Million Dollar Baby

[Gold Trumpet]

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.

[SHAFTR]

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.

[modage]

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.

[Mesh]

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.

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.

"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.

[SHAFTR]

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

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.

"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).

[Gold Trumpet]

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.

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.

[ono]

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

[Gold Trumpet]

How 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.

[Mesh]

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

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.

"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.....

[SHAFTR]

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.

[Gold Trumpet]

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.

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.

[Thrindle]

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.

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.    

[Myxo]

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.

[brockly]

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

[SHAFTR]

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.