|
January 25, 2005
|
Somehow this past weekend, I managed to escape the usual routines and requirements at home and get out to see a movie at a movie theater. On the basis of Roger Ebert's excellently written review, I decided that I should see Million Dollar Baby before someone spoiled the story for me. In his review, Ebert doesn't tell you too much, but gives very compelling reasons as to why you should go see it.
As the movie opens up, you can tell where it's going -- which formula it is following, which notes it has to hit -- and it's done brilliantly. The actors are pitch perfect: Clint Eastwood as the cranky old trainer who is guarding a heart of gold, Hilary Swank as the wanna-be contender who has all of the odds stacked against her but an undeniable will to beat the odds, and Morgan Freeman as the wise intermediary who nudges both characters to see what they otherwise could not. Had the movie played out as expected, it would no doubt have stood as one of the best of its breed.
But then, well, it turns out that this movie does not follow the formula at all. Much like Eastwood's movie Unforgiven, it transcends its genre. Million Dollar Baby tells a very human story that goes beyond its apparent setting as "a boxing movie".
I don't know if I agree with Ebert that this is a "great" film. It is certainly not flawless -- unlike, say, The Godfather, which is arguably perfect. I have a couple of minor quibbles with a couple of scenes that didn't ring quite true to me. But if this movie isn't one of the all-time greats, it is nonetheless damn good.
There is a danger of going in to see a movie like this with one's hopes set too high. When I went in, I had no idea what to expect. Ebert didn't really warn me of what to expect -- much to his credit -- but rather, he simply said that this was the best film of 2004. Going in, that seemed to set the bar pretty high. But then, as much as I love Mr. Ebert's writing, we don't always agree on what works and what doesn't. So I went in expecting that the movie would be worthwhile, even if it wouldn't make *my* list of the year's best.
(Of course, I haven't seen that many new movies this year.)
My first reaction when the movie was over was that, well, hmm, maybe it *was* the best film of the year. And the more I've thought about it, the more convinced I have become that, yeah, this definitely was the best I've seen, and probably better than the ones I haven't seen. Here we are a few days later, and I still can't stop thinking about it.
Was it perfect? Certainly not. Was it great? Ask me again in a year, after I've had time to digest it. Was it worth seeing? Oh, yes. Definitely.
Don't read any more reviews. Just go see this movie, and tell me what you think.
Posted by on January 25, 2005 01:43 PM in the following Department(s): Books/Movies/Music
|
Comments
|
I agree. We do see a ton of movies and that one was easily the best this year.
House is looking good. Love the color.
Posted by: Jim Bellomo on February 9, 2005 3:33 PM|
Post a comment
|
Copyright (c)1998 - 2010 by Allan Rousselle. All rights reserved, all wrongs reversed, all reservations righted, all right, already.
Click here to send me mail.
