I think "Unforgiven" is one of the five greatest movies ever made.
All films should be technically accomplished. That's a given with $100 million budgets.
Ultimately, a movie is story. And a story worth $10.50/ticket should do two things:
1) Take us to a place we haven't been before.
2) Be morally uplifting, either by the assertion of the narrative (good example) or by the antithesis of the narrative (learning from a bad example.)
Eastwood's latest movie, MDB, celebrates euthanasia. I was appalled at the film's conclusion. No amount of technical proficiency or maudlin sentiment makes up for a lousy final act.
And because Eastwood's melodramatic, pedantic story couldn't even support its own conclusion on the merits of the girl being paralyzed from the neck down, he has to throw in the cheesy plot point that her leg needs to be amputated. We, the audience, is being manipulated mightily to the point where we're supposed to jump up from our seats and yell, "Stop! I can't take it anymore! Kill her now and make my suffering stop!!!"
Eastwood should be ashamed of himself. It is not a good nor Godly thing to take another's life in this manner. We're supposed to think he "sacrificed" his own salvation in order to end her temporal suffering. But IMO they're both damned.
It's a satanic film. Christopher Reeve would have hated it.
I can't comment on the specific details of Million Dollar Baby because I have yet to see it. As I said I can only compare it to other movies where the characters are morally bankrupt. As I said Requiem for a Dream is my prime example of this because each character is a drug addict. Of course in the end it is very much an anti-drug film.
When I said the tecnical skill, some films are presented in a method to make us feel more "in" the film. Sometimes low budget films are more successful at this than the 100 mil epics.
I actually like JFK. I thought the movie was good regardless of political leanings or facts overlooked.
There's more to it then mere technical proficiency. Through framing and editing a director can be critical of a character's actions without having anyone on screen say anything. That said, Eastwood is not that director. He is as forthright as they come.