I had an epiphany about this movie today

Rating: 5/10 (29 April 2015)

And its Tea-Party roots.
Basically, this movie was a tool used to inject poison. I'll get to that in a bit.
This film was released at virtually the Nadir of some of the worst years, not of just my life, but of this nation.
If we look at the events surrounding the year of it's release: US is embroiled in basically a war which our then-president caused over OIL. The Housing bubble had burst, and one year later, Bush's first attempts to privatize our social security system was put into effect, namely "Medicare Part D" which privatized a function of Social Security, took it AWAY from the State, and handed it directly to private entrepreneurs and Insurance Sharks. Many of our elderly went without medication for up to three years. If Part D were put on the table today exactly as it was in 2004, it would be rejected, because it is supposed to be "Federal". The reason why this I bring this up is because it was an issue during the time this movie was being made, it's director and writer believes in it, and mainly this movie attacks the idea of Social Security.
So I watch this movie, and it actually did have some good things in it, ergo my 5 rating. For the first half at least, some of it was very good, because Chair-Talking' Clint actually is a talented director. But I thought I was watching a movie about a girl who liked Boxing and became a woman boxer. And it was interesting as that movie... Until Clint decides to speak to that empty chair for the first time.
Suddenly, the film is no longer about a budding girl boxer, suddenly she is disabled, and her "evil" mother is fighting with Clint over her money (The mother who just so happens to be worried about losing her Social Security benefits because she is given a HOUSE).
If a Disabled person, meaning a person dependent on Social Security to do things like get Medical Care, EAT, find transportation, etc (In other words, those things that people who are not disabled take for granted) - If suddenly were given a HOUSE like that, well for a fact there would be serious and instant consequences- They COULD lose their Social Security. Now, the mother is no angel, and has problems: But to be worried about losing Social Security is a dread fear for all people who get it. However, the woman did receive and act on bad advice from other family members. But Clint uses this one dysfunctional family to make all of Social Security look bad, attacking the recipients of it, in order to state his political views on not liking the system. Well, to hell with you, Clint! Basically, this film is a war about a girl's inheritance money - Should it be given to her Family, who does not seem to give a rip about the girl, or should her "beloved" trainer get it? The Problem is, regardless of how bad the mother appears, she was justified in being worried over losing her benefits. Simply put, Clint is not a valid person or director to put these elements into a movie, he's never had to LIVE on Social Security. Maybe at times he's had to get California Disability, but that's not the same thing- a person who is on Social Security can own a house, but to just be GIVEN a house is a serious problem.
Perhaps if Clint had not made such a big deal in the movie about the mother's fear of Losing Benefits, but it just seemed to me, he went out of his way to make it into some kind of "statement". I mean, if the mother is a B****, then just have her be a B****. The whole thing about fear of losing Benefits had no place in this film.
Now regarding the relationship Clint has with his Boxer played by Hilary Swank, I could believe that a bit. But that was at the very end of the movie, where his true feelings came out (He tells her what the Irish Slogan he had sewn on her robe meant). It would have been a better ending for a better movie had not Clint used the Anti-Medicare Detour to get there. Now, I've never read the stories that this is based upon, I don't know if the reactionary ideas were in the stories, or if Clint simply put them in. All I know is that this film uses those unfortunate events to make a system we depend on look bad.
But this is just Par for Eastwood Movies these days, he is no longer interested in making any good Drama, he actually used to make films that supported the underdog, lately he makes films to support radical right wing reactionary ideas. But mostly he creates these huge canvases where he basically justifies telling a lie as the truth, like his latest sniper movie which gives his stamp of approval to the War in Iraq. I'd rather see him stick to Fiction.