Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: Million Dollar Baby (2004)

This is topic Million Dollar Baby (2004) in forum Film Handlers' Movie Reviews at Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE.

To visit this topic, use this URL:
https://ft-forum.com/ft/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=4;t=000876

Posted by Josh Kirkhart (Member # 1046) on 01-12-2005, 04:17 AM:

The Best Movie of the Year!!

I can not recommend this enough. I am a bit biased, I haven't disliked a Eastwood film... well ever. That said, I expected good and got blew away. The Directing is unflashy and perfect. The story says 'I'm taking you here' and then it cuts a hard right...sorry, but really it takes you exactly where ya wanna go then POW!!! The most gratifying theatre experience all year.

10/10

Posted by David Stambaugh (Member # 1102) on 01-30-2005, 05:41 PM:

Today, 11:50AM, Cinemark 17, Springfield. House #8, DTS. Attendance around 50. OK presentation, no serious complaints. Very good sound.

I thought I knew what this was going to be about but it turned out I was only half right. The story starts out moderately interesting, then builds momentum toward an unexpected climax. A very well-crafted and engrossing film, worthy of the Oscar nominations it received. Hilary Swank is awesome! When Clint Eastwood is gone he'll be remembered as one of the great filmmakers, and no slouch as an actor either.

On a 5-star scale, 4 1/2 stars from me. [thumbsup]

Posted by Aaron Garman (Member # 1653) on 01-30-2005, 06:53 PM:

To be perfectly honest, I did like the film, would reccomend it, but I felt Mystic River was the better film of Eastwood's most recent work. This one just didn't grip me as much as that one did. Sure, all around the movie was exceedingly well made, acted, written, etc. but I just found it less intriguing than Mystic River. Out of 4 stars, I give it 3.14.

One question about the sound mix...it was great, except that at times I found it hard to understand Morgan Freeman's voice over. I saw it in SRD. Anyone else notice this, along with generally lower dialouge levels?

AJG

Posted by David Stambaugh (Member # 1102) on 01-30-2005, 07:05 PM:

Overall I thought the sound mix was very involving. But I did notice a couple of times when the dialog level seemed low, almost like they recorded it live and didn't quite get it, then they didn't loop it for some reason. This was in DTS.

Posted by Michael Schaffer (Member # 1204) on 02-01-2005, 03:17 AM:

I liked it and thought it was a well-made and touching movie, but to be honest, I didn't think it was THAT great. It looked a little bit to me like it was made to look really great and deep, but didn't quite deliver. This could actually have been a better movie had it been a smaller production, with not quite as big names who seem to act fully conscious that they are making a deep, "arty" movie. Does that make sense?
[Eek!]

SPOILER

This may not seem like an important detail, but when you want to create a coherent athmosphere, every bit is important. But I wondered why the Eastwood character left the tube off and his fingerprints all over the machines after he had "killed" the girl. Did he set himself up for a murder charge?
I found the characters a little underexposed though. There is some dark mystery in the protagonist's past. Do we need to know what it is? Not really. But it doesn't really seem to torment him that much, he just goes to church every day.
Something else bothered me a little: so he is a successful trainer of boxers who make it to the top tier, but there are only a few characters hanging around his gym and he seems to hardly make ends meet? That doesn't make sense to me.

Posted by Christian Volpi (Member # 2370) on 02-01-2005, 10:13 AM:

I thought it was very enertaining but I don't think that I would ever watch it again. Hillary Swank's performance was hands down the best that I have seen all year.
[scream]

SPOILER (somewhat) [scream]

Did anybody else think that the ending was a lot like "One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest?"

3.75 out of 5 stars

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 02-04-2005, 01:03 PM:

Caught a bit of Fox News last night on XM Radio, where a guy was saying that many people might find this movie "offensive" because of its subject matter and marketing -- he said, "the marketing makes you think it's just a movie about a female boxer and a gruff but kindly old guy who takes her under his wing, but then BAM it turns in to something else (which I won't mention, but you probably all know what it is) So, would you think this might "offend" people? We haven't played this yet.

Posted by David Stambaugh (Member # 1102) on 02-04-2005, 01:13 PM:

The people making that complaint probably prefer cookie-cutter stories with nice predictable Hollywood endings. Screw them! [fu]

Posted by Christian Volpi (Member # 2370) on 02-04-2005, 04:08 PM:

***POSSIBLE SPOILER***

David, I couldn't agree more. For once this movie goes against the norm where everybody doesn't live happily ever after. It's shows what might actually happen in real life. If people are going to be offended by this movie then they shouldn't watch the news or read the newspaper either. This film shows real life instances...oh, Christ, I'm rambling.

Posted by Kelly Skaggs (Member # 1780) on 02-04-2005, 04:45 PM:

Best Movie of the year. Clint is one of the best, I hope he wins his directing Oscar this year. I love that he does not make movies with the happy Hollywood endings that most directors sell out and do.

5 out of 5

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 02-05-2005, 01:08 PM:

THere's also the obvious good thing that every plot point isn't revealed in the trailer/advertising. Thanks for helping me make up my mind on this one folks. It'll play here. [Smile]

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 02-06-2005, 01:44 AM:

I watched the late show of "Million Dollar Baby" at the Carmike here in town. Excellent movie, IMHO.

This is one of those simple on the surface, yet profoundly deep films where viewers can come away with their own interpretations. To me, this was a story whose theme says that things like real success, glory, respect and loyalty must be earned. Sometimes it comes from painful choices and sacrifices. Even if a person stays true to the goal, the fight to earn what one needs never ends. I think the movie also hits the point about how some choose not to fight because they fear what they may lose if they try, but never realising life is always working to pass them by as they sit in that comfort zone. Without getting into specifics, I think the movie plays as a metaphor to those themes.

With that in mind, I don't agree with complaints over plot details about if a character left fingerprints on a hose or what happened to a dirty fighter. Those details are arguably irrelevant. The part of the story that matters is what is going on in the hearts of the main characters. "Million Dollar Baby" fleshes that out just fine.

I expected to see a great performance from Hillary Swank, and she certainly delivered. But I was also surprised at how great Clint Eastwood performed in his role. The only role/performance I can gripe about is the "Danger Barch" character (played by Jay Baruchel). I felt the stupid Texan character crossed the line into stereotype at times, threatening to distract from the film rather than help it. Ultimately, that character arc redeems itself in the film's plot.

Oh, I nearly forgot. Kudos to Clint Eastwood and D.P. Tom Stern for shooting this primarily in true anamorphic 'scope. Even though this was a dark, shadowy movie, I think the 'scope look helped it. Super35 probably would have been grainy as hell. That look might be fine for something shooting for the same feel as "Raging Bull," but this movie works with solid visual tonality.

quote: Aaron Garman
One question about the sound mix...it was great, except that at times I found it hard to understand Morgan Freeman's voice over. I saw it in SRD.

I think this is factor of the sound mix itself; the playback I heard was in DTS in a very recently tuned auditorium. Freeman's narration is recorded with a little too much bass and low midrange. Not enough crisp top end to help bring out the enunciation of the words.

Overall, the quality of the sound mix was good. It's not an aggressive mix. However, there were a couple points where (and I would usually be the last person to complain about this) the surrounds seemed distracting. Much of the action is up on the front stage. But a couple times there are key sound points, such as an opening door, that are deliberately placed in the surrounds.

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 02-11-2005, 01:49 PM:

Wow! Great movie, 5 out of 5 in my opinion. Print and presentation at the AMC Empire 25 (Screen #9) in NYC was very good, though the AMC snipes were somewhat worn.

Tom Stern's cinematography fit the story very well. The ENR silver retention process used for the prints gave a high contast, low color saturation "gritty" look that fit the theme. The rich shadows were used to hide character emotions, especially in scene like where Eastwood and Swank are driving from her hometown at night, and the streetlights and dark shadows play across their faces.

Posted by Pravin Ratnam (Member # 1417) on 02-12-2005, 10:43 PM:

Really good movie and deserving of the best picture nomination as is Sideways(which i saw back to back with this).

I thought Clint Eastwood showed a fun lighter side of himself in the priest scenes. Hillary Swank was really impressive and will be deserving of the oscar. I was skeptical of the hype over her before watching it and she won me over. Freeman delivers as usual.

Posted by Kurt Zupin (Member # 2751) on 04-03-2005, 05:58 PM:

Being a small theater in a small northern Michigan town, sometimes we don't get the more artsy type films. We just got Million Dollar Baby this weekend...today was my day off so I figured I'd go see what all the hub-bub was about. I already knew the big twist so I wasn't going in unaware.

SPOILERS

Up until she fell on the stool, the movie was GREAT, good if not great acting by Freeman and Swank...well deserving of there Oscars. Even Clint in his teeth grinding way was good. But after she fell and broke her neck the film just didn't go as well. I don't think that it was deserving of the Oscar for Best Picture...I personal think its late release was just a ploy to get it in the spotlight just before Oscar time, IMHO.

All in all [thumbsup]

out of

Posted by Michael Schaffer (Member # 1204) on 04-03-2005, 06:26 PM:

quote: Bobby Henderson
Ultimately, that character arc redeems itself in the film's plot.

What does that mean? What is a character arc?

Posted by Mike Heenan (Member # 392) on 04-03-2005, 07:14 PM:

Character Arc

CHARACTER ARC
Lynda Simmons

WRITERS WORKSHOPS

In fiction, the Character Arc is what keeps the tension high and the conflict going. The Arc is the internal change that the hero or heroine goes through from the beginning of the story to the end. It can be positive, (think of Rick in Casablanca) which results in a happy ending or negative, (think of Jimmy in Things To Do in Denver When You’re Dead) which gives us a tragedy. In between, is the static character arc, in which a good character stays that way throughout and fights the forces of evil. (Think of Braveheart, Rob Roy or most John Wayne movies). Sometimes in this type of arc, the character arc may dip slightly if the protagonist is tempted by some outside force, but he always returns to his heroic self at the end.

Where does the Character Arc begin? On page one. Let’s say the hero/protagonist of your story starts out as an Isolated Workaholic. It’s safe to say that he wasn’t always this way. He has developed this behavior as a result of things that have happened in his life and gives what is termed an Emotional Wound. Perhaps he had a father whose love he could never quite achieve, leaving him feeling he needs to strive harder, aim higher in order to be worthy. Or maybe he has loved and lost and now buries himself in his work, determined never to trust love again.

Because he must change and grow during the course of the story, his inner goal, the one he does not acknowledge on a conscious level, can be Learn to Trust, or Stop and Smell the Roses, depending upon which Emotional Wound led to his Character Flaw, making him an Isolated Workaholic.

For the purpose of this workshop, let’s say that he has loved and lost and has to Learn to Trust. Because he is human, he will resist this change with everything he has which gives the story the inner conflict that is so vital to any good story. He’s perfectly content as he is, sees no reason to change, then something happens to throw everything he knows about himself out of balance. A series, of complications or kicks will make it impossible for him to go on, to ignore the fact that he has to change. In a romance, the heroine, is the "something" that makes him change. In a horror, it will be the fact that no one else can destroy the monster. What ever the story, the main character cannot walk away from the action without dire consequences to someone or something, even if only himself. If he does, there is no story.

The hero keeps trying to return to the old ways of thinking, the old behaviors--focusing on his work, trying to avoid getting close to anyone, but because of her, he can’t. He’s starting to see things differently, to believe in spite of all that he know to be true, that he can trust someone. And most importantly, he’s falling in love again. At the Turning Point, he makes a conscious decision to change his behavior. He will then be tested to see if he can maintain this new way of thinking.

In a story with a happy ending, it appears as though everything is moving along until the hero reaches the Black Moment - the point at which all is lost, and the goal cannot be achieved. Often it appears that he has returned to his old ways, that nothing has changed at all. In a tragedy, the opposite is true, and the hero achieves a Shining Moment - everything will be just fine. But alas, it is not to be so.

The Climax follows, during which the hero draws upon the new strengths or lessons he has learned in order to take action and bring the story to a conclusion.

The Resolution ties together all the loose ends of the story and allows the reader to see the outcome of the main character’s decision at the climax. This is where we see evidence of the change in a positive character arc.

Other main characters, the villain, the heroine in the case of a romance, may also have their own inner changes to go through and lessons to learn. But everything the main characters do and say, and how they react to situations stems from the character arc as they moved toward their inevitable changes.

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 04-04-2005, 07:17 PM:

quote: Michael Schaffer
What does that mean? What is a character arc?

To answer the question specifically in context to "Million Dollar Baby," the dumb Texan character appears to be nothing more than a very poorly drawn stereotype. Ultimately, that character has something to do with exposing a side of Morgan Freeman's character late in the movie. And then there is a point made about the Texan's stubbornness in refusing to quit. He may be dumb, but he is driven and that determination counts for something.

Still, I say the Texan character is poorly drawn regardless of what eventually happens in the plot. It is not a realistic depiction of a white trash guy from Texas. It's just some blurry, stereotypical idea from Californian filmmakers on what they think epitomizes a hayseed from Texas. It would have helped the story if more careful, authentic observation had occurred in drawing that character.

I've seen Texans, even white trash types, portrayed more accurately and come across as much less of a distraction by other filmmakers. Quentin Tarantino and the Coen Brothers are two that immediately come to mind. But then both have actually been to Texas and used real Texans in their movies. The Coen Brothers shot "Blood Simple" in Texas.

"Million Dollar Baby" is still a very good movie. But the dumb Texan character is one glaring thing that makes it less than perfect.