1 posted on
01/27/2005 6:28:55 PM PST by
Pikamax
To: Pikamax
I seem to be in a minority as to regarding MDB as a primitive tearjerker. Are people's emotions so cheap that they're falling for this thing?
2 posted on
01/27/2005 6:33:25 PM PST by
Borges
To: Pikamax
"There's an unspoken rule you don't reveal reversals in the third act," says Wilmington. Ebert wrote me, "A critic who gives away something like that in his original review will have scorn and hatred heaped upon him by moviegoers. Believe me, I know."
Well, I'm no Ebert fan, but I'm sure he's right about that. Ron Kuby described the movie as "manipulative" and I'm sure he's right about that. I have to say that my opinion is that they HAVE been mis-representing this movie and I'm VERY GLAD I didn't go to see it. I would have been horrified.
It is advertised as a story of triumph, when in fact it is a story of despair.
3 posted on
01/27/2005 6:37:33 PM PST by
jocon307
(Ann Coulter was right)
To: Pikamax
I have my own issue with Million Dollar Baby. It offers the familiar dynamic of a beautiful young woman enthralled with a vastly older hero. The real story was that the guy who wrote "Million Dollar Baby" had a crush on the young fighter ...
8 posted on
01/28/2005 2:20:14 PM PST by
GOPJ
To: Pikamax
Hollywood has a formula now:
Create a bunch of complex characters, toss them in together and mix well, then paint a compelling interesting picture until the audience says, "Where are they going with this?" Then spring a controversial social issue on them and have it resolved according Hollywoods viewpoint. However by the time the credits roll, anyone with half a brain will realize the whole thing was propaganda and contrived from the start.
That's the formula for "Cider House Rules" and "$MM Baby" Is there one like this for homosexual marriage in the works?
11 posted on
01/30/2005 8:41:38 AM PST by
StACase
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson