Sergio Leone Web Board
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
July 12, 2024, 01:37:39 PM

+  Sergio Leone Web Board
|-+  Other/Miscellaneous
| |-+  Off-Topic Discussion (Moderators: cigar joe, moviesceleton, Dust Devil)
| | |-+  Million Dollar Baby (2004)
0 and 1 Guest are viewing this topic. « previous next »
: 1 [2]
: Is Million Dollar Baby a good film?
Yes   -17 (94.4%)
No   -1 (5.6%)
: 14

: Million Dollar Baby (2004)  ( 19221 )
Bill Carson

« #15 : February 28, 2005, 12:11:43 AM »

 8) hola amigos! well, I thought I'd be the first to mention it - CONGRATULATIONS MR. EASTWOOD... for the Oscars that is!

Offline Offline

Posts: 266

just a son of a bitch

« #16 : February 28, 2005, 01:00:07 AM »

yeah , i was really glad he won. great to see a smaller movie get it.

That could just be cannon fire.
Offline Offline

Posts: 146

People scare easier when they're dyin'

« #17 : February 28, 2005, 01:15:47 AM »

Congratulations Clint Eastwood with the Oscar, I still can see you walking through the Almeria dessert.

cigar joe
Bounty Killer
Offline Offline

Posts: 14247

easy come easy go

« #18 : February 28, 2005, 05:02:13 AM »

Yes, I saw it Saturday night it was great, and they shot it in only 35 days amazing.

"When you feel that rope tighten on your neck you can feel the devil bite your ass"!
Offline Offline

Posts: 471

Can my character have a poncho, Sergio? Please!

« #19 : February 28, 2005, 11:42:17 AM »

Damm fine movie! Der' b' life in the old dog Clint yet!  8)

You don't make up for your sins in church. You do it on the streets...
Road Apple
Offline Offline

Posts: 8

« #20 : March 04, 2005, 04:07:55 PM »

I was nearly crying at the end - great movie  - Morgan, Clint & Hilary fully deserve their Oscars.


« #21 : March 15, 2005, 10:37:09 PM »

haven't seen it yet , but will the first chance i get.
great character studys according to clint.
39 days to shoot which is still amazing

« : March 15, 2005, 11:20:56 PM KERMIT »
Offline Offline

Posts: 330

Nobody, but Nobody, knows the trouble he's in!

« #22 : March 18, 2005, 05:08:48 PM »

Clint's efficiency always amazes me, especially when it results in such fantastic films like this. It's much more impressive than Kubrick for example. When a man spends two years shooting a film, sometimes doing more than 100 takes, I expect the final product to be nothing short of amazing. When you rarely do more than two takes, work 4-5 hours a day, and shoots a film in little over a month, a result like this really is impressive.

"As boys, they said they would die for each other. As men, they did."
Film-Junkie Zach
Offline Offline

Posts: 112

« #23 : March 19, 2005, 07:54:29 PM »

Best Film Of 2004. It's one of the most realistic films I have ever seen in my life.

Global Moderator
Bounty Killer
Offline Offline

Posts: 9968

trust a man who wears both a belt and suspenders?

« #24 : April 29, 2013, 11:48:24 AM »

so I finally saw Million Dollar Baby yesterday:

Before I had seen it, I knew everything about the plot (as did most people who didn't see the movie as soon as it was released, because it ignited a big controversy over the assisted suicide and many people were discussing it in public), so I am not going to give the movie a rating, cuz it's too difficult to judge it objectively having known the whole story before I began watching. For some movies, knowing the story is not all that important, but for others, it is very important, and this is one of them.
To the best of my ability to try to be objective here, I will say that I thought it was alright, but not a masterpiece like so many people believe. But again, I will absolutely admit that it's impossible for me to know how I would have felt if I had gone in not knowing anything about the story.

IMO, Swank is good but not incredible. (I didn't see any of the other Oscar-nominated actresses from that year, so I can't saw whether or not I thought Swanks deserved to win; but if you wanna use the phrase "Oscar-worthy" as a general phrase meaning "great," then no, IMO Swank was not Oscar-worthy. And I don't think Eastwood's performance was worthy of an Oscar nomination.
As a movie, I definitely prefer The Aviator.

I am absolutely not gonna get into a normative debate over assisted suicide; that's for each of you to deal with on your own terms, with your own conscience, religious leader, morals, family, friends, etc. I'll just discuss some positive issues (as in positive vs. normative)  about the movie's controversies.

Cinematically, I thought the ending was very powerful. Definitely, those last few scenes are the best part of the movie.
I'm not sure if the whole storyline with Eastwood's estranged daughter was even necessary at all; I can see a lonely old trainer taking on a project like Swank even if he didn't have an estranged daughter; I am not sure if the estranged daughter adds anything to the story.

btw,  I remember when it was first released, my roommate in college was talking about it, and said, "i refuse to see that movie; it's just a pro-assisted suicide propaganda." Now, I don't know if I would have seen it anyway -- at that time, I was a casual movie fan at best, and hadn't seen any Eastwood movies; all I knew about Eastwood was that he had acted in some movie called GBU that had this song called Ecstasy of Gold that Metallica walked to every concert to, and that at some point down the line, I therefore wanted to see GBU  ;) ...) -- so there's a damn good chance I never woulda seen it at that time anyway, but then I was reading all about the controversies, including in sports magazines, and read about the ending, and whatever, I just never had an interest in seeing it.

Until now.

After seeing the movie, I will say this: I do not think it is trying to in any way justify assisted suicide, or take a position one way or another on the matter. The point is, I think everyone can agree that it's possible that a person in Swank's situation would want to die, and that a person in Eastwood's position would be tempted to help her, and maybe even do so, even if he has strong reservations about doing so. This is about how one man acted in a a particularly awful situation, and I don't think the movie was trying to make a point that said action was justified or unjustified.
Put it this way: this movie is certainly not making any point in a blatant way like Michael Moore's movies are anti-Bush, or An American Carol is anti-Moore, October Baby is anti-abortion, or Full Metal Jacket is anti-Vietnam.
Assisted suicide is obviously a very controversial and emotional issue, and perhaps I can see how someone who is staunchly opposed to it can believe that this movie justifies it, but IMO this movie is just about how one man acted in one situation, and I don't know if the movie necessarily is trying to justify it.

Finally, and this is something I feel very strongly about: there were a lot of disabled/paralyzed people, and groups representing those people, who were protesting over how they believed the movie is saying that a person is better off dead than paralyzed. That is absolute total bullshit. All it's talking about is one girl in one situation. Is it plausible that a girl in Swank's situation would want to die? Certainly. True, many people in her situation do not want to die. But the fact is that it is certainly plausible that someone in her situation would want to die  -- people commit themselves over far less problems than paralysis -- and therefore, the story is plausible. This movie in no way, shape, or form is making the point that if one is paralyzed, he/she is better off dead. It's just about how one woman and one man were confronted with a devastating situation, and how they acted in that situation.

I guess Unforgiven and Million Dollar Baby are generally considered Eastwood's masterpieces, but for me, nothing can touch Mystic River and The Bridges of Madison County.

« : April 29, 2013, 11:57:06 AM drinkanddestroy »

There are three types of people in the world, my friend: those who can add, and those who can't.
: 1 [2]  
« previous next »


SMF 2.0.15 | SMF © 2017, Simple Machines