Author |
Message |
Legalboxer
Member
11-17-2003
| Tuesday, February 15, 2005 - 8:25 pm
first off - i still have a dial telephone in one of the rooms in my house, and i constantly wonder why cant they have credit cards at the pumps when i stop for gas down near the VA/NC border on I-85, so while i was looking to see if there was any reason to question the setting, (since i had seen the earlier posts in here), i never questioned that it was taking place right now. And my favorite boxing gym i went to was on the top floor of this boarded up warehouse in syracuse - i just wish Syracuse had had the trainer i had before that in NC... ok, that being said, i saw the movie FINALLY - and know i will buy the DVD - and loved it (no tears but that is who i am) - i actually love it more and more as i think of all the things i really liked about it - i want to quote virtually the whole movie since so much was on point - not only is the storyline great and the messages are deep and real and not some rocky 5 horror (hehehe) but I also related with the characters and lines way too many times - everything from their comments about staying in the ring even with detached retinas to going after dreams no one else believed in ... yes i already knew i would like the movie because i love boxing, and i love all 3 main actors - but it was great to see it and have those messages out there, of not giving up - of knowing who you are, of not arguing with someone and still doing what you want, can i say again, of believing in who you are... i can relate to how hard that would be, and how meaningful it is, in some ways - in NC i took real boxing classes (no taebo for me!) for a year - and my trainer was actually ranked 4th in the nation in her class - and i was one of maybe 3-4 girls in the class with 15 guys - and it was painful every week - the good weeks were when we had to run 2 miles before class, the bad weeks were 30 minutes of sprints (and not 100 yards sprints) before being able to start class - and i would go twice a week and endure all of that cruelty, knowing that i would never even get to spar in a ring with anyone because i lost vision in my right eye at 15 when a virus destroyed my retina and it detached - so i never could take that chance, and even if Sugar Ray Leonard had been someone i followed at age 9-10, he also was someone who had been in the same hospital room i had been in, 2 weeks before i was there - for his detached retina - and that he made the risky decisions to keep fighting even with that one eye - and that was something i wouldnt do, even though there is nothing more i wanted to do and could care less about what people say is a risk - but my eye was one area i wouldnt play with- and so i endured all that training knowing i wouldnt be in a ring to do what i truly wanted to do - and i did that because even just the training - the murderous runs, the shadow boxing, the punching bag, the mitts, the situps, the pushups, etc etc - all of that brought a peace to me that nothing else in life could - that is how much boxing meant to me, regardless of whether i couldnt be in a ring, it was enough just to have that taste of boxing in my life - and its funny - i cant believe its been 5 years since i boxed since i have spent every fall and spring looking to see where would be a good place to go again - or waiting for a paycheck - and now that i have a job and am settled down somewhat, i know i can go try to join a gym again- make that effort to block out time in my schedule even if my schedule is crazy - but i dont want to walk in now, almost being 30, and people thinking she is just here because she saw that movie and is jumping on the bandwagon of female boxing - lol - i know, who cares what they think, i should do it anyway - i guess i will see - but even though its been 5 years and i have craved to have it back in my life every second it has been gone, it seems like yesterday. anyway the point of that was just to express that i do understand just how meaningful boxing can be to a person, what it does to their life, and why they dont want to give it up, at any age - regardless of whether they are a real boxer or someone who just punches a bag - i also understand that once you get a taste of the real training, its nothing less after that - i punched a bag for 6 months at my college gym, with just handwraps, 15-20 minutes every time til my knuckles bled - and i loved that, but once i joined a real class and had real training, punching a bag on my own just wasnt good enough anymore. (also love the lines in the song "the boxer" - In the clearing stands a boxer, And a fighter by his trade And he carries the reminders Of ev'ry glove that laid him down Or cut him till he cried out In his anger and his shame, "I am leaving, I am leaving." But the fighter still remains.) the fighter ALWAYS remains, no matter how much one is beaten down or hurt. i guess i could go on more about how i loved the irish angle and how cool that was to use the gaelic name since how can you get any better fans than those fighting irish! After all, that was one of the main ways many made money when they came to america - the irish bare fisted boxers - and i loved the meaning of the name too... everything was just perfect in my mind about the whole movie - and to think when i walked out tonight i just said "yeah, it was a pretty good movie" (great article by Ebert too - thanks for the link)
|
Shadychiklet
Member
02-15-2005
| Wednesday, February 16, 2005 - 9:20 am
i seriously loved this movie i must cried like a baby the last 45 minutes of it. I been reading the book i a bit different from the movie. Cant wait to get the DVD.
|
Jen
Member
07-27-2003
| Saturday, February 19, 2005 - 8:55 pm
I saw this tonight. It was fantastic. I have NEVER been a fan of Clint Eastwood, but he had me crying through the last half hour. This is the most emotional I have ever seen him, and it was so understated that you felt even more for him. Hillary Swank was good, and Morgan Freeman was his usual awesome self. The one I was most impressed with was Eastwood. I hope this wins for best picture.
|
Herckleperckle
Member
11-20-2003
| Saturday, February 19, 2005 - 9:40 pm
Loving this thread. Terrific, meaty comments by all.
|
Westtexan
Member
07-16-2004
| Tuesday, February 22, 2005 - 2:32 pm
Saw this movie this weekend. Loved it!! Beautiful story about love, loneliness, need, belonging, ambition, redemption, and difficult choices. Oh yeah, it takes place in a boxing venue, but that really isn't important.
|
Newman
Member
09-25-2004
| Thursday, February 24, 2005 - 10:45 am
Saw it last night. From the movies I saw it's between this one and Sideways for best movie, Oscar night. Sad story. It makes me wonder what was the big secret of Frankie Dunn's life. Why does his daughter return his letters unopened? What did he do? Why can't she forgive him? I liked the sparring between Clint and the Catholic priest. Why did Maggie choose boxing as the one thing to devote her life to? It chose her? That whole scenario about her trailer park trash family, welfare, love for Mother who wasn't deserving of that love...all that stuff was powerful. She became the daughter that Clint once had but who had forsaken him. Strong stuff. Makes you wonder what is more important, family or friends? Family is always there...in the back of your mind...even if they are NOT there for you.
|
Legalboxer
Member
11-17-2003
| Saturday, February 26, 2005 - 9:16 am
ok how many have seen the clip rerun over and over when they are in the ER and clint says what did you learn and hillary says "always protect myself" - and that line "always protect yourself" is used over and over in the movie - but it just hit me that it actually has another meaning besides just physically protecting yourself or even emotionally protecting yourself - it seems that Clint and Hillary's characters have spent their whole life protecting themselves from getting close to others - given they both were hurt in some way in the past, that they probably are too scared to let anyone in to hurt them again, and by protecting themselves so much, they ended up hurting themselves more by being so isolated and empty, at least in some parts of their lives - until they both let the other in and for the first time let down their guards to trust the other - and no matter how hard it is at the end because they did get that close, it was something they both needed to do - and needed to learn that "always protecting yourself" doesnt mean always keeping people at arms length not sure about morgan's character - he was a but more compassionate but at the same time he lived alone in a gym and seemed isolated in some ways too and so he could play into the equation too, by finally saying what was real to clint, by pushing him to train hillary and thus allowing morgan some freedom not to be so isolated as well as the three bonded - yes morgan and clint were already good friends but it did seem to be taken up a notch as well when some things in their past were put on the table
|
Egbok
Member
07-13-2000
| Saturday, February 26, 2005 - 11:06 pm
I'm so pleased I was able to see this movie tonight. Bravo Morgan, Hillary and Clint!!
|
Newman
Member
09-25-2004
| Sunday, February 27, 2005 - 8:47 am
Why can't "always protect yourself" mean just that? In the ring. If you were Hillary Swank, would you want to be CLOSE to her trailer park trash family? Not me. She was better off being isolated, Legal. When she did try to get close to family she was emotionally hurt by them. Loved that scene when she gave her Mom the house and instead of being happy Mom was angry that she might lose her welfare income. Maggie was better off keeping her family at arms length. As for the big mystery in the movie, what happened between Frankie Dunn and his estranged daughter, we'll never know. Frankie kept sending the letters. They kept coming back. Unopened. At some point don't you give up and move on? Maggie became Frankie's daughter at the end. It worked out fine, both filling the needs of the other, more than real family would or could.
|
Tishala
Member
08-01-2000
| Sunday, February 27, 2005 - 12:18 pm
***POSSIBLE SMALL SPOILERS*** One of the most interesting critiques I have read of this film, and one I really take to heart, has come from people in the "disability community." Disabled people have said that the way the movie sets up the narrative, we are to believe that Swank's character goes from a position of wholeness in her athletic body to one of incompleteness in her immobilized body and that the film implicitly endorses an idea of disability as inferior to "able bodied"-ness. One of the problems these critics point to is Clint Eastwood's testimony before congress against the Americans with Disabilities Act, where he said he would not make his businesses in Carmel, CA more accessible to disabled people (they are mostly restaurants, IIRC. This, to them, indicates what they see as Eastwood's callous attitude toward disabled people. If you know Eastwood has worked actively to weaken the ADA, you have a whole new view of this film, they suggest. Finally, these people point to a major problem with the film that everyone should be screaming about: if Swank really wanted to be taken off the vent, all she had to do was say so! She didn't need a geriatric cut man doing it for her! That's one of the things that happens to people on life support now: they don't have to live on it if they don't want to. In the old days, Eastwood used to shoot the enemy dead. Now he just cuts off the life support because they've become enfeebled and lack the nerve, apparently, to ask nurses to give them a sedative and have a doctor pull the plug.
|
Legalboxer
Member
11-17-2003
| Sunday, February 27, 2005 - 3:59 pm
I wanted to look at what eastwood actually testify about before commenting, since i had a different view of things but wanted to see how valid comments in those critiques were. I looked at articles and i found eastwood's testimony and i personally am in total agreement with him on his testimony, and the fact that the story isnt told twists things in a way that makes him look like an enemy to the disabled, when TO ME, that is not true. He was being sued for over half a million dollars in lawyers fees because his hotel, Mission Ranch Hotel needed wider doors and more accessible bathrooms to meet the requirements of the ADA. But rather than being given notice that the building did not comply with the law, he was immediately sued. Currently, lawyers can charge non-compliant business owners $275 per hour from the day a lawsuit is filed. The disabled, however, are forbidden from collecting damages under the act. During this lawsuit, Eastwood testified in support of legislation to provide a 90-day compliance period. He never claimed in his testimony that he refused to comply with the ADA - his whole testimony and comments in articles were attacks against the lawyers, not the disabled. I am a lawyer with a major disability, and yet i always have seen flaws in the ADA and i personally see nothing wrong with putting in a notice period to businesses before they are taken to court. Many business owners have no idea they are not in compliance and you dont need a lawsuit to force them to comply, so why not give them a warning first, But that brings me to my second point - and that is that, this is all MY opinion and others, disabled or not, will have their own opinion about what is fair or what should be in the law - and so i dislike whenever i see things from "the disabled community" since it is statements from groups of people who think one way and not a statement from everyone with a disability. I also strongly differ on the views some have that the movie is an attack on the disabled - that never crossed my mind watching it - and even in thinking of it now, i just dont see it as that. I do think Ebert's review (linked in an above post) was very on target when he talks about how "At a moment of crisis, the characters arrive at a decision. I do not agree with their decision. But here is the crucial point: I do believe that these characters would do what they do in this film. It is entirely consistent with who they are and everything we have come to know about them. That is one reason the film is so good: It follows the characters all the way to the limit, and plays true to them." and further "I believe the character Maggie is such a fighter that she could learn to deal with her disability and enjoy her life. But here is the important point: She doesn't believe that. Yes, it is true, as critics have charged, that she receives inadequate counseling. That the care in her hospital is not good, and the security is laughable. But the screenplay by Paul Haggis and Eastwood's direction make that clear -- they know it, too. It is not movie criticism to say Maggie needed better counseling. We might as well say Hamlet needed a psychiatrist." I personally NEVER saw this as a movie endorsing death over a disability - i just saw this as someone who didn’t think that there was any more reason to live - i, like Ebert, may disagree with that notion, but that is because i have a different outlook on life than Swank's character and so i am not going to chastise her for thinking there is nothing else to live for - boxing was her way out and she succeeded in that and reached her goal in life - there may be others goals possible, that is our view, not hers and i agree that things may have differed with better counseling and different people - but that was NOT part of the movie and guess what - you dont always have better counseling, you dont always have that bight outlook of hope and so, as Ebert says, IN THAT MOMENT, swank made the decision to end her life - and to me it had nothing to do with thinking death was better than being paralyzed the rest of your life. And I dont think its fair for people to not allow others to have that hopelessness in life - because the fact is, some people cant cope with such a situation and do have that hopelessness and we need to see all sides of people and not simply the gung-ho, rise above the tragedy, see the possibilities side that some people have. yes it would be great if people could always see that hope in the darkest time but is it fair ONLY to portray that and not to portray others who may not get the help needed to see that hope. As I write this, i would think this would be more a message that people need to provide better support for those in such a situation then simply a message that giving up is ok. I definitely didn’t leave the movie thinking that death was the right choice, and i would hope most wouldn’t see it that way. But again, THAT IS my opinion and i think every leaves movies with their own opinions and views and so, i dont necessary think its right for statements to come from disabled groups saying its an attack on the disabled. i wont dispute the last paragraph so much expect to say, while she had a right to ask for the vent to be turned off, some doctors refuse to do that - she would win in court but its not always a simple case of asking and having it done - plus if we want to interpret her character any further, we could say that she asked, they refused since the doctors see it as ethically wrong and she doesn’t know her rights enough to even think of going to court - again its just a movie and we only have 2 hours or so to base our views on, but i just see why that is an issue - it was part of the movie and the fact is, either way she would have died - this just added to eastwood's decision to help her, which is something people deal with every day - even if i personally disagree with it. I also looked up comments by Seattle critic Jeff Shannon who is a quadriplegic, and cites that Eastwood's personal view is that Frank didn't do the right thing, and he's a doomed man. Shannon calls himself "schizophrenic" about the film. As a critic, he loves it, yet he winces at the way it stacks the deck against a quadriplegic being able to lead a productive life. In an e-mail to SW, he argues, "While everyone is buzzing about right- to-die issues, plot spoilers, and morality in popular culture, the very legitimate concerns of the most neglected and misunderstood minority on the planet are de-emphasized or completely dismissed. It all boils down to this: The concerns of the disabled protesters are justified, but there's more than one way to interpret the film." link here I agree - i think people have a right to think more could have been said about who to proceed after the accident - but i also think that, that was not the point of the movie, and that it wasn’t also picking death over being disabled - it was about a girl who made a choice based on the life SHE knew, be it wrong or right- but that is how i interpret it and like Shannon said, there are many ways to interpret the movie.
|
Auntiemike
Member
09-17-2001
| Sunday, February 27, 2005 - 4:26 pm
Great post Legalboxer. I appreciate your thoroughness and assessments of the movie and its message.
|
Herckleperckle
Member
11-20-2003
| Sunday, February 27, 2005 - 4:35 pm
Are we now going to apply 'political correctness' to our fictional characters' choices? Must we read advocacy into a story line? Absurd to place such restraints on writers/moviemakers. Although I was certainly not buoyant walking out, I have to say that I have been surprised by how often the characters popped into my mind. I believe it was because of Clint's directorial style--very much like the characters that he has played--subtle, personal, and one that wouldn't consider preaching. I spent more time thinking about what motivated the characters in the first 80% of the story than I did about the choices these two characters made at the end . . . because I agree that the choices the characters made at the end rang true.
|
Tishala
Member
08-01-2000
| Sunday, February 27, 2005 - 11:52 pm
Gee, HP, I didn't think I said anything at all about what you call "political correctness" in my post. Instead, I presented something I thought was an interesting viewpoint about a film. Nor did I make any comments about whether I believed in that viewpoint or not. I thought it might be as interesting as, say, those who want to talk about the film from a boxing perspective. Apparently those positions are "neutral" and other perspectives ar "political correct" and therefore negligible. I won't bother to talk about anything other than that which is frothy and full of surmising about what might have happened off-screen (she may have asked to have her vent turned off and was refused?) instead of perspectives that are not my own that analyze things that DID happen on the screen. So much for your praise about the meaty comments by all, etc.
|
Herckleperckle
Member
11-20-2003
| Monday, February 28, 2005 - 5:42 am
Hey, Tish, that wasn't aimed at you, personally, though I can see why you might have thought so. I meant to dismiss the entire argument, not YOU. Sorry if my comments came across that way.
|
Legalboxer
Member
11-17-2003
| Monday, February 28, 2005 - 6:09 am
hey tish - just a note that i actually appreciated you posting that since i had no idea that those views were out there and it made me investigate things that i didnt know about - even if i disagree with some commentary i appreciate knowing its out there, so thanks for the post.
|
Kappy
Member
06-29-2002
| Sunday, March 06, 2005 - 10:52 am
Tish - you've been providing some interesting material about this movie and not just from one source or point of view and that is appreciated. I also appreciate Legal looking up the actual lawsuit and being able to see where Clint was coming from as well so thank you to both of you. Heck, I saw this movie a month ago and I just want to say that I still think about the characters when talking to people. And if nothing else, I would hope this movie opens up dialogues within families so the issue presented can be discussed. I never once took it that the story was saying everyone should take this way out. I saw it exactly as how it was presented, that this one person chose this. I don't know which group in the disabled community is putting these stories out about Clint being so anti-handicapped but I think it does an injustice to the issue overall instead of helping it. To equate Clint's shooting characters in an old Western movie to what happens in this movie is really too bad because I think the issue presented really does need to brought out into the open instead of being kept in a closet where most people would like to keep it. Instead of embracing the movie as a chance to raise awareness of the issue, we're instead seeing more Hollywood bashing at its best. Just my opinion of course, 
|
Legalboxer
Member
11-17-2003
| Sunday, March 06, 2005 - 11:19 am
kappy, one of the groups that is speaking out deals with spinal cord injuries - and i think they should be getting their message out that there are other ways to react to such injuries - but like i said above i just disagree in the way they criticize the movie. I think it was great that "the brooke ellison story" was on TV last year, which christopher reeve directed before he died - because that was the kind of message about living life regardless of such an injury that people need to hear about.
|
Bbfanatic
Member
08-14-2000
| Friday, April 29, 2005 - 8:58 am
I cant give much of a review. I fell asleep.
|
Ophiliasgrandma
Member
09-04-2001
| Monday, July 25, 2005 - 4:19 pm
Just watched the DVD. Great movie...with one big problem, the sound. It was so mushy as to be almost undecipherable. I have great hearing and I missed a lot of the dialog. My DH has hearing issues and is so looking forward to seeing this, but I know it's going to frustrate the bejabbers out of him.
|
Legalboxer
Member
11-17-2003
| Monday, July 25, 2005 - 5:46 pm
meant to say i got the dvd and the interviews are great in the bonus features - james lipton talks to hilary, morgan and clint at a table and that was really cool
|
Ophiliasgrandma
Member
09-04-2001
| Monday, July 25, 2005 - 6:13 pm
OH, I forgot about that, guess I'll have to take a look.
|
Lycanthrope
Member
09-19-2002
| Friday, August 05, 2005 - 6:12 am
I saw this on DVD last weekend, and I thought it was a great movie...deserving of all awards it received. I don't know about all the stuff discussed in this thread, I just thought it was a good story that didn't have a happy ending. Some of the best stories ever told have unhappy endings. The extras on the DVD were very good; this is a movie well worth owning.
|
Wendo
Member
08-07-2000
| Sunday, August 21, 2005 - 4:05 am
Finally watched my DVD of this yesterday while the BB feeds were unavailable. Great movie, I was crying at the end. *sniff* I haven't watched the extras but since you found them good Lycanthrope, I'll check 'em out.
|
Lycanthrope
Member
09-19-2002
| Thursday, August 25, 2005 - 10:11 pm
Hilary Swank is now my Goddess. I'll watch anything she does. She's so cool.
|
|
|
|