sal Posted February 1, 2005 Report Share Posted February 1, 2005 This is the movie of the year, folks. In a very interesting cinematic year filled with daring and contreversial projects, sleeper comedies, and a wonderful slew of foreign films, this one stands out above the rest. I won't get too much into the plot. All I can say is that it involves a worn down gym owner/boxing manager who reluctantly takes in a student, a girl from the bottom of the socio-economic barrel who views boxing as her only chance in life. As in any Clint Eastwood film, there is much beneath the surface, and the movie takes an unpredictable turn. Much like "Mystic River" from last year, "Million Dollar Baby" delves deep into its characters and gives you a strong sense of why they do what they do. The mood is bleak and the drama intense. But what emerges is one of the most emotionally powerful films of the new millenium...a new high water mark for Eastwood and easily the best film of the year. Clint Eastwood gives the best acting performance of his career, and I've seen just about everything he's been in. He really acts in this movie, which is something that I think has been missing from his past few performances. He isn't just "Clint Eastwood" on screen like he normally is...he becomes his character 100%. Look out, Jamie Foxx....Mr. Eastwood might be going home with your Oscar. Hillary Swank gives her best perfomance ever as well, eclipsing her role in "Boys Don't Cry". She's tough, funny, and extremely convincing as a boxer. And while it might not be his best role ever, Morgan Freeman gives his best performance since " The Shawshank Redemption". Don't be surprised if both Hillary and Morgan take home Oscars later this month. The film is photographed to perfection, and delivers healthy doses of excitement, humor and pure emotional intensity. The boxing scenes give "Raging Bull" a run for its money. And if you even have a small amount of appreciation for good film, you will not walk out of the theater unaffected. For the first time in a lot of years, I found myself glued to my seat at the end....sitting there through the credits and until the lights went on, unable to move. Don't miss this one. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RonF Posted February 1, 2005 Report Share Posted February 1, 2005 I agree sal. Great film. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jlhoots Posted February 2, 2005 Report Share Posted February 2, 2005 Me too. Powerful stuff. Off topic, but Hotel Rwanda was excellent too. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soul Stream Posted February 2, 2005 Report Share Posted February 2, 2005 Wow. Guess I'll have to be the lone dissent. Not to give anything away, but it was like watching two different movies. Neither of which I thought was particularly convincing. Although Yahoo movie gives it an A critics and B+ user. I get the feeling I'm 1/10 of 1% that didn't dig it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J Larsen Posted February 6, 2005 Report Share Posted February 6, 2005 Wow. Guess I'll have to be the lone dissent. Not to give anything away, but it was like watching two different movies. Neither of which I thought was particularly convincing. Although Yahoo movie gives it an A critics and B+ user. I get the feeling I'm 1/10 of 1% that didn't dig it. Make room in that 1/10 of a percent for me (and my girlfriend). I thought this was the worst Eastwood movie ever. On my very long list of complaints is the awkward pacing of the film. She goes from not being able to hit a speed bag to being 13-0 in about fifteen minutes, whereas you feel like you're stuck in a time trap for the final few days portrayed in the film. In a certain way, the film reminded me of Requeim for a Dream. Both films wanted to hit me in the gut, but both went about it in such a contrived way that I walked out feeling talked down to and a little pissed off. I have a huge amount of respect for Clint Eastwood, so this was a real bummer for me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soul Stream Posted February 6, 2005 Report Share Posted February 6, 2005 Wow. Guess I'll have to be the lone dissent. Not to give anything away, but it was like watching two different movies. Neither of which I thought was particularly convincing. Although Yahoo movie gives it an A critics and B+ user. I get the feeling I'm 1/10 of 1% that didn't dig it. Make room in that 1/10 of a percent for me (and my girlfriend). I thought this was the worst Eastwood movie ever. On my very long list of complaints is the awkward pacing of the film. She goes from not being able to hit a speed bag to being 13-0 in about fifteen minutes, whereas you feel like you're stuck in a time trap for the final few days portrayed in the film. In a certain way, the film reminded me of Requeim for a Dream. Both films wanted to hit me in the gut, but both went about it in such a contrived way that I walked out feeling talked down to and a little pissed off. I have a huge amount of respect for Clint Eastwood, so this was a real bummer for me. Glad to know I'm not the only one thinking this thing was a big dud. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sal Posted February 6, 2005 Author Report Share Posted February 6, 2005 Eastwood, perhaps more than most directors around these days, seems to affect viewers in a way that is either black or white. Either people come out of his films unaffected and unsatisfied, or they are really pulled into the emotional plights of the characters and come out of the films and come out like they just got hit by an 18 wheeler. I don't know of anyone who has ever been "in between" with these movies. "Mystic River", which to me was his best film since "Unforgiven", seemed to draw similar reactions. It just didn't work for some. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BruceH Posted February 6, 2005 Report Share Posted February 6, 2005 Well, I liked it, flaws and all. A solid, traditional Hollywood movie. Aside from the swearing and blood, it could have been from the 40's or 50's, which is what I liked about it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soul Stream Posted February 6, 2005 Report Share Posted February 6, 2005 Eastwood, perhaps more than most directors around these days, seems to affect viewers in a way that is either black or white. Either people come out of his films unaffected and unsatisfied, or they are really pulled into the emotional plights of the characters and come out of the films and come out like they just got hit by an 18 wheeler. I don't know of anyone who has ever been "in between" with these movies. "Mystic River", which to me was his best film since "Unforgiven", seemed to draw similar reactions. It just didn't work for some. I liked Mystic River because of one major difference. Sean Penn can act. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jlhoots Posted February 7, 2005 Report Share Posted February 7, 2005 Eastwood, perhaps more than most directors around these days, seems to affect viewers in a way that is either black or white. Either people come out of his films unaffected and unsatisfied, or they are really pulled into the emotional plights of the characters and come out of the films and come out like they just got hit by an 18 wheeler. I don't know of anyone who has ever been "in between" with these movies. "Mystic River", which to me was his best film since "Unforgiven", seemed to draw similar reactions. It just didn't work for some. I liked Mystic River because of one major difference. Sean Penn can act. Obviously if you don't like the movie you don't like it (& I do agree about Sean Penn). But - Hillary Swank can't act????, Morgan Freeman can't act???? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soul Stream Posted February 7, 2005 Report Share Posted February 7, 2005 Eastwood, perhaps more than most directors around these days, seems to affect viewers in a way that is either black or white. Either people come out of his films unaffected and unsatisfied, or they are really pulled into the emotional plights of the characters and come out of the films and come out like they just got hit by an 18 wheeler. I don't know of anyone who has ever been "in between" with these movies. "Mystic River", which to me was his best film since "Unforgiven", seemed to draw similar reactions. It just didn't work for some. I liked Mystic River because of one major difference. Sean Penn can act. Obviously if you don't like the movie you don't like it (& I do agree about Sean Penn). But - Hillary Swank can't act????, Morgan Freeman can't act???? Yep. At least not in this one. Thought Morgan was doing his usually workmanlike job (No Shawshank Redemption performace here imho). And Hillary Swank...totally unbelievable here. And that accent of hers was just plain bad. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RonF Posted February 7, 2005 Report Share Posted February 7, 2005 Eastwood, perhaps more than most directors around these days, seems to affect viewers in a way that is either black or white. Either people come out of his films unaffected and unsatisfied, or they are really pulled into the emotional plights of the characters and come out of the films and come out like they just got hit by an 18 wheeler. I don't know of anyone who has ever been "in between" with these movies. "Mystic River", which to me was his best film since "Unforgiven", seemed to draw similar reactions. It just didn't work for some. I liked Mystic River because of one major difference. Sean Penn can act. Obviously if you don't like the movie you don't like it (& I do agree about Sean Penn). But - Hillary Swank can't act????, Morgan Freeman can't act???? Yep. At least not in this one. Thought Morgan was doing his usually workmanlike job (No Shawshank Redemption performace here imho). And Hillary Swank...totally unbelievable here. And that accent of hers was just plain bad. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sal Posted February 7, 2005 Author Report Share Posted February 7, 2005 I actually thought Clint gave a fantastic performance. I believe this is the first time I've ever seen him cry on screen. Not that that constitutes a great performance, but it gives an idea of what I mean when I say that he actually acts instead of just appearing as a big screen version of himself. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soul Stream Posted February 7, 2005 Report Share Posted February 7, 2005 Eastwood, perhaps more than most directors around these days, seems to affect viewers in a way that is either black or white. Either people come out of his films unaffected and unsatisfied, or they are really pulled into the emotional plights of the characters and come out of the films and come out like they just got hit by an 18 wheeler. I don't know of anyone who has ever been "in between" with these movies. "Mystic River", which to me was his best film since "Unforgiven", seemed to draw similar reactions. It just didn't work for some. I liked Mystic River because of one major difference. Sean Penn can act. Obviously if you don't like the movie you don't like it (& I do agree about Sean Penn). But - Hillary Swank can't act????, Morgan Freeman can't act???? Yep. At least not in this one. Thought Morgan was doing his usually workmanlike job (No Shawshank Redemption performace here imho). And Hillary Swank...totally unbelievable here. And that accent of hers was just plain bad. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soulstation1 Posted May 10, 2005 Report Share Posted May 10, 2005 (edited) finally saw this flick today and was impressed almost had a tear come out.... almost the way clint filmed the actors faces with 1/2 the face in the dark was really cool he did this with unforgiven also great freakin flick Edited May 10, 2005 by Soulstation1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
_forumlogo.png.a607ef20a6e0c299ab2aa6443aa1f32e.png)
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.