I thought it was great, the "cerebral palsy" scene had me rolling. I mean rolling.
I am becoming a big Leonardo fan, after the great Gatsby, I will always watch anything he does..he rocks.
I suppose. It just seems that "ballsy" is ... pardon me ... low-hanging fruit.
Similarly, as I may go off here, "anal" and "douchey" are sharp and succinctly descript personality characterizations, but are they really "les mots justes"? I find their common usage actually inures us to their own base meanings, to the point where we forget what we're actually saying. Is evoking images of where the sun don't shine our only option?
Whatever did people do in centuries past to artfully describe a tenacious woman?
Perhaps a pop culture infusion is needed for that modern bite and genderized bent . How about the following adjectives: chaka, cher, tina, joan, rhoda ...
Fellas, if you find it diminishing to have your strong qualities described as "tina," please consider how we ladies must feel when our better traits are described as testicular. It's worth being mindful of it.
Right. Yes, those are all words that also mean brave, but they're lacking that same (at the risk of sounding SUPER pretentious) je ne sais quoi—that bite, you know?
But I do see your point, and I absolutely agree.
Gutsy, bold, brass, daring, fearless, spirited ...
Hey Kate, thanks for the comment and I'm so glad you enjoy my reviews! You're absolutely right, and it's something I admit that I hadn't considered. It's silly, but the connection to being "manly" didn't even occur to me, I just wanted a word for "courageous" that had a bit more of a crude bite to it, since that's in keeping with the film's tone. I appreciate you calling my attention to this though!
Now I'm racking my brain: is there a non-gendered or even a female equivalent?
Adam, I love your reviews! But as a gal reading this review about a gal in a film directed by a gal, I wince at the term "ballsy." Being brave is not being manly; it's being brave. Courage comes from the heart, not from nature's testosterone factories!
wow. I post a fact, that one of the Koch bros donated $100,000,000 to a hospital in NYC and get 6 negative comments (so far). I remember watching on the news as people were protesting that gift...???????????
Imagine a world without rich people. We would all starve to death.
And BTW, a corporation IS people. Imagine again a corporation without one employee. What product would it produce? Who would write the checks, especially the tax bill? When the government increases taxes, or regulations, it's people who get laid off.
If unions can contribute to politics, then by all means a business should be able to. The union I belong to has donated faaaaar more money to politics than the Koch Bros. Much of the money the unions get is illegaly stolen from the members who don't approve of their dues being spent that way
The Kochs spew hatred from their dark estates and fund the American Legislative Exchange Council, the partisan Republican group that define corporations as people and are intent on destroying climate change initiatives, environmental protections including water, air and wildlife habitat and really just about anything good in this world. Of course, their idea of goodness includes guns and the NRA, fracking, drilling, racism, Big Oil and Big Ag, Wall Street and destruction of regulations of any kind that would create a free-for-all where they feel comfortable that their class warfare wealth would prevail.
How do I get in on this Koch money to post pro-Koch comments?
This world would be a much better place if there were more philanthropists like the Kochs, more reformers like Gov. Walker, and a lot fewer crabby old hippies.
One of the Koch Brothers just a couple of weeks ago graciously donated $100,000,000 to a NYC hospital. These are very nasty people
"That outrage lies behind the new film, "Citizen Koch," an examination of the influence of the billionaire Koch brothers on state and federal elections."
But not apparently on the influence of liberal billionaires on state and federal elections.
I'm waiting for documenaries on liberal billionaires Warren Buffett and George Soros. Or maybe one on John Heinz Kerry. I won't hold my breath.
Furthermore, we are outraged and traumatized by the article's implication that "the Amerikkka we inhabit" ever was anything other than the epitome of white supremacist Christianist heteronormative patriarchal fascist imperialism, oppression and torture.
Sounds like a thrilling moonbat fantasy, with cameos by every bogeyman that ever was, and imbued with marvelously expressive use of the race card. However, we the proletariat are traumatized by at least two trauma triggers contained in this article: One appears in the last line, invoking the oppressive patriarchal deity. Even worse perhaps is the castration reference, as if worker rights collectives are embodied with oppressive patriarchal genitalia. We demand that the reviewer be forced to publicly recant this heresy, and that this newspaper from now on include trigger warnings on all articles.
FDR opposed the establishment of unions in the public sector when the NLRB was passed for a very good reason which, as time evolved, proved he was prescient . He foresaw the tyranny of striking against the public and more so. the corruption endemic with politicians negotiating quid pro quo contracts with unions who contribute to the same politician in time and money. Ask yourself why government rarely works any more. The reviewer ignores the multitudes of Democratic party contributors such as the money speculator George Soros who somehow can exercise his free speech because purportedly he is on the side of the angels. I suggest the reviewer study some history before issuing polemics. It sounds like the movie is a sad polemic as well. One big thumbs down. Rich from Greece
Oh, a satire. I'll have to catch it.
Governor Walker has been an overwhelming success in Wisconsin.
Where is the movie about the unions trying to buy America? There are at least 12 unions who have donated much more money to politics in a recent study. The Koch brothers were about #52 on that same list. hmmm.
OK. We get it more dragons and trolls. This is about a powerful fairy being betrayed by a human. Sex aside. She or it could have been He wanted to to trust that friendship meant just that, friendship. have any of you not been hurt by that? So trusting, so innocent - She is devastated. but she regroups and deepens within the experience. That is her destiny. How amazing in such a jaded world that steals to be or feel valuable. I am shocked that rape is all you see. But I am not. As we rape the earth, the unconscious and yes our own self daily.
Hi Clark, I appreciate you taking the time to write in and respond to my review. I always appreciate the feedback, However, I have to disagree with your belief that I went into this film with the expectation that I'd be seeing the exact same story told in Disney's original "Sleeping Beauty." Of course I didn't. My only expectations for "Maleficent" were that I'd see a movie that told a compelling story and honored a character who has long been been one of my favorites. Simply put, I felt the film failed to deliver on either account.
As for the idea that I couldn't accept the "dismembering of her person" or the "betrayal for the sake of power gain" as reason enough for Maleficent's rage, of course those are perfectly valid reasons. But the point remains (and perhaps I was unclear on this) that her transition was completely reactionary, based on her treatment by the man she loved. If the loss of her wings was to be the ultimate result, why couldn't it have been in a way that more befitted such a powerful and capable character? Say, losing them in battle? Wouldn't that have been an equally valid reason for her anger toward those that took them from her?
A simple search of the internet will tell you that I'm hardly the only person that interpreted the scene of Stefan taking Maleficent's wings as a metaphor for rape. Intentional or not (and I'd argue it is) the fact is that those connotations are there, and the idea that I'm simply trying to sexualize the scene for my readers is insulting.
Regardless, the fundamental reason for my disappointment with the film is that the decision was made to alter one of the most memorable Disney villains of all time in order to make her more likeable. The fact that the film was made in the first place shows that Disney knows how beloved the character of Maleficent is to many people. So why change her most defining characteristic? She's evil. Giving her a backstory and motivation for her villainy doesn't have to change that fact. By doing so, it seems to say that audiences won't accept a film whose protagonist is "bad." You only have to look at the popularity of television shows like "Breaking Bad" or "The Sopranos," both centered around male antiheroes, to see that's not true.
It was my hope that in "Maleficent," I'd see a film that found imaginative ways to flesh out an already great character in ways that made her even better and more interesting. In my mind, the film failed to do that.
Hopefully that clears things up. Thanks for reading!
Is it really that radical to go into a movie like Maleficent with expectations that some esteem for the original story would be upheld? It's Disney working off it's own property—it's not like another studio is making the film where they'd have to carefully toe the line of what's legally safe to use and what belongs to Disney.
Disney went out to the public with the message "Hey! Remember this thing you loved? We're going to give you more of it! More! Hold on to your butts, you're going to get more and it's going to be awesome!"
Granted, we all should have learned a lesson based on the terrible experience of George Lucas bringing us more Star Wars and then having the steaming pile of the prequels shoveled into our collective laps.
Website powered by Foundation