There are some movies that are so well-done, and so likeable, besides, that a person can feel like more than a bit of a heel for criticizing anything about them at all. "Space Cowboys" definitely falls into this category. (In fact, I'm already feeling so lowdown that, once done here, I'll probably go out and pick a blind man's pocket.)
The good news in this film -- and it's very good news -- is that Eastwood the director sublimates Eastwood the actor, allowing Tommy Lee Jones the central focus. Jones, a superb actor in virtually every assignment he undertakes, is more than up to the task here, giving one of his very finest and balanced performances.
The bad news, however, is that in putting the focus on Jones (and upon the decades-old rivalry between Jones' and his own characters), Eastwood largely wastes the talents of co-stars James Garner and Donald Sutherland, both of whom are allowed to only tantalize us with glimpses of what they might have brought to the table with their characters in a more balanced approach.
The result of this oversight is disappointment. Expectations which the simple presence of Garner and Sutherland automatically raise go largely unfulfilled. A better approach might have been the casting of two lesser "name" actors in their roles.
But is the movie itself a disappointment? Far from it! To be sure, it's fairly predictable, yet when predictability's done even half so well as here, when the result is a truly amiable, engaging and ultimately satisfying movie, then predictability is hardly a crime. If the various "heavies" of the piece (James Cromwell and William Devane, principally) and their motivations become at times fairly muddled and convoluted, so be it; Eastwood, Jones and co. still manage to hit all the high notes in perfect pitch.
Now then, where's that blind man . . . ?
The good news in this film -- and it's very good news -- is that Eastwood the director sublimates Eastwood the actor, allowing Tommy Lee Jones the central focus. Jones, a superb actor in virtually every assignment he undertakes, is more than up to the task here, giving one of his very finest and balanced performances.
The bad news, however, is that in putting the focus on Jones (and upon the decades-old rivalry between Jones' and his own characters), Eastwood largely wastes the talents of co-stars James Garner and Donald Sutherland, both of whom are allowed to only tantalize us with glimpses of what they might have brought to the table with their characters in a more balanced approach.
The result of this oversight is disappointment. Expectations which the simple presence of Garner and Sutherland automatically raise go largely unfulfilled. A better approach might have been the casting of two lesser "name" actors in their roles.
But is the movie itself a disappointment? Far from it! To be sure, it's fairly predictable, yet when predictability's done even half so well as here, when the result is a truly amiable, engaging and ultimately satisfying movie, then predictability is hardly a crime. If the various "heavies" of the piece (James Cromwell and William Devane, principally) and their motivations become at times fairly muddled and convoluted, so be it; Eastwood, Jones and co. still manage to hit all the high notes in perfect pitch.
Now then, where's that blind man . . . ?