On tap this week: Heidi Montag: Failed Alien Science Project? Plus I enter the Kick-Ass Debate and riff on Fay Grim and her boots, plus slightly much more!
So I was perusing MSN the other day, killing time, when I came across an article on how Reality TV “star” Heidi Montag wanted to unveil her new bikini body and thus did, showing it off for the paparazzi and other sycophants that make up the fame machine that made her “famous.” I do have to admit, it is interesting to look at and as such I’m showing it below because’ I’m that kind of a guy. I’ll even give you a couple minutes to, ahem, admire it. Again, because I’m that kind of guy.
Considering she’s had like a dozen or more plastic surgeries, one can only imagine how much money she spent upgrading her body. Nuts for nothing, if you look from the neck down it is worth the cash I think. And after the “holy crap” factor that her massive jugs gives wears off, one thing popped into my mind: Heidi Montag currently looks like a failed alien science experiment.
Listen to me now and believe me later.
If space aliens came down and said “We’re going to create the perfect woman for you humans as a token of good will,” they could give us Jennifer Connelly and we’d be all “that’s awesome.” If they gave us Angelina Jolie we’d go “No way, that’s just way too good looking to be real.” But with the current Mrs. Spencer Pratt it looks like the time twice before they succeeded and this is one of the rejects.
Like when they cloned the lamb oh so many years ago, it wasn’t just the first clone. They screwed up a number of times before getting it right and Montag looks like one of the rejects that ended up on the cloning room floor. Like any decent alien race would go “We can’t give this to them. The face is all messed up and she looks like she’ll tip over after taking 20 steps.”
But then again, thoughts like these kept me out of the good colleges.
Random Thoughts of the Week
There was much to do about Roger Ebert’s review of Kick-Ass. A number of distinguished, ahem, internet luminaries have weighed in on what Ebert had to say in defense of the film and some in agreement. Thus, the debate started: Is it ok for children to be foul-mouthed and kill people in graphic ways on a moral scale of ethics and whatnot?
I found it interesting because it’s such a stupid argument. It really is if you think about it deeply enough. And since I couldn’t think of anything else to wade in on for the week, I decided to think deeper about it (i.e. slam my head against my desk until something useful came out) until something hit me: it’s about the loss of innocence, or the lack thereof, that Ebert is focusing on as opposed to the actual acts themselves of Hit-Girl.
For the record I have no problem with Kick-Ass in that regard, or in any regard. It’s a brilliant film on its own merits and I thought Travis was right on the money with what he thought on it.
When we look at action films, and that’s essentially what comic book films are when boiled down to their essence, the one thing that usually goes as a standard is that children and animals can’t get hurt or die on camera. Furthermore, the only things they are supposed to do on camera are cutesy things that either help save the day or are vapid one-liners meant for comic timing to break up the explosions. They’re not supposed to take a spear and slice limbs off while cursing like a sailor on leave, amongst other things, because we associate a certain kind of innocence with youth that’s hard to shake when we see kids doing the same things we’d cheer an adult on for. They’re not supposed to know better and that’s why seeing a child do anything like this throws a lot of people (including Ebert) off.
It’s why we can see a film like The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo and see a teenager get forcibly sodomized and not blink an eye at it in terms of the “moral depravity” in the same way we see Chloe Moretz slice a guy in half and there’s something off-putting to it because it lacks the sort of innocence and the “cute” factor necessary to make it not completely nuts. It reminds me of The Incredibles in a way; we see the youngest, Dash, fight bad guys and get in situations where he could die. But there’s no blood and it’s strictly animated PG violence.
So it’s kind of cute and fanciful, and that’s what makes Hit-Girl such a shock to the system and why I think Ebert revolted against her and the film. Dash is an innocent, not quite a saint but the embodiment of what a kid with his kind of powers would do. He still is an innocent, still not jaded to the world; like what a child ought to be. Hit-Girl is a stone-cold killer with no remorse, cold to the world and without pity or remorse.
That’s what I think is the problem some have with this; we want children in film to reflect ourselves (at least in the way we want our lives to be). Childhood ought to be one where we still have a wonder at the world; children in the movies we always expect to have this sort of innocence. Seeing a child act in the same blood-thirsty manner we expect an adult psycho would is off-putting, to say the least and I can see why it could upset Roger Ebert. We don’t want to admit that sometimes childhood is painful and not all of us had the sort of innocence the bulk of us have enjoyed.
A Movie A Week – The Challenge
This Week’s DVD – Fay Grim
It’s always amusing to see how slightly successful films can find a life of their own. Henry Fool was a cult hit about a garbage man’s buddy (Thomas Jay Ryan) helps him become a brilliant writer (James Urbaniak) until his own criminal past catches up with him. The first film ends with Henry on the run, and Fay Grim is the follow up as Fool’s wife Fay (Parker Posey) goes to Europe to find his notebooks and finds herself drawn into an increasingly violent situation. Fool’s notebooks could cause a lot of embarrassment to several governments, enough to bring a CIA Agent (Jeff Goldblum) into the fold.
It’s an interesting film, to say the least, because it thrusts us into the middle of a world of espionage with a number of rank amateurs dealing with a number of seasoned professionals trying to find the MacGuffin. Though really it’s not a MacGuffin in the truest sense because we know what it is, but it makes for a unique spy thriller and an interesting take on the subject.
The main reason to see the film, though, is that Parker Posey in Europe dresses like a high class prostitute. There are some things to be said about a woman pulling off the “yeah, if you ask how much you can’t afford it” hooker in a movie type and she does it quite well. She’s a good actress, too, and is good in the film but she does dress the part well. Mainly a little seen indie that struggled to find a niche even on DVD, it’s an interesting exercise of character study overall.
Mild recommendation.
What Looks Good This Weekend, and I Don’t Mean the $2 Pints of Bass Ale and community college co-eds with low standards at the Alumni Club
The Back Up Plan – Jennifer Lopez artificially inseminates herself, then meets the man of her dreams. Shenanigans ensue.
Skip It – If a woman says she’s carrying someone else’s kid on a date, you walk away because she’s nuts. When you hear about a film in the same situation, you go see an action film instead. And thank god, because one opens this week.
The Losers – A covert ops team gets burned. They decide to get even. Awesomeness ensues.
See It – This has the same vibe that Iron Man had two years ago: a great action flick that’s just smarmy enough to keep it fun.
Oceans – More Discovery Channel bull crap about the wonders of nature.
Skip It – It’s a trip to the spank bank if you’re a filthy hippie, but 90 minutes of watching oceanography sounds like wasted money. It’s why they have National Geographic its own niche channel on cable.
Do you have questions about movies, life, love, or Branigan’s Law? Shoot me an e-mail at Kubryk@Insidepulse.com and you could be featured in the next “Monday Morning Critic.” Include your name and hometown to improve your odds.
