Warner Bros. Pictures | Release Date: December 15, 2004
7.4
USER SCORE
Generally favorable reviews based on 479 Ratings
USER RATING DISTRIBUTION
Positive:
373
Mixed:
23
Negative:
83
WATCH NOW
Stream On
Stream On
Review this movie
VOTE NOW
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Check box if your review contains spoilers 0 characters (5000 max)
4
GregMcCabeJun 26, 2012
Still amazes me that this got so much attention. Clint Eastwood is a great filmmaker and has made some masterpieces, but this movie was sluggish and simply too predictable. I love the surprises in Unforgiven and Gran Torino and severalStill amazes me that this got so much attention. Clint Eastwood is a great filmmaker and has made some masterpieces, but this movie was sluggish and simply too predictable. I love the surprises in Unforgiven and Gran Torino and several others, but this one was not even close to Clint's best. I even enjoyed J. Edgar better than this film. Expand
1 of 3 users found this helpful12
All this user's reviews
5
Spielberg00Dec 2, 2011
Bottom Line: Best Picture? Iâ
1 of 4 users found this helpful13
All this user's reviews
4
JoshCOct 9, 2006
One of Eastwood's worst movies, and one of the most overrated films in recent years. The plot was not orginal as Indira said. The film was formulaic and cliche ridden.
0 of 1 users found this helpful
4
BakerW.Feb 10, 2006
Good plot premise BUT...both Morgan Freeman and Clint Eastwood "mailed it in". They trotted out two-dimensional cliches of their characters. I doubt if director Eastwood was critical of any scenes either of them played in. Hilary Swank Good plot premise BUT...both Morgan Freeman and Clint Eastwood "mailed it in". They trotted out two-dimensional cliches of their characters. I doubt if director Eastwood was critical of any scenes either of them played in. Hilary Swank didn't look like even a woman boxer. The best performances were the actors playing the cheezy relatives playing for dough even as she realizes there is little hope. Eastwood should have been more self-critical & Freeman should have put more into his role. A mediocre effort from a talented ensemble. Expand
0 of 1 users found this helpful
4
CarlyG.May 19, 2007
Really not as good as it is described. Only in the mainstream Oscar industry it is. Compared to a independant film about euthenasia, million dollar baby is nothing.
0 of 1 users found this helpful
4
markymarkDec 4, 2015
SPOILER

Such an overrated film. Tired narrator device (narrator!!! we'll get Morgan Freeman to play the same role he's played 345 times before), woefully unconvincing and contrived plot and possible the worst, tension-killing,
SPOILER

Such an overrated film. Tired narrator device (narrator!!! we'll get Morgan Freeman to play the same role he's played 345 times before), woefully unconvincing and contrived plot and possible the worst, tension-killing, stereotypical characterisation of a family in cinematic history. Second half of the film is intensely boring as the ridiculousness of the writing killed any emotional impact that was supposed to be felt. I was so happy when she finally died because it meant the film was going to end. Gets a 4 because Eastwood (in particular) was great and Swank was very good - not their fault the screenplay was so atrocious. Worst winner of a Best Picture Oscar in my time (although Braveheart came close).
Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews