Xixax Film Forum

(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fus.movies1.yimg.com%2Fmovies.yahoo.com%2Fimages%2Fhv%2Fphoto%2Fmovie_pix%2Fwarner_brothers%2Fmillion_dollar_baby%2Fmilliondollarbabyposterbig.jpg&hash=fd0db0f4644a70974ea5e8f6faefa412b326be91)

(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fus.movies1.yimg.com%2Fmovies.yahoo.com%2Fimages%2Fhv%2Fphoto%2Fmovie_pix%2Fwarner_brothers%2Fmillion_dollar_baby%2F_group_photos%2Fclint_eastwood3.jpg&hash=8780bdd80cecb8a52b89b5b632889ca2ed974461)(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fus.movies1.yimg.com%2Fmovies.yahoo.com%2Fimages%2Fhv%2Fphoto%2Fmovie_pix%2Fwarner_brothers%2Fmillion_dollar_baby%2F_group_photos%2Fclint_eastwood2.jpg&hash=b99fe0594041d3ed722302515ddf648745424a09)

Trailer here. (http://pdl.warnerbros.com/wbmovies/milliondollarbaby/trailer_hi/trailer_a.mov)

Release Date: December 17th, 2004 (NY/LA/Chicago/Toronto), expands January 21st, 2005

Cast: Hilary Swank (Maggie Fitzgerald), Clint Eastwood, Morgan Freeman, Jay Baruchel, Christina Cox, Anthony Mackie, Margo Martindale, Michael Pena

Director: Clint Eastwood (Mystic River)

Screenwriter: Paul Haggis

Premise: An ex-fighter (Eastwood) who runs a gym in Los Angeles with a fellow former boxer (Freeman) are approached by a young woman (Swank) who's determined to become a boxer.

Based Upon: Two short stories from the novel "Rope Burns" by FX Toole.

They must be pretty confidant about  this one, rushing it out last minute and all. I know Clint is famous for fast shoots, but didn't this just start production in June? Looking forward to Hilary Swank finally getting another (hopefully) lead role again.

Next Karate Kid Part II = AWESOME.

Quote from: MacGuffinDirector: Clint Eastwood

WHO?  sorry i'm not familiar....

Quote from: MacGuffinDirector: Clint Eastwood (Mystic River)

oh yes.  NOOOOW i remember.

She likes Sarah Connor circa T2. Why is she doing another 'manly' role? Boys Don't Cry, this, hmmm

With a title like that, I expected it to be some stupid comedy about kidnappers trying to kidnap some rich guy's baby, a la Baby's Day Out.

Quote from: RaviWith a title like that, I expected it to be some stupid comedy about kidnappers trying to kidnap some rich guy's baby, a la Baby's Day Out.

with a soundtrack of alice cooper songs.

-sl-

ebert just called it a masterpiece.

He does that.

I really love Eastwood's direction.

Quote from: Jeremy BlackmanHe does that.

alot.

Quote from: GhostboyThey must be pretty confidant about  this one, rushing it out last minute and all.

Now I understand why -- this movie is just outstanding. Ebert's right. A small, heartwrenching masterpiece, and a perfect followup to the operatic masterpiece that was Mystic River.

The trailers do a wonderful job at not giving away what the movie is actually about.

Quote from: Ghostboy...the operatic masterpiece that was Mystic River.

Hm. I like Eastwood's direction some, but don't consider Mystic River to be a masterpiece at all. Not even nearly.

So, yeah. We'll see.

I do like that Eastwood though.

Quote from: The Silver Bullet

I do like that Eastwood though.

How could you not

Quote from: Ghostboythis movie is just outstanding. Ebert's right. A small, heartwrenching masterpiece, and a perfect followup to the operatic masterpiece that was Mystic River.

Does this movie also glue a thick Boston accent on its actors?

Nah, it takes place in LA. Only accent comes from Hilary Swank.

I think Mystic River is a masterpiece precisely because it is operatic. Laura Linney's final scene made the movie for me. It was at that point that I absolutely loved it. I know a lot of people feel exactly the opposite, though.

Anyway, Million Dollar Baby is more like SPOILER The Sea Inside than Rocky, if that says anything...(too much, probably)...

Quote from: GhostboyI think Mystic River is a masterpiece precisely because it is operatic. Laura Linney's final scene made the movie for me. It was at that point that I absolutely loved it. I know a lot of people feel exactly the opposite, though.

That would be me. The ending with the parade and everything was just cheesy, like it's supposed to be The Godfather now, and the Laura Linney scene had royalty metaphors (Sean Penn is the "king") even cheesier than Spartan. Not to mention that's precisely when the nails-on-the-chalkboard screamingly fake accents really climax. Ughhh!

i have to agree with jeremy here. there are a lot of things i admired about mystic river, but that last monologue was absurd, or that's how it struck me anyway.

Someone's gotta back Ghostboy up... I too think Mystic River is a masterpiece and loved Linney's final scene; it's completely cinematic and, as Ghostboy already pointed out, operatic.  Mystic River is the closest thing to Shakespeare as done by Nicholas Ray or Howard Hawks (unless either actually did a Shakespeare adaptation... I'm no expert on either of them), an intense film noir that powerfully conveys and observes the most fundamental of human emotions/nature with confident patience and a sense of pure drama.

Quote from: xerxesi have to agree with jeremy here. there are a lot of things i admired about mystic river, but that last monologue was absurd, or that's how it struck me anyway.

Definitely. First, it was a speech and a long one by that. Before, the movie did pretty well without having to vocalize its drama this way and so it felt awkward because it was. Furthermore, it was given by a character who had the least screen presence time of any of the main characters in the entire film and that felt desperate for the film to include every character in at least one pivotal scene. (On hindsight, I'm surprised Laurence Fishburne's character didn't do a similiar thing) Then, there was new information, a new perspective of how to view Penn's tradegy and mindset and that came across as pretensious in the way bad dramas do when they reveal more information about the character's history in the last 20 minutes then the entire story before.

This really was one of the big fault scenes, but another was when it was revealed who really killed Penn's daughter. That was just cliche murder mystery and didn't elevate the wonderful depth the story had brought to a simple crime film. Mystic River is a really good film, but far from perfect.

Quote from: samsongloved Linney's final scene; it's completely cinematic and, as Ghostboy already pointed out, operatic.  Mystic River is the closest thing to Shakespeare as done by Nicholas Ray or Howard Hawks

But it's such an awkward and self-aware operaticness. Really, what else in the movie had anything to do with that scene? Even if I could wade through the comical accents, I think that scene is far from convincing. It so takes you out of the movie... I wish I could remember the actual lines, but it's like... "You're the King. I'm the Queen. This town is our kingdom. Hmm, which one do you want to be... Capulet or Montague?" It's a parody!

Anyway, getting back to Million Dollar Baby... am I the second person on here to see this? I am, aren't I?  Lucky me.

Million Dollar Baby is such a masterpiece, I would be okay with this sweeping at the Oscars and not the Aviator. Haven't seen Aviator, obviously, but we all know how much I'm gunning for that film to clean up. Not anymore. I don't see how another movie this year is going to move me like Million Dollar Baby did. Everyone see this movie when you can.. cause it's going to kick your ass. And if you didn't like Mystic River and you also dislike this, there's something terribly wrong with you.

I gotta recollect my thoughts.. I don't want to echo Ebert's thoughts and say it's the "best film of the year" since I haven't seen the rest of the releases.. but this is right at the top of the list for now.


Spoilers: I fell in love with these characters so much that I was almost crying in the final scene with Eastwood cutting off her air supply. Swank will beat out Bening AGAIN for Best Actress.. and it's going to be wonderful.

What the? So this movie is dominating all of a sudden? I didn't even see a trailer till last week and havent heard anything about it. Now it's dominating everything. That speaks volumes really, and I hope it doesn't get overhyped before I get a chance to see it. I have dvd's of Garden State (yeah, I know), Open Water, Napoleon Dynamite, and Shaun Of The Dead with me right now that I got today and I haven't seen any of them. I'm so awesome.

P.S. - Mystic River is the goat.

yeah, where the hell did this come from?  mini-rant: i hate awards/nominations being announced for a movie that HASNT BEEN RELEASED!  

worst title ever.

i really liked mystic river, but dont really have any interest in seeing this other than seeing if it is that good.  but if it didnt have these incredible reviews behind it, its doubtful i would seek this out.  it looks like i will have to see this now.

Quote from: themodernage02i hate awards/nominations being announced for a movie that HASNT BEEN RELEASED!  

It has been released, though. Just hasn't made it to your city yet. To be nominated for anything, a film has to be released. Unless it's critics awards, since critics see everything early and they feel okay jumping the gun a little bit.

Anyway, see it. It's as good as everyone's saying. The more I think about it, the more I love it. And it's a good title, too, although I guess if you don't get it now, it'll make sense when you see the film.

This is the finest movie of the year, hands down. I don't wanna ruin it for anyone but god damn I am impressed. I thought Mystic River was good. Whew! This is a fuckin classic.

Quote from: GhostboyTo be nominated for anything, a film has to be released.

then how is the aviator up for a bunch of awards when it doesnt even open in NY/LA/SF till tomorrow?

Hmmm, good point. I guess the Golden Globes operate on the same basis as the Critics' Association.

So to prove that I do know what I'm talking about, let me revise my statement: a film has to be released before the end of December to qualify for awards, but as long as voting parties see the films, they can form opinions/cast votes on them, with the knowledge that these films will be opening within the next few weeks/months within the guidelines set by the AMPAS.

Also, in regards to Million Dollar Baby -- while it is THAT good, and you SHOULD believe the hype, at the same time I imagine that all this praise might hurt it for some people. Case in point: while it's nothing like Lost In Translation, like that film its qualities are of a very understated, subtle nature, and if people go in expecting greatness of a more grandiose sort, they may wonder why everything's so quiet.

yes, i know it has to be released by the end of the year to qualify for awards, but i re-iteriate my previous pet peeve: i hate awards/nominations being announced for a movie that HASNT BEEN RELEASED!  and as scorsese said in an interview, audiences begin to resent you telling them how much they should like something by announcing all this award buzz this early.  its better for a film like Sideways to have a few months to play and for people to hear about gradually and to be nominated than for a film to not even be out yet and be up for 12 catagories.  you know what i'm saying?

i will see this, though.

Quote from: The Gold Trumpet

Quote from: xerxesi have to agree with jeremy here. there are a lot of things i admired about mystic river, but that last monologue was absurd, or that's how it struck me anyway.

Definitely. First, it was a speech and a long one by that. Before, the movie did pretty well without having to vocalize its drama this way and so it felt awkward because it was. Furthermore, it was given by a character who had the least screen presence time of any of the main characters in the entire film and that felt desperate for the film to include every character in at least one pivotal scene. (On hindsight, I'm surprised Laurence Fishburne's character didn't do a similiar thing) Then, there was new information, a new perspective of how to view Penn's tradegy and mindset and that came across as pretensious in the way bad dramas do when they reveal more information about the character's history in the last 20 minutes then the entire story before.

This really was one of the big fault scenes, but another was when it was revealed who really killed Penn's daughter. That was just cliche murder mystery and didn't elevate the wonderful depth the story had brought to a simple crime film. Mystic River is a really good film, but far from perfect.

As I said before, after the scene with Penn walking down the street it should have went to the teaser trailer over the river to the bar where they "buried their sins" with Clint's voice over. This would have been a perfect/more powerful ending in my oppinion.

Quote from: POZER

Quote from: The Gold Trumpet

Quote from: xerxesi have to agree with jeremy here. there are a lot of things i admired about mystic river, but that last monologue was absurd, or that's how it struck me anyway.

Definitely. First, it was a speech and a long one by that. Before, the movie did pretty well without having to vocalize its drama this way and so it felt awkward because it was. Furthermore, it was given by a character who had the least screen presence time of any of the main characters in the entire film and that felt desperate for the film to include every character in at least one pivotal scene. (On hindsight, I'm surprised Laurence Fishburne's character didn't do a similiar thing) Then, there was new information, a new perspective of how to view Penn's tradegy and mindset and that came across as pretensious in the way bad dramas do when they reveal more information about the character's history in the last 20 minutes then the entire story before.

This really was one of the big fault scenes, but another was when it was revealed who really killed Penn's daughter. That was just cliche murder mystery and didn't elevate the wonderful depth the story had brought to a simple crime film. Mystic River is a really good film, but far from perfect.

As I said before, after the scene with Penn walking down the street it should have went to the teaser trailer over the river to the bar where they "buried their sins" with Clint's voice over. This would have been a perfect/more powerful ending in my oppinion.

Now that we're back to talking about Mystic River in the Million Dollar Baby thread...

Truth be told I did find the ending of Mystic River awkward at first.  When Laura Linney starts her speech with the parade following it, it felt uncomfortable, which, to be honest yet again, is what I think Eastwood was going for.  Linney's speech is admittedly hokey but powerful if you suspend your belief which is what I think one does while watching a film, especially after having seen everything that precedes this oh-so-enigmatic end/denouement.  Didn't anyone find the Tim Robbins speech a little weird?  He talks about vampires.  Realistically I think it's more out of place than Linney encouraging her husband by way of a royalty metaphor, but just as powerful and memorable.

The entire film is filled with jarring moments like Linney's speech so to expect realism and a nice, clean ending that does what you want it to is asking for too much (or too little, depending on how you look at it), that is if you liked the film up until that point.  Eastwood has the audacity to end his film in a way no other filmmaker would and finish the story off his way on his time, completely confident and bold.  Mystic River is one of few films that put me through an incredibly uncomfortable, unpleasant, and disturbing experience and left me wanting more, dazed by what I'd seen.  Eastwood in my opinion makes films with a confidence that few filmmakers do; there is no aspect of Mystic River or any of the Eastwood films I've seen so far that are crowd pleasing spectacles or easily accesible.  

As of now I can't wait for Million Dollar Baby.  The trailer completely put me off and the title is one of the worst ever but all the positive attention and my love for Mystic River and Eastwood-as-director has given me an erection.

How about you all take the Mystic River stuff to the Mystic River thread (http://www.xixax.com/viewtopic.php?t=3271&highlight=mystic+river), because I'm a dumbass who still hasn't seen Mystic River yet?  Thankyouverymuch.

Quote from: wantautopia?How about you all take the Mystic River stuff to the Mystic River thread (http://www.xixax.com/viewtopic.php?t=3271&highlight=mystic+river), because I'm a dumbass who still hasn't seen Mystic River yet?  Thankyouverymuch.

How about you take the first few sentences of each post for what they are worth and realize they may be talking about a certain film you may not have seen and so you probably shouldn't read. We don't have enough discussions as is to raise our own Gestapo to police them so once this place brims with wild and intellectually challenging words instead of comments agonizing to be as cute and as short as possible, then maybe we should do something. Until then, allow posters the freedom to converse outside the designated lines.

And don't worry, you're still the only Wes Anderson fan I actually like. I'm just filling out a persona role here.

As for the Laura Linney rebuttal offered above, I stand by my stance in saying that maybe it wasn't just the speech that was awkward, but her character doing it. We follow Tim Robbin's character quite well through out the movie for him to extend himself to such analogies in word play and considering Linney had a few remarks at best before hand, her coming up with a speech of such dramatic wording really felt out of left field. One could say the problem could have been solved by changing the tone and allowing for Penn to say the essentials of the speech in his own way, holding on to the empire he created but his voice showing the cracks of it after realizing what he had did. A little version of Hamlet redone, maybe. I think it would have been accepted better.

Quote from: GhostboyThe more I think about it, the more I love it.

No fooling.

It's pretty goddamn good.

i guess i'm the 4th (or 5th) person to see this here, huh?  SWEET.  yeah agree with the previous three.  really good stuff. SPOILER VAGUENESS! i loved that i had no idea the movie would take the turn it took.  if they can manage to keep a lid on that, it will retain its power.  if they had sold it in the trailer, the movie wouldnt have had nearly its impact. END SPOILER  so, yeah i think i've only seen 3 eastwood directed films, but i have to say that i really do like his quiet style.  its different and subtle but really great.

Saw this tonight. Badass Film, You can really tell this is a Eastwood Film too. He really has a beautiful style.

Stanley Kauffmann's disregard: (Last film he did this to was Matrix: Reloaded)

Clint Eastwood has apparently reached a point in his career where he can do no wrong. He directed Mystic River, a creaky and pretensious murder story, and Dostoevsky was asked to move over and make room for it. Now Eastwood produces, directs, and stars in Million Dollar Baby, a boxing film that is widly hailed though it fairly fills the theater with the odor of the mothballs in which the script has been stored. A hopeful young fighter approaches a grizzled trainer; the trainer declines to take on the newcomer; but eventually he does, and eventually success arrives. The film even has the old black sidekick for the trainer, a man who knows a lot about the sport and serves as the trainer's conscience. The only difference between this new film and its many forebears are that the young hopeful is a woman and the finish is unforseen.

The casting matter here is just the reverse of The Aviator. [he reviewed the film prior in the same article] DiCaprio maims his film; but Eastwood saves his - for many, anyway. Whatever his talents may be, he has through the years added a person to the screen world; sage, slim, laconic, reliable. If we can watch this picture at all, it is because this universally admired person is in it. Hilary Swank, who seems to me to have too many teeth for a boxer, tries hard and sincerely. Morgan Freeman humbles himself to play the knowledgeable old sidekick.

I almost forgot one other point that distinguishes this film from past fight pictures. This trainer reads Yeats.

so, he basically says 'although the premise is a familiar one, the movie is still good thanks to eastwoods direction'.... just the same as everyone else is saying.  but does he have to say it like such an asshole?

he is an asshole.

i am an asshole

Quote from: themodernage02so, he basically says 'although the premise is a familiar one, the movie is still good thanks to eastwoods direction'.... just the same as everyone else is saying.  but does he have to say it like such an asshole?

Look who's talking. And no, you completely missed the points.

which were....

His presence as a person on screen. Its like saying seeing Jeanne Moreau in a new film is worth it even if the film is terrible because looking at her face one can get a feel for the history of French cinema because of how iconic she is to that cinema. Eastwood is just as iconic for American cinema and has aged in a way that he has not lost his distinguishable features.

----- SPOILERS! -----

The film is excellent. You definetly see Clint Eastwood's hand in almost everything. The details, the sound, every scene... I loved it. I left the theatre a little down though, because you never expect what will happen, and it kinda sends you a mixed message that you can take it as positive or negative depending on how your current life situation is maybe. Either you get everything you dreamed of somehow and are able to die happy under any circumstance... or you may live your whole life with regret and empty because you never reached that peak. Its weird how everyone ends in the movie, not just the girl. Anyways... I was also curious to know what was that happened between Clint and his daughter (reason why she wouldnt talk to him), as they leave it open.

--- END SPOILERS ----

I think the prizes the movie got at the Globes were accurate. Hilary did great acting (as much as I wanted Kate Winslet to win). Clint did great directing (acting too... ), and the movie is very good enough to be nominated, but it has a couple of things that make a movie like The Aviator better overall, at least in my opinion.

Quote from: andyk----- SPOILERS! -----

The film is excellent. You definetly see Clint Eastwood's hand in almost everything. The details, the sound, every scene... I loved it. I left the theatre a little down though, because you never expect what will happen, and it kinda sends you a mixed message that you can take it as positive or negative depending on how your current life situation is maybe. Either you get everything you dreamed of somehow and are able to die happy under any circumstance... or you may live your whole life with regret and empty because you never reached that peak. Its weird how everyone ends in the movie, not just the girl. Anyways... I was also curious to know what was that happened between Clint and his daughter (reason why she wouldnt talk to him), as they leave it open.

--- END SPOILERS ----

:laughing:  You've gotta be kidding me with that.  That scene was so ridiculously telegraphed.....

M$B's not that good folks.  It's a good, depressing movie, with good performances and a stilted Morgan Freeman VO that lends it undue gravitas.  It's not a "masterpiece" in any significant sense, Clint Eastwood already made his masterpiece, it was called Unforgiven.

"Ah got everahthing ah need, Boss, don't let 'em take it away from me..."

Bahahahahahha.....

"In boxing, everything is backwards...."

No it's not, shut up and go back to Shawshank prison, you stereotype.

I think you're a moron... but I dont care

Well that settles it, guys.. Mesh doesn't think Million Dollar Baby is all its cracked up to be. Don't forget it!

i almost wish i could un-see it now.   :yabbse-undecided:

Charlie Rose

1/26/2005  

An hour with MORGAN FREEMAN
Actor, "Million Dollar Baby"

you know how I am with fight scenes.  If you don't, I'm pretty tough on them.  this movie is no different, for a movie about boxing, the catfights were pretty terrible.  that being said, I got choked up a few times watching this, and you can actually hear the whole theater choking up.  it was a really intense story, with pretty well-written dialogues and really solid acting.  I loved it.  However, I was a little bit let down by the ending.  the same way I felt about mystic river's ending--that it was sad when I was watching it, but when I thought about it afterwards it felt a little bit empty.
but mesh was right on.  morgan freeman was totally a stereotypical old blackman--with his wrinkles and his skin color (black).  as if those weren't enough--he fucking ENDORSED VIOLENCE.  dude, think about your community.

Quote from: petethis movie is no different, for a movie about boxing, the catfights were pretty terrible.

my eyes are rolling -- right out of their sockets.

Quote from: flagpolespeciali know this movie has been out in the states for a long time. in australia they're only playing advanced screenings

that's news to me.

I'm pretty sure it's been out in most major cities since December 15.

Quote from: Jeremy BlackmanI'm pretty sure it's been out in most major cities since December 15.

came out LA/NY I think Dec 15. In Miami they started showing it only in one theatre Dec 24, and then expanded last friday. It will still expand a lot tomorrow!

Quote from: Mesh

Quote from: andyk----- SPOILERS! -----

The film is excellent. You definetly see Clint Eastwood's hand in almost everything. The details, the sound, every scene... I loved it. I left the theatre a little down though, because you never expect what will happen, and it kinda sends you a mixed message that you can take it as positive or negative depending on how your current life situation is maybe. Either you get everything you dreamed of somehow and are able to die happy under any circumstance... or you may live your whole life with regret and empty because you never reached that peak. Its weird how everyone ends in the movie, not just the girl. Anyways... I was also curious to know what was that happened between Clint and his daughter (reason why she wouldnt talk to him), as they leave it open.

--- END SPOILERS ----

:laughing:  You've gotta be kidding me with that.  That scene was so ridiculously telegraphed.....

M$B's not that good folks.  It's a good, depressing movie, with good performances and a stilted Morgan Freeman VO that lends it undue gravitas.  It's not a "masterpiece" in any significant sense, Clint Eastwood already made his masterpiece, it was called Unforgiven.

"Ah got everahthing ah need, Boss, don't let 'em take it away from me..."

Bahahahahahha.....

"In boxing, everything is backwards...."

No it's not, shut up and go back to Shawshank prison, you stereotype.

OMITTED. I'll give you a break Mesh

Oh give Mesh a break. He essentially said what most people here say for other movies they don't like. only difference is this movie is being accepted as great by everyone. When he seriously wants to review, he does fine.

anyone else laugh outloud at the scene in britain?

"on in 10 minutes lav"

Fuck The Undertow.  This film is a masterpiece.  If you don't like hype, stop reading.  If you're wary of spoilers, stop reading.

Anyone who doesn't think so has a heart of stone and should really have their license to view movies revoked.  No sense analyzing it now.  Maybe later.  I thought nothing could eclipse Sideways.  I was wrong.  Eastwood has been at his game for years.  It took him 30 some odd tries to produce a masterpiece, but he's like Kurosawa or Altman now, and will just keep getting better as he ages.  No film has grabbed me from start to finish like this one since I saw Amelie for the first time.  I had a smile on my face from the get-go, even until the heartwrenching end, because I knew I was seeing something special.

Said it before, and I'll say it again.

Best film of the year, hands down.

FUCK! another waaayyy overrated clint eastwood movie. goddamn it

Quote from: El SmeagolinoFUCK! another waaayyy overrated clint eastwood movie. goddamn it

well at least Mesh talked about it.. any genuine reasons why you think this?

Three good articles (thanks, cine), all with massive spoilers:

Critics have no right to play spoiler (http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050129/ESSAYS/501290301)
'MDB': Asking some hard questions (http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050128/ESSAYS/50129001/1008)
Critics are fighting it out: It's 'Baby' vs. 'Sideways' (http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050112/ESSAYS/501120301/1008)

Quote from: cinephile

Quote from: El SmeagolinoFUCK! another waaayyy overrated clint eastwood movie. goddamn it

well at least Mesh talked about it.. any genuine reasons why you think this?

SPOILERS

well....
A) i thought clint eastwood's acting was horrendous. it was like he was just spitting out the words, as opposed to really getting into it.
B) the cliches: clint eastwood's estranged daughter. swank's mom hates her, but she sends her money anyway.
C) the score....bleck
D) i walked in with really high expectations, and i was really dissapointed

Quote from: El SmeagolinoSPOILERS
well....
A) i thought clint eastwood's acting was horrendous. it was like he was just spitting out the words, as opposed to really getting into it.

If you haven't noticed, Clint Eastwood has a style about him that often seems terse... maybe a little forced.  Having said this, he did an amazing job in Million Dollar Baby.  For a man as closed up as his character was, the small quiver of his bottom lip was enough to show exactly what was going on inside.  He was understated and brilliant.

Quote from: El SmeagolinoB) the cliches: clint eastwood's estranged daughter. swank's mom hates her, but she sends her money anyway.

That's a cop-out.  Everything is cliche, nothing is new.  In fact, just saying that is cliched.  
Clint Eastwood's estrangment would have been cliched if we'd have known why.  As for the mother, she was not a cliche.  Why?  Because the scene where she tells Hilary Swank that everyone is laughing at her, is sheer brilliance.  It is perfect becasue you can see the hatred and the self loathing that goes on inside a person, as they spit venom on someone else.  That was not cliched.  
What would have been really cliched if....  

Hilary Swank had lost to the Blue Bear and then come back to win.  This film did not even touch that.  Not even close.  

For that reason I'd say that although the movie hinges on cliche, it is not cliched to the point of fault.  

Quote from: El SmeagolinoC) the score....bleck

The score didn't take away from the movie, so what is the issue with it?

Quote from: El SmeagolinoD) i walked in with really high expectations, and i was really dissapointed

I don't get it.  You are looking for reasons to dislike this movie.

Wow, Eastwood is like a good wine.

Best movie of the year.  If this sweeps the oscars, i'd be happy.  I betcha Marty yelled, "FUCK" after he saw this.  I don't want to say too much about it.  Cinephile had it right when he told me the less you know about this movie coming in, the better.

I saw this and The Aviator tonight.  Both good movies.  I, however, must say that I think Million Dollar Baby is the better film.  The Aviator has greater flashes of brilliance, some which match or outshine anything else in 2004, but Million Dollar Baby was the overall better film.

SORTA SPOLIERS

That said, I just know that I have to watch it again.  There was more than I could take in one viewing because the movie went in SUCH a different direction in the last half hour.  Perhaps a part of me couldn't fully get into it because I was still thinking about what I thought about what happened.  I need to watch it again without those "OMGWTF" feelings in my chest and just enjoy the movie.

Also, about in the middle of the movie, I've never wanted to hug movie characters more than I wanted to hug Maggie and Frankie.

Quote from: flagpolespecialthe score is nearly exactly the same as it is in mystic river. i kept thinking. i've heard this score before.

No way. Mystic had a haunting piano theme and was a remedy of this old song i used to hear in church...'father, I adore you. lay my life before you.'
Baby's had this accoustic strum that had an old school vibe about it. A unique choice.
Thrindle, your post was genuine.

This film by Clint Eastwood starring himself, Hilary Swank, and Morgan Freeman is being renowned as one of (if not) the best films of the year.
I am inclined to agree for several reasons.

First of all, the acting in this film was incredible.  Most overlooked I think of all, was Morgan Freeman as the caretaker of the gym and narrator of the story.  A powerful performance portraying passion, struggle, and uncertainty by Clint Eastwood was also notable.  However, these performances are overshadowed by the undeniably fantastic performance of Hilary Swank, the somewhat uneducated, middle-aged, female boxing prospect.  I think without the acting, this film would not have accomplished what it did, but still would have a purpose.

That purpose, of course, was created by Clint Eastwood's amazing visualization in the direction of this film.  Doing what Raging Bull and Rocky failed to do, Clint Eastwood takes us into the mind of a boxer and teaches us what it means to fight for something no matter how large the struggle.  He does this with a combination of things.  First, he uses character actions to show that every move a boxer makes is part of a strategy and, like any other sport, the person with the most precision in their strategy will win.  Secondly, his choice of shot, a brilliant combination of close ups in the ring to medium shots ring side, to overhead shots in ring show how important it is to see things from all angles.

That, to me, is what this film is all about.  Seeing things from all angles.  When I saw this movie, I was expecting nothing more than a movie about a boxer with great acting.  To my great pleasure, I received not only that, but an angle that I had never seen from this type of movie prior.  As opposed to only teaching us things through what the character's say, he teaches us a lot through their action and what we see from the outside as well.  This was a fantastic film and I would recommend it to anyone.  It is truly one of the ten best of last year.[/b]

This is pretty cool. I got screener dvd copys of Millon Dollor Baby, Ray, and The Avaitor today. All perfact copys for award voting. Im gonna watch Million Dollor Baby tonight.

Oh also, I wanted to say that this is one of the strongest love stories I've seen as well this year.  Different, but as powerful.

I've been to a few (kick)boxing matches and I feel that MDB captured what its like to be ringside and everything in a simple way.  It works perfectly.

PARALYZING SPOILERS


What a stupid movie.

The more I think about it, the less I like it. It just crumbles.

The last part was pretty magical, yes... I walked out thinking "Hey, maybe that was a good movie." But when I wiped the tears from my face and remembered the first part, I felt really empty.

The twist might have made me happy had it subverted the first part, but it only justified it.

This movie is far more political than I think most people are willing to admit. It's basically the American Dream vs. the Welfare Queen. Face it, that was a coldly manipulative sidestory, and the Welfare Queen is one of the most ridiculous and offensive caricatures I've seen in a long time. And this little social commentary is really the heart of the story, if you think about it. That was Maggie's accomplishment. She "made it." That's where all the meaning is. She worked hard, she made it big, and she was grateful, but the Welfare Queen took handouts and reacted with irrational cartoonish resentment. That's the fantasy dichotomy this whole thing is based on? Wonderful.

The "mo cuishle" thing was also pretty coldly manipulative. It's the only thing that kept me hanging on through the long boring stretch. Also, I assumed it meant "my daughter," so the reveal (though in a great scene) was a little disapppointing.

Before the accident, this movie was a assembly line of clichés. There was even a training montage. Clint Eastwood must now officially be the king of obnoxious heavy-handedness. The first part of the movie was just like the "you're the king and this is your kingdom" scene from Mystic River. The Maggie character was one-dimensional from the beginning and never changed. She's persistent and loyal. That's it. All of her non-paralyzed scenes had the nuance of a boxing glove beating the message into my skull one punch after another. "Hey, look at me! I'm persistent! Nope, I'm not going away, boss!" Thanks, I got it the first time.

Clint Eastwood's character irked me from the very beginning as well, and I never really like him until he became a euthanasiast. She's 31 and he calls her "girlie." He's a cold-hearted bastard. Sure, there are reasons for it, but he's still a cold-hearted bastard. His macho grizzled rhaspy voice made his redeemable cold-hearted bastard character even more ridiculous. And the Morgan Freeman narration didn't help him. You know Clint Eastwood was just trying to channel The Shawshank Redemption. Lazy. So his character, at best, is a cold-hearted bastard, very stubborn and very masculine, whose heart is ready to be partially melted by a replacement daughter figure. Profound.

I thought Morgan Freeman had the most interesting character. His "110th fight" scene was pretty great. But I'm sure if Eastwood had spent more time on him he would have turned out just as one-dimensional as the other two.

Anyway, it really is lazy mechanical storytelling. There are so many gimmicky plot devices. There's the lame "mo cuishle" mystery, which mechanically strung me along when nothing else did. There's the lemon pie, which is supposed to be a sentimental cue. There's that stupid speed bag, which is supposed to be symbolic of personal responsibility/integrity/ownership or something. There are the letters, which symbolize Frankie's stubbornness and futile habits. I don't know... this object-oriented character development really doesn't work for me.

Add to all this the absolute unredeemability of boxing, and I don't find much to like in this movie.

So basically, if you were me, this would be your "Closer."

SPOILERS

You really shouldn't say "PARALYZING SPOILERS" ... that's kind of rude, though funny, even if you don't like the movie.

Many people are admitting this film is political.  That's what one of those articles I posted a link to is about.  People are perceptive, but they're also whiners.  Republicans hate it.

I didn't think any part of the movie was manipulative because it was so matter-of-fact about everything.  The only problem I saw in it was with the family, because they were so one-dimensional, but their one-dimensionality was necessary.  You can break down pretty much any movie into the objects that move the plot along, so that's a kind of strawman reason to dislike it.

I never really liked or appreciated boxing until this movie.  I'm very anti-violence.  But afterwards, I was able to appreciate it much more.  Again, it shows how different people respond to movies differently.  There will be backlash, there will be haters.  All great movies tend to polarize audiences in one way or another.

Here's a question.  Take Ebert for example.  He goes into great detail as to why this movie is amazing.  How would you respond to his points?  I'd have more of my own, but when I see a movie, usually only an overall feel lingers (much how PTA and LVT said they take in movies), so I have trouble discussing extreme specifics unless I've just seen the movie.  It sounds to me a bit like you went in to hate it (your knee jerked a bit at the "girlie, tough ain't enough" line from the trailer, when most agreed it's not as bad as you make it out to be).

JB's taking far too much offense to the film's mild right-wingedness (oooooh how DARE a film have just a little HINT of conservative though... seriously, it's not that bad).  I KNOW that mother, so it's a stereotype, yes, but one that's very true and I don't see it the way you're seeing it (which I think is a biased viewpoint... you're mad at Clint for saying he would kill Michael Moore <-yes, I'm kidding).

This film isn't nearly as good as Unforgiven, but it does the same thing.  It takes the cliched genre film and shows you the other side of it.

Wait a second... this film is extremely liberal in my eyes -- that's why it's got republicans pissed.  Where do you see right-wingedness?

Quote from: ono mo cuishleWhere do you see right-wingedness?

clint eastwood is old.

SPOILERS
JB's post... he see it as conservative (I don't) because of the situation with the welfare mom.  Swank works for her money while her mother is greedy, fat, and lazy and lives off the government.

I don't see it as movie with an agenda like that.  It could be seen from different viewpoints.

HOMICIDAL SPOILERS

Quote from: ono mo cuishleMany people are admitting this film is political.  That's what one of those articles I posted a link to is about.  People are perceptive, but they're also whiners.  Republicans hate it.

When I said people aren't admitting how political this is (A) that was a big assumption because I've only tip-toed around this thread and successfully avoided the big spoiler and (B) I meant political in the other direction. The political controversy is all about the euthanasia, which seemed to me so obviously the right thing to do that I didn't give it too much thought. (I think removing long-term life support systems is a bit different from murder.)

It's the American Dream vs. Welfare Queen thing that bugged me, especially because it's so central to the film. The euthanasia means little in comparison. And it's almost a red herring.

Quote from: ono mo cuishleI didn't think any part of the movie was manipulative because it was so matter-of-fact about everything.

Obvious manipulation is still manipulation, my friend. That's why I'm surprised more people aren't annoyed by it. I'm fine with meaningful manipulation, but it's this kind of manipulation that annoys me.

Quote from: ono mo cuishleThe only problem I saw in it was with the family, because they were so one-dimensional, but their one-dimensionality was necessary.

Are you admitting that [what I find to be] the center of the movie is a one-dimensional plot device? It's cold.

Quote from: RegularKarateJB's taking far too much offense to the film's mild right-wingedness (oooooh how DARE a film have just a little HINT of conservative though... seriously, it's not that bad).

I seriously think it's central to the film's meaning, though. That's why it bothers me. I wouldn't be so annoyed with it were it just a side story.

Quote from: ono mo cuishleIt sounds to me a bit like you went in to hate it (your knee jerked a bit at the "girlie, tough ain't enough" line from the trailer, when most agreed it's not as bad as you make it out to be).

Believe me, I was sincerely hoping the trailer mischaracterized the movie, but it didn't. That line perfectly reflects that character's attitude. I think what makes it seem mild in context is her reaction to that kind of thing (she was expecting it). That doesn't make it better, and it doesn't improve my view of his character.

Quote from: ono mo cuishleYou can break down pretty much any movie into the objects that move the plot along, so that's a kind of strawman reason to dislike it.

It would be a straw man if I incorrectly characterized it, but I think I was pretty accurate. The plot moves clinging to a series of objects... or actually, to be more accurate, the characters are defined by objects. And no, I don't think many great movies do that. Name a few for me if you disagree.

Quote from: ono mo cuishleHere's a question.  Take Ebert for example.  He goes into great detail as to why this movie is amazing.  How would you respond to his points?

Okay, I'll give it a shot.

Quote from: Roger EbertYes, "Mystic River" is a great film, but this one finds the simplicity and directness of classical storytelling; it is the kind of movie where you sit very quietly in the theater and are drawn deeply into lives that you care very much about.

He thinks it demonstrates "the simplicity and directness of classical storytelling." I think it demonstrates the laziness and meaninglessness of one-dimensional storytelling. (What is that supposed to mean, anyway? Classical stories are long, complex, and usually indirect.)

Quote from: Roger EbertHilary Swank is astonishing as Maggie. Every note is true. She reduces Maggie to a fierce intensity.

Yeah, she reduces Maggie to persistence and loyalty. I call that one-dimensional (okay, two-dimensional), and I was completely unmoved by her character until the final scene. And why does Ebert keep saying how "true" this movie is? Truth is complex... these people are boring and simple...

Quote from: Roger EbertAnd when Frankie sees Scrap's feet on the desk: "Where are your shoes?" Scrap: "I'm airing out my feet." The foot conversation continues for almost a minute, showing the film's patience in evoking character.

I liked the foot conversation. I liked Freeman's character. The other two are totally different. How are their characters built beyond the "directness" and "simplicity" that Ebert so adores? The lemon pie? The speed bag?

I DON'T THINK THESE ARE SPOLIERS

I don't think that Maggie's family was the central point of the movie at all.  I, too, felt that it was a bit simplistic, but it's there to show the hole that Maggie dug her way out of.  It's a personal victory for Maggie when she does finally tell them off.  But I think it's there to show where Maggie came from and who she is in her life now.  I don't think the welfare thing is that big of a deal for the movie; it's mostly to show a bit of sleeziness on the mother's part.  Maggie felt that she was trash, and the movie does beat a one note idea to make it clear that that's because Maggie's family is trash, trash, trash.  Maggie isn't the type of person who would think of herself as better than her family; she assumes herself to be trash, too.  Only in the end does she realize otherwise.

I think the main main main focal point of this movie is the bond between Frank and Maggie.  Maggie's family is just a simple and, yes, stereotypical portrayal of "trash," to make it a clear, quick point that Maggie feels that she is like these people.  It explains why a woman with such determination hasn't gotten further in life--she's been kept down.  It's a character development thing, not a political statement.  Maggie's personal victory is not over her family--it's over her sense of being trash that came from her family.  It was about breaking herself free of her ideas of who she was and seeing with clearer eyes who she really is and what she is really capable of.

If Frank and Maggie's relationship didn't work for you, then the movie just wouldn't work, and that's a more reasonable reason to dislike the movie.  But hell, it worked wonders for me.

Say what you want JB, but nearly every character reminded me of someone I know or have known in life.

TONGUE-BITING SPOILERS

Quote from: matt35mmI don't think that Maggie's family was the central point of the movie at all.  I, too, felt that it was a bit simplistic, but it's there to show the hole that Maggie dug her way out of.  It's a personal victory for Maggie when she does finally tell them off . . . Maggie's personal victory is not over her family--it's over her sense of being trash that came from her family.

Maggie's victory is the central point of the movie, and that victory is defined against her family. You've basically said as much... her family is there to show what she had to fight against. The dichotomy is still there... the American Dream vs. the Welfare Queen. It's a pretty black and white distinction between two ways of life.

We end with her victory, which is a victory over the Welfare Queen and that way of life, as the movie repeatedly makes clear. Sure, the conflict ends on a positive note and it's characterized a bit differently (she "made it," in Morgan Freeman's warm and fuzzy words), but the dichotomy is so obviously and persistently there.

If you agree that her "making it" is the point of the movie, you have to admit that that victory is clearly and repeatedly defined against her family.

Another thing... (little unrealistic things usually don't bother me, but since I dislike this movie I'll complain)... I understand why Frankie would disappear, but why would he leave his house and his gym and his money and everything? It's dramatic, but it doesn't make sense. And remember that scene when the Welfare Queen is there in the hospital room with her lawyer, and toward the end of her lecture she suddenly says something unusually legally specific? Why would she do that if she's trying to trick someone into signing?

JB - I don't agree with your review, but you reviewed it well nonetheless.  

You've forgotten to include your thoughts on the personal relationship between Maggie and Frankie.  In my opinion that relationship transcended manipulation, simply because so much of it was nuanced.  You are not gonna agree... so let 'er rip.

As for your TOUNGUE BITING SPOILERS... dude, you aren't usually a dink... :saywhat:

PERSISTENT SPOILERS

Quote from: ThrindleYou've forgotten to include your thoughts on the personal relationship between Maggie and Frankie.

I think this summed up what I thought of their relationship...

Quote from: Jeremy BlackmanSo his character, at best, is a cold-hearted bastard, very stubborn and very masculine, whose heart is ready to be partially melted by a replacement daughter figure. Profound.

Maybe it didn't help that I was scoffing at the "reluctant trainer" scenes. I didn't get into their dynamic, if you can call the relationship between two one-dimensional characters "dynamic." So I think she filled the daughter gap, which made his life a little more complete and made him less of a cold-hearted bastard, because she's like his daughter now. I don't see any more meaning there. Tell me if I'm missing anything. I mean, Maggie's character never changed... she remained equally persistent and loyal throughout the movie. If the point is that she's onetwo-dimensional and doesn't change, well that's boring.

Compare this level of character development to Closer, and you'll see why I'm complaining. (kind of an extreme example, though.)

Quote from: ThrindleIn my opinion that relationship transcended manipulation, simply because so much of it was nuanced.  You are not gonna agree... so let 'er rip.

I'm willing to learn. What nuances?

Quote from: ThrindleAs for your TOUNGUE BITING SPOILERS... dude, you aren't usually a dink... :saywhat:

"Tongue-biting" was an... adjective...  :yabbse-undecided: ...

Quote from: Jeremy Blackman

Quote from: Roger EbertYes, "Mystic River" is a great film, but this one finds the simplicity and directness of classical storytelling; it is the kind of movie where you sit very quietly in the theater and are drawn deeply into lives that you care very much about.

He thinks it demonstrates "the simplicity and directness of classical storytelling." I think it demonstrates the laziness and meaninglessness of one-dimensional storytelling. (What is that supposed to mean, anyway? Classical stories are long, complex, and usually indirect.)

Classical stories can be complex, long and indirect, and generally are, but from them one can cull a series of common themes which in their proliferation throughout history also fall under the definition of classical. The proper adherance to these thmes can render a story classical even as it paints them in broad strokes. That's the simplicity and directness he's speaking of. Star Wars is an example of this just as much as Unforgiven, Mystic River and, to a slightly subtler extent, Million Dollar Baby. They all play on levels that could be considered mythic.

I haven't read one review which doesn't acknowledge that the white trash family is one dimensional. But whether or not they were, Maggie's rise would inherently be contrasted against them, because that's where she came from. I don't see anything wrong with that. If they were sympathetically downtrodden, Maggie's success would be seen more as a result of luck than hard work; okay, that could have added texture of some sort. Where the movie maybe dropped the ball is at the end, in which an extra layer of conflict could have been added between the family (had they truly wanted her to live) and Clint, who would not trust them to make the right decision.

On the other hand, as RK said, the one dimensional stereotypes are also (sadly) very true to life, and their inclusion isn't necessarily a propogation of that stereotype - after all, isn't the very dichotomy you find fault with in itself a defeat of that stereotype (that all white trash folks are lazy and ungrateful)?

I haven't read the details of any reviews yet, but let me say I am happy that JB of all people doesn't like this film. The way this film was being generally accepted by everyone with no argument did favors to no one, mostly the film itself.

Quote from: GhostboyOn the other hand, as RK said, the one dimensional stereotypes are also (sadly) very true to life, and their inclusion isn't necessarily a propogation of that stereotype - after all, isn't the very dichotomy you find fault with in itself a defeat of that stereotype (that all white trash folks are lazy and ungrateful)?

Do dichotomies ever defeat stereotypes? This is just a matter of nomenclature, anyway. When she transcends "white trash" do we call her "white trash that succeeded"? Or do we say that she was never really "white trash," that she was just born into a "white trash" family? Either way, there are two classes, they're opposites, and she's in one while her Welfare Queen mother is in the other. It propagates both stereotypes. (Though this only really offends me on the storytelling level.)

Quote from: Jeremy BlackmanPERSISTENT SPOILERS

Quote from: ThrindleYou've forgotten to include your thoughts on the personal relationship between Maggie and Frankie.

I think this summed up what I thought of their relationship...

Quote from: Jeremy BlackmanSo his character, at best, is a cold-hearted bastard, very stubborn and very masculine, whose heart is ready to be partially melted by a replacement daughter figure. Profound.

Maybe it didn't help that I was scoffing at the "reluctant trainer" scenes. I didn't get into their dynamic, if you can call the relationship between two one-dimensional characters "dynamic." So I think she filled the daughter gap, which made his life a little more complete and made him less of a cold-hearted bastard, because she's like his daughter now. I don't see any more meaning there. Tell me if I'm missing anything. I mean, Maggie's character never changed... she remained equally persistent and loyal throughout the movie. If the point is that she's onetwo-dimensional and doesn't change, well that's boring.

Compare this level of character development to Closer, and you'll see why I'm complaining. (kind of an extreme example, though.)

Quote from: ThrindleIn my opinion that relationship transcended manipulation, simply because so much of it was nuanced.  You are not gonna agree... so let 'er rip.

I'm willing to learn. What nuances?

I think you jump to conclusions to quickly, Jeremy, which prevents you from seeing those nuances. The very simplicity of the relationship between Maggie and Frankie is what made it nuanced and profound; the point at which it would become one dimensional and boring is the point at which they have to spell everything out in words, which did not happen. If your intuition immediately fills in the development - and it's true, it becomes obvious very quickly that Maggie will become a surrogate daughter to Frankie - and scoffs at the simplicity, you may fail to catch the slow masterful development of that very development.

I'm thinking now, as an example, of your complaint about Before Sunset, that they never stop talking. You mention explicitly the scene on the staircase and Jesse's comment about how he loves old staircases ruining the potential of a silent moment of contemplation - but did your immediate reaction to that line of dialogue distract your from the fact that he actually says it at the beginning of the scene, and that they then spend about a minute ascending the staircase in complete silence, and that the development between the two characters that occurs in the simpe blocking of that scene is nearly the equivalent of all that has occurred in the film at that point?

Sorry to digress there - I just think I'm beginning to understand why you dislike certain movies I love (although I may be completely off)

Quote from: GhostboyThe very simplicity of the relationship between Maggie and Frankie is what made it nuanced and profound; the point at which it would become one dimensional and boring is the point at which they have to spell everything out in words, which did not happen.

But it's totally spelled out in words, explicit and explained, unless I'm missing something huge. Every crucial character development seems to be marked by a snappy little Morgan Freeman monlogue (in person or narration). He mentions something about "always protect yourself" and we understand that Frankie is dealing with his obsession with that. Oh God, that's a boxing-as-life metaphor, isn't it?

Quote from: GhostboyI'm thinking now, as an example, of your complaint about Before Sunset, that they never stop talking. You mention explicitly the scene on the staircase and Jesse's comment about how he loves old staircases ruining the potential of a silent moment of contemplation - but did your immediate reaction to that line of dialogue distract your from the fact that he actually says it at the beginning of the scene, and that they then spend about a minute ascending the staircase in complete silence, and that the development between the two characters that occurs in the simpe blocking of that scene is nearly the equivalent of all that has occurred in the film at that point?

That's a great point, and I know you're at least partially right... but I was still horrified by that scene. He totally preemptively ruined it. During the silence I was thinking "did he just say that?" It was like these two people have been drowning in dialogue for an hour and they just surfaced for a deep breath of air and he just coughed up water in her face or something.

Quote from: Jeremy BlackmanTONGUE-BITING SPOILERS

Quote from: matt35mmI don't think that Maggie's family was the central point of the movie at all.  I, too, felt that it was a bit simplistic, but it's there to show the hole that Maggie dug her way out of.  It's a personal victory for Maggie when she does finally tell them off . . . Maggie's personal victory is not over her family--it's over her sense of being trash that came from her family.

Maggie's victory is the central point of the movie, and that victory is defined against her family. You've basically said as much... her family is there to show what she had to fight against. The dichotomy is still there... the American Dream vs. the Welfare Queen. It's a pretty black and white distinction between two ways of life.

We end with her victory, which is a victory over the Welfare Queen and that way of life, as the movie repeatedly makes clear. Sure, the conflict ends on a positive note and it's characterized a bit differently (she "made it," in Morgan Freeman's warm and fuzzy words), but the dichotomy is so obviously and persistently there.

If you agree that her "making it" is the point of the movie, you have to admit that that victory is clearly and repeatedly defined against her family.

I explicitly stated that Maggie's victory is NOT over her family.  Her victory takes place entirely inside Maggie.  The family only shows WHY Maggie feels that she's trash.  And Maggie "makes it" when she finds a way to elevate herself above that, in her own heart.  It's internal.  Telling her family off was not the victory; it was a result of the victory that happened inside of her.

And again, I think that the relationship between Frankie and Maggie is the point of the movie, not her "making it."  And the victory is defined against Maggie's sense of self-esteem--not her family.  We're talking about two different things.

i really liked this alot.  it totally worked for me.  eastwood is an american master.  that last shot is a beauty.

priest rapes boy.   :yabbse-thumbup:  no problems here.
amercan dream of making something of yourself.  :yabbse-thumbdown:  waiiitaminute, thats just not cool.

INTERNAL SPOILERS

Quote from: themodernage02priest rapes boy.   :yabbse-thumbup:  no problems here.
amercan dream of making something of yourself.  :yabbse-thumbdown:  waiiitaminute, thats just not cool.

Not another dichotomy!

It's not the fact that it happens that offends me. It's the way it's told, and it's that stupid dichotomy that offends me. I've been trying to make that clear.

Quote from: matt35mmI explicitly stated that Maggie's victory is NOT over her family.  Her victory takes place entirely inside Maggie.  The family only shows WHY Maggie feels that she's trash.  And Maggie "makes it" when she finds a way to elevate herself above that, in her own heart.  It's internal.

Do you really think her victory is not over her family, at least in a slightly indirect way? If her victory is defined against her family, and she has clearly had to fight to avoid staying/becoming what her family is... Sure, that can be an internal struggle, but since she's clearly struggling between two distinct things, two very clearly different ways of life, the victory could not happen without the one-dimensional white trash family. And the movie uses those two caricatured extremes to define her victory.

Quote from: matt35mmAnd again, I think that the relationship between Frankie and Maggie is the point of the movie, not her "making it."

Maybe we should be clearer. Maybe I'm really talking about "the message" of the movie. How can you say the central message of the movie is a relationship? What do you think this movie is trying to say? Does that relationship have a message?

I agree that the relationship between Frankie and Maggie is the focus of the movie, but how is it the point? What is the point?

Quote from: Jeremy Blackman

Quote from: ThrindleIn my opinion that relationship transcended manipulation, simply because so much of it was nuanced.  You are not gonna agree... so let 'er rip.

I'm willing to learn. What nuances?

JB you are reducing this movie too much, to the point that your argument is absurd.  From what I'm reading you are making this movie, and it's characters, completely one-dimensional.  I suppose you can continue in this vein because insinuating a movie is cliche, is a cop out... but it works.  However, what you can't do is forget Swank and Eastwood's performances.

The nuances were in the slight discomfort for there feelings for each other.  No it wasn't sexual, but the awkwardness when Frankie said he'd propose to her, was.  The way they looked at each other was nuanced.  Nothing about their relationship flat out said, "hey I love you"...  and to me that is nuanced.  For once a relationship wasn't spelled out with a good fuck scene.  There was so much to this, and therefore, there was a lot to feel for.

AND ANOTHER THING:

As for Before Sunset, JB what are you thinking?  A part of great film is capturing truth.  When Ethan Hawke sounds like a bit of a cad while saying he loves great staircases, that is a perfect scene.  Why?  Because he is uncomfortable iwth the silence, because everything about them is awkward and he wants it to be familiar.

You wouldn't get that if he had remained the "perfect" character, and not said a thing.

AND GT:
Your avatar is ugly.

MEANINGFUL SPOILERS

Quote from: ThrindleThe nuances were in the slight discomfort for there feelings for each other.  No it wasn't sexual, but the awkwardness when Frankie said he'd propose to her, was.  The way they looked at each other was nuanced.  Nothing about their relationship flat out said, "hey I love you"...  and to me that is nuanced.  For once a relationship wasn't spelled out with a good fuck scene.  There was so much to this, and therefore, there was a lot to feel for.

I thought it was a pretty simple father/daughter relationship, and you haven't given me much more to grasp here. "Discomfort" and "awkwardness" are common feelings... I don't find much meaning in their mild existence, especially between these characters. "The way they looked at each other was nuanced"? Isn't this just an interpretive thing? And what is this nuance? What does it mean? People keep telling me there is all this nuance, but they haven't told me what it means or why it's important.

Quote from: ThrindleFrom what I'm reading you are making this movie, and it's characters, completely one-dimensional.  I suppose you can continue in this vein because insinuating a movie is cliche, is a cop out... but it works.

You have to admit that this movie is overloaded with clichés. I've named them. So why all the clichés? How does that serve the nuance? Are they supposed to disguise the nuance? Maybe we've learned that I'm unable to appreciate nuances when they're pointlessly masked in really obscenely stupid clichés and one-dimensional characters. I'm sure it's possible that there's a whole new world of interpretation inside this movie, but so far I haven't seen anything meaningful or valuable.

Quote from: ThrindleAs for Before Sunset, JB what are you thinking?  A part of great film is capturing truth.  When Ethan Hawke sounds like a bit of a cad while saying he loves great staircases, that is a perfect scene.  Why?  Because he is uncomfortable iwth the silence, because everything about them is awkward and he wants it to be familiar.

I really wish Before Sunset hadn't become a direct comparison in the conversation, because it's not a completely accurate one. I liked that movie. I appreciated its nuances. I recognize that it has plenty. It's just that my emotional interpretation of the movie was radically different from most everyone else's, and all my whining in that thread was basically confusion about how I got such a different feeling from the movie. I thought it was torture. I thought they were torturing themselves with dialogue. I'm sure if I watched the movie again I'd feel ten times less tortured, and I'd probably like the staircase scene.

Quote from: Jeremy BlackmanAnd what is this nuance? What does it mean? People keep telling me there is all this nuance, but they haven't told me what it means or why it's important.

1 : a subtle quality
2 : sensibility to, awareness of, or ability to express delicate shadings (as of meaning, feeling, or value)

Ok, I've seen this movie once, and I'll dig for the memories.  The awkwardness that I refer to is when (like I said) Frankie jokes about proposing, and when Maggie jumps on him and wraps her legs around him.  He is slightly uncomfortable.  Now, to me this says quite a bit.  Obviously he loves her like a daughter, but the discomfort also says that his character has seen her as a woman too.  Some people will argue me on this, but I did see a slight romance.  This was nuanced.  Thank god, because human relationships are complex, and don't always get spelled out.  Thus the use of the word nuance.

Quote from: Jeremy BlackmanYou have to admit that this movie is overloaded with clichés.

And so is life.  Stereotypes are shitty, and our liberal minds hate them, but they do come from somewhere.  Perhaps a little truth?

Quote from: Jeremy BlackmanHow does that serve the nuance? Are they supposed to disguise the nuance? Maybe we've learned that I'm unable to appreciate nuances when they're pointlessly masked in really obscenely stupid clichés and one-dimensional characters. I'm sure it's possible that there's a whole new world of interpretation inside this movie, but so far I haven't seen anything meaningful or valuable.

So then what do you want to watch a movie about?  Every idea has been done.  This movie happened to do its theme well.  Theme?  Redemption, love, pain, hurt, unfairness of life, unfairness of actually being a stereotype.

Quote from: Jeremy BlackmanI really wish Before Sunset hadn't become a direct comparison in the conversation, because it's not a completely accurate one. I liked that movie. I appreciated its nuances. I recognize that it has plenty. It's just that my emotional interpretation of the movie was radically different from most everyone else's, and all my whining in that thread was basically confusion about I got such a different feeling from the movie. I thought it was torture. I thought they were torturing themselves with dialogue. I'm sure if I watched the movie again I'd feel ten times less tortured, and I'd probably like the staircase scene.

I'm not trying to beat you into submission.  And yes, I get your nuanced sarcasm.  All I'm saying is that MDB was good in it's own right.  In a time where movies are overblown and everything needs to be spelled out, I felt that MDB really made me feel something.  My feelings were intense, and so I assume that the movie created a relationship well.

Quote from: Jeremy Blackman

Quote from: matt35mmI explicitly stated that Maggie's victory is NOT over her family.  Her victory takes place entirely inside Maggie.  The family only shows WHY Maggie feels that she's trash.  And Maggie "makes it" when she finds a way to elevate herself above that, in her own heart.  It's internal.

Do you really think her victory is not over her family, at least in a slightly indirect way? If her victory is defined against her family, and she has clearly had to fight to avoid staying/becoming what her family is... Sure, that can be an internal struggle, but since she's clearly struggling between two distinct things, two very clearly different ways of life, the victory could not happen without the one-dimensional white trash family. And the movie uses those two caricatured extremes to define her victory.

I agree.  But I don't mind that.  I agree that they are a one-dimension white trash family, and I agree that what needed to happen "could not happened without the one-dimensional white trash family."  Yes, they could have been fleshed out more, but it might've added some fat to this lean movie.  Now perhaps you want some fat, and there's nothing wrong with fat, but Eastwood was obviously trying to make a lean movie, and I appreciated the lean-ness of it.

I would never try to change your mind; I am only clarifying what I think about it.  I absolutely respect your opinion.  All I can say is: what didn't work for you worked for me (and a whole mess of other people).  Although I'd rather not be accused of being "fooled" into liking this movie.  I know you're not directly accusing anyone of that, but sometimes your wording makes it sound a bit like that.  I think it's a simple matter of agreeing to disagree.

Quote from: Jeremy Blackman

Quote from: matt35mmAnd again, I think that the relationship between Frankie and Maggie is the point of the movie, not her "making it."

Maybe we should be clearer. Maybe I'm really talking about "the message" of the movie. How can you say the central message of the movie is a relationship? What do you think this movie is trying to say? Does that relationship have a message?

I agree that the relationship between Frankie and Maggie is the focus of the movie, but how is it the point? What is the point?

I don't think it's a message movie.  I think the movie actively avoids giving a "message."  Therefore: No Message.

Yes, I meant focus, then.  The point, however, can't always be simply defined in any movie--nor should it be.  The point of watching the movie could very well be to watch this relationship develop and feel something for them.  That would be a great point, if you're asking "what is the point of this movie's existance?"  It also is about Maggie's triumph, which didn't work for you, but I felt worked because I saw it as more of her internal struggle.  She rose above her "demons."  Yes, her demons were personified very very simply through a stereotypical white trash family, but it's the greater significance of overcoming one's demons, in what I view to be a more internal struggle, that most people are responding to.  It's about knowing what you want and being the kind of person who has what it takes to grab it, which is, I think, a big part of life.  So the movie, to me, also has a big point about living life.  (SPOILER!!!)  She wasn't living when she was just waitressing and being a nobody.  But she finally focused on what she wanted, got it, and she LIVED LIFE.  This is juxtaposed with when she chooses to end her life.  But she could only be so comfortable with dying (and she says that she's been around the world, people have chanted her name, etc.) because she felt that her life has truly been lived at that point.  She'd "done pretty good."  So her choice isn't about giving up, it's about accepting death over another few years of a life unlived in a bed.  In that sense, her life in that bed complements her life before she started "being somebody."  Both times that she escapes that idea of life unlived come from her courage to say, "No more."  Not that it was necessarily the right thing to do, but it's where her choice comes from.

Quote from: Thrindlewhen Maggie jumps on him and wraps her legs around him.  He is slightly uncomfortable.  Now, to me this says quite a bit.  Obviously he loves her like a daughter, but the discomfort also says that his character has seen her as a woman too.  Some people will argue me on this, but I did see a slight romance.  This was nuanced.

That's exactly what I was looking for. But I disagree with your interpretation. Wouldn't simply loving her as a daughter (or coming to terms with that) make him a little uncomfortable? Could it be the awkwardness of transition?. He's probably somewhere between thinking of her as a "girlie" who used his speed bag and accepting her as a daughter. So my problem with this is that his character doesn't necessarily change... the location of his daughter feelings simply changes.

Quote from: Thrindle

Quote from: Jeremy BlackmanYou have to admit that this movie is overloaded with clichés.

And so is life.  Stereotypes are shitty, and our liberal minds hate them, but they do come from somewhere.  Perhaps a little truth?

Of course stereotypes come from somewhere, but I don't think it's wise to use stereotypes to understand the world (which I think this movie does in abundance). You've just expressed an appreciation for complexity... why not extend that to stereotypes? The world is probably more of a spectrum than a collection of stereotypes. Stereotypes are like compensating for one's lack of ultimate understanding... they allow you to understand everything as conveniently fitting a mold. That's offensive. And stereotypes are behind every kind of social warfare I can think of.

Quote from: ThrindleSo then what do you want to watch a movie about?  Every idea has been done.  This movie happened to do its theme well.  Theme?  Redemption, love, pain, hurt, unfairness of life, unfairness of actually being a stereotype.

Maybe we should distinguish between the theme and the details. The cliché details annoyed me. The emotions didn't bother me as much, because I agree with you that it's tough (though I don't think impossible) to be original with themes and emotions. I guess to get complex emotions, you need complex and deeply confused characters (Exhibit A: Closer). The characters in Million Dollar Baby, being stereotypes, have emotional handicaps... so I blame the characters more than I blame the themes/emotions.

Quote from: matt35mmYes, they could have been fleshed out more, but it might've added some fat to this lean movie. Now perhaps you want some fat, and there's nothing wrong with fat, but Eastwood was obviously trying to make a lean movie, and I appreciated the lean-ness of it.

I think you found the conflict. I did want fat. Lots of fat.

Quote from: matt35mmAll I can say is: what didn't work for you worked for me (and a whole mess of other people). Although I'd rather not be accused of being "fooled" into liking this movie. I know you're not directly accusing anyone of that, but sometimes your wording makes it sound a bit like that.

You're right to think that, because I have come pretty close to saying that people have been fooled into liking this movie. Maybe what I really think is that people are saying they like this movie because it's fat when they really like it because it's lean. And I agree that we can respect that difference.

Quote from: matt35mmI don't think it's a message movie. I think the movie actively avoids giving a "message." Therefore: No Message.

You seem to disagree:

Quote from: matt35mmSo the movie, to me, also has a big point message about living life. (SPOILER!!!) She wasn't living when she was just waitressing and being a nobody. But she finally focused on what she wanted, got it, and she LIVED LIFE.

Why not just call it a "message"? And isn't that the same as the "making it" message I've been talking about? (Is there a meaningful difference between "making it" and "living life" in this context?)

I mean, really, I don't think it's a stretch to say that her "making it" is the message. Morgan Freeman spelled it out at the end. There's no ambiguity there.

Quote from: Jeremy BlackmanI guess to get complex emotions, you need complex and deeply confused characters (Exhibit A: Closer).

That was hitting below the belt.  Refer to the "Closer" thread as to why I thought the movie was trash.  Also, Julia Roberts was hideous in it.  It was like a cheating Erin Brockovich, or chick from "Mona Lisa Smile", or chick from "Notting Hill", or chick from "Mystic Pizza", or chick from "Stepmom"... funny... they all seemed the same.  But I digress.  

JB, you've made your points.  We like different movies for different reasons.  Never kid yourself, I see the cliches that you speak of... unlike you, I didn't feel they deterred the movie from being wonderful.

Cheers.

Quote from: Jeremy Blackman

Quote from: matt35mmI don't think it's a message movie. I think the movie actively avoids giving a "message." Therefore: No Message.

You seem to disagree:

Quote from: matt35mmSo the movie, to me, also has a big point message about living life. (SPOILER!!!) She wasn't living when she was just waitressing and being a nobody. But she finally focused on what she wanted, got it, and she LIVED LIFE.

Why not just call it a "message"? And isn't that the same as the "making it" message I've been talking about? (Is there a meaningful difference between "making it" and "living life" in this context?)

I mean, really, I don't think it's a stretch to say that her "making it" is the message. Morgan Freeman spelled it out at the end. There's no ambiguity there.

I think there's a difference between a message and a point.  The point refers specifically to her character, and says nothing about what you should do, which is what a message would be.  The movie doesn't say that YOU should live life any more than you've already been living it, it's just about this woman's attempt to start living life for herself.  It's not a stretch to say that her "making it" is the point (or message), but I just don't feel that it is quite that.  Those words don't quite express what I feel the point is.  "Living Life" is better for me.  So it's a meaningful difference to me.  "Making it" gives more of an impression of the American Dream, which you've brought up before.  But I don't think this movie is about her reaching the American Dream.  I don't think what she achieves really is the "American Dream."  As I see it, she begins to live for herself (which I don't think the American Dream is--I think the whole idea of an American Dream is to live up to the standard as defined by our society to determine your success).  She's living up to her own standard and she's living for herself.  There was no "it" to make other than just being happy and doing something that she really wanted to do for once and enjoy being good at it and being loved for it.  She didn't used to be content with herself, and now she is, and that is her victory--not whatever "it" she may have made.

I'd like to remind everybody that you can vote ANY film from 2004 as the BEST FILM for the XIXAX AWARDS.

Couldn't think of a good thread to put this in.. so I chose this one.. MILLION DOLLAR BABY.. at random.

Thanks.

Yes, ANY film.  Regardless if it was a horror film, or a comedy and certainly if it was NOT a spoof...

(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.sorenz.dk%2FShaun%2520of%2520the%2520dean%2520poster.JPG&hash=477a8112516bdf2b2ea3cbacfbdbdcaefaeb1f73)

Any film will do.

Yeah, it could even be said that you shouldn't vote for EITHER of those two films because they don't deserve it as much as

(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimages.killermovies.com%2Fi%2Ftheincredibles%2Fgallery%2F0_poster.jpg&hash=124a5e5c293831ce857bdea92cd0e85d891b14f6)

If you catch my meaning

Critics Enter Ring Against Eastwood

Not everyone is in Clint Eastwood's corner as his acclaimed boxing drama "Million Dollar Baby" heads into the Academy Awards.

(Spoiler alert: The rest of this story could ruin the movie for you.)

Some conservative critics and groups representing the disabled say "Million Dollar Baby" is a sucker punch against the notion that people with paralyzing infirmities can lead lives worth living.

The film's harshest detractors say it's little more than propaganda supporting legalization of assisted suicide. Director and star Eastwood says the characters' choices are rooted in the story and that the movie is not about euthanasia.

"Million Dollar Baby," which is in a neck-and-neck race with the Howard Hughes epic "The Aviator" for best picture, stars Eastwood as old-school boxing trainer Frankie Dunn, who becomes mentor to peppy fighter Maggie Fitzgerald (Hilary Swank).

A father-daughter relationship blossoms between the two as Frankie coaches Maggie through a meteoric rise to champion status in the film's feel-good "Rocky"-like first two acts.

The closing chapter presents a cruel twist, however.

(The next paragraph gives it away.)

An opponent blindsides Maggie, leaving her paralyzed from the neck down. Maggie decides she would rather die, and she asks Frankie to help end her life. After some moral agonizing, Frankie does.

Marcie Roth, executive director of the National Spinal Cord Injury Association, said her group has been working to improve conditions for the disabled since 1948, "yet lo these many years later, many people still think having a spinal-cord injury is a fate worse than death.

"Unfortunately, a message like the one in `Million Dollar Baby' just perpetuates exactly what we work so hard to dispel."

The film earned directing prizes for Eastwood at the Golden Globes and last weekend's Directors Guild of America Awards, positioning him as the front-runner for the same honor at the Oscars Feb. 27. Swank received the Golden Globe for best dramatic actress, and she, Eastwood and co-star Morgan Freeman earned Oscar acting nominations.

Fans of the film disagree that it favors assisted suicide. Chicago Sun-Times critic Roger Ebert ranked "Million Dollar Baby" as his No. 1 film of 2004 even though he disagrees with Frankie's actions.

Maggie's desire to die and Frankie's decision to help were choices consistent with the nature of the characters, Ebert said.

"It's a movie for grown-up, mature audiences in which people do things we don't necessarily agree with," Ebert told The Associated Press. "What kind of movies would there be if we expected everyone in them to do what we think they should do?"

"Million Dollar Baby" also has come under fire from such conservative commentators as Rush Limbaugh, Michael Medved and Debbie Schlussel, who predicted on her Web site that Eastwood's film will triumph at the Oscars "because it's Hollywood's best political propaganda of the year. ... because it supports killing the handicapped, literally putting their lights out."

Eastwood declined an interview request but told The New York Times that the film stuck closely to its source material, a story by F.X. Toole.

"How the character handles it is certainly different than how I might handle it if I were in that position in real life," Eastwood said. "Every story is a `what if.'"

Eastwood's critics say the movie is his latest salvo against the disabled community. In 2000, Eastwood testified before a U.S. House subcommittee asking that the Americans with Disabilities Act be amended to allow businesses such as his hotel in Carmel, Calif., more time to comply.

His testimony came after a disabled woman sued him because his historic inn lacked wheelchair access. A jury sided with Eastwood on all but two minor violations.

While "Million Dollar Baby" has drawn the harshest reaction, many of the same critics are bothered by the Spanish film "The Sea Inside," starring Javier Bardem as Ramon Sampedro, who fought a 30-year campaign for his right to die after a paralyzing accident. The film is among Oscar nominees for best foreign-language picture.

Both movies draw on stereotypes that disabled people cannot lead worthwhile lives, said Stephen Drake, a researcher for Chicago-based Not Dead Yet, a group that has held protests at theaters showing "Million Dollar Baby."

"I really can't imagine this kind of awards attention for somebody who put out a film that relies on the worst stereotypes the audience holds about homosexuality," Drake said.

The high profile of Oscar contenders often brings out the critics.

"A Beautiful Mind," the 2001 best-picture winner, drew complaints for omitting unflattering aspects about the life of mathematician John Forbes Nash. Similar gripes were aimed at 2000's "The Hurricane," which earned a best-actor nomination for Denzel Washington, who played boxer Rubin "Hurricane" Carter, imprisoned nearly 20 years for three murders before the convictions were overturned.

Tobacco companies criticized the whistle-blower drama "The Insider," a 1999 best-picture nominee, saying the film took liberties to place their industry in a harsher light. "60 Minutes" correspondent Mike Wallace also said "The Insider" painted an unfair picture of how he and the news show handled a confrontation with the tobacco industry.

"The Academy Awards are a huge platform for all kinds of people with all kinds of agendas, some worthy and some not so worthy," said Peter Rainer, contributing editor for New York magazine and past president of the National Society of Film Critics, which picked "Million Dollar Baby" as best film of 2004.

"It's an irresistible force for people to try to piggyback on to, to try to walk in that spotlight and get something out of it for themselves," added Rainer, who said he liked "Million Dollar Baby" but that it was not one of his top film choices of last year

Quote from: matt35mmI think there's a difference between a message and a point.  The point refers specifically to her character, and says nothing about what you should do, which is what a message would be.

If the point refers specifically to her character, that's the point of her character, not the point of the movie. If you think the point of the movie is her character, that's not very meaningful. If you think the point of the movie is what her character does or how her character changes, that's meaningful, and I think it's enough to make a message. But what really makes it a message for me is Morgan Freeman's speech at the end about her "making it," which assures Frankie that he's doing the right thing. He almost spells it out. If that's not a message, I don't know what is.

Quote from: matt35mm"Living Life" is better for me.  So it's a meaningful difference to me.  "Making it" gives more of an impression of the American Dream, which you've brought up before.  But I don't think this movie is about her reaching the American Dream.  I don't think what she achieves really is the "American Dream."  As I see it, she begins to live for herself (which I don't think the American Dream is--I think the whole idea of an American Dream is to live up to the standard as defined by our society to determine your success).  She's living up to her own standard and she's living for herself.

I don't know why you're saying "living life" when the movie says "making it." I mean, that's actually what Morgan Freeman says at the end... "She made it."

And I don't see a huge difference between "living life" and "making it." I think the independence and self-defined success you're talking about is part of the American Dream. It's the warm and fuzzy part, that independence. That's the "it" that she made.

Quote from: matt35mmThere was no "it" to make other than just being happy and doing something that she really wanted to do for once and enjoy being good at it and being loved for it.

I think that's a perfect definition of this kind of "making it."

Quote from: Thrindle

Quote from: Jeremy BlackmanI guess to get complex emotions, you need complex and deeply confused characters (Exhibit A: Closer).

That was hitting below the belt.  Refer to the "Closer" thread as to why I thought the movie was trash.

Below the belt? I didn't mean it like that. I sincerely think Closer is a perfect model for the kinds of characters I like... just trying to make my biases clear...

Another dissent. Yes, I didn't like the film. But no, I wasn't out to hate it either. There was a feeling of backlash with me to how accepted this film was, but I really believed it would have been a great film for me. I saw the film with Xixax member Artfag and he'll even verify I really wanted to like the film but alas, i could not. It wasn't even mildly good for me. It was plain bad.

The problem for me wasn't that some characters were one-dimensionalized, but it felt like all the characters were and never for good reasons. The shell of the film suggested richer characterizations than found here, but exposition of the drama was solely based off the narration skills of Morgan Freeman (his work in Shawshank Redemption could likely have spawned its own career) and all depth of character is generalizations on the same stories everyone has already heard of poverty and tormented pasts. Little snippets of Swank struggling are shown to give the audience some believability that what they are really only being told is the actual truth, but yet, nothing was ever really felt for me. Were these characters believable to me? Yes and I even know people like these characters. Were they interesting? No. Swank and her baggage is a lifetime story as cropped to simplicity as one can take.

Also, more shocking for me, is the pure hoakiness in this film. Eastwood's character eats a book full of bad 1940s jokes and basically bases a character off of it. Also, the dramatic development of Swank's character to misfortune and tradegy at the end seems to have been lifted directly from an old movie that uses sentimentality in a way concocked by movie producers who already have their target audience picked out and labeled to what will precisely dig at their hearts. Its an exploitation process that spends a good deal of time at detailing every new thing that ails the victim and draws out the enventual death. For what? A political message that would have been almost relevant 7 years ago?

My main argument is the story, its lack of detail and richness and its eventual exploitation that couldn't have been surrounded with more dust. One really good example of the air this film tries to draw the dramatic from is the portrait of wannabe boxer Danger. At first, he is gimmick material, comic relief who has scenes here and there to keep the film going on certain levels. All we know he is from Texas and was ditched by a relative. At one point, he is shown the harshness of boxing and realizes how unprepared he might be for it. He leaves but at the end through a cute line becomes the film's dramatic anchor. I mean, really, c'mon. It doesn't get much worst than that.

I'll say this, the actors did what they could. Both Eastwood and Freeman had more wrinkles than the usual actors who would have attempted these roles. Swank, the doomed heroine, really tries hard and tries her best. Nothing more could have been asked of her.

I went and saw this film again today, and I think it's time for my review since there are a fairshare of people here who seem to have forgotten what it's like to enjoy a good movie.  Too much emphasis is placed on structure and form and being different then anything else that people forget the joy of following characters for 2+ hours that you really care about.  Somehow a film with a potential "cliche" is bad because it didn't have a small world script (ie Magnolia), crazy philisophical questions (ie Kauffman) or over-the-top zaniness (Team America).  Two of my three favorite films of the year have been criticized for following tired cliches (Collateral & Million Dollar Baby).  These "cliches" are nothing more than story conventions that have been around for years.  The only story convention that seems to never be critizied is the greek tragedy format.

I can't understand why Million Dollar Baby (and also Collateral), which have great direction, editing, performances & cinematography (all comparable to any other 2004 film) yet they will be critized because they follow a familiar storyline.  I would also argue that the scripts are very good.  I might even argue that the Million Dollar Baby is the best script of 2004.

It seems that everyone is waiting for the next film that will challenge their mind.  Something that will keep twisting and they'll never know what is going to happen next, a movie without cliches.  And that is fine, I enjoy films that are all about structure just as much as the next guy.  I am glad to say though that I still love films that have a heart and a soul.  Films that, although the stories may be familiar, are still well-crafted.

Because the people who saw Million Dollar Baby and liked it are still able to let themselves be absorbed into a film.  That when the credits of the film are rolling and Eastwood's score is playing, everyone walks out of the theatre in silence.  For me, this is because I just shared 2 1/2 hours with characters I fell in love with, and I want to keep that moment as long as I can.  Until I walk to the back of the theatre and exit the building, that moment is intact.

Sure, I can think back and break down the film into it's simplest variation and criticize it.  Problem is I can do that with any film.  The difference is only a few films are this gripping and skillful at making me care this much for the characters.

GT the pleasure you take in going against the grain is sickening.  quit being so condescending in your reviews.  if the movie didnt work for you, just tell us why, but dont look down your nose at it with such glee to be destroying something that so many people around here love.

1.  J. Blackman is so on the mark in this thread.

2.  The boxing scenes in M$B were ludicrous.  Most boxing scenes are.

3.  This whole conservative backlash is moronic.  The point of M$B is not that quadraplegics can't live a worthwhile life and therefore should be illegally euthanized.....  Anyone who got that from M$B should themselves be euthanized.....  If anything, it's about personal freedoms.  Maggie was bereft of mobility, not intelligence or decision-making ability.  Her preference for death was made abundantly clear.  The crux of euthanasia is what should be the rights of those family members who need to make decisions for their disabled loved ones who cannot voice or make known their own wishes.  Duh.

Quote from: SHAFTRSure, I can think back and break down the film into it's simplest variation and criticize it.  Problem is I can do that with any film.  The difference is only a few films are this gripping and skillful at making me care this much for the characters.

"I don't like to think about movies I like because then I might like them less."  Dude, get a backbone.  There are always reasons to like and dislike everything.

Question:  Can somebody remind me why Eastwood's genius boxing teacher sees fit to put his girl in the ring with someone known for her dangerous penchant for cheating?  I mean the guy seems like a pretty serious fuck-up to me.

Quote from: Mesh
2.  The boxing scenes in M$B were ludicrous.  Most boxing scenes are.

Quote from: SHAFTRSure, I can think back and break down the film into it's simplest variation and criticize it.  Problem is I can do that with any film.  The difference is only a few films are this gripping and skillful at making me care this much for the characters.

"I don't like to think about movies I like because then I might like them less."  Dude, get a backbone.  There are always reasons to like and dislike everything.

Question:  Can somebody remind me why Eastwood's genius boxing teacher sees fit to put his girl in the ring with someone known for her dangerous penchant for cheating?  I mean the guy seems like a pretty serious fuck-up to me.

First off, I disagree with you about the boxing scenes.  I thought they were great, especially the low level fights (when Maggie was just starting out).

Second off, I don't really see how my quote and your manufactured ones are very similiar.  I have no problem discussing a film I love, I have problems breaking down a film into it's simplest form and criticizing that.  

And last, it's called a title shot.  It was the first time that Eastwood's character truly trusted his fighter and he honestly thought she would beat her (which she probably would).

Quote from: themodernage02GT the pleasure you take in going against the grain is sickening.  quit being so condescending in your reviews.  if the movie didnt work for you, just tell us why, but dont look down your nose at it with such glee to be destroying something that so many people around here love.

I'm not trying to go against the grain. I truly believed I would have liked this film. And if I sounded condescending, I apologize. I'm sure anyone who knows how I review films would have also realized I stuck to my consistency of perspective yet again. I can even feel it developed in me. Yes, I realize I threw choice words in the review to color my disagreeance with the film, but so what. I have that choice and if you really want to focus on my review then by all means look at the actual points. I'll rebutt to that, but the true condensation is coming from people who like this film. I didn't read everything JB said, but I'm not telling people who don't like this film that they don't understand cinema or can't enjoy films. I disagree with that because perfection is relative in cinema.

How is condenscension coming from people who like the film when they're the ones being inclusive?

Quote from: ono mo cuishleHow is condenscension coming from people who like the film when they're the ones being inclusive?

Because you're using the film as a barometer in which to judge the emotional honesty of movie goers. If they like, they can bleed and witness honesty if cinema. If not, they are hacks who look for structure over content and can't relate emotionally to any honest film. That's basically the gist I'm getting from a select few of you. There's no problem in liking this film and saying so. No problem in not liking it and saying so either. If there was any condescending tone in my voice, let it be known that it was toward the film which is completely different than judging people.

Quote from: SHAFTR

Quote from: Mesh
2.  The boxing scenes in M$B were ludicrous.  Most boxing scenes are.

Quote from: SHAFTRSure, I can think back and break down the film into it's simplest variation and criticize it.  Problem is I can do that with any film.  The difference is only a few films are this gripping and skillful at making me care this much for the characters.

"I don't like to think about movies I like because then I might like them less."  Dude, get a backbone.  There are always reasons to like and dislike everything.

Question:  Can somebody remind me why Eastwood's genius boxing teacher sees fit to put his girl in the ring with someone known for her dangerous penchant for cheating?  I mean the guy seems like a pretty serious fuck-up to me.

First off, I disagree with you about the boxing scenes.  I thought they were great, especially the low level fights (when Maggie was just starting out).

Second off, I don't really see how my quote and your manufactured ones are very similiar.  I have no problem discussing a film I love, I have problems breaking down a film into it's simplest form and criticizing that.  

And last, it's called a title shot.  It was the first time that Eastwood's character truly trusted his fighter and he honestly thought she would beat her (which she probably would).

I dunno, these seemed like typical "boxing movie fight scenes" to me.  Lots of huge, improbable knockout blows (some from half-blind septuagenarians) and bloodied, broken-nosed fighters miraculously knocking out opponents at moments of convenient dramatic parallax.  I find them stupid, sue me.

You have a problem breaking down a film into its "simplest form" and criticizing that?  Sorry, you're not making much sense to me.  Basically, I've seen better Boxing Movies, better Clint Eastwood movies, better Hillary Swank movies, better Morgan Freeman movies, better movies where Clint Eastwood goes against his better judgement and tragic things occur as a result, better movies with Morgan Freeman VOs, better movies concerning euthanasia.... Need I go on?

And finally, on the topic of Eastwood's character's idiocy:  1.  He fucks up his title shot with that black boxer.  2.  He fucks up resulting in the loss of Freeman's eye (correct me if I'm wrong, I may've missed a plot point there) 3.  Again, correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't the camera kind of "implicate" Clint just as Maggie gets blindsided, I mean isn't his hand on the stool, as if to suggest "If only this old, grizzled dipshit hadn't prematurely set the stool out, Maggie might've hit canvas and won by default...."  So it's either he fucked up giving her the title shot or he fucked up as a corner man.  Either way, he's a fuck up.  I don't even want to go into how stupid his visits with the pastor make him sound.....

Quote from: Mesh
And finally, on the topic of Eastwood's character's idiocy:  1.  He fucks up his title shot with that black boxer.  2.  He fucks up resulting in the loss of Freeman's eye (correct me if I'm wrong, I may've missed a plot point there) 3.  Again, correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't the camera kind of "implicate" Clint just as Maggie gets blindsided, I mean isn't his hand on the stool, as if to suggest "If only this old, grizzled dipshit hadn't prematurely set the stool out, Maggie might've hit canvas and won by default...."  So it's either he fucked up giving her the title shot or he fucked up as a corner man.  Either way, he's a fuck up.  I don't even want to go into how stupid his visits with the pastor make him sound.....

Eastwood doesn't bring the stool out, the young assistant that he hires to help him out in vegas (as Freeman suggested).  Also, since Eastwood wasn't Freeman's manager, he couldn't throw the towel in. And it's aknowledged that he fucks up the black boxer's title chance.  That is part of the character arch with his character.

EDIT:  Also, I never got the sense that he didn't know the answers to the questions he asked the Pastor.  I think he was just riliing (sp?) up the pastor.  Considering his reading material, one could probably say that Eastwood's character was very inteligent.

Quote from: themodernage02GT the pleasure you take in going against the grain is sickening.  quit being so condescending in your reviews.  if the movie didnt work for you, just tell us why, but dont look down your nose at it with such glee to be destroying something that so many people around here love.

I read my review again and now I firmly believe I wasn't being any more condesending than anyone else who reviews a film he just believes is a bad film. I don't even think I went out of my way to say I didn't like it. Each paragraph was detail on different parts of the film, never just a repitition of my disagreeance. I think the hardest thing for many people here is that they can't believe some people genuinely don't like the film for the film. The reaction here is that the reason must be something other.

JB got people to really argue why they liked the film. That's good. I didn't hold JB's position really because I never saw the film as political as he did, but the scary trend on this thread has been the acceptance of people who say they like the film and don't say why. Everyone who didn't like it and just said so were attacked. I think everyone should say why. Its just now this ignorance has spawned people attacking other people for not liking it and accusing them of faltering in the simple task of enjoying a film. That's outlandish.

Quote from: The Gold Trumpet

Quote from: themodernage02GT the pleasure you take in going against the grain is sickening.  quit being so condescending in your reviews.  if the movie didnt work for you, just tell us why, but dont look down your nose at it with such glee to be destroying something that so many people around here love.

I read my review again and now I firmly believe I wasn't being any more condesending than anyone else who reviews a film he just believes is a bad film. I don't even think I went out of my way to say I didn't like it. Each paragraph was detail on different parts of the film, never just a repitition of my disagreeance. I think the hardest thing for many people here is that they can't believe some people genuinely don't like the film for the film. The reaction here is that the reason must be something other.

JB got people to really argue why they liked the film. That's good. I didn't hold JB's position really because I never saw the film as political as he did, but the scary trend on this thread has been the acceptance of people who say they like the film and don't say why. Everyone who didn't like it and just said so were attacked. I think everyone should say why. Its just now this ignorance has spawned people attacking other people for not liking it and accusing them of faltering in the simple task of enjoying a film. That's outlandish.

Your avatar still sucks.    :kiss:

Saw this for a second time and loved it even more..

It's really rare for a movie to be haunting for me, but there is something really unique about Eastwood's directing style that I just adore. I just love the quiet moments. The sound of Swank's punching on the bag late at night and the music in the background. No matter how you feel about the film's "message", I honestly think people ought to view it as a film first, and let it speak for itself. Eastwood's decision at the end made complete sense and was very heartbreaking.

saw this last night. went in with absolutely no expectations and i loved this film. having said that, i like and respect JB and GT's criticism. the film clearly is flawed, and can understandably be offensive to some, but im putting myself in the same boat as shaftr. i loved and cared for these characters too much to give a shit. i enjoyed every minute I spent with them, and that was really the great accomplishment of MDB. of course having said this, the acting was top-notch. Swank was great, though overrated (not the best performance of the year). sideways and before sunset are still my two favourite films of the year, but this would make my top ten list easy.

oh and i went and hired mystic river straight after and re-watched it. i loved that too. cant figure out why i disliked it the first time. maybe its just one of those films I had to see a second time to appreciate it

I was flipping through the channels and came across The O'Reilly Factor.  It was him and 2 other guys talking about Million Dollar Baby.  They obviously gave away the movie.  On top of that, complaints about The Passion not getting the nominations were said.  Also, sadly, of the three, O'Reilly was the closest thing to the voice of reason.

Why the 'Million Dollar' secret?
Clint Eastwood's "Million Dollar Baby" is an engrossing work of cinematic art with profoundly serious intentions. Source: Los Angeles Times

*SPOILER ALERT*

According to the vast majority of the nation's film critics, nearly all those intentions have been fully and brilliantly realized, which is why the movie is a contender in multiple Academy Award categories, including best picture. But "Million Dollar Baby" also is a film whose moral center — and, yes, this is a movie for which you can use those words without blushing — is a quietly confrontational exploration of one of this era's most delicate, complex and contentious issues. That is the religiously, philosophically, socially and legally fraught question of assisted suicide.

That's a pretty hot and thought-provoking topic. And anything that involves drama, film stars, morality and controversy usually careens deafeningly around the media echo chamber like the mythic call of the Horn Resounding.

So, why the silence here?

Well, if you haven't seen the film, the odds are you don't know that it even involves euthanasia. The reason you don't know is because the nation's film critics made a collective decision not to tell you — or, to be more precise, they decided you don't really want to know. In fact, for all the critical attention justifiably lavished on "Million Dollar Baby," not a single review in a single major U.S. newspaper or magazine even alluded to the presence — let alone the dramatic centrality — of an assisted suicide. That includes the notices that appeared in the Los Angeles Times, the New York Times, the Washington Post, the Wall Street Journal, USA Today and every other publication of any size or reputation accessible on the Web.

How that occurred and why raises a number of interesting questions about the state of film criticism as it currently is practiced in American newspapers and news magazines.

Boxing insider

"Million Dollar Baby" is based on a short story of the same name by the late Jerry Boyd, the Long Beach-born son of an Irish immigrant and a veteran cut man and trainer, who wrote under the pen name F.X. Toole. It was part of a brilliant and highly praised collection of boxing fiction, "Rope Burns: Stories From the Corner," published to critical acclaim not long before Boyd's untimely death two years ago at the age of 72. In the film, Eastwood plays Frankie Dunn, a cut man and trainer, who owns a suitably seedy gym called the Hit Pit. Its janitor and Dunn's best friend is a one-eyed former fighter, Eddie "Scrap Iron" Dupris, played by Morgan Freeman. (It is, by the way, a pairing that wonderfully echoes the long, real-life partnership between Boyd and trainer Dub Huntley, to whom Toole dedicated "Rope Burns.")

Eastwood's Dunn is a loner who reads Yeats, studies Gaelic and writes weekly letters to an estranged daughter, who just as regularly returns them unopened. He's a Catholic who attends daily Mass, after which he torments a weary young priest with the theological equivalent of wiseguy questions. The centrality of the suicide issue to this story is obvious, since this protagonist is clearly situated as a practicing member of a church whose greatest 20th century theologian, the German Jesuit Karl Rahner, defined mortal sin as "the will to die autonomously."

Into this mix comes the aspiring young female boxer Maggie, played by Hilary Swank, who wins success trained by the initially reluctant Frankie. Bonds are formed. Unforeseeable tragedy occurs. One of the main characters is left a quadriplegic and, unable to bear with that state, asks another of the characters to help in committing suicide. How that protagonist responds is the moral and emotional heart of the film.

So why is it absent from the reviews? The answer, according to a number of leading film critics, is that — just as physicians are schooled to do no harm — the cardinal rule of newspaper and magazine film criticism is "never give away the plot." Moreover, the critics interviewed for this column unanimously made the point that the volume and anger of reader response to their work soars beyond comfort whenever they're deemed to have "given up too much." Some even recount incidents in which their editors raised questions about just how much detail they'd included in their reviews — however relevant to the critical points at issue. Readers, they insist, don't want to know this much. It spoils the movie!

Film as an art form

It's an interesting argument — and obviously sincerely offered — but it's spoken in the language of commerce and not art, which is why it rings hollow when applied to a film like "Million Dollar Baby." It's obvious that a reviewer's stance will vary according to the work under consideration. It would be churlish to give away the plot of a thriller — such as "The Sixth Sense" — or even what Graham Greene would have termed "an entertainment," like "The Crying Game" or his own "The Third Man."

But a serious film with genuinely important themes occupies an entirely different aesthetic space and demands the same sort of treatment that a great novel or important painting demands. To presume otherwise is to relegate film to a lesser art and film criticism to a lesser genre.

Imagine the Getty had acquired an important new painting and your newspaper's art critic were sent to review it and came back to report, "This is a masterpiece that has as its theme a vital moral issue, which is depicted in a shocking image. However, I'm not going to tell about either the issue or the image, because I don't want to spoil your experience of the painting."

The person who wrote that quickly would be encouraged to seek opportunities in the burgeoning food service sector.

In one review of "Million Dollar Baby" after another, however, critics Delphicly referred to the film taking "a dark turn." A dark turn? It has a positively 19th century ring, but what the devil does it mean? It's a come-on, not a critical observation, which bring us back to the nexus of commerce and film criticism. The problem with revealing too much then is that people won't go out to see the movie so criticism becomes about getting people into theater seats and not about getting ideas about this or any other film into their heads.

It's hard to imagine why, in this year of controversy over the failure of "The Passion of the Christ" and "Fahrenheit 9/11" to win best picture nominations, at least one critic didn't somehow feel obliged to make the point that they were passed over because they were propaganda and "Million Dollar Baby" was included because it is art. Surely, somebody who cares about film, as a critic is presumed to do, wanted to make the point that there is an essential difference between art that provokes and a work that is merely provocative.

Somewhere in all this, there's a misperception of responsibility and a fundamental mistrust of the readers masquerading as sensitivity. Maybe it's time for American film criticism to take off the training wheels.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Judging 'Baby' by its politics is just artless
Conservative critics are sharpening their knives over Clint Eastwood's boxing drama.
By Patrick Goldstein, Los Angeles Times

*WARNING: SPOILERS AHEAD*

For years, conservative commentators of all stripes, led by critic-turned-radio host Michael Medved, have noisily bashed Hollywood for mocking religion or ignoring it entirely, contending — and this is a big issue with Medved — that the entertainment industry is largely made up of left-wing Beverly Hills dilettantes and unbelievers out of touch with the real moral values of the country.

So imagine my relief when I saw "Million Dollar Baby," the critically lauded film that's now a major contender for best picture and other Oscar accolades. Not only was the film made by Clint Eastwood, a longtime Republican, but the movie's leading man, played by Eastwood, is a regular churchgoer who believes in hard work, rejects crass materialism, values honor and loyalty and wrestles with soul-wrenching spiritual issues in an honest, mature fashion. A tender, beautifully made movie about faith and hard-earned redemption — surely this would be cause for celebration among conservatives and religious figures who see Hollywood as a cesspool of sex and sleaze, right?
 
Ah, what a fuzzy idealist I am. When it comes to hot-button issues, conservatives are just as guilty of knee-jerk political correctness as their liberal foes. By and large they've reacted to the movie as if it were a starry-eyed drama with Barbra Streisand and Sean Penn as Marxist history professors indoctrinating coeds in the theory of evolution. (Spoiler alert: If you want to avoid learning any "Million Dollar Baby" plot twists, read no further till you've seen the movie!)

Medved has led the charge, blasting the film (and to filmgoers' horror, largely giving away its ending) on CNN, "The O'Reilly Factor" and "The 700 Club," calling it "an insufferable manipulative right-to-die movie." Rush Limbaugh chimed in, dubbing the film "a million-dollar euthanasia movie." Debbie Schlussel, another conservative talk-show host, called the film a "left-wing diatribe," claiming it supports "killing the handicapped, literally putting their lights out." And Ted Baehr, head of the Christian Film and Television Commission, described the film to Sean Hannity as "very anti-Catholic and anti-Christian."

It would be easy to write off these attacks as the ravings of people who probably think there are hidden North Korean missile plans embedded in "Shrek 2." After all, Focus on the Family leader James Dobson recently accused SpongeBob SquarePants of being part of a pro-gay agenda. Claiming he was misquoted, he managed to make things worse by attacking the group using SpongeBob to promote tolerance and diversity with schoolkids, saying that tolerance and diversity "are almost always buzzwords for homosexual advocacy."

But the assault on "Million Dollar Baby" by Medved is not as easy to dismiss. A self-described conservative whose new book, "Right Turns," argues that conservatives are "both happier and nicer" than liberals and that "a more Christian America is good for the Jews," Medved wields considerable clout, via his commentaries, which run in USA Today and the Wall Street Journal, and his popular radio show, which airs here weekdays on KRLA-AM (870) from noon to 3 p.m. The day we spoke last week, his show had an exclusive interview with Bush political guru Karl Rove.

Not surprisingly, Medved didn't like a lot of the Oscar-nominated films. Writing in USA Today, he criticized "Vera Drake" as portraying abortion in a "positive, almost sacramental light." "Kinsey," he says, "ridicules the religious orthodoxy of the main character's father." As he put it, the Oscar nominations "illustrate Hollywood's profound, almost pathological discomfort with the traditional religiosity embraced by most of its mass audience."

But does he really believe "Million Dollar Baby" is a euthanasia movie, not a serious drama about the price people pay for their dreams? "I don't see it as a serious movie that grapples with serious moral issues," Medved told me. "Take the way it portrays the priest [that Eastwood banters with at church]. It's totally one-sided. He's portrayed as a bozo, as a shallow twit. I know Catholic priests, and if you're a priest, you're not thrown by basic questions about the Trinity."

Medved said the film was "heavy-handed, clumsy and for the most part — except for Hilary Swank — badly acted and full of clichés." A big part of his problem with the film was "that the studio has tried to hide the real story. They were afraid no one would come see it if they told you what it was really about."

To hear a statement like that you have to assume that either Medved is ludicrously naive or simply disingenuous. Even if "MDB" were about euthanasia, which it surely is not, what studio marketer in their right mind would position their new release as a right-to-die movie instead of a soulful boxing drama? That's not deception, that's Publicity 101. But that sort of slippery reasoning infects nearly all of Medved's critiques about the movie business. In numerous interviews, as well as his book "Hollywood vs. America," he has promoted the idea that Hollywood follows its own dark obsessions instead of giving the public what it really wants — good, wholesome entertainment. This leads to all sorts of wacky oversimplifications. Medved claims, for example, that movie attendance fell off precipitously from 1965 to 1969 not because film studios faced a complicated set of new economic challenges and were slow to adapt to a burgeoning youth market but because Jack Valenti introduced a voluntary ratings system that led to "the profligate use of obscene language, graphic sex scenes and more vivid, sadistic violence."

He often makes the same claims about movies today — that audiences reject dark subject matter foisted on them by the showbiz elite. It doesn't hold water. People flock to see films and TV shows that are far more graphic than anything 35 years ago. Americans also support a $10-billion-a-year pornography business largely supplied by cable and satellite TV conglomerates owned by people like Rupert Murdoch who hardly fit the Hollywood lefty stereotype. When I asked Medved why millions have embraced the smarmy sexual innuendo of "Desperate Housewives" or "Meet the Fockers," he explained: "It's a big country — America is not entirely populated with people with stable families who go to church every week."

I hate to break the news, but people who don't go to church are hardly the only people watching "Desperate Housewives" or downloading porn. Medved's ideology often gets in the way of his better judgment, as in a recent Wall Street Journal piece when, in the midst of a discussion of Mel Gibson's "The Passion of the Christ" and Michael Moore's "Fahrenheit 9/11," he unleashed the whopper that Moore's attacks on Paul Wolfowitz and other leading Jewish neoconservatives "reeks of anti-Semitic conspiracy theorizing." This from the man who berated anyone who dared make the charge of anti-Semitism against the Gibson film.

For Medved, when it comes to Hollywood, there's a wolf behind every door. But in his eagerness to further his brief against "Million Dollar Baby," Medved betrays a fundamental misunderstanding about the purpose of art. It doesn't exist solely to reinforce our faith. The most powerful art, from Sophocles to Shakespeare to Scorsese, seethes with provocation; it stirs our passion; pricks our conscience and tests our most firmly held beliefs. Medved seems to have forgotten that art isn't fair and balanced — it comes in shades of gray, and two sides of every argument are not always given equal weight.

What's really depressing about Medved's assault on "Million Dollar Baby" is that he's judging the film on its politics, not its art. Hearing him complain about its secret agenda, I couldn't help but imagine him in Shakespearean England, tugging on people's sleeves at the Globe Theatre, complaining that "Hamlet" was simply a play that endorsed Oedipal urges.

If Medved and other conservatives think their attacks will hurt "Baby's" Oscar chances, they're in for a rude awakening. If anything, I suspect academy voters will go out of their way to show their respect for a gifted filmmaker under attack. After all, the academy ignored smears against "A Beautiful Mind" that accused it of whitewashing its hero's sexuality. It also honored Roman Polanski for "The Pianist," even when critics said he was unworthy of an award because he'd once had sex with a 13-year-old girl and fled the country to avoid prosecution. Elia Kazan may have been an informer during the blacklist, but that didn't stop the academy from giving him a long-overdue lifetime achievement award.

So far Eastwood has kept his cool, saying his film is simply "supposed to make you think about the precariousness of life and how we handle it." I'm with him. This probably isn't a politically correct pipe dream, but I can't help but fantasize about what might happen if Eastwood bumped into Medved, say at a chummy GOP fundraiser. Clint may not pack his fabled .44 magnum anymore, but that shouldn't stop him from urging Medved to air his views by gently nudging him in the ribs and purring, "Make my day."

These same right wing Christian focus groups that bash MDB are also the people who don't understand that the bible itself is art. How's that for irony?

Quote from: MyxomatosisThese same right wing Christian focus groups that bash MDB are also the people who don't understand that the bible itself is art. How's that for irony?

(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fv228%2FToddTX%2FSimpsons%2FNelson.jpg&hash=f0da4914ab903520449d9bce264349b805629a21)

coincidence

i was in the city with a few friends on wednesday before we all split up in the afternoon. anyway, me and two other friends were left in town with nothing to do, so we thought we'd catch a flick. we walked to the nearest theatre, only a couple of blocks away, and went in to find nobody sitting at the front counter. down the hall we could see the open doors of a cinema and a trailer for batman begins playing on the screen within. we looked at each other, smiled and walked in to a virtually empty theatre.... awsome!

anyway, i was hoping it was either going to be the aviator or closer, since i havent seen either of those yet, but it turned out to be million dollar baby. i havent been able to stop thinking about the film since my first veiwing, so i was up for seeing it a second time. both my friends, however, groaned. ofcourse, i told them to quite their bitchin since they didnt even pay to get in, and assured them it was a good flick. i realised i liked it alot more then i thought i did this time round. loved the dialogue, loved eastwood's direction, the acting is perfection and the boxing scenes are amazingly realistic and entertaining. the film didnt seem as sentimental or cheesy this time round, with the exception of maggies mum in the hospital. i think this film is a masterpiece. both my friends agreed it was good. and yes, i choked up again. im thinking about putting it in my top 3 of the year.

Quote from: brocklySwank was great, though overrated (not the best performance of the year).

i take that back.

Quote from: brocklyi was in the city with a few friends on wednesday before we all split up in the afternoon. anyway, me and two other friends were left in town with nothing to do, so we thought we'd catch a flick. we walked to the nearest theatre, only a couple of blocks away, and went in to find nobody sitting at the front counter. down the hall we could see the open doors of a cinema and a trailer for batman begins playing on the screen within. we looked at each other, smiled and walked in to a virtually empty theatre.... awsome!

anyway, i was hoping it was either going to be the aviator or closer, since i havent seen either of those yet, but it turned out to be million dollar baby. i havent been able to stop thinking about the film since my first veiwing, so i was up for seeing it a second time. both my friends, however, groaned. ofcourse, i told them to quite their bitchin since they didnt even pay to get in, and assured them it was a good flick. i realised i liked it alot more then i thought i did this time round. loved the dialogue, loved eastwood's direction, the acting is perfection and the boxing scenes are amazingly realistic and entertaining. the film didnt seem as sentimental or cheesy this time round, with the exception of maggies mum in the hospital. i think this film is a masterpiece. both my friends agreed it was good. and yes, i choked up again. im thinking about putting it in my top 3 of the year.

Quote from: brocklySwank was great, though overrated (not the best performance of the year).

i take that back.

Female in a leading role is a weak category this year. Swank has a great shot.

spoilers


this shit was great man.  and a worthy follow up to another masterpeice, mystic river.  what i like about eastwood is that he 1.)gets top talent actors to rip through screenplays, 2.)creates such a rich environment, you could taste the sweat from that training center, the look and feel of his films are so authentic, 3.)his tyast efro the dark and depressing, 4.)the fact that his face is so wrinkled up and dusty, he has a good terxture facial onscreen look.

and i liked how the trailers actaully didnt give a film away for once.


and this shit reminded me of the pledge-alot.

I saw this twice already. I think it's a very good film but frankly I don't get all the fuzz. A well told story? Sure. Great performances? At least a couple.

But cmon people...what about all those manipulative cliches??? Were those really necessary for the movie to be as compelling?? Not for me, and I'm a little dissapointed with Eastwood for using cheap shots at sympathy for the main characters by making the other characters completely unrealistic on their behavior and attitudes. I'm talking about Maggie's family, a little more mean and they would be disney villains. No, you know what?? They're worst. It's like, they're not human beings, they're evil hillbillies. That black guy who punches Danger, did we needed him to be such a bad human being?? It's one thing to be ignorant or mean, or both, but it's another to have a soap opera villain there. Swank's main boxing rival even has some "here comes the bad guy" music when she comes out on the final fight. Even the guy that manages Maggie after Clint leaves her at the beggining can't leave the scene without making a hurtful cartoonish comment like "she can't fight worth a shit".

These things are completely unnecessary and took me out of the movie cause I felt they were trying to manipulate me, and it took me by surprise, taking in account that a day before I rented Mystic River and I couldn't believe this two were from the same director.

To give an example of the opposite, in Sideways, Giammati vistis his mom who, from the moment she appears, can't stop making hurtfull comments to him about his life, divorce, career, etc...everytime she speaks you sense his discomfort, but Alexander Payne doesn't force this things up your throat by making that mother artificially evil. He trust us to get this. We get she's hurting him, and we even forgive her before her scenes are over. In Million Dollar Baby, Eastwood seems to want you to hate all this people and only like four characters: Frankie, Maggie, Freeman and Danger. Everyone else are caricatures.

I liked everything else here. The cinematography is beautiful, like a Gordon Willis picture. And the performances, specially Swank, are brilliant. But this movie is vastly overrated. It's no masterpiece. Specially compared to Unforgiven.

before i knew this was based on short stories, i really felt like the screenwriter came up with the ending and then thought, "how can i get here?" he flips a few channels........."ah, Rocky!" flips a few more.........."ah, Shawshank's playing on TBS for the billionth time!"

i don't know if the hype hurt of the fact that i knew the "big thing" was going to happen. i didn't know whom to or when or how, but was aware thanks to our great media system. i'm surprised that Morgan won. i love Morgan to death, but this is nothing new from him. he should have received honors for Shawshank and Se7en before this. heck, he should have got a nod for Levity then (at least he tried to mess with his voice on that one........i didn't think that was a good thing though).

i guess i'm a square.
*draws an invisible square in the air a la uma*

Warner Home Video took its time, but it looks like the company is putting an effort into Million Dollar Baby. The multi-Oscar-winning film will be released on DVD on July 12 for $29.95 in a two-disc set, or a three-disc set that includes the soundtrack CD (similar to Mystic River last year) for $39.98.

The film will come in widescreen and full screen editions, with Dolby Digital 5.1 audio. There will be no commentary from director Clint Eastwood. Among the extras confirmed so far are:

James Lipton Takes On Three: A 25-minute roundtable done after the Oscars, so Clint Eastwood, Morgan Freeman and Hillary Swank have plenty to talk about.

Born to Fight: A look at real-life fighter Lucia Rijker (a boxer who has a role in the film and is quite possibly the toughest woman on the planet).

Producers Round 15: A behind-the-scenes feature.

(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.thedigitalbits.com%2Farticles%2Fmiscgfx%2Fcovers4%2Fmilliondollarbabydvd.jpg&hash=8831752090e45336cf5d0c85c1259521de3d2cb3)

Looks great. Still not sure if I'm gonna buy it.

por que?

You can get the dvd today on sale for $16.99 at Best Buy I think. The movie really is incredible. Very heartbreaking to say the least. Chilling musical score from Eastwood.

Quote from: FinnYou can get the dvd today on sale for $16.99 at Best Buy I think. The movie really is incredible. Very heartbreaking to say the least. Chilling musical score from Eastwood.

:yabbse-undecided: ...i thought about buying this today but i think i would be wasting my money...the film doesnt have much repeat value.i think its a good story w/ incredible actign but.....um, its not as great as i remembered when i saw it in theatres...i still like it though....mystic river however gets better and better.......unforgiven sucks though :yabbse-lipsrsealed:

wait three months and you will be able to get it for 9.99 at a video store.

Quote from: NEON MERCURYunforgiven sucks though

I Am Jack's Complete Loss For Words.

Quote from: NEON MERCURYunforgiven sucks though

and any credibility Neon ever had is gone.

Unforgivenable

Quote from: RegularKarate

Quote from: NEON MERCURYunforgiven sucks though

and any credibility Neon ever had is gone.




Unforgivenable

haha, yea, neon is on a tear lately. everything sucks nowadays according to him these last couple weeks.

didnt know theer was so much love for unforgiven :yabbse-undecided:

LOVE unforgiven.

(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.calsmodels.com%2Fimages%2FXIXAX%2Fxixaxcaps%2Funforgiven2.jpg&hash=93df4a98586670e104be58cf9e39ae953829823d)
(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.calsmodels.com%2Fimages%2FXIXAX%2Fxixaxcaps%2Funforgiven3.jpg&hash=16795285db24f63259aef0fe670d1b0f4f6a7476)
(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.calsmodels.com%2Fimages%2FXIXAX%2Fxixaxcaps%2Funforgiven4.jpg&hash=e1a9a877257fb5ee07db3c4d27ce36ff27f9e576)
(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.calsmodels.com%2Fimages%2FXIXAX%2Fxixaxcaps%2Funforgiven1.jpg&hash=3c9a2e317185e44ef0908ab8369e331ed67c2eaa)

Quote from: NEON MERCURYdidnt know theer was so much love for unforgiven :yabbse-undecided:

It's only one of the greatest Westerns ever.

High Noon?

no, Un-For-Give-N.

Boyz Un-For-Give-N the Hood?

Boyz In The Hood used to be awesome but you watch it now it seems so dated. Unforgiven DOES NOT suffer from the same problem, which is weird, right?

Quote from: StefenBoyz In The Hood used to be awesome but you watch it now it seems so dated. Unforgiven DOES NOT suffer from the same problem, which is weird, right?

Not really, in the 1800s that shit was SO FRESH

Clint Eastwood seems to always be ahead of his time.

finally saw this, and it's pretty good. did anyone else get a 'one flew over the cuckoos nest' vibe from this at all? not in the plot obviously or any of the other actual content, but just the way the gym was shot, it's so well mapped out, the feeling of really being there reminded of the way the hospital was shot in cuckoo. that and the gyms collection of goofy characters. then the downer ending, of course. i dunno, i just felt some cuckoo vibes off of this one.

You might be on to something.

SPOILER ALERT....



Both Cuckoo's Nest and Million Dollar Baby end with a mercy killing.

Just saw this last night, loooooong after the hype has died down.  I was expecting to be as disappointed by this as I was by Sideways but I liked it.  Whoever worked on the marketing campaign needs to be fired, though; they made it look like an average boxing movie.  Granted, it IS an average boxing movie if you focus on the story alone but the script is good and Eastwood deserved the Best Director Oscar.

But it's not the masterpiece people think it is.  There's plenty of problems with the movie.  First off, they should have either lost the Danger subplot or hired a different actor.  Because the kid from Undeclared was playing Danger as a retarded caricature which clashed with everything else in the movie.  It was embarassing.

That and I worked out what I don't like about Hilary Swank.  She has no charisma.  She's technically a good actress but I don't feel anything when she's on screen.  Maybe it was because I knew about the ending already but I just didn't really feel sad when *SPOILER FOR THE LAST PERSON ON EARTH TO NOT KNOW ABOUT THE THIRD ACT OF THE MOVIE*  he pulled the plug. *END "SPOILER"*  Like I said, she's a good actress in a technical sense, so I can't hate her, but she doesn't know how to dominate the screen, so I can't like her; I felt like Clint and Morgan upstaged her throughout.  But she's got 2 Oscars and I have none so maybe I'm wrong.

Quote from: hacksparrowWhoever worked on the marketing campaign needs to be fired, though; they made it look like an average boxing movie.  Granted, it IS an average boxing movie if you focus on the story alone but the script is good and Eastwood deserved the Best Director Oscar.

Well... since the movie was a big box office success, and Eastwood DID get the Best Director Oscar, I fail to see how the marketing campaign was off.  It WAS marketed as a film starring three Oscar winners and directed by an Oscar winner.  It was marketed as a boxing movie with high pedigree.

I thought the marketing strategy was great, and appropriate for a movie about an underdog boxer, as it allowed for the movie to sneak in and build up tremendous force in the last two months before the Oscars and win over the juggernaut movie (The Aviator).  The hype was built pretty much solely on critics' awards and stuff, and I think it was the strategy from the beginning to let that be the hype-maker.

So by the time people actually started seeing the movie, it was very clear that this was not an "average boxing movie," and it was a good way to achieve that without telling you HOW, storywise, it wasn't just a boxing movie.

But ultimately, you just can't argue with results.  It was made for cheap, made good profit, garnered several Oscars, and you'd better believe that was the marketing plan from the start.

Quote from: matt35mmby the time people actually started seeing the movie, it was very clear that this was not an "average boxing movie," and it was a good way to achieve that without telling you HOW, storywise, it wasn't just a boxing movie.

But from that god-awful trailer and those horrific radio and TV ads, there was NO way to tell that it wasn't just a boxing movie.  I'm not saying they should have hinted at the ending or something like that, but the ads couldn't have made it look more uninteresting.  I saw the trailer and said, "I've seen Rocky, I've seen Girlfight.  Why do I need to see this?"  Of course, the answer to that question is "Clint Eastwood" but even so, I was in no rush to see this... entirely because the ads were so cringeworthy.  

Quote from: matt35mmIt was made for cheap, made good profit, garnered several Oscars, and you'd better believe that was the marketing plan from the start.

That's exactly why I think they should be fired.  Regardless of whether the film is guaranteed to win every award ever or is the cinematic antichrist, ad people are supposed to still make the movie look more exciting than it really is.  That trailer showed me a boring movie.