April 1, 2008

Barb Wire

barb wire movie poster

No, this isn't an April Fool's joke. I actually watched it.

If a DVD has a ten minute selection called "Sexy Outtakes" (presumably for those who thought the five minute half-naked Pamela Anderson music video at the beginning of the movie was not long enough), then I think we all know why it was made.

Strangely, though, I didn't hate it as much as I thought I would. It gets no stars, 'cause it's just so horrifyingly exploitive of Pamela Anderson's body, which is really scary looking. I think I may have nightmares. However, Barb Wire the character is really quite competent. I would have been more impressed if her cover wasn't always stripper or hooker, but see previous comment about exploitation.

Also, it produced a good conversation with my husband:

Cody: I think I'd be annoyed with my boyfriend, if this is his idea of helping. Now I'm hanging from a crane over the ocean?
Me: On a car that's stuck to a forklift. With a Nazi on it.

The End.

February 21, 2008

Blue Crush

Movie poster for Blue Crush

When I sat down to watch Blue Crush, I thought "What's the worst that could happen? Grace has been reviewing some sports movies and that's worked out all right. I'm sure it's going to be an excuse to show skinny women cavorting in skimpy bathing suits, but there could be some redeeming feminist content."

Oh, the naivete.

I can't remember any bathing suit problems because I could barely keep track of all the other things that were offending me. I hadn't even brought my usual notebook into the room when I turned it on, so I had to resort to sticky notes in a vain attempt to keep track of all the racist and sexist garbage.

The redeeming feminist content I was hoping to find only serves as bookends. The beginning of the film shows Anne Marie, hereafter known as White Girl, running and doing situps. She's obviously strong, and she's obviously training. Since it's dark, it's not just an opportunity to watch her boobs bounce. The end of the film is also positive. A woman who is competing against White Girl sees her struggling during the competition and decides to encourage and push her to excel. And in the very last scene, White Girl celebrates her accomplishments with other women. If I had just watched the beginning and the end, I would have thought "aw, how sweet, sisterhood is powerful."

But alas, I watched everything in between.

You want scenes of female incompetence? Check. White Girl struggles mightily to overcome the fact that she just can't manage to stay on her surfboard for more than a minute or two. She's supposed to be the chosen one, but all she does is fail, over and over. We have to take other people's word for it that she's talented.

You want her to blow off what's important for a guy who isn't worth it? Check. White Girl ditches her training, her friends, and her little sister for White Man, who admits (almost proudly) that he's scared of women. He buys her a dress cut down to her waist, and when she wears it he greets her with the comment "You look obscene." She asks him what to do with her life, and even after he tells her she's "a girl who'd never ask a guy what to do," he gives her the inspirational speech anyway - and that's what makes it possible for her to go on. Her victory even plays out exactly like the one he shares with her for inspiration. After all the work she's done and all the support she gets from her best friends, she wouldn't have made it without White Man.

You want women kept in their place? Check. White Girl's ex-boyfriend grabs her and manhandles her like she's a toy.

You want white people to be the center of the universe? Check. All the other serious competitors are white women, while White Girl's two BFFs (Michelle Rodriguez and Sanoe Lake) just stand by as spectators. Do we really need another anointed white girl with women of color as sidekicks?

And here's another question: do we really need another movie where all the black men are portrayed as fat [please see note below], jolly, dumb, and sexually promiscuous? White Man's football player buddies were among the worst caricatures I've ever seen. (One of actors was Faizon Love, who is of Afro-Cuban descent. The other I can't figure out from IMDB.) Their hotel room is littered with vomit and discarded condoms. At a "luau" party, they jump up on stage to play the fool. White Man even says something to the effect of "Yeah, they're gross, but they have my back during the football games." There is such a contrast between these two characters and White Man, a quarterback who is well mannered and tidy, that no one working on this script could have missed the message it sent.

Yuck, yuck, yuck. No stars. And if I meet the people who made it, I'm likely to slap them. Should that occur and I end up in jail on assault charges, hopefully Grace will take up a collection to bail me out.

Note: I don't think I phrased this well at all. My point was not that fat = bad. My point was that we have two men of color who are both portrayed a certain way, which includes characteristics historically used to stereotype and demean African-Americans, and then we have a white man who is portrayed as not being those things (except possibly promiscuous, although that's left unclear). I felt like the filmmakers were using a stereotypical shorthand for the two black men instead of making them real people, and the set of characteristics they used was immediately familiar. I apologize if I hurt anyone's feelings, and I will try to do better in the future.

November 20, 2007

Terminator 3: Rise of the Machines

movie poster for terminator 3

Friends, countrypeople, readers of this blog, I have an important question to pose today:

Was anyone out there actually scared of Kristanna Loken in Terminator 3?

Loken, as you know if you saw the film, plays the newest machine to be sent back in time for a final attempt at annihilating John Connor, the future leader of the human rebellion against the machines. She's allegedly the most advanced Terminator yet, completely deadly, a ruthless and unfeeling killing machine. She should be terrifying.

But COME ON, PEOPLE! She shows up naked in a boutique window looking like an ambassador from Planet Sultry. When a cop pulls her over, she inflates her boobs before he walks up and then she coos "I like your gun." Why bother, if she's just going to kill him like any good Terminator? And what's with the shiny red leather bodysuit? Why would the machines like high heels? Being foxy gives you extra destruction power? Licking blood off your finger is the only way for a machine to read DNA?

It really made me sad. Arnold in T1 was frightening. Robert Patrick in T2 was absolutely chilling. Both films gave me the visceral feeling that these monsters were just going to keep coming, and there was no way to escape. Loken gives me the feeling that I'm about to hear a vicious critique of my fashion sense. Or she's going to steal my boyfriend. A female Terminator could have been a Heroine Content greatest hit. But the film's creators chose to make her sexy instead of scary, and as a result she's just a parody.

The Claire Danes character, Kate Brewster, is a breath of fresh air compared to the ludicrous fembot Terminator. Kate is a regular person with a healthy dose of initiative. Throwing a guy in a cage, jumping out of a moving truck, machine gunning a sentient aircraft... these are the actions of a woman who can get stuff done. Yes, she has episodes of unhelpful panic and general freaking out. Given that she's just found out that machines from the future are trying to kill her, I think we can understand that.

I do wish, though, that Kate hadn't been assigned the role of John's future wife. She is said to be the second in command of the rebellion against the machines in the future, which is quite cool. But why couldn't that be on her own terms? If the film wasn't going to show them hooking up, I'm not sure why they had to include that piece of backstory at all. All I can think of is that it reinforces the role of John as the chosen one, the man around whom the world revolves. For as much as Linda Hamilton rocked in T2, it was always for John.

The awesome negative power of Loken's Terminator in T3, combined with a complete lack of casting diversity, combined with that homohobic crap where Schwarzennegger crushes the gay stripper's glasses... well, let's just say that Kate-the-helpmeet isn't enough to save this film. No stars for this one.

I don't see this going uphill in The Sarah Connor Chronicles now that I've seen one of the posters (look, Summer Glau has boobies! because that's what's important about a female robot!). Also not expecting great things from the recently announced Terminator 4 given that the man who directed the first Charlie's Angels is going to be in charge.

Ah well.

November 2, 2007

Resident Evil: Extinction

Resident Evil 3 movie poster

A funny thing happened on my way to see Resident Evil: Extinction. I had a baby 10 days before it opened. Kind of threw a wrench in my plans to review it right when it came out so y'all would know whether to rush to the theater. So this evening, Cody and I bundled up our two month old baby and went to see this newest installment in the video game-turned-movie series.

I'm kidding! I would never take an infant to a movie without screening it first for sexist and racist content. Or without high-grade infant earplugs. We did go see the movie, though, with the help of a very brave grandmother who stayed with the baby despite being warned that he turns into a crankypants at the stroke of 6pm. (Did he do the crankypants act for her? Oh no, he slept the whole time we were gone. Don't we look like liars now?)

I gave the first Resident Evil three stars for its casting, but its sequel Resident Evil: Apocalypse only got one star because of its yucky stereotypes. So I had my fingers crossed as we drove to the theater. Would Extinction follow the path of the first movie, or go further downhill? I could have skipped it, fearing the worst, but there were two words that made it irresistible: zombie crows! You know I love me some zombie dogs, so zombie crows were just too good to pass up.

Bad decision! If asked to summarize this film in one sentence, I would choose from one of the following:

I HAVE SEEN THE FUTURE, AND IT IS ARYAN!

AN ARMY OF SKINNY WHITE WOMEN WILL SAVE US ALL!

WHY DIDN'T THEY JUST PUT RED SHIRTS* ON ALL THE PEOPLE OF COLOR AND SAVE THE COSTUME DEPARTMENT SOME WORK?!

* (As per Wikipedia: "A redshirt is a stock character, used frequently in science fiction but also in other genres, whose purpose is to die soon after being introduced, thus indicating the dangerous circumstances faced by the main characters.")

I really could not believe it. I was amazed. They killed ALL of the people of color. I thought they would at least resurrect someone near the end, or clone them, or something. But no. Three main speaking roles for people of color, and they get picked off one by one.

Did the filmmakers know how little spare energy I have due to the aforementioned baby? Were they trying to save me some time on the review, by ensuring that I don't actually have to analyze the film for sexism? Because what would be the point? You kill off all the POC characters and then airlift the pretty white women to safety, you get no stars. Especially when you add insult to injury by having the the POC die in only two ways: sacrificing themselves to save white people, or endangering white people (more specifically, and I hate to say this, being a black man attacking a pretty young white woman).

NO STARS! NO STARS! My first date night with my husband since the baby showed up, and I get this? Damn those zombie crows for steering me so wrong!

August 30, 2007

Johnny Mnemonic

Johnny Mnemonic movie poster

The news that the classic cyberpunk novel Neuromancer is being made into a movie should make me happy. Neuromancer the book gave us Molly Millions, supercool professional bodyguard, assassin, and general troublemaker. She has a body full of cybernetic implants, including razor-sharp blades that come out from under her fingernails, and a sharp mind to go with it. Information Society even wrote a song about her, because they were big geeks, and geeks love Molly. They love her because she's sexy, sure, but also because she's so damn good at what she does. Be in awe, people. A movie with Molly should be a Heroine Content greatest hit.

Unfortunately, I have seen Johnny Mnemonic. Johnny Mnemonic the short story, written before Neuromancer, also features Molly Millions. Johnny Mnenomic the movie, though, gives us Jane instead.

Poor Jane.

I mean poor us! How did this happen? For this movie, Molly the ultimate warrior was reduced to Jane the twitchy adrenaline junkie, complete with a debilitating nerve disorder that makes her completely unreliable as muscle. She's often more interested in beating up people and showing off than in getting the job done, which consummate professional Molly would never do (even though she loves her work). Also unlike Molly, Jane has no political skills, no worldwide network of connections to call on, and she wears a backless chain mail halter top.

Am I wrong here, or can a chain mail shirt on a woman without anything underneath possibly be comfortable?

To be fair, movie Johnny (played by Keanu Reeves) is also about 200% less cool than the character in the short story. However, he gets to do everything. He hacks the net for more information about the data he's carrying while Jane stands lookout. He fights the Ultimate Bad Guy while Jane handles the second string or gets stomped by Dolph Lundgren - who gets a movie poster credit even though Ice-T and Henry Rollins each have just as much screen time. Heck, if it weren't for Johnny, Jane would have been crushed under a flaming car that she doesn't even notice is about to fall on her head.

When we first meet Jane in the film, one of the characters says to her "You're damaged goods." I couldn't agree more.

Johnny Mnemonic gets No Stars. In the Heroine Content ratings scheme, this stands for Setting Us Back 20 Years. When we use this rating, we usually mean that a movie is a big step back for women and/or people of color in general. In this case, it's more literal. This film is a big step backwards from its own source material. William Gibson gave us an amazing heroine, then took her away.

I wish that Neuromancer will be different, but I'm not getting my hopes up.

May 17, 2007

BloodRayne

BloodRayne movie poster

By renting this movie, I have become part of the problem. I have to admit that. Renting a movie is like a vote for a movie, and if I had ANY idea how bad this movie was I would not have cast that vote.

I don't think it's fair to even evaluate BloodRayne on feminist or anti-racist grounds. It's such a generalized insult to all of humanity, I don't think it's aimed at any one group in particular. Rayne completely lacks heroine content, being neither powerful, nor driven, nor interesting, and requiring lots of saving, but this problem pales in comparison to the overall badness of the film.

So I will instead try to be constructive and point out some useful information that the film's creators seem to have missed. Perhaps they can use this in their future endeavors. (Hey, I'm trying to think positive here.)

Eight Tips for the Creators of BloodRayne, Not That They Care

  1. Women's midriffs are not armored. Leaving them bare is dangerous.
  2. Also, "superwench" is not a good low-key look for traveling when all of the other people in town are fully dressed.
  3. It's hard to take an ass-kicking heroine seriously when hitting her on the head leaves her unconscious for over 12 hours while she's on horseback.
  4. If your characters will be handling swords, make sure they have a chance to at least pick one up before filming. Only Michelle Rodriguez looked like she could possibly handle the weapons she was using.
  5. Adding a mullet to a modern day haircut does not make you look like you're in the 1700s.
  6. People in the past were allowed to use contractions. Really.
  7. Some scenes work better when they're longer than 5 seconds. Like the ones where the characters are explaining what the hell is going on.
  8. If you don't spend half your budget on fake blood, you might be able to afford a writer to tie up loose ends in the plot.

In closing, I would like to reproduce the subject lines of the first two comments on the IMDB entry for BloodRayne II: Deliverance:

Comment #1: WHAT THE HELL!?

Comment #2: Oh no!! Please STOP!!

My thoughts exactly. Zero stars, for setting all people on this planet back at least 20 years.

May 6, 2007

Strange Days

Strange Days movie poster

Have you ever watched a movie and thought "What's a good character like you doing in a movie like this?" Welcome to how I feel about Angela Bassett's character in Strange Days. The movie as a whole isn't really an action movie per se, but there's this potentially great action heroine character trapped in it, and she deserves so much better.

I started out liking the movie. I loved it when I saw it in the theater, I rented it multiple times, and then I bought it on DVD. Then I watched it once to review it. Then I waited too long and had to watch it again. Then I wrote a review and sat on it for a while. Then I rewrote it. Each time my opinion of the movie sank lower. Now, just thinking about the movie as a whole, and Bassett's character within it, makes me feel icky.

The plot of Strange Days allegedly centers around a murder mystery. Who killed one of the most important African-American men in America? But here's what I finally realized: like Blood Diamond, the Last King of Scotland, and others, it isn't really about that. It's about how a white guy is affected by the event.

The white guy in question is Lenny, played by Ralph Fiennes. Several of his friends get murdered. His ex-girlfriend's life is in danger. He gets beaten up and stabbed. All of this is terrible, I agree. It's dramatic, it's gripping, it's a good story. I don't think that it's automatically racist to tell a story about a white character during an event that would be incredibly important to the African-American community - except for the fact that we almost always do it that way, as if the story wouldn't be interesting without a white perspective. What pushed me over the edge with this movie was realizing how the easily the race issues raised by the murder are dismissed.

For much of the movie, the characters believe that there is a conspiracy on the part of the LAPD that planned the assassination of musician Jeriko One, who was becoming a revolutionary voice in the African-American community. The story appears to be about systemic racism and oppression, corruption, and the racial tension in Los Angeles that all the characters fear will explode into violence if this conspiracy becomes public.

Near the end of the movie, it's revealed that the perpetrators were "just" two bad cops who were pissed off and power mad. Once they're dead, everything's fine.

Excuse me?

How is it fine that the LAPD employed two police officers who felt free to execute Jeriko One during a traffic stop that was obviously a "driving while black" situation? How is it fine that the evidence of the crime has been given to the only non-corrupt police officer the characters can think of, presumably so it won't hit the evening news badly and start a riot over conditions that all the characters admit are really, really bad?

Oh right, it's fine because the white guy's personal life is fine. Sorry. My mistake. I forgot that it's just fine to use race as a plot device for a movie about white people, then sweep it into the dust bin when it's no longer needed. That doesn't trivialize people of color at all.

Just like the plot, Angela Bassett's character revolves around the white guy. Lornette "Mace" Mason is in love with Lenny. Mace seems to have been a waitress (?) when her husband was arrested several years ago and went to jail, leaving her to support herself and her son. By the time the movie takes place, she is a security professional with hand-to-hand combat and weapons training, working as a limo driver and personal security guard. For years, she's been pining after Lenny, who is always broke, hustles his friends, and deals virtual reality porn for a living.

It's disappointing because Mace has so much potential. She is an African-American woman with an action role in a movie full of white people, but she is not a parody or a stereotype. Mace is a single mom with a husband in prison, but the filmmakers don't seem to paint her or her family with any other stereotypes of African-Americans. They just seem like a nice group of people who help each other out and throw a fun New Year's Eve party with sparklers for the kids. The film's creators do give Mace some of the flattest lines of dialogue ever written ("This is real time, Lenny!") and a badly over-dramatized scene near the end, but Bassett still gets the job done. Her physical condition is amazing. Mace is cool under pressure and her fight scenes are so much fun.

However, all the filmmakers let Mace do is follow Lenny around, acting as his conscience when he lets her. The resolution to the movie is that Lenny finally realizes that Mace loves him, and that he loves her too. That's what makes it all better. Forget any systemic issues, love is the most important thing, la la la.

Like Lenny, the movie itself is not great to women. Lenny's ex-girlfriend Faith spends a LOT of time running around half naked for no apparent reason. Women are routinely hit and dragged around by the hair. Anyone who doesn't tolerate rape scenes should avoid this film, since there are two and they're both disturbing.

I imagine the alternate version of Strange Days where the race issues are acknowledged instead of used as plot devices and then discarded. In that version, Mace gets to rock. I can see it buried in there, but it just can't escape the garbage.

No stars.

April 12, 2007

Bandit Queen

Bandit Queen movie posterLet me start by telling you that I am really, really not the type to turn a movie off in the middle, especially not because I am finding it too disturbing. I've watched a lot of very disturbing movies, and only once before have I ever needed to leave the room or turn off the film (Kids, oddly enough). But I turned off Bandit Queen an hour in. Even though I knew it would have gotten better, I knew there would have been some redemption, I just couldn't watch it anymore.

Bandit Queen is the true story of the life of Phoolan Devi, a poor rural Indian woman who became a notorious bandit and later an Indian MP. Well, it's kind of the true story. Devi herself had massive problems with the film version of her life and fought to get it banned in India. But it is at least loosely based on her life. And my friends, her life, at least up to age 20 or so when I gave up on the movie, sucked.

There were no less than five rapes in the first hour of this movie. All perpetrated by different men, all upon Phoolan Devi. And I just couldn't watch it anymore. There was a great rape avenging scene just before I turned it off, wherein Devi beats (to death?) her first rapist (the man who married her as an 11 year-old girl) with a gun butt, screaming that this is what she does to men who marry children. But it just wasn't enough to steel me for her lover's murder and another rape in the next scene. And so off it went.

So, how can I review a film I didn't finish watching? Well, not very fairly. Though I know what happened in Devi's life, and it's a phenomenal story, I never got to that point in the film. All I saw, basically, was an hour of Devi being brutalized. And it is brutal. I've watched a lot of film rapes (hard not to have, if you watch movies, I'm afraid to say), and this is some of the most horrendous violence I've seen. It's not just that it's graphic, but it's just constant and dirty and horrible. The film begins with Devi being married off at 11, and it goes downhill from there.

And I guess that brings up a question that is worth our thought and discussion here at Heroine Content--how does one responsibly portray violence, particularly rape, in cinema? In the case of this film, the rapes were not added to thicken the plot--they really happened--but did they need to be shown in such a way as to leave me unable to finish the movie? What purpose did that serve? Did the filmmakers (director Shekhar Kapur, who also directed Elizabeth and writers Ranjit Kapoor and Mala Sen) really need to show all those rapes? Did portraying Phoolan as an ultimate victim in the film's first hour somehow magnify her (I assume) glory in the film's second hour? Does a woman have to be a victim to be legitimized as a bandit?

Turns out I'm not the first person to ask these questions about this movie. Shortly after the film was released, Indian writer Arundhati Roy weighed in on it. And later she had a bit more to say. Roy points out that director Kapur didn't even want to meet Devi, who was still in prison when he made the film. "It didn't matter to Shekhar Kapur who Phoolan Devi really was," she writes. "What kind of person she was. She was a woman, wasn't she? She was raped wasn't she? So what did that make her? A Raped Woman! You've seen one, you've seen 'em all." She goes on to argue that the film, while claiming to be "Truth," picks and chooses the parts of Devi's life it portrays, making it a story not about Phoolan Devi, a specific woman with a specific life's story, but about a worthy rape victim. She writes:

According to Shekhar Kapur's film, every landmark - every decision, every turning-point in Phoolan Devi's life, starting with how she became a dacoit in the first place, has to do with having been raped, or avenging rape. He has just blundered through her life like a Rape-diviner. You cannot but sense his horrified fascination at the havoc that a wee willie can wreak. It's a sort of reversed male self absorption.
Rape is the main dish. Caste is the sauce that it swims in.

After reading Roy's take on the film, I honestly can't say I'm sorry I turned it off during the "centerpiece" gang rape. It may be that I didn't miss much by not seeing the end after all. Roy goes out to point out that one of the biggest injustices Phoolan Devi faced, the hysterectomy she was given without her consent while she was in prison, doesn't even make it into the notes at the end of the film. "When it comes to getting bums on seats," she writes, "hysterectomy just doesn't measure up to rape."

The problems Roy points out about this film are problems in many films featuring women who have been raped or otherwise victimized. The women themselves, what they do before and after these instances of victimization, cease to matter. They cease to be people, but instead are just victims. Roy questions of Bandit Queen's filmmakers "What is she to them? A concept? Or just a cunt?" And the question is valid here, and to the makers of biopics like Monster and fictional dramas like Dogville, where women cease to be full people and are forced into the role of avenging rape victim, regardless of whether it fits. Maybe it sounds like a broken record for me to write this, but we can, we have to, do better than that. When the subject of rape is taken up in a film, it has to be treated with the seriousness and outrage it deserves, but women who have been raped do not cease to be women. The rest of their lives do not cease to matter. Taking a fantastic, unbelievable story about a woman and making it into a flat, deadening story about a rape victim is wrong, and it's a horrible way to portray women. We are not the sum total of our victimization.

Other commentary:

January 4, 2007

Van Helsing

Van Helsing Movie Poster

I made it through Van Helsing in the theater because there were LOTS of people between me and the exit. The only good thing about this movie was the meme it generated in my social circle. For almost a year, any time one of us was thwarted, we would shake a fist and yell "VAN HELSIIIING!" Quite satisfying.

Despite my complete and total disappointment with the film itself, I have now re-watched Van Helsing so I could write this review. You see the sacrifices I make for you?

What drove me crazy the first time I saw this film? Basically, the character of Anna Valerious as played by Kate Beckinsale. The first thing the fimmakers choose to show us is her backside, and their choices don't get much better from there. The villagers respect her, she's athletic and quick to action, and yet somehow she always needs to be rescued. Carried off by flying vampires, kidnapped by Dracula and made into a puppet for him to grope, falls down unconscious from one punch, and spends a lot of time running for her life instead of fighting.

Maybe it's the corset restricting her oxygen intake? The high heeled boots? I give props to any woman who's willing to jump through a stained glass window into a river while wearing a red evening dress, but for some reason Anna's not reaching her full potential.

Her new honey isn't helping matters. Van Helsing saves her, which I guess is better than the alternative, but also bosses her around and generally takes over. Don't get me started on the scene where he chokes her to get information. He's the real star of the show, and all she gets are the chick fights - and then the film's creators don't even let her win! Despite her action exterior, inside she's a Woman In Peril.

All of that bugged me the first time I saw the movie, and it bugged me again this time. But what really ticked me off on this pass was how poorly the brides of Dracula were treated.

Dracula himself is represented as evil, but quite rational and well-spoken. Marishka, Aleera, and Verona are otherworldly, shrieking, keening creatures who are first shown naked as they fly. When one of them is killed, he reassures the other two that they will get another bride. "Do we mean so little to you?" they ask, mourning. He doesn't ever reply. Instead, he cows them into submission and then asks them not to fear him. Domestic violence, anyone? And they love, love, love him. Even after he throws them off a balcony.

Sure, they are strong and fierce. In fights, they're a step up the ladder from Anna. They do better than the brides in Dracula, who don't even get their own names. All those brides get to do is look sexy and chew on Keanu Reeves. But like Anna, the brides in Van Helsing could be amazing and instead they are just pitiful.

What I can't help but wonder is why? This is a fantasy film working with established characters and mythology, but I can't imagine the film's creators felt constrained by that. They put Mr. Hyde, Dracula, Frankenstein, and a werewolf in one movie! I doubt their next thought was "Let's make sure we don't change the fucked up gender stereotypes, though! Could be dangerous!"

Would anyone who saw this film have skipped it if Anna had been powerful, and the brides had self-esteem? Would the film have made less money if the forces of good had been men and women all fighting side by side, each with strengths and weaknesses, and the forces of evil had been the same? I can't believe that. I can't believe legions of geek guys would have stayed away because Anna, Marishka, Aleera, and Verona actually kicked ass and the filmmakers respected that.

If it's not a money issue, then it can only be laziness or misogyny. And that's such a shame, because fantasy as a genre makes it so easy to change things that need to be changed. You don't have to stick to historical reality of time and place. You don't have to hew to a faithful representation of real people and events. If you want to be part of a long line of stories about particular characters and events, that's fine. But you can honor and reference a canon without replicating its bad parts. Draw inspiration from what's good, and build on that. You could even (gasp!) put in people of color.

The creators of Van Helsing just didn't bother.

So Van Helsing gets NO STARS. None. Nada. Zip. And if it got any stars, I'd take one away for Hugh Jackman's awful heavy metal hair.

September 18, 2006

Domino

Domino movie posterSuch sadly squandered potential...

Domino is very loosely based on the life of Domino Harvey, a child-of-celebrities, possible-model rich-kid who turned L.A. bounty hunter in the 1980s. In my book, that gives it quite a bit of potential heroine content. I mean, a female bounty hunter could kick some serious ass.

But alas, the version presented by Tony Scott (also responsible for piece of crap Man on Fire, which shares a visual feel with Domino) doesn't allow for any of that. Instead, it's a scattered, stupid, messy, farcical mess of a film. And as if the general low quality of the movie weren't bad enough, it's also a serious failure when it comes to feminism or anti-racism.

From the race perspective, the film is nothing more than a series of stereotypes. Black female DMV clerks, played by Mo'Nique, Macy Gray, and Shondrella Avery, are less characters and more set pieces, recognizable by their finger-snapping, jive-talking, and serious manicures. To make matters worse, they are basically the stable of kingpin/pimp character Claremont (Delroy Lindo). While part of the farce is intentional, there's no underlying irony to make it funny. Instead, it's just racist. And sexist. And that's without even getting into the whole crazy, bomb-building Arab angle the film takes on later...

And things don't get any better when it comes to Domino herself. Given how she keeps choosing these underutilized roles, it is questionable whether or not Keira Knightley is capable of playing a true ass-kicking heroine at all, but I have to say, I found her more capable and assertive as Lizzie Bennet than I did here. To illustrate: early in the film, we see Domino's first raid with her bounty hunter buddies Ed (Mickey Rourke) and Choco (Edgar Ramirez). In a tight spot, Domino's brilliant plan to get out is to offer the man with the gun in her face a lap dance in return for his cooperation. Yes, a lap dance. While the idea of a female bounty hunter may be radical, the behavior displayed in this one is anything but.

All in all, this movie was a vicious disappointment with no redeeming qualities. It's a lousy movie to begin with, made infinitely worse by being one of the most disgustingly racially and sexually stereotyping pieces of junk I've ever seen. Everyone involved in it should be ashamed.

August 28, 2006

Daredevil

Daredevil movie poster showing Daredevil, Elektra, and bad guy

Elektra is lucky that Grace watched it with an unprejudiced eye and gave it two stars. After seeing Daredevil, I was ready to preemptively give it no stars for guilt by association. I know, I know, it's a different director, and Elektra has the massive advantage of lacking Ben Affleck. But it's written by the same person, and Daredevil really, really sucked. I have never been so retroactively glad that a movie I tried to see in theaters was sold out and I was too lazy to go back while it was still playing.

If I had made it into the theater to see Daredevil back in 2003, I would have discovered that it is an achingly bad movie. It was so bad that Cody and I were downright angry by the time we finished watching it. The dialog was atrocious, I didn't care about any of the characters, and it moved so slowly I thought I might die before it ended.

To add insult to injury, the amount of heroine content in this movie is approximately zero. By the time I saw it on DVD recently, I had heard it was bad. But I thought that if it had Jennifer Garner kicking ass, there must some redeeming value. You might be having the same thought right now.

My advice: stop having that thought.

Daredevil finds the beautiful Elektra even more attractive because she can fight him to a draw. Sounds like it could work, right? Respect for a woman as an equal? Unfortunately, that only works when the man in question isn't one of the shallowest men alive. He's a mack daddy who uses his disability and pick-up lines to collect phone numbers, and the look on his face when they're fighting is way more about "Hey, she's a hottie AND she kicks ass, I definitely need to get some" than it is about deep personal transformation.

I know I'm supposed to believe that he connects with her in a way he's never connected with anyone before (cue power ballad), but I've dated enough shallow guys to know that they don't just change overnight because they realize you rock.

Elektra served her real purpose in the movie by dying. Only then is Daredevil motivated enough to kill the bad guy. His love for her just doesn't have enough kick. He needs the fury of revenge. She's a convenient plot device, the event that moves us to the next chapter in the story. She's disposable. He doesn't care enough for her to save her life, but dammit now that she's dead someone's going to pay!

While I don't often get into Movie Versus Comic discussions, check out the description of comic book Elektra from Wikipedia:

She was a love interest of the superhero Daredevil, but her violent nature and mercenary lifestyle divided the two.

Nope, that'll never work on the big screen. Better kill her off instead.

No stars for you!

July 30, 2006

My Super Ex-Girlfriend

my super ex-girlfriend movie poster

When I saw the preview for My Super Ex-Girlfriend, I expected it to suck. It has Luke Wilson in it, which is never a good thing to my mind (though I know others disagree). And the premise, of what seemed to be super-power jealousy and revenge, struck me immediately as anti-woman and insulting.

And then I heard people bring up a few good points about why it might not suck. A female superhero. That could be cool. Uma Thurman, who has proved her ass-kicking potential in the past. What could super powers do for a woman scorned? Interesting question. And, best of all, the amazing Eddie Izzard. Really, it was Eddie Izzard that got me.

I should have gone with my original instinct. This movie is really, really bad. And from the perspective of heroine content, it's even worse. Uma Thurman's Jenny Johnston/G-Girl (G-Girl? What kind of a stupid superhero name is that?) may have superhuman strength and hearing and be able to fly and all that jazz, but her most obvious attributes are much more benign. And much more stereotypical. She's insecure, needy, manipulative, and jealous. And that's just about all she's given the opportunity to be. Aside from a couple of brief scenes, she doesn't save anyone from anything. When a missile is hurling towards New York City, she has to be prodded to go and save the city because she doesn't want to leave her new boyfriend alone with another woman. That's the level of super we're dealing with here.

Another major irritatant is the film's focus on Johnston/G-Girl's super sexual powers. Which involve humping Luke Wilson until his bed breaks and he walks funny the next day. This is just one more example of how she's portrayed as selfish, violent, and not in control of her superpowers. It goes without saying, I suppose, that they wouldn't do this to a male superhero.

Some of my criticisms are clearly due to this being a comedy, rather than a true superhero movie. But I don't think it's coincidental that a female superhero is portrayed in this way, in this type of film, rather than in the more serious (and more ass-kicking) ways male superheroes are portrayed. And simply being a comedy doesn't excuse the films blatant sexism. It's not just limited to Thurman's character, either. The ongoing gag about the ridiculousness of sexual harassment in the work place was unpleasant garnish (Wanda Sykes should be ashamed), as was just about every word out of the mouth of Wilson's womanizing friend, Vaughn (played by the always-irritating Rainn Wilson). Even my beloved Eddie Izzard's role as G-Girl's "nemesis," Professor Bedlam, was a sexist disappointment, as the basis of their feud basically came down to him being unable to deal with a woman who was more powerful than he was.

The most redeeming scene in My Super Ex-Girlfriend is the last one, where Izzard and Wilson are left holding the purses of their superhero female counterparts, who are off to save a crashing plane. It's brief, though, and certainly not worth gritting your teeth through the previous 93 minutes. Skip this one. Uma should have.

Monthly Archives

Subscribe

Credits

Powered by Movable Type 4.1 and Better File Uploader. Theme adapted from RAWK! by Liz Lubowitz.

Happily hosted by Cornerhost.