Metropolis

There have been few films that have reached the now legendary status of “Metropolis”; a film which has been available in many versions throughout the years is now almost fully complete. As if by some miracle, twenty-five minutes of footage thought lost was found in 2008 and restored for the first time for all the world to see. The find is considered to be one of the most significant in cinema history; and it was unveiled for the first time last year, and is now available on DVD.

I first saw one version of “Metropolis” when I was very young, probably about 15 or 16 maybe even younger. It was in rather shabby condition, I don’t remember the running time, but many scenes that were available were missing on my version, it also omitted the spectacular original musical score by Gottfried Huppertz, as well as the influential state of the art opening credit montage.

I actually didn’t know what I was missing until only two years ago when I saw “Metropolis” for the first time on DVD on a large screen in a friend’s film class. The film struck me as operatic and epic in scope. Everything about it was big and wonderous. Fritz Lang’s vision of the future hasn’t really changed much in film’s today, he mapped out the destination for all science fiction films to follow.

Seeing “Metropolis” now in its most completed form (Only two scenes are still missing from the original product) it is now more spectacular than ever. It is more complete, it flows more smoothly. There were some cases where a couple of shots were missing in a sequence, while there are others where the sequences themselves have been fully restored, but they now give you the full “Metropolis” experience, at least the fullest one we can hope for for now. Much of the newly found footage has been damaged beyond repair, the scenes still look grainy, but at least it’s still there.

The theme of “Metropolis” is very blunt, it has to do with the battle of the class system. The Metropolis of the title is a huge futuristic city, but it is run from the underground by working class people. The workers trudge away in long hours working the mighty machines, while the higher class people live above in luxery. The son of the founder of the city is Freder, who goes sees what life really is like for the workers underneath. The workers are becoming fed up and threaten to revolt against their boss unless they are treated better; their spiritual leader is Maria (Brigitte Helm) a saintly woman who preaches that some day a mediator will come and bring both classes together.

Freder’s father hears of this revolution and hatches a plan with a mad scientist to kidnap Maria. The scientist does so and uses her image to copy onto a new robot that he has just invented. The robot takes over the place of Maria and tells the workers to revolt.

“Metropolis” is anything but subtle, especially in its allegories of the tower of Babel and the seven deadly sins, each of which come alive in some form or another, but “Metropolis” is more a film about cinematic ideas, and about new ways of storytelling. It is one of the greatest of all silent films, and perhaps the one that most people are familiar with not counting the comedies of Charlie Chaplin and Buster Keaton.

The film came near the end of silent film and the period known as German expressionism, it’s director was Fritz Lang, thought by many to be a tyrant; however no one can deny that he wasn’t a visionary. Lang’s films always have a dark underbelly, in this case it was a fear of mob rule as the workers unite under the orders of the phony Maria, thus they almost destroy themselves in the process. Lang’s cinema has always been unique, he would go on to create some of the great film noirs in history when he moved to Hollywood, but “Metropolis” is an entity unto itself, it’s his most ambitious and epic film, it stands the test of time, it shows filmmakers today what great imagination and vision can accomplish. “Metropolis” is a great film, and it’s great to finally see it to its full glory.

Movie quiz

1) Best Movie of 2010
So far "True Grit"

2) Second-favorite Roman Polanski Movie
"Chinatown", #1 "Repulsion"

3) Jason Statham or Dwayne “The Rock” Johnson
I like The Rock

4) Favorite movie that could be classified as a genre hybrid
"Two-Lane Blacktop" as existential road/minimalist/chase movie

5) How important is foreknowledge of a film’s production history? Should it factor into one’s reaction to a film? The finished product should be all that should matter.

6) William Powell & Myrna Loy or Cary Grant & Irene Dunne
William Powell and Myrna Loy

7) Best Actor of 2010
Matt Damon

8) Most important lesson learned from the past decade of watching movies
Movies have the power to touch on any type of artform

9) Last movie seen (DVD/Blu-ray/theater)
DVD: "El Cid" Theater: "Tron"

10) Most appropriate punishment for director Tom Six
I don't know who that is

11) Best under-the-radar movie almost no one else has had the chance to see
"In Bruges"

12) Sheree North or Angie Dickinson
Angie Dickinson

13) Favorite nakedly autobiographical movie
"Contempt"

14) Movie which best evokes a specific real-life place
Woody Allen's "Manhattan"

15) Best Director of 2010
So far The Coen Brothers

16) Second-favorite Farrelly Brothers Movie
"Fever Pitch"

17) Favorite holiday movie
"It's a Wonderful Life"

18) Best Actress of 2010
Hailee Steinfeld so far

19) Joe Don Baker or Bo Svenson
Joe Don Baker

20) Of those notable figures in the world of the movies who died in 2010, name the one you’ll miss the most
Leslie Nielson

21) Think of a movie with a notable musical score and describe what it might feel like without that accompaniment. "2001" it wouldn't have that extra excitement that the music brings. I can't imagine those ships docking without that classical music.

22) Best Screenplay of 2010
"The Social Network"

23) Movie You Feel Most Evangelistic About Right Now
"True Grit"

24) Worst/funniest movie accent ever
Kevin Costner in Thirteen Days

25) Best Cinematography of 2010
"True Grit"

26) Olivia Wilde or Gemma Arterton
Olivia Wilde

27) Name the three best movies you saw for the first time in 2010 (Thanks, Larry!)
"Summer Hours", "Before Sunset","Eraserhead" I'm probably missing something.

28) Best romantic movie couple of 2010
Not a year for romance in my opinion

29) Favorite shock/surprise ending
Of this year it was probably the end of "Shutter Island", but I couldn't choose overall.

30) Best cinematic reason to have stayed home and read a book in 2010
Summer movies.

31) Movies in 2011 could make me much happier if they’d only _______________
put an arthouse movie theatre closer to where I live.

The Philadelphia Story

Is there a more beloved,sacred genre in the annals of Hollywood cinema than the romantic comedy? Maybe sacred isn't the right word, try exploited. Romantic comedies have taken a beating over the years, lacking any sense of real romance or sincerity in favour of stupid humour and sometimes meanness. Romance was once a reason to go to the movies because they always made it better than it was in real life.

There was a time when romantic comedy was done well, its golden age came in the 1930s and early 40s. Usually slapstick was involved, but there was also a sophistication to it, this was mostly due to the clever screenwriters and directors, along with a charismatic cast.

One of the best examples of romantic comedy done absolutely right is "The Philadelphia Story". The film already boasts a trio of the biggest stars there ever was Cary Grant, Katherine Hepburn, and Jimmy Stewart. Although at the time Grant was really the only true bankable star, Stewart's star was rising after his breakthrough hit "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington" the year before. Hepburn was dubbed "box office poison", she had done "The Philadelphia Story" on stage in New York and acquired the rights to it in hoping it would revive her career, it did in spades. Hepburn originally lobbied for Clark Gable and Spencer Tracey to be her co-stars, but how could you argue with Grant and Stewart as unworthy substitutes?

The story involves Hepburn's character Tracey Lords, a high class woman about to be married for the second time. Her last marriage was with Grant's character C.K. Dexter Haven, which ended very badly, and rumours of their violent relationship plays throughout the film.

On the eve of Tracey's wedding, Dexter has concocted a plan in which we think is a way to get back at his ex-bride. He hires reporters from a gossip magazine to do a story on her wedding, something Tracey and her family would frown on. These reporters are played by Stewart and Ruth Hussey. Stewart is Mike Connor, who's a real writer and hates working for the seedy magazine and its publisher. Hussy's Liz is a tough talking photographer in the same boat, yet they do the job anyway in order to eat.

It is soon revealed that Dexter's plans for the reporters is truly noble and he in fact still has strong feelings for Tracey, but in order for there to be happiness, both parties need to be taken down a peg.

"The Philadelphia Story" is a film about growing up a bit,and it's also about class systems. Both Tracey and Dexter come from the upper class, yet there is a certain dignity about them, they never pretend to be who they are, yet they later both admit to have made mistakes. Tracey's fiancee George comes from the lower class but worked his way up, but it is revealed he did it all for the wrong reasons. Then there are Mike and Liz who have known nothing but being in the working class, it seems they might be the most honest and decent all together, Mike and Tracey even share a brief romance and it is then we think she has to end up with him. But really in the end, it's really about who Katherine Hepburn will end up with, Cary Grant or Jimmy Stewart, and of course any cinephile who has an inkling on who these leading men are will know it can only end one way.

"The Philadelphia Story" is a romantic triangle, yet it's clever enough to see past the cliches, I'm not sure back then there was a cliche, since everything seemed so fresh, it must've been the later generations who used up all the ideas till they became dull and boring. Tracey's fiancee George is shown as a phony right off, everyone seems to know it but Tracey herself, the real triangle is between Dexter and Mike, yet neither of them are competitors at any moment, they even share a delightful scene where Mike comes to Dexter's door drunk, they both fall for the same women, but they always act like adults instead of fools.

I might just love "The Philadelphia Story" because of the stars who are in them, all of which show off just why they became stars. Dexter was just the kind of role for Cary Grant, I'm surprised Hepburn didn't want him for the part right away (The two made three other films prior to this). When Grant plays a role like this, it's hard to imagine anyone else filling those shoes, we sense his cheekiness, but also his bitterness and sorrow, Grant never had to grandstand for attention, the way he carried himself spoke volumes.

For Stewart, he never had another part like this, Stewart became America's everyman, which overshadowed his greatness as an actor. As Mike Connor, he's able to walk away with the film, his scenes where he is drunk are absolutely the funniest scenes in the film, and despite Mike's somewhat misguided direction in love, Stewart is still able to make him likable.

Then there is Hepburn, who tailor-made this film for her comeback, for me this is the Katherine Hepburn performance I think of, when I think of a Katherine Hepburn performance. Tracey like Hepburn is quite the modern woman, you can sense the firey nature in both these woman, you could swear they were the same woman. Hepburn made a habit of not feminizing herself too much, she never played a damsel in distress on purpose. Tracey is a woman who must discover that she does need saving by the right man.

Along with the three actors, the heart of the film comes from the sophisticated screenplay by David Ogden Stewart, it's one of those screenplays that can only exist in Hollywood, where the actors get to say such wonderful, romantic, and witty lines to eachother, that kind of spark is hard to come by these days. The film is quite talky, but when the lines are this good, and are being said by actors who can say them well, who can complain.

The film was also directed by George Cukor, a man known for women's films, he also had a long professional relationship with Hepburn. He made the original film "The Women", and made two great musicals "A Star is Born" with Judy Garland, and "My Fair Lady" with Audrey Hepburn. He has a way for sophistication in this film, it never becomes riotous funny, it has a heart, and Cukor knows when to play the humour without it going too far.

"The Philadelphia Story" remains a benchmark in the romantic comedy, it's as well known and loved as "It Happened One Night" or "His Girl Friday" from that same era, it reminds us exactly how well romance could be done in the movies, and how wonderful it could be made if there was great talent behind it.

Up

We're getting to the point where it's safe to say Pixar has made about as many animated masterpieces as the golden age of Disney. There's no doubt in my mind their films will be around long after this generation and the generation after that are long gone. As one critic said about Pixar, they make movies for everyone, they are crowd pleasers on the surface, yet they aren't afraid to tackle real human emotion. Think of their flag ship franchise "Toy Story" which deals with talking toys, yet in the three films they starred in, the one constant theme is a fear of abandonment, something we all must face. Also take "Wall-E", which deals with a romance between two robots, and gets to the same kind of pathos and sentiment usually seen in a Chaplin film.

To me the most powerful film of the Pixar label, and the one that enriches with repeat viewings is "Up". "Up" represents much of what I love seeing in movies, it's sweet, funny, sentimental, and full of adventure and unexpected moments. Pixar is known for all of these elements in their films, but with "Up" I think they reached the peak of that certain kind of storytelling which definitely struck a chord with me.

The heart of the story is about a promise between a couple who grow up as childhood sweethearts, and live a happily married life. The wife is seen as very outgoing, while the husband is the more stable easy going type. They both have a dream to some day go to South America to a place known as Paradise Falls. They try to save up for the trip, but things always come up such as car repairs or house repairs which delay their trip. When the husband tries to surprise his wife with tickets to go, she falls ill and dies. All of this happens within the first ten minutes of the film in a wonderful silent montage of the couple who spend an entire lifetime together.

The beginning of the adventure begins when the now 78 year old husband who's name is Carl decides to make his and his wife's dream come true by attaching a bunch of balloons to his house sailing him to Paradise Falls, it's a way to keep his promise. Carl doesn't see much of a future at home anyway after he is being forced into a retirement home, but what he doesn't expect to find is a young boy named Russel who is trying earn a badge for his wilderness explorer group. Russell comes to Carl's house one day, and mistakenly gets on board when the house flies away.

The two make it to Paradise Falls but on the wrong end of where Carl plans to land his house, so they must walk there. It is here where they run into a tall but lovable endangered bird, who is being hunted by a famous old Adventurer Carl used to admire as a boy. There are also a bunch of talking dogs who try to track the bird. That's right, they talk through a radio transmitter embedded in their collar, the most vocal and lovable is a misfit dog named Doug who isn't as mean as the others and soon joins Carl and Russell on their adventure.

The first thing to notice in "Up" as in all Pixar films is the use of color, when the balloons appear for the first time from Carl's house, it's an extraordinary sequence, "Up" is definitely one of the brightest films made in a long time, in fact the whole film has an irresistible cheery quality to it, even the title evokes the kind of mood you're supposed to get when watching this film.

What sets "Up" apart from other films of its kind is its use of an old man as a protagonist. Carl is the heart of this film and his love for his departed wife grounds it to a type of reality that we can relate to, it's because of this, the film can also incorporate talking dogs, and still be believable. There is also the relationship between Carl and Russell that is very touching. Neither character is a cliche of the usual cartoon canon, Carl is a widower and there is always a kind of sadness that comes with him, his house is a symbol of his past, something he must get behind him. Russel is a kid from a broken home, we learn in a very touching scene he doesn't have a father figure, yet he isn't depressed about it, he has a positive attitude, but we know he's probably hurting as well.

We can sense that where these two characters are coming from motivates their actions in the film which makes it all the more enjoyable. The film was directed and written by Pete Docter and Bob Peterson, who have created a wonderful Hollywood movie, it's ironic that the films made in Hollywood which have the most heart these days seem to be coming from animation departments. Perhaps because animation is able to open up to a world of wonder because it is all make believe, but Pixar seems to understand better than most, there must always be something behind that wonder to add any weight to it.

"Up" is a joyous film, it represents the best Hollywood has to offer these days of entertainment, it's a film that doesn't lose any of its magnificence for me no matter how many times I watch it, I have a feeling it will last long after I'm gone, and more and more people will discover it as they did with films like "Pinocchio" or "Bambi".

The Lady Vanishes

One of the things, movies can do so well is play with our expectations, it's so interesting as a viewer to not know what's going to happen yet. This is one of the reasons why Alfred Hitchcock is considered such a master of cinema, he toys with our emotions, sending a plot in one direction, when we thought it was going another. "The Lady Vanishes", one of Hitchcock's early masterpieces and surely one of his most purely entertaining films is an exercise on playing with our expectations.

"The Lady Vanishes" opens with a very light touch, it takes place in an over crowded hotel in Europe where we get the chance to meet all the major players of the film. At the beginning, we really aren't even sure who the main character is, or who the lady the title refers to is. The most prominent characters in the beginning are two British cricket fans (Nauten Wayne and Basil Radford) who are worried about missing the upcoming tournament. These men in fact are minor, but provide the best comic relief. There is also a man and a woman posing as a married couple but are carrying on a secret affair (Cecil Parker and Linden Travers). Finally we meet the romantic leads, they are Iris (Margaret Lockwood) and Gilbert (Michael Redgrave). Their story starts off as more or less a romantic comedy, he annoys her to no end, yet you realize the first moment they meet that they will fall in love.

There is also Miss Froy (Dame May Whitty) a sweet natured elderly women who Iris meets on the train back to Britain. Miss Froy is indeed the woman eluded to in the title, when she suddenly for no reason she becomes missing with Iris falls asleep. Throughout the majority of the rest of the movie, Iris is convinced Miss Froy is on the train, yet no one seems to have any recollection she is there. Gilbert of course helps her out, even though he is skeptical at first as well.

Other characters are introduced on the train as well, and Hitchcock was a master at casting people with villainous or treacherous faces, throughout Iris' search, we know something isn't quite right, yet it's hard to put our finger on it. Before the train, Miss Froy is seen outside her hotel room listening to a singer from outside her window, but the singer is seen killed, later, before the train, an attempt on her life is made. We are meant to feel what Iris feels while she is searching the train, we the audience have seen Miss Froy, yet everyone else is saying we haven't. Iris is accused by a doctor (Paul Lukas) that she is delusional, and we also feel it with her, Hitchcock plays with this sense of uncertainty for as long as he can, almost until we can't take it anymore, when will he answer this burning question?

"The Lady Vanishes" was made at the height of Hitchcock's success in England, two years after this film, he would go on to Hollywood and make "Rebecca", and the rest as they say is history. People have often argued that Hitchcock lost some of his charm when he left England, and his films were mostly about craft. I can understand what they mean, yet I disagree with them, his British films do have a certain sensibility, at times they are more playful and there is always that kind of wit you don't see in the American films, yet that is something I think Hitchcock always brought with him no matter what nation he worked under. Hitchcock might've grown stale in Britain, and Hollywood seemed to be suited more for his kind of storytelling, and it's a good thing too, since he pretty much changed the way American films were made afterwards.

"The Lady Vanishes" however remains terrific entertainment, it's the type of film Hitchcock made so well, blending genres such as comedy, mystery, and suspense so well, it actually does keep you guessing. "The Lady Vanishes" actually wasn't always the first film I thought of when I thought of Hitchcock, yet when I watch it again and again, it becomes more and more delightful, it depicts a master right before he would conquer the film world.

Universal Horror

Horror and cinema are a match made in heaven. It is said you can tell a good filmmaker if he's able to pull off a good horror film. In horror you have the basic elements of a dark atmospheric look, people screaming, and probably some blood and gore thrown into the mix.

Horror is almost as old as cinema, it's usually credited at the beginning with German expressionism. "The Cabinet a Dr. Caligari" was a benchmark of that era, which is commonly referred to as the first horror film. Then there is F.W. Murnau's "Nosferatu" in 1922, which is still the greatest realization of the "Dracula" legend.

Today, horror movies remains popular with new types of horror monsters invading the multiplexes. Some of these monsters are inspired, others are not. I usually tend to avoid new horror movies today, I sometimes feel like I respond to a different time, I don't like what people refer to as "torture porn", I couldn't sit through the first "Saw" movie, and I've avoided movies like "Hostel" or the remake of "These Hills Have Eyes". Maybe there is artistic merit to these movies, but I know I will live a happy life without seeing either of them.

Halloween is of course upon us , and this is usually the time to reflect on some the greatest horror films of all time, and this is something I'm always interested in, mostly because I love lists. Most movies that make these lists mostly stem from the late 60s-70s era like "The Exorcist", "Rosemary's Baby", "Jaws", or "Alien".

I admire those horror movies very much, but for me, the most fun horror movies come from the early Universal days most prominently the early 30s. These were the films directed by Todd Browning, James Whale, and Karl Freud, and starring people like Bela Lugosi, and Boris Karloff.

Movies like "Dracula" starring Lugosi, and "Frankenstein" starring Karloff remain special to me, I don't really find them scary, like most people of today who have perhaps seen too much, but I love them just the same. Like most early sound pictures, "Dracula" and "Frankenstein" suffer from a creaky and wooden type of look and acting style, yet that's part of their charm. The films themselves remain quite imaginative, and are also exercises in the art of camp.

"Frankenstein" was the first of these films I saw as a kid, I watched it as a double bill in my basement along with another great monster movie "King Kong". I was probably around ten or eleven at the time. I loved the film even back then, I've always had an affinity for classic black and white movies, and these types of films spoke to my imagination as a child.

A few years later I would watch "Dracula", a film I still have my troubles with, it's probably due to the fact that the film was based on the stage play of Bram Stoker's novel and suffers from not being very cinematic, which is why today I still prefer "Nosferatu" as well as the remake by Werner Herzog. Still I am charmed by Lugosi's Dracula, he rises the film above its staged trappings.

There are two films I think are vastly underrated in the Universal monster cannon, which I think are both superior to "Dracula", the first is "The Mummy" from 1932 directed by Karl Freud and starring Boris Karloff. "The Mummy" has a lot in common with "Dracula" story wise, but I found it to be far more interesting, and Karloff relishes in the role as the dead Egyptian Mummy brought back to life.

The second film is "The Invisible Man", directed by "Frankenstein's" James Whale and starring Claude Rains. This film is based on the novel by H.G. Welles, and actually did frighten me as a child, Rains plays a mad scientist who finds the formula to make himself invisible, yet he of course goes mad in the process. I found the story quite chilling, and despite many remakes or rip offs, the original is still the most effective.

Perhaps my least favorite has to be "The Wolf Man", which I find to be overrated, the film stars Lon Chaney Jr. who is fine in the role as a man who is bitten by a werewolf, and the supporting cast is superb as well with the likes of Claude Rains and Ralph Bellamy. However I wasn't impressed by the presence of the Wolf Man, it appears only a handful of times in the original film and he doesn't do much but snarl at the camera. The make up effects are quite astonishing, but his appearance just didn't seem as epic to me as that of Frankenstein or Dracula, or The Mummy.

I often wonder had the Wolf Man not come so late, his first film was ten years after the first appearances of Frankenstein and Dracula. He was limited to the laws of movies after the pre-code era, meaning, you couldn't do anything that was deemed that gruesome or dangerous.

Of course the greatest of all these horror films is the sequel to "Frankenstein", "Bride of Frankenstein" which stands as a masterpiece, and pretty much sums up why I think all these films endure. "Bride" is a gorgeous movie to look at, it's one of those films that belong in the world of black and white, it also is aware of itself like the others weren't before. Director James Whale made a horror comedy, which was obsessed with dark humour regarding life and death. It's wickedly funny, and epically put together. The climactic scene where the Bride becomes alive is probably the greatest of all scenes of its kind, it blends both horror, comedy, and pathos in its shots. I still chuckle with delight whenever I hear the musical score from "Bride of Frankenstein", or hearing Elsa Lanchester shriek when she first touches Karloff's monster, and of course her snake like hisp before she is about to be destroyed. The look and the tone of the film become so perfect, and to me it represents what all of these films strived to be, and almost were.

The Universal films remain fun films for me to revisit, I recognize their weaknesses, yet I still have great pleasure in watching them, they remind me of that first piece of horror I felt as a child watching my first horror film, I love them because they represent a time when film was still new, and still inventing itself, they may be primitive today, but still I'd choose them over torture any day.

Million Dollar Baby

Clint Eastwood has made many great movies throughout his career both as an actor and a director. It could be argued that he has had the most endurable career of anyone in Hollywood. The last film Eastwood starred in was "Gran Torino", which was number one at the box office its opening weekend. Eastwood is now in his 80s, his acting career may be behind him, of course I wouldn't count him out, yet he still manages to average at least one film per year that he has directed. There always seems to be a place for Clint Eastwood, he's carved his only little niche.

The films Eastwood has directed also have its own style, and like the man himself, they aren't fussy, some of them remain laid back and soothing, yet the story remains important. His style has only refined through the years, but perhaps it was perfected with "Million Dollar Baby", which is definitely one of his masterpieces.

"Million Dollar Baby" had a strange birth, Eastwood took the first draft of the script by Paul Haggis, claiming it was perfect just the way it was. Eastwood's instincts were probably right, Haggis' original script stuck to the bare bones, and like the best of Eastwood's pictures didn't have any excess to it.

The story is set up like an old fashioned Hollywood movie, Eastwood plays Frankie an old boxing manager who has been in the business all his life. Frankie owns a gym, and runs it along with his longtime friend Scraps (Morgan Freeman) who is the janitor. At the beginning of the film, Frankie is managing a boxer who gets the chance at a title shot, something Frankie has never had, yet by playing it safe, he loses his boxer to another manager.

Enter Maggie (Hilary Swank) a girl who sees Frankie and wants him to train her to become a champion. Maggie comes from a trailer park upbringing, she feels boxing is the only way for her to attain a future, Frankie on the other hand doesn't want to train her due to the fact that she's a girl. Maggie is determined she's worth it, she continues to come to the gym to practice herself, and soon Frankie can't resist, he decides to take her on.

The relationship that blossoms between Maggie and Frankie is the heart of this film, Eastwood manages to make it into something that plays against cliche. Both Maggie and Frankie are missing something in their lives, we hear Frankie has a daughter he writes every week, yet his letter are always returned to him, it isn't even specified if his daughter is alive. Maggie grew up admiring her father who died when she was young, the rest of her family are lazy trailer trash who are on welfare. There is a deep caring and love that comes in this relationship between Maggie and Frankie, and it only becomes more meaningful in the heartbreaking finale.

"Million Dollar Baby" could've been a film made in the 1940s era, it has that feel of it, of course many of Eastwood's films feel like they come from another time, he always seems to be beating to the sound of his own drum unlike many filmmakers of today who may have forgotten the importance of story over style. Eastwood takes his time telling his stories, and developing his relationships, he's always able to get good performances from his actors because I believe he's willing to give them room to create full bodies characters. It's almost as if Eastwood's style is invisible when he does this, yet it's there only slow and methodical, this is a man who doesn't feel he has to prove anything to anyone. With "Million Dollar Baby", he gets a tremendous performance from Swank who has since this film gone on to play many strong willed women. Morgan Freeman also gets his time to shine in this film, it's become rather a cliche to cast Freeman as a narrator, which is one of his jobs in this film, he's also Frankie's closest friend and conscience. He's the one who knows Frankie the best, and perhaps knows what he should do better than he does.

"Million Dollar Baby" might not have been as special had it not been for Eastwood's reluctance to treat this as a regular Hollywood formula story, it in fact only starts off as that, the tone of the film remains somewhat sombre, Eastwood never forgets he's dealing with bruised characters, all of whom have something to prove, yet there are consequences.

The final act of the movie has caused much controversy, some have considered it manipulative, while others feel Eastwood made a fatal error by reducing Freeman as a narrator, breaking the structure of the whole film. The ending is in fact the key to the whole story, and it works because we have taken a journey with Frankie and Maggie, and it ends on the right note for both characters. Eastwood's films usually have a dark edge to them, and this film is no exception, Eastwood bathes the film in contrasting shadow and light images, and it works well with the tone of the film, yet it's also a story you can get so caught up into. I loved seeing the relationship of Maggie and Frankie grow, it is perhaps one of the best relationships put on screen in modern film.

I returned to "Million Dollar Baby" after a few years of not watching it, the film didn't seem to age, it just felt so familiar, but that could probably be said with most of Eastwood's films. Eastwood has proved himself as an American Auteur, there is a certain feel to all of his films that show his trademark. A film like "Million Dollar Baby", everything clicks so beautifully with the material, the script, and the cast, Eastwood is unstoppable, this story just seemed perfect for his brand of storytelling, and it is truly one of the great classics of the last ten years. Like the man himself, Eastwood's films never seem to get old, just wiser, and more interesting as time goes by.