@Svumpukkel85 said:

the morale of the movie is that you cannot win if you fight against assholes. Even if you train hard - you are fucked.

Eh?

The film was about euthanasia, dude.

Actually quite unusual coming from Eastwood. Considering he's very much a republican.

Mr. Eastwood said in a telephone interview on Saturday that he was not surprised at the protest, but that the film was not about the right to die. "The film is supposed to make you think about the precariousness of life and how we handle it," he said. "How the character handles it is certainly different than how I might handle it if I were in that position in real life. Every story is a 'what if." enter link description here

Interesting.

Though it still is odd for a film from a republican. Eastwood may not claim to be pro euthanasia. But he doesn't condemn or criticize the character for his actions. He's saying it's a morally grey and complex situation to be in. Republicans tend to be very unswaying, black and white thinkers.

@JustinJackFlash said:

@Svumpukkel85 said:

the morale of the movie is that you cannot win if you fight against assholes. Even if you train hard - you are fucked.

Eh?

The film was about euthanasia, dude.

Actually quite unusual coming from Eastwood. Considering he's very much a republican.

Yes, but I feel like Clint managed again with this movie, including the ending, to make it more about his patronizing self (as in Gran Torino) than about the emancipation and fulfilment of the other protagonist.

I find his direction decent and effective, but lord-who-might-not-exist does he still send messages that unsubtly consecrate Authority and its traditional Father figure, which at the end of the day is very much conservative in my opinion.

That was such a great movie. Yes it was a little depressing but I still appreciated how well it was made.

@JustinJackFlash said:

Interesting.

Though it still is odd for a film from a republican. Eastwood may not claim to be pro euthanasia. But he doesn't condemn or criticize the character for his actions. He's saying it's a morally grey and complex situation to be in. Republicans tend to be very unswaying, black and white thinkers.

We are all black and white thinkers about a lot things. I'll wager you have a very black and white view of rape and murder. Republicans are no different than Democrats in their core beliefs although even within their respective parties, there are varying degrees of beliefs. For example, there are pro-choice and pro-life Republicans and Democrats.

By the way, he did condemn the act of killing her. He told the priest he knew it was a sin.

@Invidia said:

@Svumpukkel85

Her family was also way-over-the top-trashy.

Yes they were definitely STEREOTYPES ...

ONE DIMENSIONAL BUFFOONS ...

who also remind one of the other family found in SUDDENLY LAST SUMMER.

The SON was found DROOLING over the CLOTHING of other SON or the character who had died in that film

and both he and his MOTHER were also ready to LOBOTOMIZE their SISTER/DAUGHTER in return for a pay off from the other mother who wanted to keep what really happened to her son a secret.

But the story in that film also WORKED, whereas this one DOES NOT (thanks to the OUTSTANDING performance of LIZ TAYLOR in it).

And the reason it doesn't work is because of the way EASTWOOD let's his POLITICS show in this film, the same way as he does when he addressed that EMPTY CHAIR on STAGE pretending to talk to OBAMA.

Imagine how EASTWOOD would also have turned the former POTUS into a ONE DIMENTIONAL CHARACTER if he'd also made a film about HIM.

So you're right.

The MOVIE SUCKED BIGTIME ...

and it WAS impossible to care about the MAIN CHARACTER in it ...

due to the lack of STORY TELLING SKILLS on the part of EASTWOOD ...

who was obviously more interested in PROMOTING his OWN OVERLY BIASED PERSONAL POLITICAL OPINIONS ...

thus also making what happens in it completely IMPLAUSIBLE ...

(at least to anyone who comprehends what GOOD STORY TELLIING is all about).

GOOD STORY TELLING doesn't let one's PERSONAL BIAS show or turn the story into some kind of PROPAGANDA PROMOTIONAL VIDEO where one BASHES and ATTACKS the LOWER CLASS the same way as ROMNEY did when he said:

NO ONE cares about the 47 PERCENT who won't VOTE for him anyhow.

Turning CHARACTERS in a FILM into ONE DIMENSIONAL CARTOONS the way EASTWOOD did is definitely a BIG NO NO.

Well you must despise 99% of the movies coming out of Hollywood, with their OVERT, loony liberal bias. At least Clint is subtle.

Oh yeah. It "sucked bigtime". It won 4 Oscars and numerous other awards, 8.1 on IMDb and did extremely well at the box office. The true definition of sucking bigtime.

Not sure about any Oscar pandering by the ending or this film being about the rights or wrongs of euthanasia per se.

As far as I'm concerned this film was only really about Frankie and his estrangement from his daughter. He lost his daughter - for reasons unknown to us the viewers - but presumably to do with being unwilling to bend from his own stubborn nature / beliefs. In the end the tragedy is that he saves his relationship with his second chance, surrogate "daughter" by bending and respecting her wishes.

@Invidia said:

Well you must despise 99% of the movies coming out of Hollywood, with their OVERT, loony liberal bias. At least Clint is subtle. Oh yeah. It "sucked bigtime". It won 4 Oscars and numerous other awards, 8.1 on IMDb and did extremely well at the box office. The true definition of sucking bigtime.

MOST of the MOVIES coming out of HOLLYWOOD seem to be about ONE DIMENSIONAL CARTOON or COMIC BOOK characters because the industry is now GLOBAL and needs to please other viewers besides Americans.

And those SUPER HERO films also aren't what one would call LIBERAL, because they're basically you're GOOD GUY vs BAD GUY stories where the GOOD GUYS use to wear the WHITE HATS and the BAD GUYS the BLACK HATS (like DARTH VADER did in STAR WARS).

Are you also going to claim STAR WARS was also full of LIBERAL BIAS???

There was NOTHING SUBTLE about CLINT.

His NEO CON BIAS showed BIGTIME, especially that time when he made a FOOL of himself by talking to the EMPTY CHAIR on stage.

After that one also decided to NEVER watch another film with him in it again or watch one that he had directed.

WINNING OSCARS is also no INDICATION that the movie that WON it deserved to GET IT.

RECENTLY the OSCARS that are going to films have turned into a POPULARITY CONTEST, which may also have something to do with the reason why VIEWERSHIP is way down now on the nights when the OSCARS are awarded.

People have most likely stopped watching the AWARD shows because they also KNOW the AWARDS being received have become a bunch of BS.

It's other films like 3 BILLBOARDS that people want to see.

Because the characters in it aren't ONE DIMENSIONAL STEREOTYPES like the one's were in the boxing film.

Are you also going to suggest that 3 BILLBOARDS is also full of LIBERAL BIAS???

Go ahead.

It will be most amusing to see you try to make the case that that's the case.

You’re seriously going to name two movies as your case? And super hero movies? Do some research. Hollywood is infested with liberal agenda. If you don’t see it, you need to watch more movies. I agree, the Oscars aren’t the barometer I use, That’s why a said the film won numerous awards that had noting to do with the Oscars. I also cited public opinion with box office success to back it up. You can tell yourself this wasn’t a good movie but the facts and numbers say you’re wrong.

@Invidia said:

@chilone

99% of the movies coming out of Hollywood

Again, 99 PERCENT of the movies coming out of HOLLYWOOD aren't full of BIAS.

This is obviously a FALSE and UNINFORMED CLAIM that you've made.

You’re seriously going to name two movies as your case? And super hero movies? Do some research. Hollywood is infested with liberal agenda. If you don’t see it, you need to watch more movies. I agree, the Oscars aren’t the barometer I use, That’s why a said the film won numerous awards that had noting to do with the Oscars. I also cited public opinion with box office success to back it up. You can tell yourself this wasn’t a good movie but the facts and numbers say you’re wrong.

NUMBERS mean NOTHING and can be MISLEADING.

Take the professor who is having sex with HALF the members of his class.

The conclusion is he's obviously an IMMORAL MAN until one also discovers how there are only 2 people in his class and ONE of them is his WIFE.

And at least you've also been given EXAMPLES of films that don't fit into your BIAS theory.

But what films have you presented us with as evidence to back up your claim???

NONE.

No examples whatsoever of BIASED films that are pushing political agendas.

So what are they???

Since you also claim that 99 PERCENT of films being produced contain it, finding and naming them also shouldn't be a problem for you.

And since HORROR FILMS are also the most PROFITABLE films shown in theaters (due to the way MOST of the viewers who attend movies are in the young adult/ teenage range), once again that further NARROWS down the FALSE CLAIM that you've made that HOLLYWOOD's infested with BIAS.

Because Teenagers aren't interested in politics.

They want GORE.

And here's the RESEARCH to prove it:

2010 American Movie-Goer Consumer Report - …

www.experian.com/.../02/20/2010-american-movie-goer-consumer-report

Many movie-goers (39%) have been only once in the last month and only 7% have been four or more times.

Young adults ages 18 to 24 are much more likely than the average movie-goer to have been to the theater in the last month with 75% reporting having been at least once and 10% having been 4 times or more.

---

take a look at the top 20 movies that have provided the biggest return on investment (ROI) (according to industry info website, The Numbers), and the ones that have been the biggest Hollywood flops, to find the movie genre that consistently provides the best returns.

Horrors and Thrillers

Horror is another genre with a lot of huge ROI hits and few misses. The number one movie for ROI is the hit "Paranormal Activity," which was made for $15,000 and had a box office gross of $161,830,890 for a return of 539,336.30%. "The Blair Witch Project" gave the studio a lofty 20,591% return. "Night of the Living Dead" comes in at six with an ROI of 13,057.89%, "Friday the 13th" is (coincidentally?) at 13, with 5,332.24%, "Open Water" follows at 5,110.09%, "Saw" comes in at 18 with 4,195.68% and "Evil Dead" closes out the list at 3,820.00%. Horror makes a much smaller appearance in the bottom 20 for box office ROI. (In 1983, an expert trader decided to coach 14 novice traders. The results were astounding - read them in Turtle Trading: A Market Legend.)

Action Adventure

Action adventure movies make the big headlines with the record-breaking ticket sales. However, huge ticket sales are usually matched by huge budgets, which means that these movies bring in a lot of money, but not the best ROI

Overall, horror movies consistently have the most films in the top 20 for ROI

Read more: Movie Genres That Make The Most Money https://www.investopedia.com/financial-edge/0410/movie-genres-with-the-best-roi.aspx#ixzz5RJwfEg7i

So there you go.

HORROR is the winner and there's also NOTHING in them to indicate they contain any kind of political BIAS …

unless it would be full of NEO CON RIGHT WING BIAS …

due to the way it's usually always the girls who DON'T SAY NO to having SEX who are also the first ones to get KILLED by FREDDY or by whoever else it is that happens to be the MURDERING MONSTER in the film.

And the case is also the same with Action Adventure films.

No political BIAS in those either. Just more SILLY STEROTYPED characters and other nonsense being directed at the UNSOPHISCATED minds of young people who find such things entertaining.

Interesting that you don't understand hyperbole but use it when it fits your narrative. Yes I exaggerated when I said 99% but you did too when you said "HORROR is the winner and there's also NOTHING in them to indicate they contain any kind of political BIAS".

Also you said "NUMBERS mean NOTHING and can be MISLEADING" yet you sited LOTS of number. Why is that?...... oh, I forgot... Typical liberal tactic: Do as I say, not as I do.

Here's a few liberal biased movies for you:

1. Get Out - HORROR!! Egads!
2. They Live - John Carpenter himself said the film was anti Reagan - Horror also
3. The Life Of David Gale
4. Dances with Wolves
5. Black Lightning
6. Elysium
7. SNL - Not a movie but as biased as it gets
8. The Life of David Gale
9. The Naked Gun 2 1/2
10. John Q
11. On Deadly Ground
12. Beatriz at Dinner
13. Bulworth
14. The Last Supper
15. The Post
16. Miss Sloan
17. Promised Land
18. Fair Game
19. God Bless America
20. Green Zone
21. JFK

There's a short list for you. I don't know why you're in denial of such an obvious and well known fact. The vast preponderance of the Hollywood elite are very vocal about their far left views. Why is it such a stretch for you to concede that it would reflect in their work?

By the way, proclaiming, despite those pesky numbers, ROI and public opinion, Million Dollar Baby "sucked bigtime" is delusional at best. You didn't like it (fair enough). Just leave it at that.

@Invidia said:

FYI:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship_in_the_United_States#Film

The first act of movie censorship in the United States was an 1897 statute of the State of Maine that prohibited the exhibition of prizefight films.[26] Maine enacted the statute to prevent the exhibition of the 1897 heavyweight championship between James J. Corbett and Robert Fitzsimmons. Some other states followed Maine. In 1915, the US Supreme Court decided the case Mutual Film Corporation v. Industrial Commission of Ohio in which the court determined that motion pictures were purely commerce and not an art, and thus not covered by the First Amendment.

local, state, and city censorship boards had the power to edit or ban films. City and state censorship ordinances are nearly as old as the movies themselves, and such ordinances banning the public exhibition of "immoral" films proliferated.

In other words, NOTE how if things hadn't changed and gotten more LIBERAL, then this MILLION DOLLAR FIGHT FILM could also NOT have been made.

---

Haven't seen MOST of the MOVIES in your list, but let's begin with DANCES with WOLVES (which one has seen).

Please explain HOW and WHY that film is full of BIAS.

In what way???

It's a story where he meets a WHITE WOMAN who was captured and raised by NATIVE AMERICANS.

And HISTORY also tells us that such things use to happen, and that when the captured people were found again, they also chose to remain with the NATIVES rather than go back to living again with the PATRIARCHAL culture from which they came (because they also had more FREEDOM living with the NATIVE CULTURE).

So where's the BIAS???

And Who is the BIAS being directed at???

Also you said "NUMBERS mean NOTHING and can be MISLEADING" yet you sited LOTS of number. Why is that?....

The POINT is HORROR FILMS and ACTION/ADVENTURE FILMS make the most MONEY and MILLION DOLLAR BABY is neither a HORROR FILM nor an ACTION ADVENTURE film.

And that also places it into a CATEGORY where MOST PEOPLE don't see it or watch it.

And that also means the CLAIM you made that winning 4 OSCARS makes it a success has no meaning when the film is placed into a LARGER CONTEXT.

And saying 8 of 10 people prefer it on IMDB also has NO real MEANING either, because that's also a SMALL LIMITED SAMPLE of people, and is NOT a LARGE ENOUGH CONTEXT.

And doing well at the BOX OFFICE also isn't an indication that a film is worthy enough to win AWARDS, because HORROR FILMS are also the MOST SUCCESSFUL FILMS at the BOX OFFICE (but most of us also know that MOST of them aren't ARTISTIC enough to WIN AWARDS).

Perhaps one TRUE MEASURE of SUCCESS is to be chosen by the LIBRARY of CONGRESS ... which means the reason why the FILM was chosen is probably due to it's EXCELLENCE or for it's UNIQUENESS in some way ... meaning that it would also be PRESERVED for generations yet to come???

And MILLION DOLLAR BABY definitely doesn't strike one as being worthy enough for that kind of an HONOR or CATEGORY.

And a search also shows us that it's NOT been chosen:

Showing results for is million dollar baby in the library of congress. No results found for is million dollar baby in the libary of congress.

In other words, down through the ages this film will probably also join the rest of PULP FICTION stories which generally get tossed out and forgotten about.

Why is it such a stretch for you to concede that it (BIAS) would reflect in their work?

Because the LOCAL UNIVERSITY also offered an ONLINE COURSE regarding the HISTORY of film (which is still another reason why one realizes why the claim you've made is a FALSE ONE that has NO MERIT).

The professor who taught the course teaches at another university now but here's a copy of the book he's written and used as a textbook:

https://www.amazon.com/Hollywoods-America-Understanding-History-Through-ebook/dp/B01A7R5DC0

In fact throughout the history of FILM what you find is just the OPPOSITE situation in HOLLYWOOD ... with RIGHT WING RELIGIOUS FANATICS passing laws and making it nearly IMPOSSIBLE for HOLLYWOOD to make films that contained LIBERAL points of view.

TABLE of CONTENTS here:

https://play.google.com/books/reader?id=_SdcCwAAQBAJ&hl=en_US&pg=GBS.PR5

NOTE the FILM CENSORSHIP TOPIC that you'll find on this PAGE of the CONTENTS:

https://play.google.com/books/reader?id=_SdcCwAAQBAJ&hl=en_US&pg=GBS.PR6

Which you can also read about here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motion_Picture_Production_Code

The Motion Picture Production Code was the set of industry moral guidelines that was applied to most United States motion pictures released by major studios from 1930 to 1968. It is also popularly known as the Hays Code, after Will H. Hays, who was the president of the Motion Picture Producers and Distributors of America (MPPDA) from 1922 to 1945. Under Hays' leadership, the MPPDA, later known as the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA), adopted the Production Code in 1930, and began rigidly enforcing it in mid-1934. The Production Code spelled out what was acceptable and what was unacceptable content for motion pictures produced for a public audience in the United States.

By the late 1960s, enforcement had become impossible and the Production Code was abandoned entirely. The MPAA began working on a rating system, under which film restrictions would lessen. The MPAA film rating system went into effect on November 1, 1968, with four ratings: G for general audiences, M for mature content, R for restricted (under 17 not admitted without an adult), and X for sexually explicit content.

So contrary to your MISINFORMED OPINION, throughout MOST of HOLLYWOOD'S HISTORY it was the RIGHT WING RELIGIOUS FANATICS who forced THEIR BIASED VIEWS onto the viewing audience and dictated what kind of a film could and could not be made.

And the ONE DIMENSIONAL, STEREOTYPICAL portrayal of the characters in the Eastwood film is merely a CONTINUATION of the same kind of BIASED AGENDA that one use to find being portrayed in other OLDER films (as was also already demonstrated by comparing them to the other family that one finds in SUDDENLY LAST SUMMER).

@Invidia said:

@Svumpukkel85

Her family was also way-over-the top-trashy.

Yes they were definitely STEREOTYPES ...

ONE DIMENSIONAL BUFFOONS ...

who also remind one of the other family found in SUDDENLY LAST SUMMER.

Do you DENY or claim there's not a PARALLEL between the way that the 2 families are portrayed in both of these 2 films???

You're living in an alternate reality. Taking individually (Oscars, IMDb, etc.) you have some minor points but this movie excelled in multiple, unrelated areas. If you don't want to think this movie is good, you don't have to but the majority of people who have seen it think it is a good movie. Do your research and you'll find this to be true. Also, feel free to deny that the movie industry and mainstream media aren't liberal biased. It's common knowledge (even the libs admit it) that it is the case.

@Invidia said:

QUOTE from ORIGINAL POST:

Her character was way too martyr-like and overly flawless with her good-natured heart. Her family was also way-over-the top-trashy. All in all way too much of everything. I felt like it left me not caring about her fate, as she didn't seem convincing in regard to her personality (nothing to do with the acting that was sublime by the way). I didn't become empowered or smarter about anything from this story. Just left with this hollow feeling of 'whatever', as the morale of the movie is that you cannot win if you fight against assholes. Even if you train hard - you are fucked.

They say the CHARACTER was too FLAWLESS.

Her FAMILY was OVER the TOP TRASHY.

They didn't CARE about her FATE because the CHARACTER DIDN'T SEEM CONVINCING and watching her LEFT them FEELING HOLLOW.

They are RIGHT.

BECAUSE the FAMILY is ONE DIMENTIONAL STEREOTYPES rather than their being WELL ROUNDED MULTI DIMENTIOAL characters which are much more INTERESTING to see being portrayed.

---

And WHY do you IGNORE the QUESTIONS that were put forth for you:

Haven't seen MOST of the MOVIES in your list, but let's begin with DANCES with WOLVES (which one has seen). Please explain HOW and WHY that film is full of BIAS. In what way??? It's a story where he meets a WHITE WOMAN who was captured and raised by NATIVE AMERICANS. And HISTORY also tells us that such things use to happen, and that when the captured people were found again, they also chose to remain with the NATIVES rather than go back to living again with the PATRIARCHAL culture from which they came (because they also had more FREEDOM living with the NATIVE CULTURE). So where's the BIAS??? And Who is the BIAS being directed at???

One doesn't PROVE one's POINT by presenting someone with a LIST of FILMS that you feel are full of BIAS and then NOT being able to EXPLAIN the reason WHY you feel that way.

And what that AMOUNTS to is YOU being the one who CHOSES to live inside of some kind of an ALTERNATIVE REALITY where you IGNORE what others say to you.

---

@Invidia said:

@Svumpukkel85

Her family was also way-over-the top-trashy.

Yes they were definitely STEREOTYPES ... ONE DIMENSIONAL BUFFOONS ... who also remind one of the other family found in SUDDENLY LAST SUMMER.

Here's still ANOTHER QUESTION that you choose to IGNORE:

Do you DENY or claim there's not a PARALLEL between the way that the 2 families are portrayed in both of these 2 films???

---

@chilone

You're living in an alternate reality.

CORRECTION:

It's the RIGHT WING NEO CONS who LIVE in the ALTERNATIVE REALITY where they want to turn the CLOCK BACK to the 1950's again to a time when women didn't have the right to take or use BIRTH CONTROL METHODS.

Look at the current nominee to the SCOTUS.

The IDIOT thinks taking BIRTH CONTROL pills is a form of ABORTION.

That's someone who is living inside of an ALTERNATIVE REALITY.

LIBERALS, who accept and believe in SCIENCE, understand how the reproductive system works and know better than to say something that STUPID.

---

Taking individually (Oscars, IMDb, etc.) you have some minor points but this movie excelled in multiple, unrelated areas.

Metaphorically speaking The MOVIE was only watched and seen by a handful of people who ADMIRED IT.

But others …

like the PROFESSOR who wrote the HISTORY of FILM BOOK …

or those who have MAJORED in or have taken FILM CORSES …

and/or have studied the HISTORY of FILM …

would usually also realize the MAJOR FLAWS that one finds in this film.

And IF you choose to IGNORE those FLAWS that one finds the way you keep doing, that still also doesn't mean they are NOT THERE.

---

If you don't want to think this movie is good, you don't have to but the majority of people who have seen it think it is a good movie.

The MAJORITY of people who have seen it are NOT FILM SCHOLARS or people who realize the reasons why the film is CRAP.

EASTWOOD had an AGENDA and it shows. ARTISTS know better than to PREACH or push AGENDAS in their WORKS of ART.

Do your research and you'll find this to be true. Also, feel free to deny that the movie industry and mainstream media aren't liberal biased. It's common knowledge (even the libs admit it) that it is the case.

I've already taken FILM COURSES.

Have you???

OBVIOUSLY NOT.

Because if you had then you'd also STOP IGNORING QUESTIONS that have been put forth for you and ANSWER THEM.

---

Here's quotes from a BOOK that teaches one what GOOD WRITING is all about:

http://gutenberg.net.au/ebooks02/0200791.txt

written in the red light of emotion and not in the white light of truth.

EASTWOOD'S FILM contains the RED LIGHT of EMOTION and LACKS TRUTH.

When an arguer argues dispassionately he thinks only of the argument; and the reader cannot help thinking of the argument too. If he had written dispassionately ... had used indisputable proofs to establish his argument

EASTWOOD uses PASSION instead of presenting the story to us DISPASSIONATELY.

Rich people, for example, are often angry because they suspect that the poor want to seize their wealth. when the (person writing) insisted a little too emphatically upon the inferiority of (someone else) ,

he was concerned not with their inferiority, but with his own superiority

EASTWOOD is a RICH MAN who portrays the POOR FAMILY the way he does as a way to try to DISPLAY his SUPERIORITY to them.

deformed and twisted. (He writes) in a rage where he should write calmly. (He writes) foolishly where he should write wisely. He will write of himself where he should write of his characters.

EASTWOOD'S FILM is DEFORMED and TWISTED because he writes IN A RAGE when he should have written CLAMLY.

HE WRITES FOOLISHLY instead of WISELY.

HE WRITES of HIMSELF and his BIASED OPINION of POOR FOLKS when he should have written of HIS CHARACTERS.

writing as an art, not as a method of selfexpression

EASTWOOD'S work is a work of SELF EXPRESSION (which is also why it FAILS to become a WORK of ART no matter how many AWARDS it wins).

Because basically It' STILL Another form of his SPEAKING to an EMPTY CHAIR.

anything written with that conscious bias is doomed to death. It ceases to be fertilized. Brilliant and effective, powerful and masterly, as it may appear for a day or two, it must wither at nightfall; it cannot grow in the minds of others

This is the reason why this FILM is DOOMED to DEATH and will face the SAME FATE as other PULP FICTION novels do.

Because as BRILLIANT and EFFECTIVE as it APPEARS TO BE for you, it still WITHER'S in the end due to the way in which it's portrayal of it's CHARACTERS are MAJORLY FLAWED.

In other words, NO ONE will be watching it or care about it 100 YEARS from now.

Because it definitely DOES NOT FIT INTO the MASTERPIECE or into the GREAT WORKS CATEGORY.

Enjoy your bubble. I have no further use for you and your pointless, arbitrary, bold writing.

Ha! "LIBERALS, who accept and believe in SCIENCE, understand how the reproductive system works and know better than to say something that STUPID."

Yeah, the same geniuses who like to kill unborn humans because they think they're not human till they're born. That's not science. That's murder.

@Invidia said:

Appeal to Popularity - Logically Fallacious

https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/.../40/Appeal-to-Popularity

This is a fallacy which is very difficult to spot because our “common sense” tells us that if something is popular, it must be good/true/valid, but this is not so, especially in a society where clever marketing, social and political weight, and money can buy popularity.

You're ENTIRE ARGUEMENT has been BASED UPON the ARGUMENTUN AD POPULUM.

You keep making the FALSE ASSUMPTION that the FILM is GOOD because of it's POPULARITY, which is also a LOGICAL FALLACY.

And that also places YOU into the BUBBLE that you claim others are in who DISAGREE with you.

The ORIGINAL POSTER is right.

Her character was way too martyr-like and overly flawlesss with her good-natured heart. Her family was also way-over-the top-trashy. All in all way too much of everything. I felt like it left me not caring about her fate, as she didn't seem convincing in regard to her personality (nothing to do with the acting that was sublime by the way). I didn't become empowered or smarter about anything from this story. Just left with this hollow feeling of 'whatever', as the morale of the movie is that you cannot win if you fight against assholes.

The CHARACTERS in this FILM are MAJORLY FLAWED.

That's why they say they are left feeling HOLLOW by the PORTRAYAL of them.

Is what they've said also POINTLESS and ARBITRARY???

Or is it YOU YOURSELF that are being that way by the way you keep ATTACKING others for having what you see as LIBERAL views???

ATTACKING others is also another FALLACY called the ARGUEMENTUM AD HOMINEM (AGAINST the MAN).

And both YOU and EASTWOOD have used it which also means you both LACK LOGIC when it comes to being able to SUCCESSFULLY have a DEBATE with someone.

Look bruh, I don't care how you try to "prove" a movie is bad. Art is subjective. As an artist and an art aficionado, I can grasp this concept. I find nothing redeeming in Jackson Pollack paintings but people pay MILLIONS for them because they do find something in them. I'm not presumptuous enough to tell them what they should or shouldn't like. Maybe if you ever grow up, you will understand this VERY basic concept.

@chilone said:

By the way, he did condemn the act of killing her. He told the priest he knew it was a sin.

Ok, yes. But at the same time he was suggesting it was the humane thing to do. It was a humane sin. And thus morally complex.