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
Yeah, I'm pretty sure it's illegal.
And I'd like to reiterate, I think what the character did was wrong, but I never felt that the film had an agenda that euthanisia was good.
RE: "What "old couple"? Or is this just another puritanical aphorism -- something akin to the battle cry "what about the children"?"
Oh, God, will somebody PLEASE think of the children??!!!
Remember that it takes a village to raise your child for you in the minds of the socialist left and "moral police" right alike.
I know you're yanking my chain, and that's ok.... I'll play along.
You're showing your ignorance, as you don't have any idea what I watch....FOR FREE.
I have cable, and tune in to movies that seem interesting to me. If I find one of the actors repugnant, I MAY choose not to watch it, because it takes away from the enjoyment of watching said film. Explain to me, if you will, why that makes me less artistically savvy than you.
You have made judgments about me without knowing me. I responded in kind. I have a website where I voice my opinion. Do you?
Mine is www.lisamalia.com Feel free to visit it, then form your opinion about me.
All I ask is that you be fair about it, and don't spout insults to me willy-nilly, and I will do the same.
Your posts on this thread have been excellent.
What was the "battle that was going to demand more heart and courage than they have ever known?"
Was it a championship fight? Was it a court case to prpohibit female boxing? Was the Clint Eastwood character going to get cancer? Was the female bozer's family going to try and stop her from competeing?
I have given four reasonable conclusions about "the battle." None is close to the real theme of the movie.
My conclusion is that the studio and the advertising misled patrons.
RE: "I have cable, and tune in to movies that seem interesting to me. If I find one of the actors repugnant, I MAY choose not to watch it, because it takes away from the enjoyment of watching said film. Explain to me, if you will, why that makes me less artistically savvy than you."
That's an easy one. It makes you a little less than "artistically savvy"(as you put it) because it means that you lack the mature ability to discern reality from fiction. If you cannot accept an actor in a non-political film role because of his or her personal political beliefs, you will have a severe problem trying to enjoy the best of what the cinema has to offer.
Thanks for the offer to visit your website, but I'll have to pass. I've already read my fill of BS for today.
"Cinematic need," or an agenda?
And what exactly is being "examined" in this case? I'd call it a trial balloon. An advertisement. Hollywood has pathologically always "entertained" behind a veil of overt propaganda. What a convoluted drama this movie is -- just to justify Euthanasia. Abortion. Adultery. Murder. The worst of "human nature" celebrated ad infinitum.
"The emotional power and truth of those dark, grim movies like MDB and Mystic River often linger in the memory long after the Spider-man and Shreck films have faded away."
A movie like MDB violates the human psyche and spirit -- that's why it indeed conveys "emotional power."
Grim is the word.
I also can't stand hearing
"Drug and Alcohol abuse"- as if they were both the same thing.
Drugs- ARE ILLEGAL
Alcohol- IS LEGAL
That's why I don't enjoy paying to see movies which are based on the same theme. Very "yucky".
Ummm....I don't think we're talking off the same page. My comment had to do with "Mystic River".
Look, if you're going to argue that age, aches and pains give one man a right to illegally abuse drugs while denying another man the same right, then we are going to be here a long time.
And you are getting dangerously close to contradicting your own statements on MDB in the process (a movie in which a character in severe pain and physical torment decides to put themselves out of their own misery, not with mind-altering drugs like Rush Limbaugh but by way of suicide).
Why do you wish to argue with this guy? He is rude and insulting, not worth the time.
Yes, I'm waiting,
I like Rush, I also think Nirvana was one of the greatest bands ever of all time thankyouverymuch,
Theres a difference between someone who goes out and seeks drugs just for the hell of it and ends up getting himself addicted and dying of an overdose
and someone who was prescribed drugs for legitimate medical reasons and becomes dependent-
RE: "Cinematic need," or an agenda?"
Eye of the beholder. To you, The Passion of the Christ might be an example of a film that fills a cinematic need. To others, The Passion pushes an agenda. It's the same with MDB, Vera Drake, and any other film that seek to take a stand on a difficult subject that affects the world that we live in.
RE: "What a convoluted drama this movie is -- just to justify Euthanasia. Abortion. Adultery. Murder. The worst of "human nature" celebrated ad infinitum."
Your personal opinion on a political matter does not make that matter "out-of-bounds" as the subject of a film.
Roger Ebert said it best when he famously claimed that a film "Is not about what it's about; it's about HOW it's about it".
RE: "A movie like MDB violates the human psyche and spirit -- that's why it indeed conveys "emotional power."
...because MDB violates your political opinions and values, you say that it violates the "human spirit". Ugh, remind me again why I humor your delusions of importance?
From an 18 year old to a 22 year old
You're really pissing allot of people off
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.