Posted on 02/07/2005 3:03:09 PM PST by EveningStar
Medved on O'Reilly tonight to debate Million Dollar Baby.
Fox: 8 Easter / 5 Pacific
RE: "Million Dollar Baby was advertised DECEPTIVELY- and a good many people are angry that they thought they were going to see a boxing movie and instead had the LEFTIST LIBERAL AGENDA shoved down their throat"
Right on, lauralee. I'm with you all the way. In fact, I even gave away the ending to the Crying Game because I was outraged that it had 'dem evil "homos" in it to. DAMN HOLLYWOOD LEFTIST AGENDA!!! ARGHH!
//intense, very angry sarcasm off//
RE: "Michael Medved has a good point about the movie...how many after watching the previews could know it was a pro-assisted suicide flick and NOT a movie about boxing?"
And how many people believe in actually watching the damn movie before they make snap judgements about it? Obviously not Michael Medved.
RE: "I've seen advertisements-
but I don't want to see a movie about Euthanasia"
And just what DO you want to see a movie about? Please don't answer Jesus, because we've all seen the Passion already and you have to move on sometime.
What's your problem???
RE: "Was it a film about a man who was searching for faith, but who in the end risks losing his salvation? Was it about two small time nobodies who together achieved something that was larger than either one of them could have achieved on their own? Was it a film about going all out to achieve something big, regardless of the cost? Was it a film about a father who lost a daughter, who then gained a daughter, who then lost her as well?"
You did a good job of identifying the themes of the movie, actually. I agree that MDB was "about" all of these to a certain extent, with each mini-theme coming to the surface in their own turn. Just like in life, there's no one clear message to take from it. I thought that MDB worked all the better for that than if it has another simple-minded (or as I like to call it, "Boston Public"), TV-movie "lesson" to preach.
RE: "I was genuinely mad at a co-worker who recommended the Crying game w/o telling me what it was about. Thanks on this one MM."
And one day, when you're no longer too chickens**t to see a really good movie, you can rent it and be amazed. You don't have to thank me afterwards...
RE: "I'm going to go off topic and say how much I hated the movie sideways, please save yourself from the vulgar and trite movie."
Bad wine, friend?
I thought that Sideways was one of the wittiest, funniest (really), and most sheerly entertaining movies of the year, deserving of every critical kudos that has been bestowed on it this awards season. And Paul Giammati isn't up for this years Best Actor Oscar-- a capitol offense.
RE: "And Warner Brothers never tells you the truth about a key plot twist that turns this pedestrian boxing movie into an insufferable manipulative right to die movie. With one of the characters horribly handicapped begging for assisted suicide."
There's the giveaway right there, as comprehensive as direct as all it's been cracked up to be. And Medved's "Eye on Entertainment" reviews are pretty horrible anyway (even for capsule reviews), focusing almost exclusively on what Medved feels is "objectionable content" while ignoring the quality of the acting, writing, direction, craft, and impact of the movie itself. There's only one true Screenit.com, Mike, and they even write more relevant reviews than yours.
RE: "Personally, the person who I think REALLY deserves it is Mel Gibson, who has essentially been shut out by those open-minded folks in Hollywood"
Annoying FReeper clause number 517: In all threads pertaining to the art of the cinema, there is to be at least one mention of The Passion of the Christ. God will strike you dead if you don't plug the Passion just one more time.
RE: "I am adamantly against euthenasia and recommend this movie for everyone who truly enjoys a work of art."
Sorry, varina, but many Freepers don't.
RE: "I thought I would give the Hollywood community one more chance, and see how they would treat "The Passion of the Christ" during the award season. True to form, it was snubbed, as they have their own type of what I guess they consider 'acceptable' prejudice.
That was the last movie I paid money to see, and I don't see anymore box office $$$s going to Hollywood via my pocketbook in the near future."
I think you might just be the writer of my "rule" in post # 129. Remember, God will condemn you to Hell if you dare to watch movies that aren't exclusively about Him.
RE: "That was the last movie I paid money to see, and I don't see anymore box office $$$s going to Hollywood via my pocketbook in the near future."
Oh, and this admission makes you the winner of the Boycott-Robot award for the FReeper with the very least to say of any value or credibility on this entire thread.
If you don't care about movies enough to watch one every now and again, then why the hell should we care what you think about them?
I just saw the funniest movie I've seen in years last night on video after the SuperBowl- Napoleon Dynamite. Incredible! I see about 6 movies a year at the theater so it has to be outstanding for me to waste my time. I've seen Sideways, which was pretty funny. Napoleon Dynamite is so much better.
bttt
Three cheers to your post 109, darkwolf.
You get it, man.
RE: "What's your problem???"
If you actually read any of my posts to begin with, you'd know that my point is very clear. Medved violated the most basic customs of common cinema courtesy and his duties as a film critic when he stupidly gave away the surprise plot developements to a first run movie (spoiling the intentional surprises for millions) out of spite because it offended his personal political beliefs.
That's my "problem" with Medved. He is a damn fool if he thinks that he can play the spoiler with an axe to grind and keep any semblence of credibility as a movie critic.
....and what in the heck was American Psycho about????
Critics give away the endings to movies all the time. Heck, most trailers tell all the good jokes when advertising a comedy. Ebert himself says that American audiences love to see what they expect to see, which is why most trailers give away the plot of a film before you pay money to see it.
Chris Reeves did in real life what the script wouldn't allow Maggie Fitzgerald to do in a movie: find a reason and a will to live.
****There's a lot of other stuff in there. *****
Of course it is simply a coincidence that Eastwood is a daily Mass-goer for 23 years! No message or agenda implied, right!
From your home page:
I'm a 22 year old radical young Republican
Michael Medved also has a new book out "Right Turns" in which he describes his journey from liberal to conservative views. He and his wife have also authored a book (or more) about raising children in today's media environment.
I respect your passion to defend "art" but if you are introspective at all, you must consider that you are defending your perspective on art and movie-making from the years of experience you have had, versus the years of experience that MM has had.
I am trying to say that the world of 1994-2005 is already a world of images that you consider 'normal' but are gross distortions or exaggerations from the world that might be (and has been in the past) healthier to the minds and psyches of children.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.