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: "From Ebert's review of the currently playing Kevin Bacon film, The Woodsman:
===
"For the first several scenes of "The Woodsman," we know that Walter has recently been released from prison but we don't know the nature of his crime. Seeing the film at Cannes last May, I walked in without advance knowledge and was grateful that I had an opportunity to see Kevin Bacon establish the character before that information was supplied. His crime has now been clearly named in virtually everything written about the film, and possibly changes the way it affects a viewer.
"Walter is a pedophile."
===
There it is. Your god, giving away a surprise element about a main character in a currently released film, and fobbing it off as "everyone else is saying it," with no further vitriol issued to the other critics."
Nice try, boyo, but it doesn't quite pass mustard. The difference is that between the premeir of the Woodsman at the Cannes film festival in May and the December release of the movie in selected theaters, the studio itself took every opportunity it could to put the pedophilia angle into all public knowledge of the film; critics were unanimously authorized to reveal the lead character's pedophilia because it was considered to be the main source of conflict in the plot, and indeed every single review that I've read for the Woodsman mentioned that Bacon plays a pedophile.
The difference between MDB's "secret" and the Woodsman's is that the Woodsman's never WAS.
Y'know, I'm so sick of this moral relativistic crap that I swear to God I am going to keep on living no matter how f&*(ed up I am. I promise. Just to show up all the weak sisters and hedonists.
If I am ever injured, paralyzed or whatever, every breath I take with be a spit in the face of the sickos who would rather see me snuffed.
Sorry, kiddo. EBERT didn't have to follow the crowd and give it away. Not everybody follows studio hype. Ebert sold out. Go back to to AICN and curl up with Harry now. 'Night.
RE: "Then how come we have different physical standards in the Army if women are my physical equal?"
Show me where I said I endorsed the Army's practice of differing gender-based standards.
RE: "Why are there still domestic violence laws to protect women if they are physically equal?"
Domestic violence laws are (or should be) for the protection of one SPOUSE against another. So the next time your wife beats you up, let me know and I'll support her prosecution, big boy.
RE: "I don't know what part of your politics is 'right'--you have the leftist agitprop down pat from school, movies and TV."
For starters, you can try my very conservative belief in treating a persona as an individual (regardless of color, creed, gender, sexual orientation), and of protecting the God-given liberties of the individual from being trampled by government-sponsored regulation or repression.
You're probably a little more of a big-government fascist than a conservative though, with you're "if I don't like it, get rid of it" attitude.
RE: "I'll have you know, I care very deeply about 'the cinema'....
LOL!"
My point exactly. You don't know one damn thing about this MOVIE discussion, and you troll this thread looking to get a rise out of me or anybody else more intelligent than yourself (which would include toadstools and chewing gum).
F- off and die.
RE: "Hey, how come there aren't any great women movie directors out there? Hmmmm?"
Shows what you know. How about Jane Campion (the Piano), Penny Marshall (Awakenings; A League of their Own), and Sophia Coppola (the Virgin Suicides; Lost in Translation).
There are just too many real-life examples of people who live in spite of the incredible blows that life deals them to take this movie as seriously as it wishes us to do.
In the film, there are two phrases that are said or shown, at least twice, that make you wonder just what they are supposed to mean givn the later developments:
One is: "Winners are simply willing to do what losers won't."
The other is: "Tough ain't enough."
Well, I would say that life's winners find a reason and will to live. I can't imagine that either thought that they were quitting as winners.
Maggie and Frankie had all the money they needed from the boxing commission. Frankie proved that he was willing to take care if Maggie. It's a shame that the script wouldn't let Maggie find a reason to live when others in life with similar life circumstances do.
RE: "Spouses of both sexes? What? If they are spouses, who is appallingly beating whose significant other?"
Ha, ha-- you know damn well what I mean.
RE: "Man, you've got a case of PC Speak real bad."
Says the walking pig with opposable thumbs.
RE: "I'm going to bed now...."
You've got so much poison coursing through you that if the bedbugs bit you, it would be a case of animal cruelty.
RE: "Y'know, I'm so sick of this moral relativistic crap that I swear to God I am going to keep on living no matter how f&*(ed up I am. I promise. Just to show up all the weak sisters and hedonists."
You don't really believe this insanity; you can't possibly be this cold, this detached from all possible human feeling or emotion. You can't possibly be this unredeemably EVIL. No, you're just trying to gourd me into anger and I won't allow it to work this time.
Counting my breaths now: 10...9..8...7...
RE: "Sorry, kiddo. EBERT didn't have to follow the crowd and give it away"
Nope, the studio made that decision for it's OWN movie prior to it's release, which is their right, of course. You obviously didn't actually read my response before you filed off this turd.
RE: "Ebert sold out. Go back to to AICN and curl up with Harry now. 'Night."
So you're declaring victory in a fight that you lost.
Uh, huh. Maybe you should be over at DU about now, pissing and moaning about the "lost votes" in Ohio...
Nice backpeddle. I knew that when confronted by evidence of your cherished "critic" engaging as an accomplice in the usual hum-drum Hollywood practice of giving plot elements away, you'd cry "Foul!"
I didn't know anything about The Woodsman until Ebert told me about it-- and gave it away. You know, that thing that ehtical, professional movie critics aren't supposed to do. Ever!
Upset that Micheal Medved gave away your movie? Hey! CHAOS IS GREAT!!!
RE: "Nice backpeddle. I knew that when confronted by evidence of your cherished "critic" engaging as an accomplice in the usual hum-drum Hollywood practice of giving plot elements away, you'd cry "Foul!"
Backpeddle my ass. That's like saying that would've been okay for a critic to lead a review of the Sixth Sense back in 1999 with "Bruce Willis DIES!" because another critic wrote that Spider-Man was about a superhero.
Relying on the right of the movie studio to decide what it will or will not consider a secret in it's publicity campaign has nothing to do with spoiling the movie for others. If the studio had chosen to market MDB AS a right-to-die picture, then Medved the s***head would have had the right to rant about his political opposition all he wanted to while the film was in current release. Fox intentionally kept the twist a secret, so Medved overstepped the boundaries of film criticism with his spoiler. There was no secret in the Woodsman as far as it's distributers were concerned, so there is no foul to Ebert's revelation of the pedoplilia elements in the film.
RE: "I didn't know anything about The Woodsman until Ebert told me about it-- and gave it away. You know, that thing that ehtical, professional movie critics aren't supposed to do. Ever!"
If you didn't know that Kevin Bacon's character in the Woodsman was a pedophile until you read Ebert's review, then Ebert's review must have been the first time you ever heard of the movie. It was no secret, and your argument holds no water.
RE: "Upset that Micheal Medved gave away your movie? Hey! CHAOS IS GREAT!!!"
The tagline is ironic, douchebag.
Did you even SEE Heathers?
Uh... yeah! I told you that. Not everyone is glued to the Hollywood hype machine. Ebert's upset that Michael Medved gave a plot element away. That's like the pot calling the kettle black.
It was no secret, and your argument holds no water.
To folks immersed in the pablum that Hollywood spoonfeeds them, I suppose not. But it was news to me until Ebert spilled the beans, yes.
No. Is it something all the right-thinking, happy-shiny Hollywood people should see? Can I guess that it invloves somebody being killed?
You're my first groupie.
Regretfully, you seem to know as much about motion pictures as you do about publishing. If you'll be following me around, you're going to have to wise up.
Faster.
well that's how Hollywood sees Priests and Ministers now- silly buffoons or worse yet downright evil. Its come a long way since "Going My Way"
Oops! Sorry, thought you were referring to Finding Neverland. Never mind.
Good advice.
bye
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.