i don't think i have ever left a theatre so sad in my whole life. that was an excellent but very emotionally exhausting movie.

what did you all think?

second saturday night in less than two years I'd left an eastwood movie being punched in the gut emotionally and incapable of doing anything else that night

didn't have any violent or emotionally damaging reactions. it was really sad but really good. i liked its sparse style and all the characters -- her mom and her mom's family was just about the best cast of assholes ever.

very literary - like mystic river. also very emotionally draining - like mystic river.

i agree.... i could barely function for a while after watching it. clint eastwood produces some amazing work. morgan freeman and hillary swank were awesome in this too.

My wife and I need to see this. Eastwood is becoming pretty dependable. Burt Reynolds must be eating his toupee.

Steve

skip bayless should learn to put a fucking SPOILER ALERT in his damn columns over at ESPN. asshole.

I honestly hate fucking bayless and stepen a smith and have since way before they got "discovered" by espn when both of their lame asses used to regularly appear on Jim Rome's radio show.

I'm also starting to dislike Jason Whitlock. And Mike Lupica isn't nearly as cuddly as he used to be.

Bad sign.

And don't get me started on that dope Lunadri...

I almost just want to read this, because I am almost positive I will hate this movie. If it's comparable to Mystic River, then I guess I'll find better acting and emotion in throwing on Point Break.

But, my mind isn't made up. I'm going to see this this week and form my own opinion.

i was virtually unmoved as far as emotional impact goes. but mentally drained due to how long the whole fucking thing dragged on for. plus it was like two movies in one. maybe i am turning into a heartless bastard. but behind all that gritty realness i just feel there's still something contriving-ly hollywood about these type of movies, where it seems like instead of laying a *whatever* sort of feel, they always tend to tweak characters to their maximum end (of a stereotype or whatever... the mother/sister/family, the boxer kid, the old hackneyed boxer, the quite hilarious priest, the heroin... hell, most of em) and just make em scream self-importance in their own understated, self-wary way. so self aware that its full of these wonderful lil ditties and everday squip dialogue they put in place instead of the usual... you know, high n mighty stuff. that said, clint e was magnifique i gotta say.

Yeah the sad twist took me by surprise. Pretty exhausting emotionally. But it was a great movie.

Guess, I gotta go finally see this now...

me and a billion other people...

It was good. Real good. Yet, after last night, I still had to wonder- is this the best Hollywood has to offer?

Steve

This is the way I feel about all the nominees for best picture even though I thought all of them were great. Million Dollar Baby was very powerful IMO and props to a big studio for doing it. If it wasn't Eastwood it probably wouldn't have been made.


It was good to see the Motorcycle Diaries get some recognition last night since that movie resonated with me more than any of the nominees.

From such humble beginnings:

Hilary Swank 2000

Hilary Swank 2005

I didn't like the movie- I thought Swank gave a good performance & I don't have a problem with her picking up an Oscar. She is now pretty much the actress of her generation. That's a pretty wierd statement.

Eastwood winning any award in which he's nominated against Scorcese makes the entire process a joke.

I think Swank is a fine actress.

Haven't seen any of the movies nominated for the Oscars, so it was pretty pointless for me to watch the show. Although I'm a fan of Clint's work, so I need to go check this movie out.

I found Million Dollar Baby too manipulative to be as effectively moving as it wanted to be. The bulk of the flick was a paint-by-numbers sports underdog story (with some admittedly nice moments and good dialogue), but the tragic twist seemed like a tacked-on afterthought. The story was basically about a man seeking redemption for past sins, but we never get to know the backstory to Clint's character's guilt - so we don't know whether his relationship with the Swank character redeemed him or continued his tragic cycle. I'm all for ambiguity, but that's an omission that seems more like an oversight than intent.

It just proves the ol' adage: Oscar loves a cripple.

Did you see The Aviator? It was a bloated, self-indulgent mess. I don't think either of the films were great, but Oscar had to pick one, and they picked right.

Is Eastwood a better director than Scorcese? No.
Has Eastwood as a director made more thought provoking, challenging movies than Scorcese? No
Is Million Dollar Baby a better directed movie than The Aviator? Yes

Bingo.

In what way is the direction better? First- a director limits themselves when they are acting in the film. Who is there to be be a truly critical eye to direct the actor- and believe me Eastwood needs one in this film.

I'll give you self indulgent on the Aviator, but the direction of the film shows a man slipping into insanity rather than simple sentimentalism wrapped up in 2+ hours of cliches of movie masquerading as a film.

If I have to vote for a best Director award- I'll give it to another nominee Alexander Payne for two scenes in Sideways which were nearly perfect. The dinner scene where Miles is drinking excessively before calling his ex-wife. Since, as a viewer you know all of Miles' secrets and issues, but you see the uncomfortable looks of acknowledgement of the faces of the women thta he is going to a place that they don't want him to is fantastic direction. The other is the cut out moments where Miles and Maya are spending their day together before he drops the bomb about the wedding. As a viewer, you know what it means for him because of the actions you have observed rather than pithy dialogue meant to soften you up.

I've never directed a film, but have directed plays and Eastwood is a hack of the umpteenth degree. Unfortunately, Payne had no chance- it was a two horse race, and if that's the case here, give the award to the person who deserves it. I have to go with Scorcese in this case.

See, I disagree with that. Million Dollar Baby may have been a more successful film (which is debatable), but I think the direction of The Aviator was a pretty amazing feat. The scale of that movie was huge, and Scorcese uses the camera in such a fluid and creative way that I think it's easy to take what he's doing for granted; whereas Million Dollar Baby was an intimate, fairly static story that mostly required the absence of a director, and Clint was smart enough to step back and let the story tell itself.

The Oscars are a strange beast. A film like The Aviator can run the table with most of the major awards (cinematography, editing, costume, art direction), but yet, somehow, the director of that film didn't excel at his job even though all those other tasks are done under his stewardship.

Likewise, Million Dollar Baby is the voted the best film of the year, with the best director, and yet, somewhat mysteriously, it didn't originate from the best adapted screenplay.

It's like I almost expect the Oscars to make sense or sumpin'.