Unboxed because of the warning in the title
I think she did NOT win. At the end, Maggie asks Frankie what the Irish name means. He says that she didn’t win, so he doesn’t have to tell her.
I was surprised to read the Salon review; I thought it was a really great movie with extremely strong performances from everybody involved. (My dad hated it for the ending, though.) I was all set to pull for Clint for Best Actor, but then the day before yesterday I saw Hotel Rwanda, and while I did love Clint in this one, it’s not even in the same league as Don Cheadle. I’ll be brokenhearted (yet unsurprised) if Cheadle dosen’t get it.
All for Swank for Best Actress, however.
It seems to be different when there is intent to injure someone outside the scope of the sport. I’m not sure why Tyson got away with what he did. Maybe it was just because people thought he was nuts. He was unable to box for some time, though, because no state would grant him a license. Hitting after the bell is one thing, but what happened in the movie was really egregious. Even if she wasn’t charged with a crime she’d be punished by boxing authorities.
I believe I was incorrect in the OP. I think the other boxer goes by “The Blue Bear”.
Trunk
I’m with you. But there* is* a quick way to open all the spoiler boxes at once: click on the page and type Ctrl-A (Select All) and all the words appear at once.
Here’s a review from the LA Times about spoilers
Screw the euthanasia controversy. (Reasonable people can disagree about that, IMO.) What about the fact that this movie does for Southerners what Mickey Rooney did for Asians in Breakfast at Tiffany’s?
Hillary Swank did what she could to get over some unfortunate dialogue; if she used the word “rightly” one more time I wanted to rightly strangle me some screenwriters. But between her family and “Danger”, I kept thinking it was a shame that Stepin Fetchit was too dead for the Morgan Freeman role.
The character is from Missouri and Hillary Swank is from Nebraska, so I’m not sure that’s a good comparison.
Swank was not that bad, herself; she just had someone writing horrible Southern dialect for her. She did what she could with it.
It wasn’t even the actors so much as the horrible stereotypes. You had the idiot from Texas with a clownish accent and even worse grammar; it was as if the only characteristic of Southern grammar is that it’s bad. Maggie’s family full o’trailer trash was just as bad.
I’m taking a slightly different tack - and I’ve only heard about the movie, not seen it yet. [SPOILER] I agree with those people who say that the movie deals only with this particular quadriplegic character, so people shouldn’t get worked up that a dangerous message re: euthanizing the disabled is being sent. Maggie came up from nothing due to her ability to box and now that she’s lost that ability, she believes that she’s lost everything, and thus chooses to die.
On the other hand, I’ve seen firsthand how amazed so many people are that I, as a partial paraplegic, live a life worth the effort. I’d be rich if I collected a nickel from every person who has said to me, “Well, if I were in your position, I couldn’t do it”, or even remarked that they would kill themselves.
So yeah, I can see where some advocates would be concerned that a segment of the movie’s audience won’t grasp what seems to be the true message, but instead will come out with their belief that life as a disabled person isn’t worth living. Does that mean that this is the message that the director is intentionally sending? Not at all.[/SPOILER] And now I will preview so that I won’t get strung up in the Pit. 
When I said: …I can see where some advocates would be concerned that a segment of the movie’s audience…will come out with their belief that life as a disabled person isn’t worth living. I really meant: I can understand some advocates’ concern that those who already think that life isn’t worth living if you’re disabled might come out of the theater with that notion reinforced through their interpretations of the ending.
I’m with Trunk, let’s drop the boxes.
I appreciate that this movie is about a particular person, and that particular person might not want to live with that particular disability. If I didn’t run into the “oh, God, I would die if that happened to me” mentality so often, I wouldn’t worry so much. When I give my lecture on spinal cord injuries to physical therapy students, I always ask what percentage of those with a spinal cord injury they would guess suffer from depression.
I’ll wait while you play along.
Most guess 75-100%. The real percentage? 25-30%.
And then there is the “poor Christopher Reeve is better off dead” crowd. I will let someone else look up the links for posts like that here on the dope. I have no doubt that sentiment was pretty prevalent IRL, too.
I am not saying the ending was horrible. I just worry that it plays into people’s preconceived notions more than I would like.
Since I posted the OP, I used the spoiler boxes because the film hadn’t been released in many cities yet. Look how long it took before my thread got even a nibble.
I’m sure that come Feb 27 (or sooner) that everyone will be talking about the main theme of the film.
I remember a report on 20/20 about 10 years ago. It was a John Stossel (from before he turned to the darkside) pop culture piece about “Happiness” . What, exactly, is it that makes people happy?
Stossel interviewed a professor who studied life changing events and their long term effect on a person’s overall life satisfaction. One statement has stayed with me. The professor said (paraphrased):
Imagine that you have the following information about two people. One year ago, person A won ten million dollars in the lottery. Person B was in a car accident that resulted in a broken neck. Person B will be on a respirator and in a wheelchair for rest of her life. Who would you predict is now the happier person?
The answer is we have no way of knowing. Neither of those two events gives us enough information to judge how happy the person will be in the long run.
It’s a character study, not the issue movie most of the pundits criticizing it are making it out to be.
Totally off-topic, but I was wondering if what sort of post-injury time frame those percentages reflect. Are we talking right after the injury occurs, or are we talking long-term stuff? It seems to me that patients would be far more likely to suffer depression right after injury, with that tapering off as they have time to cope with and adjust to the changes in their lives.
Just saw the movie; it was great. And yes, the other boxer is called “The Blue Bear”. Not “Blue Baron”, “Blue Bomber” or “Blue Bell”.
Michael Medved is a jerk. A reviewer should never give away secrets of a movie that’s just opened. I’d say this even if I agreed with his assessment, which I don’t. The movie isn’t an After-School Special, for Christ’s sake. The characters are well-drawn individuals, not just types used to promote an agenda. The story is about the particular characters and why they make the decisions they do, right or wrong. I think Frankie believed what his priest told him, and accepted the consequences of doing what he thought he had to do for Maggie.
Another excellent, understated performance by Morgan Freeman, too. Anybody who’d compare his character to Stepin Fetchit apparently didn’t pay any attention to the movie.
I’ve met people like that wretched bunch; I’m sure you can find them in every state in the Union.
Most research looks at patients within the first year. You are right that the distress is most intense immediately following the injury. Many patients tell me that they thought of death or suicide for a day or two after they were told about their injury. However, a day or two of symptoms, no matter how intense, do not depression make.
/end hijack
Feh on those who judge the movie due to the “topic” ending.
My question is this - I have never dealt with a Catholic priest before, so I want to know how likely it is that one would say “you’re a fucking pagan” to one of his flock? I realize that the priest and Clint’s character had a long-standing relationship that was difficult at best, but really - would he use that language?
I don’t recall that line, but if a Catholic priest knew someone pretty well and, if the other person in question was male, I wouldn’t be all that surprised if a priest said something like that.
I’ve known a few priests to have salty language in the right settings. I thought the scene was pretty realistic.
It was clear Eastwood pestered the guy with Bibilical minutia every day just to get a rise out of him.
It also seemed that the priest may have even been a member of the parish as a boy because he mentions seeing Eastwood at Mass nearly everyday for 25 years.
I rarely notice a score during a movie, but as this film developed, I was thinking about how well score was done and how nicely it complemented the story. Only when the credits rolled did I learn (to my great surprise) that Eastwood himself was responsible.