Support NeoGAF

[Foreign Jackass]

Why the hell isn't there an appreciation thread on this movie now? Try to keep it spoiler-free.

I thought the movie was the best of the year (I haven't seen Sideways yet, though). It's the best Eastwood movie I've seen (at least as good as Unforgiven was) and also one of the most emotionally-packed flicks I've seen in a movie theater (I watch a lot of older movies on DVD, so I wouldn't say "ever"). Performances are incredible, direction is great, and both screenplay and cinematography are some of the best you'll see this year (cinematography coming second to Yimou's flicks, if only for the pure flash factor they had).

So, well, why the hell isn't anyone talking about it on this forum? Is it that it's not a CoOl flick involving superheroes or disjointed, messed-up storytelling? This is a great exemple of the power of classical storytelling.

 

[corrupt-koopa]

Well i guess M$B is just not a movie that peopel go nutz about..its as simple as that.

but i agree, this movie is good and it needs to be seen by more people, Clint is amazing as a director he was worthy of the Golden Globe so at least he gets 1 big award for this movie as he wont win at the oscars "scorsese will take that one!"

and it wont win best picture at the oscars "the aviator will take home that award"

 

[Foreign Jackass]

Well i guess M$B is just not a movie that peopel go nutz about..its as simple as that.

but i agree, this movie is good and it needs to be seen by more people, Clint is amazing as a director he was worthy of the Golden Globe so at least he gets 1 big award for this movie as he wont win at the oscars "scorsese will take that one!"

and it wont win best picture at the oscars "the aviator will take home that award"

I'm the biggest Scorsese fan I know, and I still hope Scorsese will lose. The Aviator was a great flick, but it doesn't hold a candle to M$B to me. And I'm sad I'm saying this, cause Scorsese really deserves an oscar, but not for this.

 

[open_mouth_]

agreed. Million Dollar Baby was awesome.

 

[corrupt-koopa]

I'm the biggest Scorsese fan I know, and I still hope Scorsese will lose. The Aviator was a great flick, but it doesn't hold a candle to M$B to me. And I'm sad I'm saying this, cause Scorsese really deserves an oscar, but not for this.

yeah scorsese has been fucked over to many times at the oscars but i still feel that the aviator is a better and more well directed film than M$B

 

[Foreign Jackass]

yeah scorsese has been fucked over to many times at the oscars but i still feel that the aviator is a better and more well directed film than M$B

Well, it's less flashy, for sure, but I think Eastwood's direction serves the story at least as well as Scorsese's one does. I liked M$B better as a whole, though. I'm not a big fan of biopics, and I felt Aviator was a tad repetitive and on the long side.

 

[Bog]

This movie's fucking terrible. Oh, and it has the worst name ever.

 

[MC Safety]

It was a great movie. But I wonder about its dramatic tone shift.

It really did seem like two separate and distinct films.

 

[sefskillz]

Still not playing near me, I really want to see it.

 

[Foreign Jackass]

This movie's fucking terrible. Oh, and it has the worst name ever.

Stick to gaming, dude. Stating an opinion without backing it is worthless for this thread/subject/forum.

 

[Foreign Jackass]

But I wonder about its dramatic tone shift.

Spoiler

I wonder if it's just me, but about 10 minutes before "it" happened, I could sense the movie was changing tone. I was like, afraid of what was coming next, without any reason whatsoever. It's probably in the music (subtle though) and camera angles, choice of lighting, etc. I thought it was really, really well done.

 

[Brian Fellows]

There is something about Hilary Swank that just makes me hate her. Maybe its because she tried to replace Ralph Macchio.

 

[Foreign Jackass]

There is something about Hilary Swank that just makes me hate her. Maybe its because she tried to replace Ralph Macchio.

Hahahah! Yeah, it's a good one. But in the movie, she just kicks ass. And weirdly, she's kinda cute in parts of it. I never thought I'd say that, as she has a masculine jaw, but her character is incredibly charming, and she is really good in the movie. Go see it, I say.

 

[Brian Fellows]

I'll rent it when it comes out. But I'm not paying theatre type money to see it.

 

[Foreign Jackass]

I'll rent it when it comes out. But I'm not paying theatre type money to see it.

You should, really.

 

[Brian Fellows]

Why? The story doesnt interest me all that much. There isnt anyone in it I really like. I havent liked anything Eastwood's done behind the camera beside Unforgiven and this isnt a western. It'll be lucky to get a rental.

 

[Foreign Jackass]

Why? The story doesnt interest me all that much.

It's not a typical boxing flick, if that's what bothers you. But hey, if you don't like Morgan Freeman and Clint Eastwood, there's not much I can do for you. Besides, I liked Mystic River a lot, with or without its "OMG PLOT HOLES QUICK I GO ON GAFORUM TO WHINE ABOUT WHAT I THINK IS NOT REALISTIC" moments.

 

[Kumiko Nikaido]

Million Dollar Baby was very, very good. Clint Eastwood, Morgan Freeman, and Hilary Swank give superb acting performances. Don't mistake this film as a boxing movie, as it's much more than that. It's a story about striving to be at the top of your game, believing in your dreams, restoring your faith, and just getting a chance in life.

It's an emotional piece, and there's themes here and there that everyone can relate to.

MDB is Clint Eastwood's finest work to date. I can see why critics everywhere are raving about it. If it wins Best Picture of 2004, so be it. Highly recommended!

 

[DCharlie]

Watched it last night and absolutely loved it.

Spoiler

sobbing like a little kid who has been grounded for a month by the end. Great performances from a number of people - i especially hated the mother.

 

[Uter]

I thought the entire thing was done well until the last 20 minutes when it became glaringly obvious that

Spoiler

the emotional pull and direction by the characters and story were all bent towards eliciting an overwhelming opinion on a highly charged political topic.

I thought it was pretty cheap myself. I dislike being manipulated like that, it put me off to the entire movie.

 

[Cerebral Palsy]

We saw Sideways tonight instead. It was very funny.

 

[DCharlie]

"I thought it was pretty cheap myself. I dislike being manipulated like that, it put me off to the entire movie."

... doesn't this happen in , like, every movie ever with the possible exception of mindless action movies?

 

[Celicar]

Million Dollar Baby was good for what it was, but the second half of the movie pissed me off. Clint got to go eat pie though so I liked that.

 

[sefskillz]

We saw Sideways tonight instead. It was very funny.

I still can't figure out how Sideways was 'funny'. I liked the movie and it had funny moments, but it wasn't a comedy. I was depressed most of the time.

 

[Uter]

"I thought it was pretty cheap myself. I dislike being manipulated like that, it put me off to the entire movie."

... doesn't this happen in , like, every movie ever with the possible exception of mindless action movies?

How many movies suddenly switch their total thrust with 20 minutes left to become a blatent piece of political propaganda? Sorry but no, I can't remember any movie that I found as manipulative as this one. It isn't just that it has a political message, there are many movies with a message out they openly advocate something without resorting to this kind of emotional manipulation, it is HOW they go about setting up the message in this movie. Manipulating the characters and story until they abruptly force the viewer's sympathies in a specific direction.

 

[Meier]

I didnt get a political message at all out of it :\ Absolutely loved the film though -- it's right there with Sideways although I'm not sure if I could say which was better at this point. Also got to see The Aviator this weekend which was similarly amazing in my opinion.

 

[DCharlie]

"I didnt get a political message at all out of it :\"

I'm with Meier on this one.

 

[border]

Schlocky and emotionally manipulative. But as far as schlocky and manipulative films go, I don't think it could have been executed any better. First half is a cliche-filled spunky-young-upstart-meets-old-teacher-with-personal-issues bit, but it still has its charm. You're still on the edge of your seat during a couple fights. After that it becomes all sad and issue-oriented, which is probably why it will win the Oscar from Hollywood's liberal elite. The competition doesn't deal with social issues as flagrantly and thus probably won't be given as much consideration (at least not for Best Picture).

If you didn't see the "political message" then you are so much on the filmmakers' side that it's transparent to you. You believe in the rightness of the character so much that you don't see it from any other angle.

I particularly disliked the confessional scene, where the entire situation has to be laid out in detail, so not only does the "stupid audience" understand the conflict, but they are clobbered over the head with it.

Sideways remains my choice Best Picture (out of the nominees), and Before Sunset probably remains as personal best.

 

[LinesInTheSand]

Best movie of 2004.

 

[Uter]

Best movie of 2004.

pfft

 

[TheDuce22]

Who cares about a female boxer? I have as much interest in this as I would in a movie about the WNBA. I dont care if its not actually about boxing, they shouldve thought of that before they promoted it.

 

[dammitmattt]

Who cares about a female boxer? I have as much interest in this as I would in a movie about the WNBA. I dont care if its not actually about boxing, they shouldve thought of that before they promoted it.

That is the dumbest, most ignorant quote that I've heard related to this movie. I don't give a crap about wine, but that doesn't make Sideways any less hilarious.

It is not a movie about boxing, but what's there is very authentic. Every female boxer in that movie could sure kick your ass.

I thought it was a great, great movie. I haven't seen a more intense, emotional movie in years. Great characters all around, great dialogue, and the best villian this year. I've seen all 5 Best Picture nominees now, and this one would get my vote (although I wouldn't mind seeing Sideways win, either). For those bitching about the "political message," I think you are way too cynical.

 

[LinesInTheSand]

pfft

Pfft your shitty movie taste right out of this thread.

 

[jiggle]

Good movie.

 

[Foreign Jackass]

Schlocky and emotionally manipulative. But as far as schlocky and manipulative films go, I don't think it could have been executed any better. First half is a cliche-filled spunky-young-upstart-meets-old-teacher-with-personal-issues bit, but it still has its charm. You're still on the edge of your seat during a couple fights.

I think it surpasses any movie of this type, even if it has some cliches. The depth of the characters does it all, for me.

Spoiler

And if you didn't expect the "TWIST", as most people call it, then you're really completely deprived of any cinematic sense, as the movie was full of foreboding (old dog talk, cinematography, etc. etc. etc.)

If you didn't see the "political message" then you are so much on the filmmakers' side that it's transparent to you. You believe in the rightness of the character so much that you don't see it from any other angle.

I think it's the other way around. People who disagree with the decisions taken by the main characters are seeing it as a political message, while people who UNDERSTAND the decision know that it's the only one that THESE characters could make, given their earlier development in the story. It's probably not the one I would make, however (not in this particular case, anyway, I'm a mental person), and I am not at all like Clint is in the movie.

I particularly disliked the confessional scene, where the entire situation has to be laid out in detail, so not only does the "stupid audience" understand the conflict, but they are clobbered over the head with it.

One of the best scenes of the movie, you obviously misunderstood it. It's really subtle, and I cannot possibly understand how it would clobber the audience with something, as, basically, it says that the decision the main character has to take is not simply linked with religion, but with inner feelings of remorse and regrets. Also, the priest is a more realistic and charming priest than in any movie I've seen done in a long time.

That is the dumbest, most ignorant quote that I've heard related to this movie. I don't give a crap about wine, but that doesn't make Sideways any less hilarious.

It is not a movie about boxing, but what's there is very authentic. Every female boxer in that movie could sure kick your ass.

I thought it was a great, great movie. I haven't seen a more intense, emotional movie in years. Great characters all around, great dialogue, and the best villian this year. I've seen all 5 Best Picture nominees now, and this one would get my vote (although I wouldn't mind seeing Sideways win, either). For those bitching about the "political message," I think you are way too cynical.

Agreed.

 

[FrenchMovieTheme]

i will be the first to admit when i heard the words "female boxer" describe this movie, i was immediately skeptical about seeing it. but i saw it anyways, and suck my cock if it wasn't the best movie i have seen in years. one of the saddest endings of all time too

 

[border]

I'm devoid of cinematic sense because I didn't expect

Spoiler

the girl to have an in-ring accident and become a quadropelegic? C'mon now. There is maybe a sense that something bad will happen, but you certainly don't know which character it will happen to and that it will be a life-shattering setback. Everybody expects something bad to happen in these Rocky/Karate Kid knockoffs.....it's essentially par for the course. The difference here is that the setback isn't just a loss in the ring or a death in the family or whatever, but something that completely debilitates the hero(es)

. The movie doesn't have "some cliches"....it is utterly littered with them. Though maybe that's what helps the twist's effectiveness so much; it works against the myriad of genre-cliches that they have thrown at you until that point.

How is it "subtle" when the main character, who has pretty much been established as the strong silent type, essentially has to narrate his problems to the audience? It would seem to me that this is frequently the difference between an American film and a foreign film -- the foreign directors would keep things internal, but in America everything has to be spelled out. Subtlety would be showing with symbols, gestures, expressions, movement, metonymy, etc....

Whether or not Eastwood's character "HAD" to do what he does, the very telling of the story is meant to evoke the viewer's questions about a particular social issue. Whether it has a coherent message or not is kind of debatable, but it's still in there for a reason. Why do you see characters as HAVING to do what they did, though?

 

[FrenchMovieTheme]

border eastwood doesn't narrate his own story, that is morgan freeman narrating it

 

[border]

I'm talking specifically about the one scene where he talks to the priest....not Freeman's narration.

 

[Foreign Jackass]

I'm devoid of cinematic sense because I didn't expect

Spoiler

the girl to have an in-ring accident and become a quadropelegic? C'mon now. There is maybe a sense that something bad will happen, but you certainly don't know which character it will happen to and that it will be a life-shattering setback. Everybody expects something bad to happen in these Rocky/Karate Kid knockoffs.....it's essentially par for the course. The difference here is that the setback isn't just a loss in the ring or a death in the family or whatever, but something that completely debilitates the hero(es)

. The movie doesn't have "some cliches"....it is utterly littered with them. Though maybe that's what helps the twist's effectiveness so much; it works against the myriad of genre-cliches that they have thrown at you until that point.

How is it "subtle" when the main character, who has pretty much been established as the strong silent type, essentially has to narrate his problems to the audience? It would seem to me that this is frequently the difference between an American film and a foreign film -- the foreign directors would keep things internal, but in America everything has to be spelled out. Subtlety would be showing with symbols, gestures, expressions, movement, metonymy, etc....

Whether or not Eastwood's character "HAD" to do what he does, the very telling of the story is meant to evoke the viewer's questions about a particular social issue. Whether it has a coherent message or not is kind of debatable, but it's still in there for a reason. Why do you see characters as HAVING to do what they did, though?

I don't see how this movie resembles even remotely to Rocky or Karate Kid, really. Where was the character development in Karate Kid, and where the hell were the psychological questions raised in Rocky? Rocky is a plain success story. Eastwood uses boxing here as a way to bring his themes, which those other two movies you mentioned never brought. It IS NOT A BOXING MOVIE. Is Star Wars a lightsaber movie, and Before Sunset a "talking" movie? Is Raging Bull only about boxing?

Yes, Eastwood is the strong silent type, but haven't we seen him over and over establishing conversations with the priest, mostly on religious-psychological issues? The scene made perfect sense to me, and to a great deal of people. It was NOT hammering a message (which message would that be anyway?).

As for raising a question, how is it something BAD? Is there any fucking way of doing a movie about

Spoiler

euthanasia

without being too much of a political statement for right-wingers? And what the hell is wrong with Eastwood expressing his questions

Spoiler

on dignity, devotion, fulfillment, redemption, the value of life and euthanasia?

? Every great movie in existence has an exploration/statement about a theme in it. Stop being so whiny when the answer the characters find isn't what YOU believe is right.

P.S. Here's your answer to this :

Whether or not Eastwood's character "HAD" to do what he does, the very telling of the story is meant to evoke the viewer's questions about a particular social issue. Whether it has a coherent message or not is kind of debatable, but it's still in there for a reason. Why do you see characters as HAVING to do what they did, though?

Spoiler

Obviously, by the end of the movie, Swank's character has accomplished everything she wanted to do in the first place, and will never be able to come back to the level where she has been previously, in any aspect of life except maybe intellectual knowledge development, which she never really seemed to care about anyway. Her passion was boxing, and she'll never be able to achieve anything in it ever again. Eastwood, on the other side, loves her so much that he cannot go against her own will, although he'd rather see her alive. He has to sacrifice his new daughter-replacing relationship which he developed over the course of the movie with Swank, and has to put Swank's will over his own, and even more, to express his love for her, he has to step over his own fears of being damned and not being able to live with it (and the movie never says he IS able to live with it. Eastwood flees his life and goes to the restaurant to live in the memories he has of her.) But as it was seen in the movie, Eastwood is a character made of dedication, who will never let down his "students" in the face of adversity, and so he must absolutely help her face this last challenge. Although it's fair to say that she doesn't have the kind of counseling she SHOULD have (in real life, people aren't always counseled adequately either.), given what she knows of life, and given her established temperament, it is only normal when she decides to choose death over her new diminished life (and it IS diminished, never mind if you're pro-life or not.). Well, I think this explains the logic behind their decision enough. Do I agree with the decision? If I had to help someone I loved to do it because they wanted it, I'd do it. Would I ask to be killed in the same situation? No, unless my brain was dead.

 

[Dan]

Is there any fucking way of doing a movie about

Spoiler

euthanasia

without being too much of a political statement for right-wingers?

Only right-wingers can have a problem with that? I've seen plenty of movies where I agree with the messages/points/themes/statements that they address and still hated the manner in which it was done. For example, Bowling For Columbine and Wag The Dog.

 

[Foreign Jackass]

Only right-wingers can have a problem with that? I've seen plenty of movies where I agree with the messages/points/themes/statements that they address and still hated the manner in which it was done. For example, Bowling For Columbine and Wag The Dog.

Wag the Dog is a satyre. Anyone taking it seriously would be completely dumb. Bowling for Columbine uses fiction as truth (I hate guns, Bush, and Michael Moore). Those are completely unrelated to Million Dollar Baby. M$B doesn't even says that it knows the answer to the problems it raises. That's why mostly only right-wingers have a problem with it. They believe that Eastwood's character's solution is really Eastwood's solution. They fail to see the price he pays, and the issues he raises, and see only the final result. And this is, well, typically right-wing.

Oh, I edited my earlier post, please check it out if you want the answer to your previous question.

 

[Mifune]

Clint Eastwood is a Republican.

That's the sound of the "political statement" critique ejecting its air and flying right out the window.

P.S. I thought this was an absolutely stunning, devastating piece of moviemaking.

 

[Meier]

Clint Eastwood is a Republican.

That's the sound of the "political statement" critique ejecting its air and flying right out the window.

Yeah that's part of the reason I'm so confused by what they're talking about. Clint is in fact a pretty outspoken Republican and member of the NRA. If you're looking for a movie arguably making a political statement about

Spoiler

the subject at hand, then we should talk about The Sea Inside.

 

[Uter]

Pfft your shitty movie taste right out of this thread.

Right... So because I dismissed your subjective claim that Million Dollar Baby was the best movie of 2004 I suddenly have "shitty movie taste".. Great logic.

But do go on, please embarrass yourself with more inane fallacious arguments.

I think it's the other way around. People who disagree with the decisions taken by the main characters are seeing it as a political message, while people who UNDERSTAND the decision know that it's the only one that THESE characters could make, given their earlier development in the story. It's probably not the one I would make, however (not in this particular case, anyway, I'm a mental person), and I am not at all like Clint is in the movie.

hahah. As if somehow the movie characters are freed from the constraints of the writers, screenplay and director? The author had absolutely no idea what the end would be, he just followed a story as he wrote, no motive or message was behind the story whatsoever. Ludicrous..

That specific issue is INHERENTLY political.

One of the best scenes of the movie, you obviously misunderstood it. It's really subtle, and I cannot possibly understand how it would clobber the audience with something, as, basically, it says that the decision the main character has to take is not simply linked with religion, but with inner feelings of remorse and regrets. Also, the priest is a more realistic and charming priest than in any movie I've seen done in a long time.

The scene in question is NOT subtle, the audience is completely manipulated into feeling certain things towards the characters through the story, direction, acting and dialogue. The sudden change at the end is very abrupt and the entire previous parts of the story and the emotional attachments formed with the characters attempts to force the viewer to accept the moral decision that is made as being "right". The issue in question is a moral and LEGAL issue INHERENTLY involving the political process. Because the political process has been and is involved in the efforts throughout our society to legalize the issue in question. How anyone can ignore these obvious connections is beyond me..

As for raising a question, how is it something BAD? Is there any fucking way of doing a movie about

Spoiler

euthanasia

without being too much of a political statement for right-wingers? And what the hell is wrong with Eastwood expressing his questions

Spoiler

on dignity, devotion, fulfillment, redemption, the value of life and euthanasia?

? Every great movie in existence has an exploration/statement about a theme in it. Stop being so whiny when the answer the characters find isn't what YOU believe is right.

Amazingly enough there was another movie with the exact same topic, one that didn't need to cheaply disguise the issue until the last part of the movie to get a bigger emotional impact.

Spoiler

"The Sea Inside", a film by Alejandro Amenabar about Ramon Sampedro who spent 30 years trying to die after a diving accident paralysed him from the neck down. It won a Golden Globe, Javier Bardem was on the short list for an oscar nomination before the Clint Eastwood nomination suprised everyone.

This movie didn't disguise what it was, or try to abruptly manipulate emotions at the end of the movie. And it was a true story to boot.

If they wanted to make an issue oriented movie, than at least be honest with your audience and respect them enough not to turn it into some cheap appeal to emotion abruptly at the very end.

 

[border]

First off, I will say that I at least agree in part with Uter. If you can't see the political slant (or at least why others might see a political slant), then you are wearing blinders. The idea that the screenwriter had "no idea what he was doing" I do not really agree with, so you will need to take it up with him specifically. I think Million Dollar Baby is pretty deliberate.

Anytime a progtagonist transgresses social boundaries and is not punished for it, most viewers will read it as an implicit advocation of the transgression. I don't think this law is totally universal, but I think it applies here. The film comes off as at least somewhat

Spoiler

pro-euthanasia

because of it. I don't think this is necessarily the best way to interpret films, but critics and Oscar voters will understand this (as the filmmakers do I'm sure). Thus, those with a strong

Spoiler

pro-euthanasia

stance will be more apt to vote for the film because it furthers the political leanings they have.

Rocky and Karate Kid are just reference points for the sub-genre that Million Dollar Baby fits into (at least for the first 80 minutes). I'm not trying to say that it's a carbon copy, but there's no denying that it feels very familiar. Wise master with a dark past meets young upstart, but doesn't want to teach him....young upstart's conviction convinces the master, perhaps with the help of a friendly old codger. Wise master must work to contain the youthful impulses of his pupil, but must also learn to change his own style....blah blah blah we know the rest. I've already admitted that the very heavy adherence to cliche can work in the film's favor (to the extent that the breaks with cliche can heighten surprise and emotion), so I'm not sure if it is that big of an issue.

I don't think Eastwood's confession scene "hammers a message" so much as it's just an awkward acquiesence to braindead audiences. Maybe it's a necessary evil and all, but it just feels a bit weird to have everything so explicitly laid out.

As for raising a question, how is it something BAD?

Show me where I said that being issue-oriented was necessarily bad. I didn't mean it, so might have gotten that impression implicitly. Was there something that made you come to this conclusion? My only point was that it is an Oscar favorite because it deals with a social issue very directly. This is not inherently a bad thing, though I obviously don't want films that I feel to be superior to be overlooked just because they aren't as political.

You also assume that I'm personally

Spoiler

anti-euthanasia, but that's not really the case. I maintain both a regular will and a living will

. At the same time, I don't deny that the film is politically charged. Eastwood's character goes well-beyond norms accepted by even "average" liberals -- [spoilers]he essentially murders someone who is capable of lucid, conscious thought and is not suffering constant, agonizing pain. Most people generally approve of euthanasia only if it's for the comatose or pain-stricken.[/spoiler] In that sense, the film pushes beyond the obvious and I can congratulate it for pushing thought further.

 

[Foreign Jackass]

Anytime a progtagonist transgresses social boundaries and is not punished for it, most viewers will read it as an implicit advocation of the transgression.

Spoiler

How is he NOT punished? Isn't killing your new equivalent of a daughter a huge punishment enough? Isn't murdering someone and filling your soul with remorse not bad enough? This is clearly implied by the movie, in one of the best scenes of the movie, the priest scene, which completely blows your argument away, both against the scene itself and the implicit advocation you're speaking of.

Rocky and Karate Kid are just reference points for the sub-genre that Million Dollar Baby fits into (at least for the first 80 minutes). I'm not trying to say that it's a carbon copy, but there's no denying that it feels very familiar. Wise master with a dark past meets young upstart, but doesn't want to teach him....young upstart's conviction convinces the master, perhaps with the help of a friendly old codger. Wise master must work to contain the youthful impulses of his pupil, but must also learn to change his own style....blah blah blah we know the rest. I've already admitted that the very heavy adherence to cliche can work in the film's favor (to the extent that the breaks with cliche can heighten surprise and emotion), so I'm not sure if it is that big of an issue.

I believe the obvious difference between this movie and Rocky and Karate Kid is that this one is much more realistic. It transcends the cliches by using them as they should have been used from the start. It doesn't force anything in the relationships, the characters aren't completely filled with weird quirks or sudden impulses to change their behavior. I don't have any problem with things I saw in other movies when they are well executed. How many Meet Cute have I seen in my movie going experiences, and yet, some of the new ones still involve me. Why? Because they don't FEEL like cliches while they are playing. After thinking about it, yeah, alright, I've seen it done before. But have I seen it done before in a better way? I don't think so, because while I was watching the movie, I wasn't interested in finding references or cliches. I was interested in what happened to the CHARACTERS.

 

[shakezula]

-

 

[Foreign Jackass]

Spoiler tags = [ spoiler ] [ /spoiler ]

 

[Prospero]

Spoiler tags = [ spoiler ] [ /spoiler ]

If only the headlines of New York Times articles had this convention, and not just GAF. I mean, shit.