivously overrated Outlaw Josey Wales (sorry, lord_clyde...I'm not picking on you, you just happened to name two Eastwood films that I don't much care for.)

A Perfect World is one of those tweeners: it's not a film that was actively disliked by critics, that we have to champion (Heaven's Gate comes to mind), it's just one that has sort of fallen through the cracks.

[Antoine Doinel]

I too have to add my vote to A Perfect World. Beautiful film in my opinion. I haven't seen it in its entirety in a few years (caught portions of it on cable from time to time) but I do remember liking it a whole lot and definitely watching it more than once. It one of those films I need to catch up with again.

As for Costner, I think he's an often unfairly maligned actor. Yes, he chooses bad pictures but he can be a remarkably solid leading man. JFK, Thirteen Days, Untouchables, Field Of Dreams (yeah, I'm a sucker for it)....all fine performances. But I think the greatest performance in the picture comes from the kid. He's really the heart of the picture in many ways and is indirectly asked to carry it with Costner together. Their chemistry is indefinible and Eastwood deserves credit for coaxing not only a believable but emotionally riveting relationship out of these characters.

[Fletch F. Fletch]

But I think the greatest performance in the picture comes from the kid. He's really the heart of the picture in many ways and is indirectly asked to carry it with Costner together. Their chemistry is indefinible and Eastwood deserves credit for coaxing not only a believable but emotionally riveting relationship out of these characters.

You bring up an excellent point. T.J. Lowther (the kid) has such an expressive face which he uses to great effect during emotional scenes, like the internal conflict that becomes apparent when his character is given the chance to escape or stay with Costner. He has been cut off from everything and everyone he knows and so he has little choice but to stay with his kidnapper. Lowther doesn't have too much dialogue but he is able to convey a lot with a look -- esp. with his eyes, which, if I'm not mistaken, Eastwood cuts to on a few occasions.

[lord_clyde]

Probably Clint's single most underrated film, superior in my mind to the somewhat overrated Unforgiven and the greivously overrated Outlaw Josey Wales (sorry, lord_clyde...I'm not picking on you, you just happened to name two Eastwood films that I don't much care for.)

Don't sweat it, I actually like Perfect World more than Josey Wales. In fact, I also feel that Mystic River, Million $ Baby and Iwo Jima are superior to it as well, not sure why I said it was my second fave.

Still love Unforgiven though.

[Polybius]

Of the two, I prefer Unforgiven.

Without all the historico-political problems I have with Josey Wales (based on a novel by a former Klansman and George Wallace speechwriter which gives us yet another depiction of Kansas Unionists as demento fanatics but Confederate raiders as swell guys just defending their homes), it would probably be a pretty good film.

All in all, I'd rather watch Joe Kidd. Better for my aesthetic enjoyment and my blood pressure, too.

[flyonthewall2983]

Making it's debut on Blu-Ray June 5th.

[aox]

Besides Gran Torino and Unforgiven (which I still have problems with both), this is the only film Eastwood has directed that I think is fantastic and would be happy to revisit (I really dislike his films). Happy to see this coming to BD. One thing that hasn't been mentioned explicitly is that Eastwood really hit a home run creating the 1960s vibe and feel in this film. It isn't an over-the-top "Hey, this film takes place in the 60s" sort of film, throwing a reference at the audience every twenty seconds, but it still manages to create an entire atmosphere with such subtlety. It's a fantastic period piece and not something I would expect from Eastwood.

[hearthesilence]

Probably the only Kevin Costner film I'd see again besides Bull Durham. Those two titles pretty much cover everything you'd want to know about Costner's work.

[Cold Bishop]

There's a little film called Revenge you overlooked.

[flyonthewall2983]

He's bearable in The Untouchables and JFK, mostly because of the supporting cast. And I have no shame in saying I liked Field Of Dreams, either. Why Phil Alden Robinson didn't become more in-demand after that and Sneakers, I'll have no clue.

[aox]

I actually thought he was serviceable in Dances with Wolves.

[hearthesilence]

Yeah, but I actually thought he was good in A Perfect World and Bull Durham, especially the latter, which promised better things that never really materialized. For a moment, it looked like they were picking up where Howard Hawks left off, and that Costner had the potential to be a modern-day Gary Cooper. Instead, the best they could do was a lukewarm knock-off in Tin Cup and Costner rolled downhill to For Love of the Game.

[colinr0380]

I actually thought he was serviceable in Dances with Wolves.

Agreed - I also like his performance in Thirteen Days, and would definitely recommend Open Range both for his performance and direction.

[Brian C]

I actually thought there were some very good things about his performance in Mr. Brooks, although the movie never quite got where it wanted to go, mostly because of the complete ineptness of the scenes with Demi Moore.

[beamish13]

Costner delivers a terrific performance in Kevin Reynolds' extremely underrated 1985 film FANDANGO. Interestingly, Steven Spielberg shepherded that film into production and he was originally attached to direct A PERFECT WORLD, too.

I saw DANCES WITH WOLVES again recently at a repertory screening, and while I still think the direction, photography and score are sublime, the script is more than a bit lazy and contrived (for example, Costner's character is knocked out three times throughout the course of the movie, with the aftermath of two incidents resulting in him being captured and moved to a new location).

[hearthesilence]

On a whim, I decided to see this at MoMA last night, just to have a quiet, low-key evening. A nearly 20-year-old film that flopped even when its lead actor was at his commercial peak, how could I be wrong? Well, it was surrounded with teenagers and paparazzi when I got there because "Cosmopolis" was premiering and Robert Pattinson was attending. Anyway, that was funny to me...turns out the movie was in the education and research building (the library and everything else besides the theater was closed) so it was indeed quiet.

Glad to finally see this on the big screen since it was 2.4 or 2.35:1. ONE shot really stuck out for me.

Towards the end, when Eastwood and Costner finally meet on-screen, we see them enter from opposing sides of the screen and stop so that 90 or 95% of the space between them on that grass field is empty. When I first saw this movie on VHS, I always imagined this shot looking this way, but in pan-and-scan, they showed it as if it were two separate shots and it looked clumsy.

Years later, I finally caught it on NetFlix, I believe in widescreen. I could be wrong about this, but I was certain that they did the same thing even though the picture looked like it was in widescreen because I remember being a little stunned, like "Wow, I guess Eastwood wanted this to be two shots awkwardly cut together!" So just out of curiousity, is this how it is on DVD? Or is it just as I saw it last night?

Anyway, I'm going to make a point of seeing more films shot with this ratio on the big screen - it really makes a difference to have that extra space really be extra space that nearly fills up the entire scope of your vision (just short of your peripheral view).