Million Dollar Baby

Message Bookmarked

Bookmark Removed

...is a hackneyed, cliche-ridden, pointless piece of crap.

― .adam (nordicskilla), Sunday, 9 January 2005 18:03 (twenty years ago)

Oh! I liked it!

― jaymc (jaymc), Sunday, 9 January 2005 18:20 (twenty years ago)

I'm a sucker for that natural light saturated with lots of cool blues, though. (Also see We Don't Live Here Anymore.)

― jaymc (jaymc), Sunday, 9 January 2005 18:21 (twenty years ago)

Oh John. Why?

― .adam (nordicskilla), Sunday, 9 January 2005 18:22 (twenty years ago)

This movie wins the award for most obtrusive, irritating voiceover EVER!

Also no more weary old man jokes, please!!!!

― .adam (nordicskilla), Sunday, 9 January 2005 18:23 (twenty years ago)

please!!!

― .adam (nordicskilla), Sunday, 9 January 2005 18:26 (twenty years ago)

What were the weary old man jokes?

― jaymc (jaymc), Sunday, 9 January 2005 18:26 (twenty years ago)

Yeah, I'd like to see this, but I'm already over my quota for movies with irritating V.O.s by Easy Reader. (3xpost)

― I Am Curious (George) (Rock Hardy), Sunday, 9 January 2005 18:27 (twenty years ago)

Thing is, I agree that there's a certain amount of cliche that pervades the picture, but I also felt there was something very human about the characters and their relationships. (Except for Hilary Swank's family, whom David Edelstein said might as well have had dollar signs drawn over their eyes.)

― jaymc (jaymc), Sunday, 9 January 2005 18:29 (twenty years ago)

What were the weary old man jokes?

See...ANY scene between Morgan Freeman and Clint Eastwood...or any scene where Clint Eastwood makes sure to tell us and Hilary Swank that he is a tired old man with intimacy issues...see...ANY scene in the movie!!! People in the theater were laughing like they had been in solitary confinement all their lives and had never seen comedy before!

I was sold on this as a movie that transcends cliches, but it was weighted down with them like an unlucky gambler in cement shoes...

― .adam (nordicskilla), Sunday, 9 January 2005 18:32 (twenty years ago)

I liked the scene about Morgan Freeman's socks.

― jaymc (jaymc), Sunday, 9 January 2005 18:35 (twenty years ago)

C0rny Hollywood fuxx0r!!

― .adam (nordicskilla), Sunday, 9 January 2005 18:38 (twenty years ago)

i have a feeling the "this is an inspirational sports movie" music they play over the trailier is a lie.

― ryan (ryan), Sunday, 9 January 2005 18:51 (twenty years ago)

The bard's noserag!
You can almost taste it, can't you?

― nada, Sunday, 9 January 2005 19:26 (twenty years ago)

It wasn't terrible, but it didn't really add up to much, did it? It felt very impersonal, like Eastwood the director was just going through the (very tasteful, well-executed) motions. He really hit every audience-participation button, there were people laughing and crying and even clapping at all the right moments.

For me, it was too funny (or too often trying to be funny) and too melodramatic to work with the hyper-spare characters and situation. The actual boxing scenes were repetitive without being interesting, he should have cut some of them or made them more integral. I didn't have much of a problem with Swank's relatives - I've got the hyper-religious version of bloodsucking hillbilly relatives. The twist seemed to work on most of the audience (gasps, sniffles), but it followed FX O'Toole's short story point for point on that (O'Toole's short stories are excellent, much better than the film).

― milozauckerman (miloaukerman), Monday, 10 January 2005 02:23 (twenty years ago)

I didn't actually think it was a "twist" at all.

― .adam (nordicskilla), Monday, 10 January 2005 02:34 (twenty years ago)

You should have saved yer money and stuck with Billion Dollar Babies:

http://www.alicecoopertrivia.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/albums/page_images/a-bdb1.jpg

― donut christ (donut), Monday, 10 January 2005 02:35 (twenty years ago)

Yes!

― .adam (nordicskilla), Monday, 10 January 2005 02:37 (twenty years ago)

i liked it too.

― mark p (Mark P), Monday, 10 January 2005 04:33 (twenty years ago)

You're all wrong!

― .adam (nordicskilla), Monday, 10 January 2005 04:39 (twenty years ago)

adam, it's a fine line between being adorable and curmudgeonly and being miccio.

― mark p (Mark P), Monday, 10 January 2005 04:46 (twenty years ago)

la-da da-da-da!

― j blount (papa la bas), Monday, 10 January 2005 07:27 (twenty years ago)

I liked it on balance, but checked out mentally after the insane twist at the 2/3 point. Up til then it was a highly watchable rehash of every fight film from "Golden Boy" to "Rocky IV."

No sportswriter interviewing Hillary Swank could tell her what Mo Cuishla meant?

― Dr Morbius (Dr Morbius), Monday, 10 January 2005 14:24 (twenty years ago)

she's a wonderful actress.

― mark p (Mark P), Monday, 10 January 2005 15:12 (twenty years ago)

Actually, I thought she was good. But the movie still suuuuuucked!

― .adam (nordicskilla), Monday, 10 January 2005 16:01 (twenty years ago)

well, that was sort of intense.

― Amateur(ist) (Amateur(ist)), Tuesday, 18 January 2005 21:08 (twenty years ago)

i like how the priest isn't the definitive voice of authority, he's just another guy, and he says what you'd expect a priest to say, and is even kind of an asshole about it.

― Amateur(ist) (Amateur(ist)), Tuesday, 18 January 2005 21:10 (twenty years ago)

eastwood is now indistinguishable from dirty den. all either does is mope around inaudibly in darkened corners. "mmmgrmmhgmmhmmmnmnmbghmmm protect yourself mblmnmmghhhbbmmmnmmnm sharon the club mmmmmblmmmmnmm"

― Marcello Carlin, Wednesday, 19 January 2005 08:18 (twenty years ago)

HATED the priest! :)

― .ada.m. (nordicskilla), Wednesday, 19 January 2005 08:27 (twenty years ago)

Go to bed.

― jaymc (jaymc), Wednesday, 19 January 2005 08:38 (twenty years ago)

gimme spoilerz!

― Miles Finch, Wednesday, 19 January 2005 09:35 (twenty years ago)

The enire last act requires citing Wilde on Dickens: "One must have a heart of stone to read the death of little Nell without laughing."

― Dr Morbius (Dr Morbius), Wednesday, 19 January 2005 14:28 (twenty years ago)

I am afraid to say I have ruined the ending for the vast majority of people I know. They all asked first, though.

― .ada.m. (nordicskilla), Wednesday, 19 January 2005 16:15 (twenty years ago)

i don't see how you could hate the movie that much! it was excellent! (albeit, depressing as fuck.)

― Amateur(ist) (Amateur(ist)), Wednesday, 19 January 2005 16:16 (twenty years ago)

ruin it for me adam!

― Miles Finch, Wednesday, 19 January 2005 16:17 (twenty years ago)

I am sorry, Amst., I really did hate it! I do appear to be in a minority, though...

― .ada.m. (nordicskilla), Wednesday, 19 January 2005 16:19 (twenty years ago)

I won't ruin it on here. That wouldn't be very sporting of me.

― .ada.m. (nordicskilla), Wednesday, 19 January 2005 16:19 (twenty years ago)

ah, okay, i googled it. so it really *was* all a dream?

― Miles Finch, Wednesday, 19 January 2005 16:27 (twenty years ago)

SPOILERZ

White trash Swank makes ends meet by donating surplus body parts like legs and tongues. Whilst doped out of her face in hospital she constructs an elaborate fantasy life for herself whereby she was a boxing world title contender being trained by an elderly Clint Eastwood, who is actually a janitor in the hospital. Morgan Freeman plays Red, an old cunt who knows how to get things and won't SHUT THE FUCK UP FOR TWO FUCKING MINUTES.

― Onimo (GerryNemo), Wednesday, 19 January 2005 16:41 (twenty years ago)

something like that.

― .ada.m. (nordicskilla), Wednesday, 19 January 2005 16:44 (twenty years ago)

That would actually be kinda interesting!

― jaymc (jaymc), Wednesday, 19 January 2005 16:53 (twenty years ago)

One thing I was thinking about, and I'm cautious to throw this half-thought out there, is how this seemed to be a very specifically American film in a way that I can't quite put my finger on. This is not necessarily a negative thing, but it seemed to draw on a lot of classically and rather contemporary domestic themes as well as a narrative/genre tradition that belongs here, however widespread this entertainment culture might be. I have to admit that it kind of made me feel like an outsider, just a little bit, in a way that a film like Friday Night Lights did not. Curious as to what other non-Americans might think about this.

Maybe I'm on shaky ground.

― .ada.m. (nordicskilla), Wednesday, 19 January 2005 17:04 (twenty years ago)

I'm not entirely sure I know who Knute Rockne is, well I know a bit abou him I guess.

― .ada.m. (nordicskilla), Wednesday, 19 January 2005 17:05 (twenty years ago)

Wait, I would think that Friday Night Lights would be just as American? Can you elaborate on that? (NB I didn't see it.)

― jaymc (jaymc), Wednesday, 19 January 2005 17:09 (twenty years ago)

It is, perhaps even more so. But I felt like FNL gave me this privileged view of something I knew nothing about whereas MDB assumed that culturally (and maybe politically?) I was already on its level before I entered the theater. And I felt a kind of disconnect there.

Does this make sense?

― .ada.m. (nordicskilla), Wednesday, 19 January 2005 17:12 (twenty years ago)

Oh, okay. Hmmmm. It makes sense, but I'm having a hard time pinpointing the specific Americanisms about Million Dollar Baby.

― jaymc (jaymc), Wednesday, 19 January 2005 17:14 (twenty years ago)

Friday Nights Lights has a wonderful quality about it where it seems to be saying "isn't this crazy?" at points while also allowing all the characters some dignity.

― ryan (ryan), Wednesday, 19 January 2005 17:17 (twenty years ago)

Ummmmmm, yeah. I guess it is all relative. I think there is a weird kind of self-conscious heroic fatalism in the movie that is becoming more of a feature of some "serious" American films. But I'm sure there will be people who disagree with me (that this exists or that it is specific to the US).

(xpost)

― .ada.m. (nordicskilla), Wednesday, 19 January 2005 17:17 (twenty years ago)

It is very hard for me to talk about this without sounding like I am making generalizations. Sorry.

― .ada.m. (nordicskilla), Wednesday, 19 January 2005 17:19 (twenty years ago)

In many ways this seemed like a very old-fashioned film as well - what character wasn't a cliche? Was the ending contemporary or was it melodrama worthy of Douglas Sirk or Tennessee Williams?

― .ada.m. (nordicskilla), Wednesday, 19 January 2005 17:28 (twenty years ago)

I'm paraphrasing Sarah, but she also found the whole hard-working poor folk versus lazy poor folk thing a bit suspect. It's better to work hard and lose your legs. It's also fine to hassle theologians if you attend church every day. A bit strange?

― .ada.m. (nordicskilla), Wednesday, 19 January 2005 18:01 (twenty years ago)

I don't think the movie conveyed the sense that it was fine that Clint hassled the priest.

― jaymc (jaymc), Wednesday, 19 January 2005 18:02 (twenty years ago)

i thought the handling of the priest was really interesting.

― Amateur(ist) (Amateur(ist)), Wednesday, 19 January 2005 18:05 (twenty years ago)

it was banter. Respectful banter. Clint's character is a square peg in a round hole...but only a teeny tiny bit too square to fit. An octagon, maybe?

― .ada.m. (nordicskilla), Wednesday, 19 January 2005 18:06 (twenty years ago)

It seemed very good natured to me, tough-old-coot and whippersnapper-priest trading barbs because they can't really talk about deeper issues until the end. (Would a priest actually call a parishioner a pagan?) This means Clint was borrowing plot elements from That '70s Show, of course.

― milozauckerman (miloaukerman), Wednesday, 19 January 2005 18:07 (twenty years ago)

but even when they were talking about "deeper issues," the priest just kind of gave him the official church line and then walked away, more than slightly rudely. i mean, it was evident that the priest believed in the official church line. but eastwood rejects it pretty definitively. so it's like all 25 years of beating around the bush with the priest added up to less than nothing. i thought that was interesting.

― Amateur(ist) (Amateur(ist)), Wednesday, 19 January 2005 18:12 (twenty years ago)

i liked the church scenes too. they did a nice job of showing how eastwood's character chronically tries to exert his own control onto any situation that requires the teensiest bit of faith.

― mark p (Mark P), Wednesday, 19 January 2005 18:33 (twenty years ago)

Hmmmmm...I just found it kind of forced. Every scene, every character was just such an obvious cipher, I can see this film being used in screenwriting classes for years to come.

― .ada.m. (nordicskilla), Wednesday, 19 January 2005 18:37 (twenty years ago)

also, i think adam is onto something upthread - there's a certain time-honored american tradition to this film that i felt like i had to surrender to at first, one that could certainly register as cliche if you're not willing to accept that eastwood is operating within a very specific genre here. that said, i think he also plays with the genre a bit - maybe one of the reasons people like mdb so much is because its a sort of boiled down, more humble take on "the american film" that checks anything resembling bravado and "epic sweep" at the door?

― mark p (Mark P), Wednesday, 19 January 2005 18:41 (twenty years ago)

yeah I was totally expecting the Bowery Boys or the Dead End Kids to pop up somewhere!

(not really)

― .ada.m. (nordicskilla), Wednesday, 19 January 2005 18:45 (twenty years ago)

Was the child molester in Mystic River a priest?

― milozauckerman (miloaukerman), Wednesday, 19 January 2005 20:12 (twenty years ago)

(the first one, not the guy Tim Robbins cuts up)

― milozauckerman (miloaukerman), Wednesday, 19 January 2005 20:13 (twenty years ago)

yes.

― .ada.m. (nordicskilla), Wednesday, 19 January 2005 20:14 (twenty years ago)

I liked the priest too -- more than I did Clint's side as guilt-wracked parishioner. (Apparently the priest Karl Malden was based on in On The Waterfront cursed worse than the longshoremen.)

Michael Sragow generally agrees w/Adam, tho:

http://www.baltimoresun.com/entertainment/movies/bal-to.million14jan14,1,577492.story?coll=bal-artslife-movies&ctrack=3&cset=true

― Dr Morbius (Dr Morbius), Wednesday, 19 January 2005 20:34 (twenty years ago)

any chance you could paste it? :)

― .ada.m. (nordicskilla), Wednesday, 19 January 2005 20:38 (twenty years ago)

four weeks pass...

can someone explain the very last shot? was the woman in the diner his daughter? was the diner the one that had the good lemon pie?

― a banana (alanbanana), Friday, 18 February 2005 06:15 (twenty years ago)

the good lemon pie that's NOT WORTH LIVING FOR ANYMORE?

― Fish fingers all in a line (kenan), Friday, 18 February 2005 06:18 (twenty years ago)

I don't know what I'm talking about. I haven't seen the movie.

― Fish fingers all in a line (kenan), Friday, 18 February 2005 06:19 (twenty years ago)

Lemon Blueberry pie is the bee's knees.

― Jeff-PTTL (Jeff), Friday, 18 February 2005 06:47 (twenty years ago)

I like yogurt. If ever I were horribly disabled or disfigured, I think I'd go on just for the yogurt.

― Fish fingers all in a line (kenan), Friday, 18 February 2005 06:49 (twenty years ago)

can someone explain the very last shot? was the woman in the diner his daughter? was the diner the one that had the good lemon pie?

It was the same diner that sold the nice pie. I think the scene is hinting that this is where Frankie ends up after he disappears - this isn't explicitly stated because Red/Ed doesn't know where Frankie is and therefore can't give you a handy narrative to tie up the loose ends.

― Onimo (GerryNemo), Friday, 18 February 2005 08:26 (twenty years ago)

the woman in the diner looked like maggie's mother a bit didnt she?

did anyone else get the sense that the letters frankie writes to his daughter represented prayers or confessions to God? and hence the lack of replies? i like how it didnt feel the need to justify the "character" of his daughter by introducing her. and scrap's "letter" to her is really just his own confession no?

― Beagle Boy (Beagle Boy), Tuesday, 22 February 2005 12:25 (twenty years ago)

six months pass...

i agree with adam about this. it was crappy and american. i think i've already seen this same movie 9000 times. why does this garbage get oscars??

― caitlin oh no (caitxa1), Sunday, 28 August 2005 14:51 (nineteen years ago)

A friend lent me a copy of "Positif" with a big feature on this movie. They call Eastwood a "classicist" in every other line.

My main impression after having seen "Million Dollar Baby" was basically that it was done with good intentions. Which is nice, but not quite up to what I expect a movie to do for me.

I saw bits of another Eastwood movie yesterday while hanging out with same friend. Clint said that he was going to piss on someone's grave. Sadly we had to leave before we could find out whether or not he did.

― Daniel_Rf (Daniel_Rf), Sunday, 28 August 2005 15:32 (nineteen years ago)

hmm, i didn't realize there was a thread on this. yes, it was riddled with cliches and all emotionally manipulative and whatever. but i liked it. it wasn't a spectacular movie or anything, but likeable.

i got it because it was supposed to be good or something and i like hilary swank. and then read the netflix summary, and thought i'd probably hate it because it would end up being one more movie about how determination can solve all your problems, blahblah so-called inspirational claptrap. watching it, though, i liked the way it was turned around at the end, the way determination ended up being portrayed differently than might be expected (imo, anyway, in a typical american movie).

also, good lemon pie is so much more worth living for than yogurt.

― Juulia (julesbdules), Sunday, 28 August 2005 15:52 (nineteen years ago)

yeah, i find hilary swank very likeable. i just don't understand why people haven't gotten tired of this kind of thing.

― caitlin oh no (caitxa1), Sunday, 28 August 2005 16:02 (nineteen years ago)

why does this garbage get oscars??

Because they're tired of giving epic garbage like The Aviator and contemptible faux-indie garbage like Sideways Oscars?

― Eric H. (Eric H.), Sunday, 28 August 2005 16:16 (nineteen years ago)

I'll admit the heralding of this as some sort of grand return to 1930s studio B-list/second-gear workmanlike greatness is a tad overstated (i.e. you could essentially argue the same for Escape from L.A.)... but I liked it more than Mystic River at any rate.

― Eric H. (Eric H.), Sunday, 28 August 2005 16:20 (nineteen years ago)

I have recently abandoned all hope for mainstream American movies, and even for most of the indie ones. I am become a corny foreign-film fuck, a... Subtitlist.

― M. V. (M.V.), Sunday, 28 August 2005 16:46 (nineteen years ago)

me too :(

― caitlin oh no (caitxa1), Sunday, 28 August 2005 18:33 (nineteen years ago)

good for you, Caitlin!

― Adam In Real Life (nordicskilla), Sunday, 28 August 2005 18:35 (nineteen years ago)

i'm pretty sick of most american films these days, yeah.

― gear (gear), Sunday, 28 August 2005 19:21 (nineteen years ago)

Americans sometimes make good cartoons, but totally by accident. Otherwise, that's it.

― Adam In Real Life (nordicskilla), Sunday, 28 August 2005 19:22 (nineteen years ago)

i mean sure, you can make lame romantic comedies and by-the-numbers action films and ugly DV indie pics sound interesting by refracting them through the prism of bullshit film theory, but the actual viewing experience reveals for the most part calculated, heartless fuckwaddery. ha, i read old reviews of The Getaway from '72, going on about how empty it is and you wonder what those writers would say today.

― gear (gear), Sunday, 28 August 2005 19:27 (nineteen years ago)

a little more Peckinpah, a little less Ratner/Liman/Soderbergh, please

― gear (gear), Sunday, 28 August 2005 19:27 (nineteen years ago)

American genre movies are still pretty good. I enjoyed The Devil's Rejects and Wedding Crashers as much as any film I've seen lately (and they were as well made as anything, too.)

I have zero tolerance for Amerindie bullshit and 'status' pictures like MDB, though.

― milozauckerman (miloaukerman), Sunday, 28 August 2005 20:25 (nineteen years ago)

three weeks pass...

Million Dollar Baby?

Interestingly presented. Cliches? Plenty of movies use them.

Considering the fact this could have turned into some 'Rocky' thing,
I found it quite different at the 'turning point' mentioned in this
thread.

The 'Americanism' within this movie? Proof positive people in the
world are only out for themselves.

Fortunate (as much as unfortunate...) everyone has their own opinion.
Tragedies in N.O., MO. from Katrina, government failure to administer
proper 'aid'.... to how those experiencing the aftermath reacted:

Pillaging, raping, looting (under the 'survival' guise...).

All this goes to show just how effective government has been in
stepping in and taking over a complete country - every man for himself.

Fights were turned down. To protect his 'prize'? No, he KNEW she
wasn't ready. As in life, millions believe they're either ready or
capable when truly they are not.

People either of experience through knowledge or own personal experiences attempt to offer, provide, and educate those of a
'wreckless' nature. These would be the ones to stand the same
fate this movie offers. Full out, head strong... ending up with
tragedy.

Pay attention to what you do in life. Consider all those around
you. If you didn't have to 'watch out for the others' life could
be a bit better. People of 'experience' offer decent advice, but
all too often receivers fail to listen.

She was told rule no.1 over and over - always protect yourself.

We all live by certain standards and usually never the same. We
have what we have and it is up to us what we do with it while on
this earth. Some chose to end lives, some intent to 'disrupt' others. In most all cases there is little consideration toward
others - "...is she going to be okay? Maybe I should send her something..." "...how about your check, I'm sure she'd take it..."

There is far more greed in this world than anything else.

Value life, for tangible goods have ZERO

― HarBeK, Sunday, 18 September 2005 17:14 (nineteen years ago)

two years pass...

I watched this on C4 last night.

Essentially a dysfunctional Brian Dennehy TV movie which thinks it's Ozu but in reality is closer to Omo. For David Thomson types who think that cinema is about filling a stage with people and then pointing a camera at them for three hours, all the while forgetting to put a shilling in the meter.

― Dingbod Kesterson, Monday, 4 February 2008 13:42 (seventeen years ago)

why does this garbage get oscars??

That's an easy one. It's because no best picture oscar will ever go to a film with low grosses at the box office, or to a picture so egregiously lowbrow that it screams I Was Made For Idiots! This limits the choices to middle-of-the-road yawners and 'daring' films that step three inches outside their cliched formula.

It's always been like that.

― Aimless, Monday, 4 February 2008 18:26 (seventeen years ago)

You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.