If you’ve seen the trailers for Clint Eastwood’s latest film, “Invictus,” you know that… If you’ve seen the trailers for Clint Eastwood’s latest film, “Invictus,” you know that America’s favorite cowboy has come a long way from driving cattle in “Rawhide.” But even a man’s man like Eastwood had a long, and not always smooth, ride to the top of the Hollywood hierarchy.

Before his magnificently successful “Unforgiven” (1992), people dismissed Eastwood, thinking, somehow, that the IQ of his characters equaled his actual IQ. They viewed him as a has-been, an aging relic who knew how to put on a good sneer, but not much else. What they didn’t know was that Eastwood was about to go through three phases, each progressing in quality and intelligence.

In the first phase (Eastwood One), Clint wasn’t doing much to dispel his “dumb cowboy” perception. His previous directorial effort, “The Rookie” (1990), was about as cliché as it sounds — a far cry from his current films.

But then Eastwood threw a cinematic left hook: He subverted his own mythology by making “Unforgiven.”

“Unforgiven” is as much an examination of Western mythology as it is a kick-ass Western. The protagonists are revealed to be shadows of their perceived selves, and the very Western encouragement of vigilante justice is actively questioned. It’s a powerful piece of metafiction, with stunning photography to match. As you might imagine, the critics loved it. It walked away with four Oscars — one for acting, one for directing, one for editing and one for the coveted Best Picture.

If you had ventured Eastwood as an Oscar contender two years prior, all your movie nerd friends would have made fun of you.. But in 1992, Eastwood cleaned up. He was the alpha dog again, the boss, but this time in the more intellectually respected, longer-lasting position of director. What kind of punches would this new Eastwood pull? Well, he was going to direct a couple mediocre films, lull the critics into a false sense of security … and then hit them again.

During his Eastwood Two phase, he made a slew of forgettable films, including “Midnight in the Garden of Good and Evil” (1997) and “True Crime” (1999). He had moved a step up — never reaching the cliché lows of his pre-“Unforgiven” spree, but never really breaking out again, either.

That is, until 2003’s “Mystic River.”

I’ll admit I haven’t seen this one, but I’ll trust the unanimous critical praise it garnered — including a rave from my man A.O. Scott, of The New York Times, who said it achieves “the full weight and darkness of tragedy.”

Now, Eastwood moved up to his third and final tier of quality: Eastwood Three. Eastwood One made enjoyable action-hero movies in the 1980s, Eastwood Two made interesting but flawed movies through the ’90s, and Eastwood Three made powerful, heart-wrenching, pitch-perfect dramas.

Let’s look at the movies he’s made during these last few years: “Million Dollar Baby” (2004), the one-two punch of “Flags of Our Fathers” (2006) and “Letters From Iwo Jima” (2006) and the racially charged parable “Gran Torino” (2008). These are all near-masterpieces, brimming with intelligence, grace and insight. Despite nearing his 80s, Eastwood only seems to be getting better.

Just last year, Eastwood announced that he wasn’t going to be acting anymore. And while I always enjoy the man’s barely contained growl and his confrontational squint, I actually didn’t feel that sad. Eastwood’s directorial touch — honed over years and years of experiment — will pervade all of his films.

Eastwood’s made some stumbles along the way (watch the trailer for “Any Which Way You Can”), but, like many of his characters, he’s become a wiser, gentler, fuller human being.

I’d still recommend staying off his lawn, though.

A scene from “Mystic River”: