[rsaavedra]

Saw it today. This is one tough movie, didn't expect it to go the way it went at all. Very hard to take, but awesome movie nonetheless. Great acting in it, specially Clint and Hillary. Anyone else saw it? Impressions?

*** WATCH OUT: MOVIE SPOILER ALERT/WARNING: This thread turned into a debate on some aspects of the movie and contains major spoils, so don't read this thread unless you've seen the movie. ***

 

[usc goose]

i saw it a few weeks ago in LA. thought it was great too. read the book when it originally came out ("rope burns"). the short story "million dollar baby" is still the most depressing thing i've ever read. so i was a little braced. good movie though.

 

[KYTGuy]

Great movie...a little less "Hollywood", and a little more "real"...

Clint just keeps getting better and better....

Hilary did a great job, and so did Morgan.

Used it as a lesson for the 19 yo daughter...

 

[viator122]

Quote:

Originally Posted by KYTGuy Clint just keeps getting better and better....

I respectfully disagree. This movie was good, no doubt about it, but I though Mystic River was head and shoulders above it as far as originality and making the audience emotionally involved.

 

[Bunnyears]

I hated the movie. I didn't see anything that was worthy of oscar. In fact, I found the story so grimly unrelentingly predictable that it had me rolling my eyes at every turn. Morgan Freeman is going to have to stop recycling Miss Daisy's chauffeur if he wants to continue to get my respect. Hillary Swank once again does a poor boyish-woman from the wrong side of the trailer-park trying to make it in a man's world. The symbolism and foreshadowing were so heavy handed as to be pedestrian. This is a skillfully and professionally made piece of tripe that reminded me of The Bridges of Madison County in its emotional manipulation. I know that most of the critics have disagreed with me, but there it is, I couldn't stand the film. Especially the ending which disrepected a great number of very fine people, many of whom are returning vets, who find themselves living with much greater courage and grace than the protagonist of this film. I am sure that Hitler would have loved this piece of garbage, it so exemplifies his ideology.

 

[null]

Decent movie, but yes, as some have said, it has that all too well-known plot formula buried within. Slow in some parts, but very well done, I thought.

 

[rsaavedra]

* WATCH OUT: MOVIE SPOILER *

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bunnyears Especially the ending which disrepected a great number of very fine people, many of whom are returning vets

I don't see the connection you are establishing though. Do you mean returning "vet" as in boxers or soldiers? If you mean soldiers, you are taking the plot to where it really wasn't. She was a boxer, not a soldier. Also, from her background of feeling she was trash, she came to see people cheering at her, she was in magazines (in her own words), don't want to spoil too much, but in any case, she became famous and "had her shot", she got to be in the spotlight of fame. That's a different scenario from the horrors that war vets see. No connection. Or maybe I'm totally off and not following what you meant. Mentioning Hitler liking this movie is also a connection I don't get at all. The movie explores the limits that can push someone to consider euthanasia, from both angles of the fact, the dying person, and people who love the dying person. It did explore euthanasia and its huge moral issues, that doesn't mean it was disrespectful, even though you never know what people is going to feel offended for. In any case, the context and framing could have certainly been war vets, but it wasn't.

Saving Private Ryan is another movie that explores euthanasia, if only too briefly, and that is a war movie. One of the soldiers, knowing he was dying, asks the doctor for some overdose of the morphine shots. Did that movie offend you? Or did that movie make you claim Hitler would have liked it, or would have portraid his ideology?

 

[timoteus]

I saw this film while in Chicago last week and thoroughly enjoyed it.

Like most movies that I end up liking, I never spoiled it by reading any reviews or seeing any trailers beforehand that would prejudice, make me watch the movie with a too critical eye, or prevent me from just enjoying the movie for what it is. I didn't even know it was about boxing until the movie started.

I thought it was a nice touch that they never mentioned the boxer that paralyzed Macushla (sp) after the fact. That left the revenge factor out of the movie and in fact that's where the movie really shifted gears, from then on it was not about boxing at all, and was centered solely on the relationships of the characters and the sad demise of Hilary's character.

If I read some negative reviews or even Bunnyears' minireview I would probably never go see this movie. I STRONGLY believe it is best to go into any movie with as few preconcieved notions as possible. I also think that Clint Eastwood is a national treasure, anything he touches is golden. Well, maybe not the orangutan movies.

 

[Bunnyears]

Quote:

Originally Posted by rsaavedra **Warning, might spoil some things from the movie** I don't see the connection you are establishing though. Do you mean returning "vet" as in boxers or soldiers? If you mean soldiers, you are taking the plot to where it really wasn't. She was a boxer, not a soldier. Also, from her background of feeling she was trash, she came to see people cheering at her, she was in magazines (in her own words), don't want to spoil too much, but in any case, she became famous and "had her shot", she got to be in the spotlight of fame. That's a different scenario from the horrors that war vets see. No connection. Or maybe I'm totally off and not following what you meant. Mentioning Hitler liking this movie is also a connection I don't get at all. The movie explores the limits that can push someone to consider euthanasia, from both angles of the fact, the dying person, and people who love the dying person. It did explore euthanasia and its huge moral issues, that doesn't mean it was disrespectful. And the context and framing could have certainly been war vets, but it wasn't.

The problem with the movie is not that it explores euthanasia, but that it exploits euthanasia. It simplifies an issue to the point of mindlessness!

How many times have we seen quadriplegics that rise above their circumstances and find a meaningful existance?!? Maggie compares herself to a dog that is happy but has lost control of his legs that her father took into the woods to put down. Is Maggie's existance no more than the existance of a family pet that has lost its convenience? I think not. The whole relationship between Frankie Dunn and Maggie Fitzgerald hinges upon their mutual use of each other. Do they have any feelings for each other above that? Dunn gives her the robe that has the erse words for "my darling" which become her ring avatar, but he never moves in anyway to deepen their relationship, just as he never tries to contact his daughter except through letters that are returned to him unopened. In fact, Dunn will not even tell Maggie what Ma Cushla means until she is on her deathbed. That makes Dunn a very good role for Eastwood who is incapable of the type of performance that requires more than a surface portrayal, but it makes for very poor drama. Maggie also does not bother to explore who Dunn is and why he is so reluctant to train her. When Maggie has become so depressed after realizing the full implications of her injury, Dunn is shown reading to her and tending her bedsores, but where is the halo brace that she should be wearing with her injury that would have enabled her to leave her bed and be propped upright in a chair as was Christopher Reeve? How about the spinal fusion surgery that she should have had which was also available at that time? Maggie is made a victim of unrelenting adversity that by the end of the movie, the viewer is manipulated into believing that the only possible positive outcome is euthanasia. In effect, Maggie has been reduced from a Million Dollar producing baby to a Million Dollar costing baby, and thus is worthy only to be removed.

Now as we celebrate the 60th anniversary of the liberation of Auschwitz, everyone should be made aware that the first subjects that Hitler had gassed (or euthanized) were those who were mentally and physically disabled. Hitler would have had no problem pulling the plug on Maggie, she had proven that she was not the "best" in the ring against a pointedly ethnic opponent, and therefore was unworthy to continue. Her injury only would have proven to him the merit of his philosophy. Let no one forget that after Max Schmelling was defeated by the non-aryan Joe Louis, Hitler also deemed Schmelling unworthy, but unable to "euthanize" him, he merely ordered him into the paratroopers, the unit with the highest casualty rate in the German armed forces, in hopes that he would be killed.

Now, we are engaged in a bloody war where our veterans are returning with grievous injuries to their brains and spinal chords as well as with multiple amputations. Should we think of them the way the movie shows Maggie and relegate them to the ashcan of humanity? I think not. This movie is as pernicious as it is well made. It something that I cannot recommend to anyone as worthwhile viewing, let alone worthy of reward.

 

[rsaavedra]

* WATCH OUT: MOVIE SPOILER *

Bunnyears you should be well aware, you can't choose how other people feel. The same way noone can change the fact that you felt offended by this movie, if in the story that girl felt she didn't need/want to live anymore, well, that's the way she felt, you can't change that, that was the author's choice, portraying what some times happens in life, whether reasonable or unreasonable. That's not oversimplifying anything, it's just a portrayal, and a believable/realistic one in my opinion. It's something that happens/can happen period.

True in many other circumstances, people in similar or maybe worse conditions kept a huge energy and desire to live etc. That doesn't necessarily happen to everyone, didn't happen in this case, hence a very heavy and tough drama. Also, had the movie had a sort of turn of events and an optimistic ending, that I would have called predictable, and not masterful in storytelling and drama movie making terms.

The fact that Hitler did what he did related to euthanasia is not a reason to associate any exploration of euthanasia with Hitler. That is simply red herring. The association is in your mind only (imho). You seem very sensitive to the topic, and any exploration or portrayal of it might offend you, or might make you take that association, when it really might not be there. Consider that.

You seem to have avoided my question about Saving Private Ryan. How do you feel about that movie and about your connecting it to Hitler?

 

[aeriyn]

I saw this movie a little while ago. Erm, I don't have any good reasons like Bunnyears to justify what I think about it, but I just think it sucks.

It's messed up, too. Morgan Freeman hasn't done a really good job in a movie since Chain Reaction and The Shawshank Redemption. -.-'

 

[Bunnyears]

How do you know how the real Maggie feels or for that matter how any paraplegic feels? The movie never deals with feelings or emotions. It is as cold a piece of work as any I have ever seen on the screen. That is why the manipulation of the audience's emotions is so very abhorrent. The audience is manipulated so shamelessly that you will cheer while Maggie is winning and you will be saying kill her at the end. Are American audiences no better than Romans in the Colosseum? At the end of the movie I fully expected Eastwood to turn to the camera and say, "Are you not amused?" I am both offended by the movie and at the same time incredulous that anyone could find any redeeming merit in it. I think the only thing worthy of euthanasia is this movie, which should be relegated to the trashcan of celluloid.

 

[rsaavedra]

* WATCH OUT: MOVIE SPOILER *

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bunnyears How do you know how the real Maggie feels or for that matter how any paraplegic feels? The movie never deals with feelings or emotions. It is as cold a piece of work as any I have ever seen on the screen. That is why the manipulation of the audience's emotions is so very abhorrent. The audience is manipulated so shamelessly that you will cheer while Maggie is winning and you will be saying kill her at the end.

You are not seeing the movie from an objective/artistic perspective, but from a very offended point of view. Noone can change that but you, but maybe you don't want to change that, so there's no point in arguing. You are obviously very sensitive to this topic and I'm noone to change that or help you on dealing with it. But I wholeheartedly disagree with all you say above.

Saying the movie exploits euthanasia is saying "Shindler's list" exploits mass murder and racism and antisemitism. Well, those are the topics being explored and portrayed in his movie. It will always (or can always) look like exploitation for someone sensitive to the topic. Same with paintings, or literary work, or anything basically, it's all in the eyes of the beholder.

Saying "Million dollar baby" never deals with feelings or emotions is plain wrong imho. Saying it is as cold a piece of work as any is also simply bashing senselessly (again ihmo). Saying the movie "moves" (rather than manipulate) the audience emotions would make sense. But all drama movies do that, or try to, don't they? Saying that the audience is manipulated "shamelessly" is just your opinion, and I wholeheartedly disagree with that.

But again, there's no point in arguing. Art does impress some people and offend some others at the same time, and little can be done about it.

You are still ignoring my reference to Saving Private Ryan, but I won't pursue the argumentation. There's no need for you to justify your indignation, you are offended by "Million dollar baby", well, that's the way it is, I can't do anything about it but show my take on it as I've done here.

 

[The Actual]

I also thought that it was good, although it certainly was not the best movie of the year.

Of the movies nominated for best picture it should probably win, but I was very disappointed to see that The Woodsman was not nominated. If that is still playing nearby, you should try to check it out.

 

[Bunnyears]

Your comparison to Schindler's list is odious and far off the mark! Schindler's list was the story of triumph in the face of huge adversity. It is the story how one man, in the face of overwhelming odds manipulated the system to save lives while all around him others were indulging in an orgy of murder. It was not an exploration of racism and mass murder so much as the exploration of the prevention of mass murder and the defeat of racism.

As to whether I am "seeing the movie from an objective/artistic perspective, but from a very offended point of view," I beg to differ. I am very well capable of assessing this as a work of art. It is a very bad work of art. It is like the very skillfully painted picture that has every technical feature mastered but remains the work of a virtuoso hack. The movie lacks heart, probably because Eastwood himself is so very incapable of showing deep emotion. Perhaps if Eastwood had not put himself in the lead and had gotten an actor capable of hinting at something below the surface, my opinion of the movie might be different. As the movie stands, it lacks a key ingredient: a central performance of depth. Eastwood never has depth, and in this movie it keeps everything else on the surface.

Aside from that, no one should ever separate the subject matter from the technical aspects of any work of art. Art exists to make a statement. If the statement is one that is rotten, then no matter the technical excellence, the whole work must in the end be judged negatively.