Why would the Washington Post choose to do a puff piece for a film that Paramount must assume is a total dog.
Films not shown to reviewers ahead of release are almost invariably utter loads of wasted celluloid.
The article is pushing the grrrrl power angle for this film. What does Charlize Theron have against male directors anyway? (Aeon Flux, North Country and Monster all helmed by women)
This caught my attention:
Set in a totalitarian regime, where an underground movement strikes back at government oppression with specially trained killers like Theron's character, the film adaptation, by "Girlfight" director Karyn Kusama, makes larger points about the struggle of the individual today
Really, I always thought the main purpose behind the original animated Aeon Flux was to show a half-naked, far too skinny woman, blowing crap up.
If the marketeers at Paramount had half a brain between them they would have planted stories about this film being a parable about life in Bu$hHitler's AmeriKKKa and Charlize's character represents the will of the people to oppose totalitarian regimes.
Then the film would get rave reviews, Oscar(TM) talk, and become talk radio fodder from both ends of the political spectrum.
Plus, how the hell given the source material could they make this a PG-13 film? What were they thinking?
But, at least Charlize gets to look attractive in this picture for a change. (Please Charlize no more Monster or North Country roles for awhile, we don't mind that you are gorgeous, I'm sure someone in Hollywood is smart enough to write a meaty role and let you still be hot in the film)
1 comment:
XWL, this is a dark day for you. Your last point explicitly agreed with one of Bill Maher's "New Rules" (It was something like: "New Rule. In her next movie, Charlize Theron must get back to being hot.")
Ebert & Roper give such films no thumbs up or down, they simply wag The Finger of Shame at studios for not having critical screenings.
Post a Comment