User Reviews

Even as a former prosecutor I would have liked to arrest the FBI and media people who ruined Richard Jewell's reputation, life.I wish at the end the movie clarified how he won some settlements against the offending newspaper and others. Clint Eastwood is truly amazing as an actor and a director.

This movie is a great wake up call about the media. I wasn't going to leave a review until I read the media outcry about the film. I believe in a strong and free media but for all the good can they do, they can also be a self-serving destructive force.

This movie nicely brings that point across without getting into politics. Perhaps if Eastwood hadn't used real names of reporters and newspapers, there might have been less media blowback. But ... it's kind of like they're getting a taste of their own medicine. So it's unfortunate that they're targeted - perhaps with some fictionalization, but you can see how they scramble and plead "unfair" when the tables are turned ... like they were with Jewell.

I remember the news reports about Richard Jewell when the bombing occurred. I only recall that he was said to have discovered something about the bombing and then he was suddenly in trouble for being the prime suspect. The impression I got was that he was a troubled person and guilty -- never heard what happened afterward and never gave it any more thought.

It was amazing to watch this movie and see the events that actually transpired. It's definitely a worthwhile movie to see because it's both captivating and based on real events. Keep in mind that like any movie, some aspects are fictionalized, but the core story isn't. It's scary and real.

Any "normal person" who has ever been involved as the subject of a targeted media story can tell you reporters can be monsters. Never an apology, rarely a correction, they just move on the the next story leaving a wake of destruction.

Let me begin with stating, how the hell did'nt this make it to Best Picture? How the hell did'nt P.W. Hauser nor Rockwell get a nomination for their work?

Richard Jewell is a true amazing story of the reality and sadness of the american system in relation to crimes. There is always an immediate search for someone to blame after a crime happens.

Performances drive the film. Paul Walter Hauser did an astonishing work, having into account both his resemblance to the real Jewell and his amazing acting skills which yet remain unkown to many. Sam Rockwell is one of the best actors working these days, and he should've gotten his 3rd nomination in a row for Best Supporting Actor. Kathy Bates did incredible, she was true and relatable. Others such as Jon Hamm and Olivia Wilde properly fulfilled the picture's ensemble as well.

Clint Eastwood is simply amazing. Being in the industry for over 70 years and still managing to impress. The plot is handled with intensity, and thrilling scenes are to remain in my memory. Though he did a great work, some particular blocking and editing disconnected me for brief moments. Nevertheless, he handled a properly written script and brought a thought provoking story to life with the great aid of the casting chosen.

This film is captivating and gripping from the first scenes already, and it manages to keep you hooked and rooting for the good guys from the moment of the incident.

It's sad to remember this as a true story because it definitively shows how flawed the society we live in is.

Nevertheless, it works greatly as a cinematic piece and I would love to see it again.

It's amazing stories like these that I wish we got more of. I'm sure there are many more like this one that would be great for film as an avenue for people to learn about.

SYNOPSIS: During the 1996 Olympics in Atlanta, aspiring police officer Richard Jewell (Paul Walter Hauser) is working as security while he stumbles across a bag carrying a bomb. While law enforcement and the media praised him as a "hero" at first, the FBI begins to aggressively investigate the life of Richard Jewell as he becomes their number one suspect.

DIRECTION: Clint Eastwood is great. I love him as a director and as an actor in most things I've seen with him, although I struggle to feel he did something no other Director could do. I'm really glad he chose this this story to put out to the world and whether it's purposeful or not, adding his name to this project will bring this story to more people. I don't want to give him too hard of a time though, because this isn't a film meant to focus around the direction. The story/writing of this film is the focal point and he still did a very good job getting it done. To add one negative I took away, there was a moment where an interview with the real Richard Jewell played on the television as his house and it through me off a bit.

WRITING: The writing in this film was very good. It is based on a true story, so the story itself is largely what captured my attention. However, there are many movies based on or inspired by true stories where the writing couldn't really capture the heart of it and that is where the beauty of the writing lies. It's always hard to know exactly how everything went down and so whether this film is very accurate or mildly accurate, I'm glad they really focused on Richard Jewell and how it affected him and his family and how he was a real trooper through this whole process. There were a couple flaws that I did find with this film. There seemed to be some arc they were going for with Olivia Wilde's character that didn't really come to a close. Then with Tom Shaw (Jon Hamm) and Watson Bryant (Sam Rockwell), although their characters didn't have an arc to really be made with them, both of their parts ended quite abruptly. They were both vital to the story and the film didn't show me nor tell me anything about how either of those two continued after the fact. Well, there was a little info given about something Watson did, but nothing to do with Richard Jewell or his law firm that he had started (not a spoiler, was nothing integral to the story).

ACTING: The acting is so good in this film. I can't say it's Hamm's best nor does Wilde really get a chance to fulfill the arc of her character due to the writing, but none-the-less great actors. Then you have Kathy Bates and holy crap does she deserve a Best Supporting nom. All I hear is "of course she's great, she's Kathy Bates)... AND? I'm sorry I didn't know that when you're consistently great that you should be penalized for it or receive any less attention. I get we come to expect it, but then what's the incentive to give your all if you'll just be tossed to the side, because of your positive reputation. That's totally backwards to me. Then Nina Arianda who played Nadya was awesome! She didn't have many scenes, but her back and forth with Sam Rockwell was hilarious and wonderful. Now, lets get to Paul Walter Hauser. Wow. I'm sorry, but this man is neck-and-neck with Adam Driver for me. He has not even been nominated for a Golden Globe or SAG Award? Did they even watch the film? I mean Sam Rockwell was great in this film too, but he's another one of those "yea, but he's too good to nominate. Wouldn't be fare." Paul Walter Hauser shows so much emotion and is SO good at being a man who is holding in his anger, because he respects law enforcement too much. Then in the scenes where he breaks are just tremendous. I will be sorely disappointed if he is not nominated this year.

CONCLUSION: Richard Jewell is a great story about one of American's greatest heroes who probably didn't get enough praise for the job that he did. The story itself and Paul Walter Hauser was enough for me to really enjoy this film, unfortunately there were some flaws with the story with some of the characters and some of the writing. In the end, I would definitely recommend this film for anyone to watch. Richard Jewell is the nicest man I have never met and this is just another story to show that doesn't matter how kind and genuine you are, you'll always have someone try to tear you down.

Greetings again from the darkness. Imagine you are being falsely accused of a terrorist act that killed and injured people. You are the FBI's primary suspect. Your name and face are spread across every possible media outlet. Your belongings have been searched and seized as evidence - right down to your mom's Tupperware. Cameras follow your every step of every day. Now imagine all of this occurs mere days after your actions actually saved lives and you were hailed as a hero across all of those same media outlets. Richard Jewell didn't have to imagine this, as he lived this nightmare in 1996.

We first see Richard (played by Paul Walter Hauser in one of the year's best performances) as a supply clerk at a law firm in 1986. His awkward ways and surprising efficiency catches the eye of attorney Watson Bryant (Oscar winner Sam Rockwell), a quasi-connection that comes into play a decade later. We then jump ahead those 10 years to find Richard being fired from his campus security job at a college due to his over-zealous focus on protocol. Fortunately for Richard, the Olympics are coming to Atlanta, so finding work as a security guard is pretty easy.

Atlanta's Centennial Olympic Park is shown with crowds of people cheering at a Kenny Rogers and later dancing the Macarena. As one of the on-site security guards, Richard spots a suspicious backpack that turns out to be holding the bomb that detonates, creating tragedy for many. As the viewing audience, we know that Richard's actions saved lives and he most definitely was not responsible for planting the bomb. And it's that knowing that places us as close as possible to the Richard Jewell experience.

Four-time Oscar winner Clint Eastwood directs yet another story of a working-class hero. Only this time, he blatantly calls out what he sees as two evil forces: the U.S. Government (the FBI) and the media. Billy Ray (CAPTAIN PHILLIPS, SHATTERED GLASS) based his script on the 1997 Vanity Fair article "American Nightmare: The Ballad of Richard Jewell" by Marie Brenner (who also wrote the article that was the source for THE INSIDER, 1999). It can be argued that Eastwood comes down hard on the FBI and the media, but you might consider putting yourself in Richard Jewell's shoes before crying foul.

Jon Hamm has perfected the role of cocksure FBI agent and here he plays Tom Shaw as the man totally focused on proving Richard Jewell was the perpetrator. Much has been made of Eastwood's depiction of Atlanta Journal-Constitution reporter Kathy Scruggs (played by Olivia Wilde, who directed this year's surprise hit BOOKSMART). It's a bit curious that the uproar is over what some interpret as a reporter trading intimate relations for a scoop, yet Eastwood's contempt seems focused more on the idea of trying a citizen's case in public ... while lacking any real evidence outside of a profile. The reporter (Ms. Scruggs passed away in 2001) is certainly portrayed as an ultra-aggressive reporter desperate for a headline story, but the implied consensual affair occurred after the inside information was provided - and the FBI agent was actually surprised... "Is this really going to happen?" Perhaps the viewer reaction to this is a sign of the times, but I'm guessing if any one of Eastwood's critics were similarly falsely accused (as Jewell), the fictionalized version of the reporter would be less important than having the truth discovered. Of course, this could have been easily avoided had the name of the reporter been changed for the film.

Two key supporting roles come courtesy of Oscar winner Kathy Bates as Richard's mother Bobi, and Nina Arianda as Watson Bryant's paralegal. Ms. Bates starts out as a loving and simple mother to Richard, but her press conference captures the character in a new light. It's a strong and heartfelt performance. Ms. Arianda brings some warmth sprinkled with welcome sarcasm to her role. Mr. Hauser is spot-on in every scene, and when these four are all together, it's a pleasure to watch. Hauser and Rockwell are especially good in their scenes together as the 'wronged man' contrasted with the take-no-guff attorney.

Every time Richard says "I'm law enforcement too", it's heart-breaking to us and an opening for the FBI to manipulate him. The profile of a single white male living at home with his mom, carrying gung-ho dreams of a career in law enforcement, while collecting guns and knowledge on bombs and police procedure, made Richard Jewell seem like the kind of guy who would do something for attention. However, the film and the true story both emphasize the danger of prematurely persecuting individuals - especially in public. These days the race is always about who is first with a story, rather than who is right. A rush to judgment can be seen as an abuse of power, whether it's by the media, a law enforcement agency, or folks on social media. At this stage of his career, director Eastwood seems more interested in telling stories than showing one. He offers up little visual artistry outside of the terrific performances, but this story ... it's a doozy.

I have experience dealing with the Feds and found this movie incredibly compelling. So much about this movie hit home for me. Just a few examples, when the Feds came to talk to Jewell and tried to make him sign shady documents, bugging his home, the slick self-righteous agent who thinks he decides who is right and wrong, cleaning out his home supposedly looking for evidence, wasting time on easy, harmless suspects instead of finding the real criminals to boost their career. It's sad. All that time spent looking at Richard Jewell as a suspect while the real terrorist got away. They knew he was innocent, all they had to do was actually do some actual investigative, science-based investigative work instead of using confirmation bias.

Can you imagine what would have happened if Jewell didn't have access to a great lawyer or had the law enforcement background to spot the tricks the Feds were using? He would probably have been in prison until his death, which is nuts. At no point did anyone use common sense and point out that there was absolutely no evidence this guy was involved. They were looking for an easy mark.

It just shows that reform is needed drastically. I've always thought that many in American law enforcement are not educated, which leads to this sort of thing happening too often. Then you have the for-profit prison system which encourages all the corruption in the justice system to begin with.

If I had kids, I'd definitely show them this movie and point out all the things Jewell did wrong and what to do in a situation like this. It should be mandatory to show in Civics classes, TBH.

I was too young to remember the events of the 1996 Bombing, so this film is my first true introduction to this story and I could not wait to see it. Following the events above it tells the story of Richard Jewell who was portrayed as the bad guy in the events after the bombing. It's a classic story of a man who was framed for a crime he did not commit.

Clint Eastwood is the perfect person to direct such a movie, reminding me of his past films such as American Sniper and Sully. Richard Jewell ends up being a solid movie, far better than Clint Eastwood's worst film to date which was released last year, 15:17 to Paris. It has great performances, tense moments and an intriguing true to life story.

Paul Walter Hauser as Richard Jewell is incredible, finally this guy gets a role that puts him in the forefront and he supplies us with one one the best performances of the year. Kathy Bates can also not be ignored, playing Jewell's mother with such wonderful love and feebleness. It's Kathy Bates at her best.

However, problems arise in this film specifically with the villain of the film played by Olivia Wilde who breaks the story of Jewell's possible involvement. They character is nothing more than over the top, one dimensionally evil. The only thing missing is the twirling mustache. She is by far the films biggest problem.

However, the film pulls through with an emotional roller coaster, great performances and an interesting true story that I'm glad was finally told.

I'm not a real fan of slow paced long movies... unless they are made by Mr. Eastwood. He captures every tense moment, facial expression, or still scene, and manages to fill in more about the story he is telling. Casting was perfection! Paul Walter Hauser needs awards for his performance. Kathy Bates and Olivia Wilde were on point, as was Sam Rockwell and Canadian wannabe Jon Hamm - who is awesome in his TV commercials lol! Directing was perfect, cinematography great, score in line, and the writing was good. Very enjoyable film and I recommend it. It's a well deserved 9/10 from me

"There's a bomb in Centennial Park. You have thirty minutes." Richard Jewell (Paul Walther Hauser).

"Richard Jewell" is a docudrama among the best this year and any year. Director Clint Eastwood has a gift for depicting ordinary men of every kind heroically under stress (think recently of American Sniper, The Mule, and Sully). The titular hero is a schlubby security guard ("I study the penal code every night") at the 1996 Atlanta Summer Olympic Games with a heavy southern accent, ready to be profiled as a bomber. But he isn't a bomber.

Eastwood and writer Billy Ray take a long time to establish Jewell as a nice but seemingly dense character ripe for the FBI's profiling. As the character develops, he is much brighter than he appears, and his stereotypical affection for his mom (Kathy Bates) is genuine rather than a support for the perception of him as a candy-assed momma's boy. Hauser is so good at enlisting our affection despite the good-ol' boy cliché that he should be nominated.

Kathy Scruggs (Olivia Wilde), the Atlanta Journal-Constitution fiery reporter, who breaks the news about the FBI's interest in Jewell as bomber, is depicted as a go getter who would be willing to sleep with her informants. Whether true or not, the noise surrounding the sexist nature of the role is warranted; sadly, the real Scruggs is unable to defend herself due to death. Her coming on to FBI's Tom Shaw (Jon Hamm) does nothing to advance the plot and is a gratuitous mistake even if it could be proven.

Although "Richard Jewell" could stand accused of being a shout out of Eastwood's conservative nature, specifically denigrating media and federal government agencies, that orientation shouldn't be a part of any evaluation. Regardless, the film does the magical entertaining trick of making audiences move to the edge of their chairs even knowing he will be released from suspicion.

Besides Hauser's outstanding performance as Jewell, Sam Rockwell's as his lawyer, Watson Bryant, is worthy of an Oscar nomination. Less manic than his usual roles, this one shows a brainy but eccentric attorney with heart just below the surface. Rockwell makes the film tense, light, and believable.

Richard Jewell, the film, is a nearly-perfect piece of filmmaking. The performances are all outstanding. For a film with an advertising campaign promising that the truth will now be known, this film looks occasionally to fictionalize, sensationalize, and veer into melodrama. The actual bombing scene does a remarkably effective job at surprising the audience with an event the audience knows is coming. Conservative audiences should connect strongly with this tale of a malevolent deep state and fake news.

I just saw this today, and am well aware of the controversy that arose from the movie as a result of the depiction of Kathy Scruggs in particular, so I took Olivia Wilde's scenes with a very heavy dose of skepticism, but at the end of the movie, it feels almost pointless. Her character could've practically been removed entirely with absolutely no change to the overall story. Her inclusion and portrayal feels less like a crucial story aspect and more like a personal vendetta by the writer and/or director to smear someone's character long after their death.

As for the film itself, it was fairly simply, plain, and straightforward, to the point of being boring. Paul Walter Hauser and Sam Rockwell keep up a great chemistry and rapport all throughout which does a lot to make most of the film watchable, but it all comes across as so low-key for what should have been a serious national incident.

The entire tone and pacing of the film feels like it's about a man wrongfully accused of a small town car theft. The stakes are almost nonexistent and a whole lot of the conflict feels almost patently manufactured. Whether or not this is how the actual FBI investigation against Jewell went, I don't know, but since the movie only really shows us things from Jewell's perspective, it becomes maddening.

Jewell himself becomes mad, flustered at being the target of an investigation. We, the audience, become mad, because we know he's innocent--- we see the events leading up to the bomb and we've seen Richard Jewell's character going back to a 1986 prologue where he first meets Sam Rockwell's character. He's a pushover, he's a teddy bear, he's not a white supremacist anti-government terrorist.

But the FBI in this film, concentrated with an unwarranted vehemence in the character played by Jon Hamm, is so fixated on Richard Jewell that it becomes incoherent and nonsensical. Again, as I do not know how the actual investigation went, I cannot judge if this is how it was actually depicted.

The problem is that the film does not bother to show much of any of the FBI's side of the investigation. We never get to see or hear any real evidence or reasoning for the heavy suspicion on Jewell beyond a single, superficial behavioral profile made of Jewell --- that he intentionally set up the bomb so as to pretend to discover it and make himself the hero --- that seems to be forgotten every so often as they start toying with their completely contradictory motive of Jewell being an anti-government militia terrorist.

There's almost no investigating done by literally either side. The FBI takes some stuff from his home and we don't see what is done with most of it, if anything. Jewell's lawyer times a walk from Centennial Park to the payphone where the bomb threat was called and determines Jewell was too fat to make it in time. That's the entirety of the investigating, either for or against Jewell.

Olivia Wilde's character's role is essentially just to be the concentrated form of "da newz" that is supposedly ruining Jewell's life and slandering him and making him public enemy number one...

Except we literally do not see any of this. Jewell gets followed around by media cameras and reporters occasionally, but otherwise nothing. Even as a thin, flimsy allegory of supposed "cancel culture", this doesn't work because "Da Media" is barely a factor in his life or in his quest to clear his name.

We never see him getting harassed on the street by random people who read about him in the newspapers and think he's a terrorist. We never see him getting kicked out of places or his house vandalized or absolutely anything to suggest he is being unduly "cancelled" or condemned by the media.

All of these aspects which were apparently supposed to generate some buzz and a bit of controversy are complete red herrings. Virtually the entire second half of the film is just regurgitating the exact same message of Paul Hauser's "I'm so innocent I'm cooperating with the FBI!" versus Jon Hamm's "God I hate that fat guy! We need to get his ass"

As well, either due to the tone of the film, or the lack of any real media attention beyond the cliché "media rushes someone as they walk to their car asking tons of questions", or the lack of literally ANY police investigation on the part of the FBI, the entire film feels like there are little or no stakes at play.

People actually died when the bomb went off, and Richard Jewell actually suspected it was a bomb and alerted the police who brought a bomb squad guy in and found out it was a bomb and they moved people away before it suddenly exploded.

Absolutely nothing past that moment in the film feels like it's in the same film as a terrorist bombing. This feels like almost like a goofy comedy-drama of a big momma's boy accused of being a Chinese spy .

I just came back from a prescreening of this film and just had to comment. It is a very timely and comes in a time in our country where the media picks who they want to deify and who they want to destroy without caring about who they hurt. Clint Eastwood has created an eloquent, but searing critique on our media dominated society. He isn't Oliver Stone that comes with outrageous conspiracies and makes everyone a villain. The film says that we are forgetting that in this country your are innocent until PROVEN guilty not the other way around.

The film is about Richard Jewell, the security guard that at first was hailed as a hero for finding the bomb and prevented a worse tragedy in 1996 at the Atlanta Olympics. The film focuses on the events after the bombing. Richard Jewell is presented as a humble but rather over zealous security guard that considered himself a law enforcement officer. Richard Jewell is played by Paul Walter Hauser in an oscar worthy performance. He plays Jewell with a wide eyed boy scout devotion to law enforcement but with a quiet dignity. Sam Rockwelk plays Watson, his friend and lawyer who helps him in the media a FBI onslaught that wanted to portray him as a lone bomber. His mother is played beautifully by Kathy Bates. The film focuses on the media and it's disregard to really investigate things instead of rushing to judgement because they liked the narrative. Sound familiar? Eastwood indicts them as rushing to judgement. The FBI agents are presented as doing there job but under pressure to find someone to blame for the bombing. It is all done in a great and heartfelt style which is typical.for Clint Eastwood. This man was innocent, but because he met a certain profile they went after him. The funny thing is that Jewell himself understands why they would be questioning him. But they had no hard evidence and the timeline of the bombing exonerated Jewell and the FBI ultimately declared him not a suspect. But for months they made Richard Jewell's life a living hell. The FBI was doing their job. The media rushed to judgement. This film comes out at a time where this happens regularly. It is as timely as ever.

I always wonder why some directors make crap movies and others make great movies. Clint Eastwood has one of the greatest portfolios of smart, intelligent, interesting and well acted films. From humble beginnings as an actor he has developed into an iconic director. You know going into the theatre that your going to see an artist at work. This story, this movie is what careers are made off. Go see it.

"Rent a cop," Richard Jewell, did his job well, perhaps too well for his own good. The hero of the 1996 Olympic park bombing, Jewell was at first lionized then slandered and vilified by what in this day and age has become the usual suspects, The FBI and media. Directed by Clint Eastwood, it is a somber but chilling telling of when respected goes rogue that is having the same disturbing effect today as the same apparatus sets its sights on someone higher than a security guard.

Eastwood's sometime lethargic direction remains controlled and unsensationalized throughout as his protagonist lummox (movingly played by Paul Walter Hauser) is picked at by easily corrupted FBI agent Tom Shaw (Jon Hamm) and a sleazy reporter Kathy Scruggs (Olivia Wilde) willing to go the extra mile for a scoop. Impeding the runaway justice Jewell's lawyer Watson Bryant (Sam Rockwell) corrects the sloppy ambitions without grandstanding, tempering his rage at institutions in railroading mode while maintaining a balancing act dynamic of Lenny and George from Of Mice and Men with Jewell.

Outside of the moments from the bombing attack, Richard Jewell is mostly a drawing room drama filmed in banal, lugubrious settings with the occasional flock of abrasive reporters. The story commands attention however, especially in these "interesting times" where media has completely ignored its bedrock pledge to objectivity, shamelessly taking sides while rogue agents at the FBI are getting pink slips. Microcosm of today? Or just maybe the way it always has been and will be. Average film but a timely thought provoker.

Everything about this film is outstanding...I remember the event vividly, watching it on television when it happened. The actor playing Richard Jewell has his look and mannerisms down perfectly. He did an outstanding job. What the media did to him was horrible. He was paraded in front of the news cameras relentlessly, accused as the perpetrator of the bombing. The news media was atrocious back then, even worse today. Forget the hoopla regarding the reporter. GO SEE THE MOVIE.

I enjoyed the movie, and thought it was done quite well.

Sam Rockwell steals the show absolutely, and is the reason to see this film.

Overall, it's a solid movie, and I recommend it.

Eastwood has done it again, adding yet another wonderful film to what is a beyond legendary filmography. Based on the real-life story of a heroic security guard turned villain during the '66 Centennial Olympic Park bombing, we see the horrifying extent to which the media can vilify an individual, especially one as kind-hearted as Richard Jewell. So many incredible performances but Paul Walter Hauser... man oh man... his portrayal of the titular man is as deeply affecting and human as anything I've seen this year. Incredible stuff!

Let me be clear at the start of this, I am NOT one of those who shout "fake news" when I hear a report I don't like. The media as a whole serve a valuable purpose, investigating and informing where most of the public would never otherwise hear about many important stories.

But often certain people working in the media go off the rails, so eager to get a scoop that they run with stories prematurely. This is what happened in 1996 to Richard Jewell, played here so well by Paul Walter Hauser. The problem started with the FBI, rushing to judgement by looking at Jewell's "profile" and quickly focusing on his as their prime suspect for the Atlanta bombing. Then an agent leaked it to a reporter who convinced her boss to run the story as a front page headline. A classic case of judging "guilty unless proven innocent."

Well Jewell was innocent, facts uncovered, including the location of the pay phone used to make the call, proved he could not have been the caller. Plus he actually helped save lives by quick action to clear the area after the pipe bombs in the backpack were identified. Then some months later a person was identified as the real bomber. But Jewell never recovered, he died just 11 years later at the young age of 44.

I am amazed at what a good job Paul Walter Hauser, a Michigander, did in his portrayal of Richard Jewell. Richard's mother was involved and when she first met Hauser she exclaimed that it was like seeing her son again. I would hope he gets into the "Best Actor" conversation.

Good movie, some liberties were taken with the facts, some characters created, some dialog fabricated, but overall the Clint Eastwood movie tells a very compelling true story.

I watched it on DVD from my public library, my wife skipped.

I haven't seen a lot of Clint Eastwood films but I would say this is probably his best film. What really holds this film up from being mostly mediocre is the performances. A majority of the actors do a pretty great job with Sam Rockwell and Kathy Bates stealing the show. Rockwell brings this attorney with a temper and emotion for his old friend to life while Kathy Bates brings a loving mother figure for Richard with probably the most powerful scene and performance in the entire film. This is Paul Walter Hauser's first major leading role in a film and I felt he did a pretty great job. He was able to show a lot of emotion with just his body movements. Olivia Wilde and Jon Hamm did a good job but just weren't as good as the rest of the cast. The film's message is very poignant in our culture today. The film's central message is that we need to take news from ANY source with a grain of salt because they could be totally inaccurate or blown out of proportion to make someone look like a monster. While portions of the film were generally uninteresting, there were a couple of scenes I thought were really well put together and executed. One such scene would be the actual bombing scene in the beginning of the film. The sequence was incredibly tense because you know the bomb is about to go off but you don't know when. There is an interview sequence with Richard Jewell's mother and it was my favorite scene in the film. Kathy Bates breaking down with everyone around her starting to realize that Jewell may be innocent was pretty powerful. The final scene I really liked was a sequence close to the end of the film where Richard Jewell finally confronts the FBI. The way Richard Jewell confronts the FBI and talks to them about why he is being investigated and when they don't respond is pretty powerful but not the most powerful scene. The thing that keeps this film from being higher than a 7 is that the technical aspects are just okay. The cinematography is serviceable and the script is fine. The film says what it needs to say and then ends. It's plain and simple. Overall, Richard Jewell provides an insightful message on our culture today about the media with powerful performances to back it up.

I was lucky enough to meet the lead actor, he came across as very natural in the movie and in real life intelligent, and puts lots of effort to detail.the movie itself is in my view typical of clint eastwood. mr eastwoods years of experience and professional success flows out of the screen into the audience beautifully executed by the chemistry between paul walter hauser and sam rockwell. kathy bates also played her part well, she did at times though come across with a slight tinge of over acting. after seeing this movie my heartfelt wishes went out to the real family of richard jewell. to me this movie deserves merit and recognition as a brilliant movie and cut above the majority.

Drama - based on a true story.

Richard Jewell is a lonely repressed overweight man, living with his mum, he respects the law and all forms of authority. Whilst working as a security guard at the 1996 Atlanta Olympics he's the first to discover a suspicious discarded backpack containing 3 pipe-bombs, he very swiftly clears the area of as many spectators as possible.

The bomb detonates and he's considered a hero for saving countless lives. Unfortunately the FBI wrongly consider him as their prime suspect purely because he exhibited all the characteristics and behaviours of a terrorist. The FBI try to trick him into a confession and gradually destroy his life before he is acquitted.

This is Clint Eastwood's latest film, and one my wife enjoyed enormously.

Almost a year ago to the day that I sit down to write this review, I saw "The Mule" in theaters and was embarrassed/saddened by how out-of-touch Clint Eastwood seemed to have become in telling a viable story on-screen. I was hoping that keeping him behind the camera for "Richard Jewell" would help matters, and the trailers really pulled me in. Sadly, this film is only a slight step above "The Mule" in terms of overall effectiveness at conveying a story.

For a very basic overview, this film tells the story of Richard Jewell (Paul Walter Hauser), a security worker affiliated with the 1996 Olympics in Atlanta who diagnosed a bomb scare and helped clear the scene to avoid larger destruction. While initially hailed as a hero, Jewell is eventually investigated by the FBI as a prime suspect in the bombing, as well as excoriated/harassed by the media.

I'll say this right off the bat: there is no doubt that Jewell was mistreated by many parties throughout this entire ordeal. Those relevant parties have even admitted as such. He did a heroic thing and had his life turned into a living hell because of it. There is certainly an interesting story to be told within that set of circumstances.

Unfortunately, Clint Eastwood is no longer the person to tell that story, and (once again) it really shows here. Instead of a nuanced look at how the media, authorities, and individuals can/should interact with each other, we instead get a piece that embarrassingly vilifies journalists/media to almost cartoonish proportions, and gives the same basic treatment to the federal authorities. This is in contrast to Jewell's lawyer, Watson Bryant (Sam Rockwell), who is largely portrayed as the benevolent hero of the piece.

Clearly, the main theme of "Richard Jewell" is that the media (or those possessing power in general) can spin the narrative any way they want. While this is true, to a certain extent, it needs a more nuanced, tactful touch. Another wholly probably explanation is that the authorities did indeed suspect Jewell and want to investigate him, and the media felt compelled to cover the store. Does that justifying Jewell's hounding? Of course not, but that's where the nuance comes in (or doesn't, in this case).

The most embarrassing character of the whole thing is Kathy Scruggs (Olivia Wilde), an Atlanta newspaper reporter who might as well be Cruella de Vil through Eastwood's lens. Much criticism has come from the Atlanta-Journal Constitution (Scrugg's employer at the time) over the portrayal, and I can see why. Unless she was a true monster, this performance borders on libel. Sadly, I don't trust Eastwood to make that distinction anymore, either.

The only character that truly seemed "real" in the entire movie was Jewell's mother Bobi (Kathy Bates), as that was the only character given any true humanity. All the other participants are pastiches, lacking any real-world substance or the conflicts that all individuals face. In Eastwood's world, you are either a "good guy" or a "bad guy", and there's absolutely no middle ground.

The bottom line here is that until Eastwood gets away from making films about true-life "hero" stories, this is exactly the type of fare we'll get again and again. No depth, no humanity, just over-the-top characterizations that fit into his own strict worldview. I came into the theater expecting very little of "Richard Jewell" based on my "Mule" experience, and it still managed to disappoint.