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
Why did they want to kill the woman?
Satanic? SATANIC??? In what way? Did you see the movie? Are you serious? I'm trying to not laugh. You must be joking.
This is getting ridiculous.
"My wife liked Mystic River a lot."
I thought Mystic River was well done too, but not due to Eastwood; due to the material. Dennis Lahane is an AWESOME author. The actors pretty much just had to show up for that one. ;)
"A Drink Before the War" was very good too, and though he's improved greatly since his first novel, but you can tell he was born a talented storyteller.
http://www.dennislehanebooks.com/
I myself don't NEED it (The Passion) to espouse my personal spiritual viewpoint nor do I base my opinion on what you snidely call the FReeper clause number 517, but rather that it is a powerful (or good/great/amazing-whatever fits) movie and should not be arbitrarily dismissed BECAUSE it is clearly a movie with a spiritual viewpoint. (And God help me, I loved Ben Hur, too. Another one of those pesky "religious" movies that won Best Picture, Actor, Director, etc. Lest we not forget The Ten Commandments as well.) When I hear/see people such as you who dismiss anyone who has the opinion that The Passion is worthy of significant industry recognition and who imply the people such as myself who were impressed by the movie have some sort of knee-jerk reaction to that movie's non-inclusion to the upcoming festivities, I have the distinct impression that it is not "we" who have the "problem".
Like many other people in FReeperland and elsewhere, I, too, have the ability to think things through and sometimes necessarily apart from my spiritual viewpoint can and do come to thoughtful conclusions. In this case, I just happen to think the best movie of last year - to which you obviously disagree, and that's OK, too - was The Passion, but at the VERY LEAST should have been offered for consideration to the Academy members to vote on in those categories it OBVIOUSLY qualifies for, even if it didn't actually win the "big prizes", i.e. best movie, director, actor, actress, supporting players, etc. (Reminds me of how the Democrats running the judiciary committee are acting about the judges to be nominated. Or in their case, to NOT be nominated. But I digress.) My guess is that Mr. Gibson could see this before he was out of the gate, and just decided not to waste his time with ads to the Academy, etc. I hope Mr. Gibson makes an appearance at the Awards ceremony. He's such a classy guy.
You have a nice day now, RockAgainsttheLeft04. You hear?
Assisted Suicide? Like in Romeo and Juliette?
Yes, as I said, I took my family to see it, foolishly believing some of the early reviews.
And though we saw it for free, we were over-charged.
According to Dictionary.com, the definition of "satanic" is: 1: extremely evil or cruel; expressive of cruelty or befitting hell. [syn: demonic, diabolic, diabolical, fiendish, hellish, infernal, unholy]
I think that covers it well.
MDB pompously manipulated us into liking Eastwood, and then had our hero reluctantly as ever smother the life out of another human being.
IMO "Unforgiven" was one of the greatest films ever made. It showed that life isn't fair; that only God is in charge who uses anything He wants to hand out justice, if that's what He wants to do. "We all got it coming, kid" and "Deserve's got nothing to do with it" are two of the best lines delivered on film.
MDB completely negated the fact that God is in control of His creation and put man firmly back into the driver's seat.
Or so he thinks.
Satanic.
There's not a paralyzed person in the world who doesn't want to kill themselves after they're crippled. Our job should not be to kill these people, but to help them live the lives God has given them with as much joy and dignity and love as we can offer.
I haven't seen the movie, but from what I can understand, the young woman became paralyzed and was in pain so she didn't want to live. The story line is supposed to be about the Eastwood character taking the responsiblility to carry out the girl's wish to die, regardless of the moral guidance of a priest. In other words, the Eastwood character makes a conscious decision to disregard the religious advice of the priest. And, that's supposed to be a good thing in the movie.
A battle which they surrender immediately showing that they never really had any 'heart' or 'courage' anyhow.
'Heart' and 'Courage' are only necessary when things go really, really bad--as in: keep on living even if you are paralyzed and miserable. Now that takes heart and courage. y'know?
Keeping on living and thriving even though you got disfigured and lost your arms in Fallujah. That takes heart and courage.
Hollywood has no idea what 'heart' and 'courage' is.... No idea at all. They can all kiss my butt. What a load of crap--'female' boxing included. Just euthanize all the female boxers, OK?
You have read/seen the play, right? The "assisted suicide" was supposed to be a ruse. No one was supposed to die.
Unlike MDB, where if sweet daddy Eastwood had his way, he's be running the rails all over the country, killing off every unhappy/lame/depressed critter he could find.
Sorta like some satanic Santa Claus on Qualudes.
The entire point to movies is "Entertainment."
Where are the other flicks that uplift and inspire the human spirit rather than glorifying illogical Hollywood premises that continually focus on barfing, defecation, bestiality, and the usual degrading fare of dark themes? That's right -- they're an anomoly these days.
We're sick of thinly veiled social messages masquerading as "art" and "entertainment."
Lol, amen, bro...
It's not enough to feature an absurd theme (female boxing) to begin with, but to glorify two cowards is Hollywood-esque indeed.
What a waste.
Maybe nobody has ever asked him. Why not send him an e-mail or call his show? I'll bet he'd talk to you about it if you can get on. Try it. I'd like to know what he says. You make a good point.
AAAAAHHHHHH!! You told!
: )
Soylent Green is a sled.
Six of one, half-dozen of another.
Exactly. If people are so stupid that they look at one movie poster and make their decision based on that, they deserve to be ripped off.
So all drama has to pass a codes authority run by little StaliNazis, eh?
By the way let me clue you in - there is no such thing as a jedi or the Force.
PS: Don't watch Star Trek - it advocates for a One World secular govt.
Comedies, romances, action-adventures, and even sad, tragic, unhappy movies can accomplish this -- must accomplish this in order for us to feel we've not wasted our time in the darkness being hit in the face with a putrefying pie of somebody's sick agenda.
That's why "Immortal Beloved" and "Raising Arizona" were great movies, and why "American Beauty" and "MDB" are sophomoric piles of lint and mud.
Having seen the film, that is where I disagree. The priest, for one, is not shown as being wrong or as holding Eastwood back. The euthanasia is not presented as being the right thing to do. Yes, Eastwood makes the decision to go through with it, defying the priest, but the priest is not viewed as wrong in the film, and Eastwood's character isn't considered redeemed by the act, nor is he as having made the right choice. It's the decision he made, and the audience can decide whether he was wrong if they wish to. I think he was wrong. I'm morally against euthanasia. But I don't think this film takes any sort of stance in favor of euthanasia, but instead presents it as part of the story.
Anyway, that's my take on the film.
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.