Extra, Extra
Extra, Extra
Extra, Extra
Extra, Extra
Early Addition
So, there's a third act surprise in Million Dollar Baby that critics have alluded to but haven't mentioned, out of respect for the moviegoing experience or something like that. Well, the NY Times ran a story (if you click on it, even the headline will spoil the movie for you, so you're officially warned - and here's the link) yesterday about some anger about the film. Movie City News hilariously calls the NY Times the "Paper of Wreckord" and posts a reader's angry email to Times public editor Daniel Okrent and the reply from someone in Okrent's office, a person who happened to have Million Dollar Baby spoiled because of that headline. But Gothamist feels there is another problem: Thanks to Google News, if you do a Google search on "Million Dollar Baby," you get the Times headline and link.
Roger Ebert gives his spoiler-filled thoughts on the controversy; Million $ Baby was his top movie of the year. The other NY Times story about Million Dollar Baby only mentioned the product placement for Clorox.
add to digg
add to stumble upon
add to reddit
email this
add to facebook
add to del.icio.us
Isn't Million Dollar Baby, Hilary Swank's followup to The Karate Kid 3, where after learning so much from Mr Miyagi she goes on to become a professional boxer? All this hype for what is it the 4th or 5 th sequel to this film series. And not even a walk on from Pat Morita..
Heh. In my Monday morning litany of complaints over at my site, I totally bitched about this as well.
In fairness to others reading, don't spoil the ending here.
I thought they just meant career suicide. You know, choosing to be trained by a washed up old man instead of someone flashier.
Really amazing is that Waxman's reason for spoiling is that the film had won awards and OScar nominations, yet apparently, the NYT research crew wasn't smart enough to note that the movie didn't even receive a wide release to the rest of the country until last Friday.
That combined with A.O. Scott's yet again ridiculously inane and pointless wrap-up of a film festival made yesterday's Arts & Leisure section one of the worst ever.
Here's a real spoiler for you: the movie sucks. Swank reprises her role from Boys Don't Cry by playing hillbilly girl who acts like a boy.
The fight scenes are weak.
The narration by Morgan Freeman is a screenwriting cop-out.
The only good part is seeing Clint Eastwood. He's a force even if the ship is sinking.
Oh, get a grip. It's just a movie. I don't mind at all when movies are ruined for me. In fact, before I found Ruinedendings.com, I would often bug the heck out of people online asking for the big twist.
Ah, grasshopper. Is it not said that the journey is more important than the destination?
Sorry Jen didn't mean to bring up the Karate Kid Sequel, the last thing on my mind would be to spoil it for everyone. Nevermind.
I really don't understand movie fans who believe a movie is ruined by knowing the ending or plot-twist of the movie. If the movie is good, the movie is good. And you enjoy the ride. What happens at the end of the ride? Who cares.
Has anyone seen "The Aviator" and had the plot ruined by the fact that Howard Hughes goes insane? Or has anyone gone to see "Saving Private Ryan" and was shocked by the "plot twist" that the allies defeated the Germans? Also, is anyone who saw "The Pianist" surprised by the fact the main protagonist survived Nazi horrors? I mean, the guy lived to write his own memoirs...
If you're a film fan who gets hyped by plot twists, you're more of a comp. lit. major than a film buff.
Everyone knows Darth Vader is Luke's father and that didn't stop me from seeing "Empire Strikes Back" dozens of times. And that's not going to shock anyone who now endures watching the Star Wars "Prequels".
Get over it. And if anything, knowing this partcular plot twist actually makes me want to see this movie more than before.
SPOILER ALERT: In Titanic, the ship sinks at the end!