***Spoiler alert*** Limbaugh and Medved blast Eastwood film

[Charlie Brown]

http://www.imdb.com/news/sb/#1

Commentators Issue Intentional Spoilers About 'Baby'


Rush Limbaugh has become the latest commentator to blast Clint Eastwood's Million Dollar Baby, calling it a "million dollar euthanasia movie." On Tuesday, he facetiously apologized for letting "the cat out of the bag when I mentioned to you that the real subject of the movie is, when this heroine becomes paralyzed, she wants to die and they say, 'Okay, you'd be better off dead,' and they pretty much zap her. I apparently spoke out of school, as a movie critic and reviewer, uh, ladies and gentlemen. I just feel terrible about this."

Medved, who says he "hated this movie," also remarked that "They didn't want to tell people what it is because no one would come." On Tuesday, an orgaization of paraplegics also joined the critics of the movie.

[Name removed]

1. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Charlie Brown]

4. I think the "spoiler' info was implicit in the thread's title

Anyway, how else was I supposed to post this article?

[maxudargo]

9. No, implicit in the title was criticism of people broadcasting spoilers

So I didn't think you were going to ruin the fucking movie for me in the second line.

Thanks a lot.

[Charlie Brown]

12. Limbaugh said that, not me n/t

[Name removed]

15. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Charlie Brown]

18. I don't stoop to name-calling

I'm sorry I "ruined the movie" for you. This is a news forum and this story was posted at a film news website. As it's political in nature, I thought it might be of interest here. I specifically said the commentators "spoiled the ending" in the title. It was impossible to post Limbaugh's statement without revealing the info.

[Chicago Democrat]

20. The title seems okay to me..

Its not the first place I've seen the info. On NPR's Oddysee they spoiled the ending too.

[maxudargo]

You shouldn't have posted Limbaugh's statement at all

Remember, that was why you created the thread, because his statement was so wrong. It contained spoilers and ruined the movie for his listeners. That's the issue. So what's the sense of creating a thread to condemn what you do in the first post of the thread you create? If you can't create this thread without revealing the ending of the film, why criticize Medved or Limbaugh for not being able to either?

[Charlie Brown]

26. I wasn't criticizing them for the spoilers

just thought people would be interested in the right-wing response to the euthenasia demension of the film.

[msanthrope]

59. "Lighten Up, Francis!"

Calm down and mellow out. So you know the ending. Big Deal. It's a MOVIE.

Today, in reality, 31 Marines died. Get that pissed about that.

[maxudargo]

63. I'm more pissed about that

Why don't you go to another thread where they're talking about something that matters.

[Name removed]

31. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Lautremont]

17. If that ruined the movie for you, you must not have been expecting much

It's a drama, not a murder mystery where it all hangs on the surprise ending. The whole 'spoiler' mentality devalues the moviegoing experience, as though it all hangs on not knowing what's going to happen - as though Citizen Kane could be wrecked by knowing (spoiler ahead!) that Rosebud is a sled.

Give the dude a break.

[maxudargo]

19. Thanks for the sermon

But if you don't think seeing Citizen Kane without knowing what "Rosebud" means is a different experience than seeing it already knowing what it means, you're being silly.

At least he altered the title to include a spoiler warning, which is what he should have done in the first place, or just left the spoilers out.

[Lautremont]

27. "Different" equals "ruined" now?

That's a bit on the silly side.

[maxudargo]

34. ....

He ruined the one and only chance I ever would have had to experience this movie without knowing how it would end. Yes, he ruined that.

I seriously doubt you have better cinephile credentials than me, buddy. I think Citizen Kane is a second-rate melodrama, and I love the most those movies that need to be watched several times to be appreciated, like those of Cassavettes, Tarkovsky, Antonioni and Ozu - the serious filmmakers who put Wells' little movies to shame. But I also value that one-time, never-to-be-repeated experience of watching a film for the first time, not knowing what is going to happen next. And this guy just stole that from me for a film to which I was looking forward.

So go edify somebody else with your sermons.

It seems he may not have done it to be a jerk, but it still makes me angry.

[RandomKoolzip]

39. Relax.

[maxudargo]

41. No.

[RandomKoolzip]

44. That's it. I'm getting the thorazine.

Nurse!

[Lautremont]

46. Ah, a cinephile pissing contest!

I suppose I should have expected as much given your avatar, though a true cinephile might have spelled Cassavetes' name right.

Your outrage on this issue might be better appreciated on a film website; the original poster's point was to stir up outrage about yet another flock of conservative ass clowns overreacting to something they saw in a fictional story. The fact that they gave away the ending, hoping thusly to steer the easily manipulated away from the movie, is incidental; and the story as a whole doesn't really make sense unless you know what it is they were outraged about anyway.

Keep repeating: It's only a movie... it's only a movie... it's only a movie...

And with that I promise that I won't sermonize anymore if you don't.

[maxudargo]

57. The story as a whole

doesn't make any sense unless you are offended by spoilers being thrown around. They didn't do anything worth talking about unless you are upset when somebody broadcasts spoilers. So it was really dumb to put those spoilers in your thread about those scumbag right-wingers who are broadcasting spoilers to their audiences.

Sermonize and indulge in logical gymnastics all you want, just make sure you put clear spoiler warnings before you reveal the end of a movie on a message board.

[mitchum]

48. You like Ozu, but you were "looking foward" to one of Eastwood's...

middlebrow "handsome productions"? It's not as if one can't guess the ending shortly after the opening credits.
I applaud you for your catholic tastes.

[maxudargo]

55. Well, Eastwood's no Ozu, or even a Wells...

But I have eclectic tastes. Eastwood's done some interesting stuff, although Mystic River was really over-rated. But it's precisely because Eastwood's not among the greatest that spoiling the ending of an Eastwood film is going to inhibit enjoyment of it more than if you spoiled the ending of an Ozu film.

And Ozu isn't producing as much work these days as he used to...

[mitchum]

66. You are absolutely right about " Mystic River" being over-rated...

it is an example of a current genre I call "Handsome Production With Good Performances" There is nothing appalling bad, but these films never warrant a second viewing. See also: "The Hours"

You also make a very good point about ruined endings and relative worth in Eastwood and Ozu

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

71. Psst!

[Voltaire99]

74. Nice post!

Yes, the banal "spoiler" mentality is what's left when a moviegoing public hungry for sensation can't see film in any light beyond that of plot bumps and reveals.

But it's also, I'd say, what happens when Hollywood product becomes so devoid of texture and insight that what-happens-next is all there is. Pity.

[kurtyboy]

75. WHAT?!?!?!

Rosebud is a fucking sled?!?!?

Crap....

[MnFats]

76. Damn! You just wrecked "Citizen Kane" for me!

I was going to rent it this weekend. Thanks a lot!
"Rosebud" -- a SLED!
who'da thunk it?



(kiddin' alert)

[Name removed]

24. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[BrklynLiberal]

25. delete

[0007]

37. You think?

[hlthe2b]

14. Yes, thanks a damned lot!

:mad:

[dave123williams]

2. Medved, conservative activist...

and obviously closeted homosexual.

[alfredo]

3. He did the same thing to "The Crying Game."

[deadparrot]

5. Isn't Eastwood a Republican? nt

[sonicx]

11. libertarian

[deadparrot]

50. Ah, okay.

That explains it.

[NewJeffCT]

80. I thought he was Republican, but is now independent?

But, I'm not up on all my celebrity gossip...

[eaprez]

6. Laura Flanders did the same thing on her show this past weekend...

...you really can't have a discussion about the movie without revealing what happens.

[Name removed]

7. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[RandomKoolzip]

8. So now the fundie right is against euthanasia too?!

Jesus Fuck, how far are they gonna take this pro-life bullshit? They should do like Bill Hicks said and lock hands around graveyards....."Let's see how committed you are to this ideal...."

So, lemme get this straight:

Euthanasia=bad
Abortion (in all cases)=bad

War casualties=good

Brilliant.

[truthseeker1]

16. you forgot the death penalty=good

they really are twisted fucks

[A Simple Game]

73. "So now the fundie right is against euthanasia too?!"

Wait a while, they haven't tried the Soylent Green yet!

[MnFats]

77. SPOILER ALERT! Soylent Green is people!!!

(charlton, in his best over-acting: ARRRRGGGGHHH!

[Zomby Woof]

85. They have been for years

It all comes down to their supreme need to decide who lives, who dies, and how those two things should be meted out.

[sonicx]

10. yeah, force em to live a life of suffering...

:eyes:

[dave123williams]

13. Unless you want to EXECUTE them. F&*(ing hypocrites.

[Banazir]

89. Being a quad isn't...

Being a quad isn't a "life of suffering" generally. In fact studies have shown that quads consistently rate their quality of life higher than medical professionals rate quads' quality of life (in fact rating it as high or higher than non-disabled people). The movie on the other hand neglects to show the realities of life as a quad (and shows some things that just plain wouldn't happen), and neglects to point out that the woman is legally allowed to refuse her vent at any time and doesn't need any "help". It's irresponsible, based on an unfounded view of disability (which is not, for most of us, a "life of suffering", at least no more than anyone else's), and reinforces society's stereotype that disabled people's lives aren't worth living.

If Rush Limbaugh for unfathomable reasons wants to capitalize on this, it's his problem, but disability rights activists, including severely disabled people, have had a big problem with this movie based on the continued stereotyping in our society of our lives as not worth living and being lives of unbearable suffering and so forth. It's typically non-disabled people, with their complete ignorance of life as disabled people, that promote these views and cause harm and sometimes even death to those of us who are actually disabled. Right now if you're non-disabled and suicidal, you get suicide counseling (not that I always agree with the way that works either), but if you're disabled and suicidal, it must be because you're disabled. It's a double standard based on prejudices like the one you just stated. These prejudices, when acted upon in certain ways, kill us in the form of denial of medical treatment, urging from those around us to go ahead and die, murder, and so forth. A suicidal quad is likely suicidal for the same reasons that a suicidal non-disabled person is suicidal, and unless all suicidal people (who are undoubtedly suffering or they wouldn't be suicidal) are subject to immediate and unquestioned euthanasia I have to question the double standard here.

http://www.notdeadyet.org/flyers/millionbigotflyer.html

[realFedUp]

21. I thought this was a GREAT movie

I haven't seen Aviator coz it's so long
but MDB was absolutely a must see film
and all of them deserve best actor awards.

[pop goes the weasel]

22. Disabled activists

were the first to protest this movie.

Read this Ragged Edge article about it. And this one, too.

And just in case you can only bring yourself to agree with stances taken by leftists, read this Dissendent Voices article too.

[BrklynLiberal]

23. Wonder if all the shouting will alienate Republican Eastwood

[cincinnati_liberal]

28. Feed him another oxycontin and some diet pills

They act like liberals use every chance they can to advance their agenda. Get a fucking life. I hope this waste of flesh is the first to bite it when they blow us all up. If he wasn't such a lard ass I'd say give him a gun and send him over to kill the Islams. I really hope he suffers a painful judging to compensate for all the judgement he's doled out over the years. Drug addict.

[baba]

29. Could you edit to put "spoiler alert" in the title? n/t

[Name removed]

30. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Charlie Brown]

32. This is uncalled for

I posted the spoiler warning within two or three minutes of the original posts. The story is inseparable from the information. If you don't want to read the spoiler, don't click on the thread.

[sonicx]

33. Many people have yet to see the film...

spoiling is not nice.

[Charlie Brown]

35. which is why I put "spoiler" in the title n/t

[maxudargo]

36. Yeah. Appreciate that. Just a little too late for some of us, yes?

[sonicx]

43. I will say this in your defense...

The media shouldn't even be doing stories on this if they can't keep from ruining the movie for people.

[Inland]

38. It didn't change in the Latest thread display.

So you really f*d it up for me. Thanks loads, and thanks for the next five or six people you spoil it for while defending yourself. Just delete the goddamn post.

[0007]

40. How lame!

[mitchum]

42. How can the original poster "spoil" the ending of any Eastwood movie...

since they are all so formulaic?
He's a middlebrow director who should have stuck to being an iconic presence with his "wooden menace" (to borrow Pauline Kael's immortal phrase)

[RandomKoolzip]

47. God, I love Pauline Kael!

Every one of her reviews is like a movie in itself. I have most of her books; she was possibly the best critic of any medium (after Lester Bangs, of course!)


Anyways, people are getting really upset over something very trivial here. It's just a movie, folks.

[XanaDUer]

51. I have her books, too!

I felt crummy when she died.

[mitchum]

54. Another common point in our personal libraries :)

[XanaDUer]

56. Yup.

I was even thinking of putting together a Kael memory website.

She nailed Eastwood. That review of "Dirty Harry" is a classic.

[mitchum]

68. I have to admit that I prefer his fascist shoot 'em ups to his "classy"...

productions. At least they work on a visceral level. Things like "Bird" and "Mystic River" just lie there all reverent and all.
She did nail Eastwood and Seigel on "Dirty Harry" Gore Vidal did not become America's greatest living essayist until Ms Kael drew her last breath.

[mitchum]

69. Norman Bates is dressing up like his mother

[mitchum]

52. She and Bangs were the two critics on which I grew up...

obviously, I have been disappointed since then :)

You are also dead right about it just being a movie.

[XanaDUer]

58. Ever read Stanley Kaufmann (sp)?

He's interesting, when you run out of Kael to read.

And Agee.

[mitchum]

70. I do enjoy Kaufmann and I certainly prefer Agee's film writing to his...

"literary" output. I have tortured myself with Agee's "A Death In The Family" too many times. I used to give him props for his screenplay for "Night of the Hunter", but apparently Laughton actually did most of the writing. Agee was too busy drinking and throwing up.

[RandomKoolzip]

60. Me too!

Those two were my inspiration for wanting to be a professional rock critic (I don't do that shit anymore, though.)

Her review of "Hud" has stayed with me ever since I read it when I was 14.

[mitchum]

88. Hey, I'm going to see a 35mm showing of "Hud" tomorrow night...

Patricia Neal will be there. A shame that Kael won't, though.
I know what you mean about Bangs and Kael. They are the only two critics whose words ring like poetry in my head.

[XanaDUer]

49. Lol!

I assume there is a .357 Magnum in this film, as well?

PS-Don't say a word-I don't want anymore abuse heaped on the original poster.

I love Kael, BTW!

:hi:

[Inland]

62. Well, another country heard from.

Now I'm being told that I couldn't have enjoyed the movie anyway, or worse yet, shouldn't.

Maybe, just maybe, you should let Mr. Middlebrow Director try to create his own emotional effects from the occurances in the movie, and let me decide if I appreciate them or not.

[mitchum]

72. Hey, it's your money (spend it however you like) but...

Eastwood IS a middlebrow director. He was much better as an existential cowboy or fascist cop.
I don't get your "another country heard from" reference, though.

[Inland]

79. So if Eastwood is the actor and not director, will you spare the spoiler?

I don't understand an attitude that someone can ruin what enjoyment there may be in a movie by spoiling it. I don't give a rat's ass if Ed Wood is directing. I don't care if the movie is worth only two cents with a suprise ending, because if that's the case, I want my two cents worth. All the cognoscenti who think that the possibility of my small enjoyments must take a back seat to their bloviating can kiss my ass.

"another country heard from" is an expression in line with "more comments from the Peanut Gallery".

[baba]

45. Thanks for the edit. n/t

[liberalmuse]

53. GODDAMN IT!

Well, there goes another movie I wanted to see but won't because it's just been ruined. Usually when you use spoilers in a post, you put **SPOILER ALERT** in the headline. Or you white out the font so those who've seen a movie or want the entire plot given away can highlight the text, like this. *&*%#$$!!!

[ima_sinnic]

61. "spoiler"? like what it's about isn't common knowledge?

the only way someone could not have it "spoiled" would be to see it the very first time it's shown, before there are any reviews or any conversation at all about it (but gee, don't reviewers get to see preview showings? you really think NOBODY is going to mention what it's about in a review?) otherwise, you'd have to go around with your eyes blinded and ears stopped up to prevent coming in contact with any accidental information about the movie getting into your consciousness before you actually saw it.
like someone says above, it's not a frikkin murder mystery.

[Inland]

64. Wrong again. I didn't know, and I read the reviews,

spoke to people who had seen it, and all of whom had better sense than to reveal that aspect of the plot. And there's a reason why. People understand that the dramatic effect is ruined by foreknowledge. Almost all, anyway.

[Charlie Brown]

65. Sheesh! This is like "Sixth Sense" all over again

"You can't tell anyone that he's dead throughout the movie!"

Even though it's revealed on the film's soundtrack album and a lot of the promotional interviews. Some people need to appreciate movies for what they are, movies.

[Inland]

67. I'd like to do just that. So stop spoiling them.

And no, I didn't know how the Sixth Sense would end, but apparently I and about 500 Billion dollars worth of ticket buyers are such dumbshits that apparently somebody should have told us just to save us from our own stupity.

Cheap, tawdry little plot twists are good enough for my eight bucks sometimes. Some peop;le have to let me appreciate movies for what they are.

[Clark Bayh 2008]

78. Hate to agree with Rush on this one occasion....

I am a strong proponent of self determination & euthanasia.

I didn't like the movie because the rest of the boxing sequences are so derivative of other fight movies. There's nothing new here except the silly plot twist at the end which is of little moral consequence or persuasiveness. Plus it's depressing & inappropriately drawn out after 2 hours of trying to be uplifting.

Anyone who has seen "Body & Soul", "Somebody Up There Likes Me", "The Racket", even "Rocky" will find little in the film besides the usual stereotypes of craggy, washed up fighters & managers. Just a silly, overblown, overrated movie. See "Sideways" instead.

[peekaloo]

81. Maybe Clint should threaten to kill them or better yet............

Medved, wasn't he one of the movie critics on 'In Living Color'?

HATED IT!

:evilgrin:

[sniffa]

82. oh i hate you so much

i hate you
i hate you
i hate you

for ruining the movie for me!!! wahhhhh

[Mayberry Machiavelli]

83. I have not seen this film and avoided reading the thread/spoiler, but

just this thread title alone means that I must now see this movie (I was planning to probably see it anyway).

[Zomby Woof]

84. We don't need no steenkin' critics

I don't care whether they are 'left' or 'right'. Kael sucked as bad as Medved does now. Ebert too.

I prefer thinking for myself and making up my own mind about movies. I don't need some half-clever wordsmith (Kael was the worst - a pretentious self-absorbed ignorant halfwit, the epitome of east coast elitist claptrap) lecturing me on what proper cultural touchstones are. Fuck all of 'em!

Eastwood is one the greats. For "Unforgiven" alone, he redeemed his entire western ouevre - although even some of those needed no redemption. He has some clinkers in there - who doesn't - but over all, a solid career. Makes me glad when he pisses critics off. :D

[mitchum]

87. ZW, Kael was certainly pretentious and self-absorbed...

(and she would have been the first to admit it), but she was neither ignorant nor a fuckwit. And she was certainly no east coast elitist...
she was from Oakland, ferchristsakes! :)
She was one of the finest writers this country has ever produced. Now, I don't know if that says more about Kael or America...

[driver8]

86. Too bad their isn't a "euthanasia radio show"...

Rush would be perfect for it.