A "MILLION" LAUGHS (Spoiler Warning in Effect)

Walter, just got back from seeing Million Dollar Baby and just had to read the review of the only critic at Rotten Tomatoes who didn't love it. Wow. You are one pretentious dumb-fuck. Check out this quote from your review: "...the difference between someone who appreciates boxing as a metaphor for existence and someone who thinks that this sort of masculinized spanking is better assuaged by hunting trips and NASCAR." Ha ha! Aw, poor widdle Walter never got picked for sports teams in school and now he's getting in his snarky payback. Well, you certainly showed them! Meow! Ha ha ha! Are you ever going to post any of your rejected movie scripts or bad short-stories from college or any of the other shit that critics like you have tons of at FILM FREAK CENTRAL? 'Cause I'll bet they're all full of delicious bon mots like that. My friends and I could use a good laugh. Yours Truly,
T. Kelley

Hey Walter, I just thought of something. Just wait until Clint Eastwood reads your insightful criticisms about his big popular movie. I bet he's going to read that and... oh, wait. He probably won't give a shit even if he does read it because he's Clint Eastwood and you're fucking Walter Chaw. Walter Chaw, who writes movie reviews because... well, I don't know. Because you don't have the talent to be a real writer, I guess. Honestly, Wally, do you think you're helping make the movie industry better or actually guiding people's movie choices with the shit you write? Why are you doing this, Walter Chaw? I lost the whole point of your review of Million Dollar Baby halfway through and took a nap. I can't imagine anyone actually thinking, Well, Walter Chaw didn't like this movie, so they're not gettin' MY twelve bucks! Oh well. So what if you're not in the least influential, probably don't get paid a lot, and can't write? At least you're boring and pretentious so the rest of us can make fun of you,
T. Kelley

***

Walter: I don't know what all the other critics are thinking with Million Dollar Baby. I'm a produced screenwriter and I find the script to be wordy, formulaic, and totally predictable. When Hilary tells Clint about how her father put the dog to sleep, who couldn't see what was coming? The third act was almost unwatchable, with two minutes of emotion stretched out over a half-hour only to end with a resolution that had no lesson whatsoever. If you have enough dramatic pauses, squinting, and low-lighting, people think they're watching art.
Douglas

***

I just wanted to thank Walter Chaw for his bad review of Million Dollar Baby. My disappointment with the film was more personal than his, I'm guessing. My own mother became paralyzed due to a combination of Multiple Sclerosis and a stroke. She lived out her paralysis and died naturally. I was a teenager during these awful years. I felt the film's treatment of Catholicism, pro-life issues, assisted suicide issues, etc. was thimble-deep. The film basically threw away any chance it had for so-called "importance." Just when Eastwood's character Frank Dunn could have become interesting, Eastwood totally copped out. The ending of the film is just warmed-over from One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest--the movie, not the novel. FYI: Ken Kesey said the film turned his novel into an episode of "Hogan's Heroes".

Unlike Mr. Chaw, I found Million Dollar Baby entertaining and somewhat plausible, up until the paralysis, where it became a mess. It was a crowd-pleaser to then, if not high art. Clint Eastwood is good at westerns. He needs the space of myth and an open landscape. Once he's fenced in by the boundaries of modern times and street reality, he falls short. Unforgiven is wonderful; Mystic River was much overrated. Eastwood can't deal with reality in direct, modern terms. After killing Maggie Fitzgerald, his character becomes a ghost, like the characters in Pale Rider or High Plains Drifter, except he's not on the plains or without a name. Frank Dunn has a name and supposedly lives on the streets of Los Angeles, where I live, and I don't buy it. The greatest drama is all about consequence, and Eastwood ducks out before he can face anything head on. Dirty Harry becomes a hand-wringing, teary-eyed pussy. Thanks again for the bad review against the tide of too many good ones.
Bob

***

Did you actually watch this movie? 'Cause your idiotic review suggests that you didn't. What do you mean by "...marking Million Dollar Baby as something along the lines of Eastwood's apology for Play Misty for Me the way that Unforgiven was his apology for the violence of the Sergio Leone cycle." What does Eastwood have to apologiize for? Unforgiven was a tribute to the great Leone, not an apology. And Play Misty For Me was also a great movie, not requiring apology. Million Dollar Baby is an Eastwood triumph, it cuts to the heart and is brilliantly acted by all.
Stephen

Walter Chaw responds: Unforgiven is generally viewed as a commentary on the toll of violence on the lives of individuals that visit violence upon others. William Munny's legacy is one in which he tries to escape his bloody past, but his bloody past is indelible and costs him, at the end of his life, the things that he holds most dear. It's post-modern, thoughtful, and brilliantly directed and acted. That and A Perfect World are, in my mind, quintessential American films. Lately though, Eastwood's work has been mediocre at best, derivative at worst: Blood Work, Space Cowboys, True Crime, Mystic River--and now Million Dollar Baby. Clearly you were moved by the film, and hey, I can't argue with that. What I'd be more interested in hearing is if you have any insights into the film that aren't just emotional. Anyone can make you cry--not everyone deserves that kind of investment.

***

(Editor's Note: John works at Lucasfilm.) Better to write reviews that do not NEED a spoiler warning. I'm still trying to process Million Dollar Baby, but to rebut your point-of-view, I refer you to Roger Ebert's excellent review. I'm all for bucking the trend and offering thoughtful criticism of movies that deserve it (or even unthoughtful criticism of movies that don't have any merit). As a former movie reviewer, I know how difficult it can be. But either you just weren't in the right frame of mind for Million Dollar Baby or else--and, based on your writing, I have a feeling this is more likely--you don't like Clint Eastwood. In that case, I'd recommend you don't review his films, since you're going in with a bias that can't possibly be beneficial to anyone, particularly your readers. As a reviewer, your job is to help people determine whether they should see a movie, to offer metered and thoughtful (which isn't to say unamusing or dull) comments on a film's merits.
John

Walter Chaw responds: What benefit would it serve if we just had people who were sure to love everything slavishly, to review only the stuff that they adored? If you were worth a crap as a reviewer, you'd also know that a few of the things you say have led to the death of film criticism in the United States. Film reviews are not, repeat not intended to guide decisions. They've been turned into consumer reports, I'll not argue that point, but when the CAHIERS DU CINEMA, Manny Farber, Pauline Kael, Andrew Sarris, et al began writing film criticism, it was to help build reputation and legacy. And this idiocy: "Since you're going in with a bias that can't possibly be beneficial to anyone, particularly your readers." How dishonest is it to suggest that everyone doesn't enter anything without a bias? What's my value as a columnist if I don't have a bias? You know who doesn't have a bias? Children don't. Animals don't. A 12-year-old would only give glowing reviews to the most godawful stuff. This I know because as a twelve-year-old, I liked everything. I can pretend to be un-biased and saccharine, but then I'd be a disengenuous sellout. I've spent thirty-some years developing a bias. You think that Ebert doesn't have a bias? Ebert's an entertainer first: his bias is to assuage the popular taste. The day he stops doing that is the day he loses his television show. Respect--and this gets back to your job, John, respect (self-, public-)--doesn't pay all that well. Million Dollar Baby is an underdog sports uplift pic grafted onto a noble cripple pic; how do you sleep with yourself at night knowing that something like that actually succeeded in pushing your buttons? Enough so that you took time out of your busy workday erasing mullets and superimposing Hayden Christiansen onto twenty-year old footage to write me a sort of nasty e-mail about it? You seem like a smart guy, John, don't take the easy path.

***

Thank you for your review of Million Dollar Baby. We saw the film last night--takes a while for these to reach New Zealand--and we were deeply disappointed. While not having a lot of faith in American movies, generally we can watch the Oscar winners--but this one, oh dear!! So it is pleasing to see that not all Americans were impressed by the corny syrup and superficial pap. Knowing that the movie was based on a series of short stories, I think that they tried to combine several and lost their way. Too many unanswered questions--too much complexity in one character and too little in the others. How on earth did it win on Oscar? The ways of the world in America are strange. Very strange. Regards,
Jann

Walter Chaw responds: The Oscars are extraordinarily bad bellweathers for quality in American cinema. Most of the winners aren't even on the top-thirty lists of our better critics. Million Dollar Baby is just two very popular, populist formulas grafted together in an uneasy, mock-serious stew. It's no wonder it was popular, just a wonder how long it's taken for the backlash to set in. I'd give it another couple of months.

A "CONSTANTINE" FORGE

I have read your reviews in the past and never really found them interesting enough to comment, but your review of Constantine shows your lack of just about any (critical) credibility. Not that great of a movie, but not nearly as bad as you portray. I can see you now: biased and bitter, alone at Barnes & Noble, sipping on four-hour cooled chai while trying to pull impressive words from a borrowed thesaurus. I can only hope you are not nearly as boring as your reviews. Lighten up! Your attempt to impress is noticeable.
Rick

Walter Chaw responds: I'll have you know that my thesaurus is fully paid for.

***

THANK YOU. As a fan of "Hellblazer", seeing they cast dumbass in the lead role of Constantine really upset me. But I was still going to give it a chance and would have been even more upset that I wasted time watching it! And you're right, I used to hope someone would bring "Sandman" to the big screen...but now I pray they don't ruin that, too.
Steph

CAN I GET AN INTERPRETER? (Nicole Kidman will suffice.)

ONCE UPON A TIME IN AMERICA IS A MASTERPIECE

YOU UNDERSTAND NOTHING
Bollani

Bill Chambers responds: I gave it four stars out of four and acknowledged it as one of the best movies of the '80s. All without leaving my caps lock on.

***

Who are u? Fat Albert was good. It was fun. And, black ppl don't make movies based on what white movies have done in the past. U are an over analyzer to put it nicely...I'm tired of seeing ppl put down and criticize everything black ppl do.
Earl

Bill Chambers responds: But I liked Fat Albert. I wrote a positive (three-star) review. If I have a problem with the film, it's that it's ultimately too lily-white for its own good. And since it was directed by a white guy and produced by a white guy, how exactly am I The Man in this scenario?

U called that a good review? I'd hate to see a bad one. But if u say it was good I won't argue that maybe I read ur review wrong, if so I apologize.
Earl

THE HILLS HAVE EYES

Walter: just read your review of The Shape of Things and I wanted to congratulate you on your fine, insightful writing. I'm sorry that you didn't enjoy the film more, but this was one of the more precise, careful readings of the movie and I enjoyed the read. It's nice to see someone who not only has the space to say what they think, but also the know-how. Again, nice writing and keep up the good work! I don't hate critics nearly as much as you imply... Take care,
Neil Labute,
writer-director, The Shape of Things

Walter Chaw responds: Thanks for the kind note, Neil. Even in disliking The Shape of Things, I wished that more films were as thought-provoking and keen as yours have consistently been.

***

Read your review of Fight for Your Life. I laughed out loud when I read "...and expert post-production facilities." FYI, they were a rented Moviola located under my loftbed where I spent several months. The good part was that when I was tired, I just climbed the ladder into bed. By the way, I am not ashamed of the film, I just think that I have nothing to add to all the gibberish about the film and its origins.
Robert A. Endelson,
director, Fight for Your Life

Bill Chambers responds: Sorry for making a blanket statement about your non-participation in the DVD--on the commentary they mention that William Sanderson felt a little sheepish about the language (odd that he's now on "Deadwood"!) and since it's been a while, I'm not sure what led me to draw the same conclusion about your absence. Have you at least seen the disc? It looks like a million bucks. Thanks for writing.

***

First off, I'm really impressed with your willingness to take films to task for being homophobic, racist, and misogynistic--not enough critics realize how damaging this crap can be when presented casually in mass media. That said, I think The Life Aquatic is more damagingly homophobic than anything I've seen in a long time (I think it's racist, too--the Filipino pirates are just plain ridiculous). I realize that Zissou is a homophobic character, which is fine (if you like your main characters to be assholes), but his sporadic "faggot"s and "bull dyke"s have no lightning rod in the film--they're just there, floating around uncomfortably, until Goldblum makes the half-hearted "I'm part gay" comment, which doesn't really make up for anything (if he had just admitted to being a full-on queer himself, I might not be writing this e-mail).

The audience I saw it with laughed with these comments, not at Steve for being a homophobic dickhead--which makes the movie's usage of these terms the same as 10 year-old boys calling each other "gay" and "queer" on the playground. Now, I seriously doubt that Wes Anderson is homophobic, but his movie shows a deep misunderstanding for how these slurs come across to people who have been addressed this way (myself, for instance) by random homophobes and gay-bashers. You seem extremely aware of such things, so it surprised me that you didn't take the film to task for what is clearly a case of careless homophobia. I know you're a big fan of Anderson--I am, too (or, at least, I was). In all honesty, I wish he hadn't made this film. Aside from the homophobia, I find it offensive on so many levels (I think it's badly edited and badly directed; I think his musical choices are questionable, particularly the Sigur Ros song at the end; I think it's boring, lifeless, unfunny, smug, and hideously misguided in just about every respect...but whatever). Anyway, if you have any thoughts on this matter, I'd love to hear them. Best,
Nate

Walter Chaw responds: I admit, with shame, that it all just washed over me. It's a product (this being partly excuse and mostly self-excoriation) of my being so immersed in that sort of language that I don't notice sometimes when it's used when I don't find the film to be otherwise homophobic. The Filipino pirates didn't bother me because they were ridiculous, if that makes sense--they seemed to me to be manifestations in the same way as the animated fauna. But as I say that, I realize this isn't a good thing, either. Mea culpa, in other words. I recently did a lecture on the portrayal of gays in cinema to the Denver GLAAD complete with film clips and lively, fascinating discussion, and I learned, among other things, how damaging casual homophobia can be. I appreciate that you think of me as sensitive to minority causes, but I think I've just demonstrated that I'm as prone to being an asshole as the next guy. I'll watch the film again with an eye out for what you note and, very possibly, there's an editorial in it in the future. I liked the film a lot more than you did, clearly, but that doesn't mean that I feel good about overlooking what might be the real conversation. Thanks for the boot to the head.

***

SPACE FOR "OFFICE"