I'm excited to hear there is movement, if sluggish, forward on the sequel to The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo, The Girl Who Played With Fire. But I'm concerned about what director David Fincher says in this article. He wants to make it his own thing allegedly because there was criticism that he followed the book too closely?
Really? Really? If that is even true, this is one of those cases where not every opinion is valid. Some are just stupid. Followed the book too closely? Is that even a thing?
I'm willing to bet that's a bogus response, anyway. What I suspect is that they're going to try to write more Salander into the sequel. That's what the Swedish version of the film did after all, and people seemed content with it. Besides, Rooney Mara got an Oscar nomination for her role as Salander. It was huge. How is more Salander a bad thing?
Here's the deal, though. Girl Who Played With Fire is awesome because it takes that character we know to be competent yet brutal -- and we love her for it -- and makes her the prime suspect in a gruesome murder. And then we don't see her for the majority of the story. She disappears after we see her alone with the soon-to-be-victims. We know she is definitely capable of a murder like this. But we, like Blomkvist, have no idea why she would do it. We care about her like he does, we know she's able like he does. And we want to know where she is, like he does.
That may not sound like much, but it's so exciting to be in exactly the same situation as the main character in the story. I've never experienced anything like it in a book. To me, it is the most essential part of the story and the trick it pulls off most successfully. Perhaps in the entire trilogy. It also makes those precious few moments we do see her all the more meaningful. To rob movie-goers of that experience will cheapen the film irrevocably.
Mr. Fincher, I urge you to follow the book closely. It's such a fun ride. If you want to make it your own, don't fall into the same traps as the Swedish version. Besides, people who have read the book don't want to see something new. We want to see what we imagined come to life. Fair warning: any changes you make we'll probably hold against you.
Saturday, September 8, 2012
Saturday, May 12, 2012
The Avengers -- decadent and sexist? Ooh, read on
Let me get this out of the way: The Avengers doesn't suck. At all. It's easily the most fun I've had in a theater since Return of the King, and the ending was even more satisfying. It was so good on so many levels, and like I've heard a lot of other reviewers saying, I hope this finally propels Joss Whedon to the superstardom that an artist of his caliber deserves. He nailed it. I've also seen smart people rip on the movie a bit. To them, I say to each their own. It probably won't get best picture, okay sure. But if you have something against the genre, you're probably not the right person to review it. Just saying.
Of course, panel people coming out of seeing "The Artist" alongside people coming out of "The Avengers" and see who had a better time. Who was more satisfied.
Now, on to what I really want to talk about. While the NYT has been trashing The Avengers for being "decadent" and whatnot, another camp has been criticizing it for a fairly decent reason: There's only one female. Who, incidentally, doesn't have any super powers. Who kicks a ton of ass. She's perhaps the most capable of all of them -- at one point she discerns what's going on while everyone else is having a dick-measuring contest. She happens to look great while she's doing it. But still, there's only one of her. One out of six. I'm responding primarily to Margot Magowan's blog post. Not because I disagree or because I think she has a shallow interpretation of the evidence. Quite the contrary. I think she has valuable insights and a perspective that needs to be shared. The comments on her post were left by idiots, though. And I don't want to register to share my long-winded response. I hate registering. I commit to nothing.
First off, this blog post is good. I agree. Women are often objectified and overly sexualized in their poses for comic books and the movies inspired by them. I think this is based on the assumption that the predominant readers and viewers of these are adolescent boys with only one thing on their minds, ergo the best way to sell their stuff is to show a lot of tits and ass. It's disgusting, really. I really wish the industry would change. And to that degree, this poster doesn't do the movie credit. I much prefer this one:
She's cleaving out a bit, but at least she looks somewhat intimidating.
To the next post, I would just like to say that talk has exploded around the internet about what characters should be in Avengers 2. There's talk about Dr. Strange and Namor, for example. Mr. Whedon has cryptically said that managing six characters was really hard, and he's not sure he would want to do even more. But I'm going to wait and see. There are a bunch of characters that would keep a sequel fresh. For me, the first would be Carol Danvers, Ms. Marvel. She's being set up as Marvel's answer to Wonder Woman, and she'd be an awesome addition to the team, even if she replaces someone. Before
Ms. Marvel, there was Jennifer Walters, She-Hulk. She's cool because she's a bit more reluctant to be a hero, and everyone around her is expecting her to lash out like her cousin and she has to continually win their trust. Then there's Janet Van Dyne the Wasp, Jessica Drew Spider-Woman, Bobbi Morse Mockingbird, Wanda Maximoff the Scarlet Witch, etc. There are also black superheroes like Luke Cage and Black Panther. There are others like The Falcon, Patriot, Bishop ...
Sorry. I kind of got off track a little. Anyway, I have two points to make. The first is that there are plenty of super heroes out there to add more diversity, along both gender and racial lines, to a sequel to this already amazing movie. The second point is as long as Joss Whedon stays at the helm, I'm willing to bet cold hard cash that more strong, capable, believable female super heroes will appear in the sequel. He had only one to work with in this movie, and she was awesome. I'd love to see what he would do with a few more.
Of course, panel people coming out of seeing "The Artist" alongside people coming out of "The Avengers" and see who had a better time. Who was more satisfied.
Now, on to what I really want to talk about. While the NYT has been trashing The Avengers for being "decadent" and whatnot, another camp has been criticizing it for a fairly decent reason: There's only one female. Who, incidentally, doesn't have any super powers. Who kicks a ton of ass. She's perhaps the most capable of all of them -- at one point she discerns what's going on while everyone else is having a dick-measuring contest. She happens to look great while she's doing it. But still, there's only one of her. One out of six. I'm responding primarily to Margot Magowan's blog post. Not because I disagree or because I think she has a shallow interpretation of the evidence. Quite the contrary. I think she has valuable insights and a perspective that needs to be shared. The comments on her post were left by idiots, though. And I don't want to register to share my long-winded response. I hate registering. I commit to nothing.
First off, this blog post is good. I agree. Women are often objectified and overly sexualized in their poses for comic books and the movies inspired by them. I think this is based on the assumption that the predominant readers and viewers of these are adolescent boys with only one thing on their minds, ergo the best way to sell their stuff is to show a lot of tits and ass. It's disgusting, really. I really wish the industry would change. And to that degree, this poster doesn't do the movie credit. I much prefer this one:
She's cleaving out a bit, but at least she looks somewhat intimidating.
To the next post, I would just like to say that talk has exploded around the internet about what characters should be in Avengers 2. There's talk about Dr. Strange and Namor, for example. Mr. Whedon has cryptically said that managing six characters was really hard, and he's not sure he would want to do even more. But I'm going to wait and see. There are a bunch of characters that would keep a sequel fresh. For me, the first would be Carol Danvers, Ms. Marvel. She's being set up as Marvel's answer to Wonder Woman, and she'd be an awesome addition to the team, even if she replaces someone. Before
Ms. Marvel, there was Jennifer Walters, She-Hulk. She's cool because she's a bit more reluctant to be a hero, and everyone around her is expecting her to lash out like her cousin and she has to continually win their trust. Then there's Janet Van Dyne the Wasp, Jessica Drew Spider-Woman, Bobbi Morse Mockingbird, Wanda Maximoff the Scarlet Witch, etc. There are also black superheroes like Luke Cage and Black Panther. There are others like The Falcon, Patriot, Bishop ...
Sorry. I kind of got off track a little. Anyway, I have two points to make. The first is that there are plenty of super heroes out there to add more diversity, along both gender and racial lines, to a sequel to this already amazing movie. The second point is as long as Joss Whedon stays at the helm, I'm willing to bet cold hard cash that more strong, capable, believable female super heroes will appear in the sequel. He had only one to work with in this movie, and she was awesome. I'd love to see what he would do with a few more.
Saturday, March 31, 2012
Mass Effect 3
I'm compelled to post about this. I don't think I'll be saying anything new, but just saying it might make me feel better.
Game journalism bitches and moans about not being taken seriously. Real journalists don't take it seriously. Gamers bitch and moan about games not being regarded as an art form. Art critics don't necessarily regard video games as art. It's easy to imagine them scoffing at the idea. My beef is not with art critics; it's with game journalists.
Game journalists are missing a rare opportunity with the Mass Effect 3 ending controversy. By and large, their response has been this and this(don't get me started on the "ninja turtles are aliens" part. Actually even if you do, I'll just agree with MovieBob I think. He's normally pretty on top of things). Fans have been saying this. See the disconnect? It's vast. It's so vast, it's impossible for dialogue to happen. Game journalists have, by and large, told fans of the game to shut up. (I know MovieBob is not a game journalist, but he weighed in on the issue and that makes him fair game.) Some fans have responded in untempered rage calling for mass firings and other unbelievably unreasonable things. Now, I agree that they should at least calm down. Other fans have started the Retake Mass Effect movement, and I don't like the wording of that. It presumes quite a bit. Other fans have bought cupcakes for Bioware, the makers of the game.
This is the time for game journalism to shine. This is a gaming issue, and game journalists have shown their ineptitude. Why the grand disconnect? What happened to create such a divisive ending? What happened at Bioware? Was this due to the game being leaked before the release? Was a new ending rushed? Did EA pressure Bioware into making the ending some kind of purchasable DLC to generate more revenue? Who's asking this? Who should be? Game journalists. Instead, they're saying this. Wah waaaah.
At least other journalists are getting into the fray and being reasonable. I suppose, being reasonable is agreeing with me. Yeah. Yeah, it is. I'm reasonable. I don't want the artitstc integrity of the game's writers to be compromised, but I can't deny that there are serious issues with the ending. Vast disconnects of logic, philosophy, and plot holes on a grand scale. Direct contradictions to the rest of the game. Let alone the fact that no matter what you do, the ending is basically the same, removing all choice from the player and negating all of the choices you've made to this point. Also, in Mass Effect 2's DLC Arrival, Shepard destroyed an entire system by blowing up a mass relay. If all the mass relays blow up, all the planets I sacrificed so much for or fought so hard to secure are obliterated, INCLUDING EARTH. I cause more destruction in ten minutes than my enemies could in 100 years. There's a little geek rage for you. Sorry about geeking out like that.
If you've followed my myriad of links, you're as familiar with this issue as I am. I think there should be changes made to the ending, and I trust Bioware to make them. I'm sure they'll make an otherwise fantastic game only better. Whether they go with the indoctrination theory or not, I know it will be better than what we got. I didn't mean for that to rhyme, but I'm okay with it. And the rest of the game is so good. It is SO GOOD. Whatever the ending will be, we'll know more about it in April. And it might not suck.
Game journalism bitches and moans about not being taken seriously. Real journalists don't take it seriously. Gamers bitch and moan about games not being regarded as an art form. Art critics don't necessarily regard video games as art. It's easy to imagine them scoffing at the idea. My beef is not with art critics; it's with game journalists.
Game journalists are missing a rare opportunity with the Mass Effect 3 ending controversy. By and large, their response has been this and this(don't get me started on the "ninja turtles are aliens" part. Actually even if you do, I'll just agree with MovieBob I think. He's normally pretty on top of things). Fans have been saying this. See the disconnect? It's vast. It's so vast, it's impossible for dialogue to happen. Game journalists have, by and large, told fans of the game to shut up. (I know MovieBob is not a game journalist, but he weighed in on the issue and that makes him fair game.) Some fans have responded in untempered rage calling for mass firings and other unbelievably unreasonable things. Now, I agree that they should at least calm down. Other fans have started the Retake Mass Effect movement, and I don't like the wording of that. It presumes quite a bit. Other fans have bought cupcakes for Bioware, the makers of the game.
This is the time for game journalism to shine. This is a gaming issue, and game journalists have shown their ineptitude. Why the grand disconnect? What happened to create such a divisive ending? What happened at Bioware? Was this due to the game being leaked before the release? Was a new ending rushed? Did EA pressure Bioware into making the ending some kind of purchasable DLC to generate more revenue? Who's asking this? Who should be? Game journalists. Instead, they're saying this. Wah waaaah.
At least other journalists are getting into the fray and being reasonable. I suppose, being reasonable is agreeing with me. Yeah. Yeah, it is. I'm reasonable. I don't want the artitstc integrity of the game's writers to be compromised, but I can't deny that there are serious issues with the ending. Vast disconnects of logic, philosophy, and plot holes on a grand scale. Direct contradictions to the rest of the game. Let alone the fact that no matter what you do, the ending is basically the same, removing all choice from the player and negating all of the choices you've made to this point. Also, in Mass Effect 2's DLC Arrival, Shepard destroyed an entire system by blowing up a mass relay. If all the mass relays blow up, all the planets I sacrificed so much for or fought so hard to secure are obliterated, INCLUDING EARTH. I cause more destruction in ten minutes than my enemies could in 100 years. There's a little geek rage for you. Sorry about geeking out like that.
If you've followed my myriad of links, you're as familiar with this issue as I am. I think there should be changes made to the ending, and I trust Bioware to make them. I'm sure they'll make an otherwise fantastic game only better. Whether they go with the indoctrination theory or not, I know it will be better than what we got. I didn't mean for that to rhyme, but I'm okay with it. And the rest of the game is so good. It is SO GOOD. Whatever the ending will be, we'll know more about it in April. And it might not suck.
Wednesday, February 29, 2012
The Oscars
There seems to be a lot of controversy surrounding the Oscars. "The Academy is largely comprised of white males," "The Oscars didn't get as many viewers as is financially feasible," "Harry Potter should have won SOMETHING." But me, I just don't really care. The Oscars are kind of like politics, there's nothing I can really do to change anybody's mind so why get emotionally involved? I'm at enough risk for high blood pressure, I don't need more needless stress in my life.
But I did watch a little bit, and I do think the Academy, in general, is pretty predictable. I do think they play it safe, to some regard. If they liked a movie, they're going to give it a bunch of awards in as many categories as it is nominated regardless if it really deserves it for that category. I'm thinking specifically of Hugo, which beat out a bunch of movies in several categories that I don't think it necessarily should have. But then again, I haven't seen it so I can't really comment on it at great length. I'm sure it's a good movie, but I doubt it's -- what, five Oscars? -- good.
And I'm sure Meryl Streep earned her Oscar, again, I'm just sad Rooney Mara didn't get it for her fantastic work in Girl with the Dragon Tatoo. What a fantastic movie. And Ms. Streep was glamorous and gracious and had a very moving speech, so I'm not overly upset about the whole thing. I just think this is an instance of the Academy being predictable and playing it safe.
I'm also sad that Gary Oldman didn't win. He's one of the best actors out there and turns out consistently high caliber performances, even if the movies he's in aren't always that great. Actors of his quality should get an Oscar. He probably will eventually, it's just too bad it didn't happen this year.
Here is one Academy decision I will support, though. The Artist should get Best Picture. Now, I haven't seen it, but I know what it's about. I've read articles of people bemoaning it, saying the story is really nothing new. That's fine and may be true, but a movie is more than story alone. You can't argue that The Artist is stylistically unique. I guess Tree of Life is also unique, but I think the Academy was right to choose The Artist. I look forward to seeing it. After all, it won Best Picture. So it might not suck.
But I did watch a little bit, and I do think the Academy, in general, is pretty predictable. I do think they play it safe, to some regard. If they liked a movie, they're going to give it a bunch of awards in as many categories as it is nominated regardless if it really deserves it for that category. I'm thinking specifically of Hugo, which beat out a bunch of movies in several categories that I don't think it necessarily should have. But then again, I haven't seen it so I can't really comment on it at great length. I'm sure it's a good movie, but I doubt it's -- what, five Oscars? -- good.
And I'm sure Meryl Streep earned her Oscar, again, I'm just sad Rooney Mara didn't get it for her fantastic work in Girl with the Dragon Tatoo. What a fantastic movie. And Ms. Streep was glamorous and gracious and had a very moving speech, so I'm not overly upset about the whole thing. I just think this is an instance of the Academy being predictable and playing it safe.
I'm also sad that Gary Oldman didn't win. He's one of the best actors out there and turns out consistently high caliber performances, even if the movies he's in aren't always that great. Actors of his quality should get an Oscar. He probably will eventually, it's just too bad it didn't happen this year.
Here is one Academy decision I will support, though. The Artist should get Best Picture. Now, I haven't seen it, but I know what it's about. I've read articles of people bemoaning it, saying the story is really nothing new. That's fine and may be true, but a movie is more than story alone. You can't argue that The Artist is stylistically unique. I guess Tree of Life is also unique, but I think the Academy was right to choose The Artist. I look forward to seeing it. After all, it won Best Picture. So it might not suck.
Friday, June 17, 2011
Superhero movies
I guess Green Lantern sucked. I didn't see it. I went and saw X-Men First Class. Which was awesome. Fantastic acting, a great story, character development ... in short, everything. Doesn't follow the source material, but I didn't care. No one I have talked to about this movie cared that they didn't religiously adhere to the source material. So, go see that one.
Green Lantern had everything going for it. A good director. A script that a Green Lantern comics writer had signed off on. A decent cast. A big budget. I don't know how it could possibly have failed as hard as everyone is saying it has. I was so sure this movie was going to be good. I hear it sucks. ~sigh. Where did they go wrong? Maybe I'll see it someday and tell you. Until then, go see First Class. Unlike some movies out there, it doesn't suck.
Green Lantern had everything going for it. A good director. A script that a Green Lantern comics writer had signed off on. A decent cast. A big budget. I don't know how it could possibly have failed as hard as everyone is saying it has. I was so sure this movie was going to be good. I hear it sucks. ~sigh. Where did they go wrong? Maybe I'll see it someday and tell you. Until then, go see First Class. Unlike some movies out there, it doesn't suck.
Thursday, April 14, 2011
Thoughts on the Happy Ending
You know what is perhaps the most underused and under-appreciated narrative trope in contemporary media? A happy ending. It's dismissed as simplistic and childish and unsatisfying. While I can appreciate a complex ending, even a completely open ending, a well-done happy ending satisfies on many more levels.
As an example of an unhappy ending, consider Shutter Island. It's a complex ending, and it leaves the viewer uncertain as to the decisions made, if any, of the main protagonist. As someone who loves literature, I can get behind that. Another good example of this ending-with-questions is Gone Baby Gone. Is the child better off with her birth mom? Evidence says no, even though our sense of right and wrong yells yes. Take just about any film noir, from The Maltese Falcon to Chinatown, and you have powerful endings that are compelling and meaningful and artistic and blah blah blah. Super good. Oh yes. But you leave the characters lower than when you found them, and that leaves you lower as well. Wiser, certainly. But lower.
Take an open ending, like Michael Caine's The Italian Job. The original one. It literally has a cliff-hanger ending. You can guess how the rest is going to play out for the gang, but they've worked hard to achieve the impossible so it's not out of the question that they could pull out of it. But probably not. These dilemmas are polarizing because some people like to invent the ending, others are frustrated by no one providing an ending for them. I can get behind that. Even though I gave that movie away and just stuck with the Mark Wahlberg version.
I wish contemporary film had more respect for a happy ending. Where the characters don't necessarily come out unscathed, but give the bad guys a thorough whooping, and all the arcs and tensions are complete and resolved. The first Pirates of the Caribbean movie. The Princess Bride. Return of the Jedi, even. Though all of them dancing around the campfire was a little much, I could get behind that. The overall narrative is stronger for it. There's more purpose in it. Watching the heroes go through hell and then come out stronger and kick butt is better than watching them kick butt first and then sacrifice themselves for the "greater good" or whatever.
Does that make me shallow? Tell me this: Doesn't saving all the complexity and struggle and depth for the ending make the narrative shallow? Ooh. Socratic.
Bring back the happy ending. I'm tired of my heroes dying, no matter how heroic they go out. Now, when the entire crew survives it's a novelty (Why Wash, Joss? Artistically I can totally understand it, but that marred Serenity for the happy part of me). Bring back the happy ending, Hollywood. It doesn't suck.
PS -- just to be clear: I'm not saying we should only have happy endings -- I just want to see more of them. I love film noir and open-endings; I just want more happy endings. And Joss Whedon is awesome.
As an example of an unhappy ending, consider Shutter Island. It's a complex ending, and it leaves the viewer uncertain as to the decisions made, if any, of the main protagonist. As someone who loves literature, I can get behind that. Another good example of this ending-with-questions is Gone Baby Gone. Is the child better off with her birth mom? Evidence says no, even though our sense of right and wrong yells yes. Take just about any film noir, from The Maltese Falcon to Chinatown, and you have powerful endings that are compelling and meaningful and artistic and blah blah blah. Super good. Oh yes. But you leave the characters lower than when you found them, and that leaves you lower as well. Wiser, certainly. But lower.
Take an open ending, like Michael Caine's The Italian Job. The original one. It literally has a cliff-hanger ending. You can guess how the rest is going to play out for the gang, but they've worked hard to achieve the impossible so it's not out of the question that they could pull out of it. But probably not. These dilemmas are polarizing because some people like to invent the ending, others are frustrated by no one providing an ending for them. I can get behind that. Even though I gave that movie away and just stuck with the Mark Wahlberg version.
I wish contemporary film had more respect for a happy ending. Where the characters don't necessarily come out unscathed, but give the bad guys a thorough whooping, and all the arcs and tensions are complete and resolved. The first Pirates of the Caribbean movie. The Princess Bride. Return of the Jedi, even. Though all of them dancing around the campfire was a little much, I could get behind that. The overall narrative is stronger for it. There's more purpose in it. Watching the heroes go through hell and then come out stronger and kick butt is better than watching them kick butt first and then sacrifice themselves for the "greater good" or whatever.
Does that make me shallow? Tell me this: Doesn't saving all the complexity and struggle and depth for the ending make the narrative shallow? Ooh. Socratic.
Bring back the happy ending. I'm tired of my heroes dying, no matter how heroic they go out. Now, when the entire crew survives it's a novelty (Why Wash, Joss? Artistically I can totally understand it, but that marred Serenity for the happy part of me). Bring back the happy ending, Hollywood. It doesn't suck.
PS -- just to be clear: I'm not saying we should only have happy endings -- I just want to see more of them. I love film noir and open-endings; I just want more happy endings. And Joss Whedon is awesome.
Monday, April 4, 2011
Sucker Punch
o, there's a lot of hate surrounding this movie. It's got something like a 19% rating on rottentomatoes, IGN said "it's for suckers," worstpreviews (which is largely viewed by trolling prepubescent morons) gave it something like a 2 out of 10. On top of that, it was beaten at the box office by Diary of a Whimpy Kid 2. So, all of that is not good.
Rottentomatoes I have given up on, but worstpreviews has trailers early and reliably and IGN is a fun site overall. Most of the time, I enjoy visiting these sites.
Okay. I saw this movie last weekend. I haven't been able to see movies lately because I'm a stay at home dad and super poor. I haven't posted in a long time for the same reason. But check this out. I felt so passionately about this movie that I had to post.
Unfortunately, everything I have to say about it has already been said in the video I'm linking here. Basically, my opinion is if you hate this movie you're either a moron or a misogynist. There's my line in the sand.
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/escape-to-the-movies/2962-Sucker-Punch
PS. Just to be clear, this is not my review. I just totally agree with it. It's Movie Bob's review from Escapist Magazine. I take no credit for this review, or any of that.
A few things I would add though. Reviewers have said that Gugino's Russian accent is so over the top it's ridiculous. Well, are there any other characters in that setting who are less? I would say Blue is just as ridiculous. So it's a theme of the world. It's a fiction.
Reviewers have also said Browning's Babydoll has a face that doesn't change. She has one look throughout the movie. That's obviously not true. I saw subtlety and a fairly deft touch when balancing courage and terror, defiance and sadness.
Oh, and one more thing. It's important to note that the stage for the crazy fight sequences that IGN says looks like a "bad video game" (remember my misogynist comment? IGN has a section called "Babeology" that features pictures and videos of models in sexy cosplay. Just saying.) are when Babydoll is dancing for the male onlookers in the brothel. Now, her dance is designed to excite the men with pure fantasy and spectacle. We never see her dance. We see a film version of fantasy and spectacle. I would argue that the ones being sucker punched are us. The nerds who went to the movie expecting to see hot girls fighting samurai robots. We got that, but we also got a movie about strength in women and the evil that men are capable of waging upon them. I loved it.
Despite what it seems everyone is saying, this movie doesn't suck at all. It's great.
Rottentomatoes I have given up on, but worstpreviews has trailers early and reliably and IGN is a fun site overall. Most of the time, I enjoy visiting these sites.
Okay. I saw this movie last weekend. I haven't been able to see movies lately because I'm a stay at home dad and super poor. I haven't posted in a long time for the same reason. But check this out. I felt so passionately about this movie that I had to post.
Unfortunately, everything I have to say about it has already been said in the video I'm linking here. Basically, my opinion is if you hate this movie you're either a moron or a misogynist. There's my line in the sand.
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/escape-to-the-movies/2962-Sucker-Punch
PS. Just to be clear, this is not my review. I just totally agree with it. It's Movie Bob's review from Escapist Magazine. I take no credit for this review, or any of that.
A few things I would add though. Reviewers have said that Gugino's Russian accent is so over the top it's ridiculous. Well, are there any other characters in that setting who are less? I would say Blue is just as ridiculous. So it's a theme of the world. It's a fiction.
Reviewers have also said Browning's Babydoll has a face that doesn't change. She has one look throughout the movie. That's obviously not true. I saw subtlety and a fairly deft touch when balancing courage and terror, defiance and sadness.
Oh, and one more thing. It's important to note that the stage for the crazy fight sequences that IGN says looks like a "bad video game" (remember my misogynist comment? IGN has a section called "Babeology" that features pictures and videos of models in sexy cosplay. Just saying.) are when Babydoll is dancing for the male onlookers in the brothel. Now, her dance is designed to excite the men with pure fantasy and spectacle. We never see her dance. We see a film version of fantasy and spectacle. I would argue that the ones being sucker punched are us. The nerds who went to the movie expecting to see hot girls fighting samurai robots. We got that, but we also got a movie about strength in women and the evil that men are capable of waging upon them. I loved it.
Despite what it seems everyone is saying, this movie doesn't suck at all. It's great.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)