What Lisa Watched Last Night: The Perfect Teacher (dir. by Jim Donavon)

Posted on December 27, 2010 by Lisa Marie Bowman

Hi. This is the 1st edition of something that I like to call What Lisa Watched Last Night. Because, y’see, I not only love movies and books. I watch a lot of TV as well.

Last night, after we got home from spending the day at the holiday family reunion at my uncle’s, my sister Erin and I turned on Lifetime and watched an encore presentation of the “original Lifetime movie,” The Perfect Teacher.

Why Was I Watching This?

When this movie premiered back in September, I watched it because, based on the commercials, it looked silly and fun. Plus, it was on Lifetime and, no matter how much I love the Grindhouse, I’m a girly girl at heart. As for last night, I watched it mostly because I was too worn out from the holidays to do much of anything else.

What’s The Movie About:

Devon (Megan Park) is a spoiled rich girl who develops a crush on her new teacher, Jim Wilkes (David Charvet). Jim is also the coach of the Girl’s Volleyball Team and Devon volunteers to work as his assistant. Before leaving on a volleyball road trip, Devon buys sexy lingerie which apparently is meant to let us know that she’s crazy. (Though really, why wouldn’t you buy sexy lingerie before going on a road trip with David Charvet? I mean, he’s a terrible actor but look at him!) Anyway, the team’s staying in a hotel, Devon knocks on Charvet’s door, Charvet answers the door without his shirt on and…uhm, yeah. Okay, how stupid is David Charvet not to know that when he’s the only adult present with a group of female minors, he needs to answer the door with his shirt on? Seriously, way to be a tease, Charvet. Anyway, long story short — Devon declares her love for Charvet, Charvet rejects her because he’s married to boring, old Rachel (Boti Bliss) so Devon gets behind the wheel of an SUV and runs Rachel down while she’s jogging.

Some other stuff happens but basically, all you really need to know is: lingerie-clad Park, shirtless Charvet, and hit-and-run Bliss.

What Worked:

The movie not only looks silly and fun — it is silly and fun! Ever since I originally saw this, I’ve been taking advantage of any opportunity to quote Devon: “I can be your dream or I can be your …. NIGHTMARE!” Megan Park actually does a pretty good job playing Devon. David Charvet can’t act but he’s nice to look at. As the wife, Boti Bliss has really boring hair and is kinda whiney but then she gets run over by a rampaging SUV.

What Didn’t Work:

Hey, it’s Lifetime. It all worked.

“Oh my God! Just like me moment!”

Who hasn’t had a crush on a teacher? Me, I pretty much developed a crush on every male teacher/professor that I ever had. However, when I think about teenage crushes I had on older men, I always end up thinking about Mark. Mark wasn’t a teacher but he was engaged to marry Ms. Conn, who was our Speech and Debate coach. I was 17 at the time and he was 23. Eventually, Mark accompanied us when we went to a speech tournament in San Antonio. Much as in The Perfect Teacher, the entire team stayed at a motel and, for me, the highlight of the trip was the night when I put on the pink Victoria’s Secret nightie I’d bought specifically for the trip, snuck out of my room, pulled the fire alarm, and met Mark as he came running out of his room clad only in his boxers.

I guess that’s not as extreme as getting behind the wheel of an SUV and running down someone’s wife but still, we’ve all played the role of obsessive stalker chick at least once or twice in our life.

Lessons Learned:

It’s not a Lifetime movie unless there’s some sort of lesson learned or deeper truth revealed by the end of the film. The lesson of The Perfect Teacher appear to be that even if you do marry a really nice, handsome guy who doesn’t cheat on you or plot your murder, chances are that he’s still going to unintentionally lead on some psycho bitch who will end up running you down in her car while you’re out jogging. In short, even good men are idiots and anyone younger and/or prettier than you is psychotic and looking to ruin your life.

Anyway, since this is Lifetime, you can be sure that The Perfect Teacher will be rerun at least three or four times a year until the end of time. I know a few readers might be saying, “But, Lisa, we wouldn’t be caught dead watching Lifetime.” And, to you, I say…I can be your dream or I can be your….NIGHTMARE!

A Quickie With Lisa Marie: Big City Nights (dir. by Spike Jonze)

Posted on December 26, 2010 by Lisa Marie Bowman

After I saw Tron: Legacy, I couldn’t get the Daft Punk soundtrack out of my head and, of course, any time I think about Daft Punk, I end up thinking about the plight of lonely dog named Charles, trying to make it on his own in the big city.

I’m referring, of course, to Spike Jonze’s brilliant short film, Big City Nights. Often mistakenly considered to merely be a music video, it is instead a satire of the conventions of pop culture that also works as an affectionate homage to every fish (or dog) out of water story ever told. Daft Punk’s Da Funk just happens to be playing in the background.

I think I was either 11 or 12 when I first saw it, at which time I think I just thought it was kind of funny and kind of weird and not much else. Fortunately, I was able to rediscover it when I bought a wonderful little DVD called The Works of Director Spike Jonze.

Anyway, like most works of brilliance, the art speaks for itself…

(Sorry, clicking on the embedded video here will cause another link — leading to the actual video on Youtube — to come up. Which sucks! But the link is safe and the video is worth watching.)

Review: Civilization V

Posted on December 25, 2010 by Semtex Skittle

The Bottom Line

A worthy successor to Civilization IV, but far from a bold step forward for a classic game franchise.

Unfocused Ramblings

Years and years ago, I picked up a copy of Civilization II and convinced my dad that I really needed to own it. I’d heard from my cousin that it was a great game, and that (as a strategy fan) I really needed to give it a whirl. I loved the game. I probably ran a thousand civs to their completion, cheat mode or no, and I became intimately familiar with the inner workings of the game. Oddly, I learned as much about obscure World Wonders from Civilization II as I did from any class I took in secondary education. In perfect honesty, I didn’t enjoy Civilization III nearly as much, and I became somewhat disenfranchised with the whole series after playing it. A few years later, jaded as I was, I saw Civilization IV on the shelves at a local Best Buy and I decided, “Yeah, it’s time.”

Civilization IV brought me back to the series. From the opening screen with the Baba Yetu chant, I fell in love.

Well, Civilization V is missing Leonard Nimoy’s voice in the narration (and this is a brutal loss, but Mr. Nimoy certainly isn’t aging in reverse). But otherwise, it feels to me like a game that understands its audience. It’s like the developers actually played the game and tried different strategies, civilizations, levels of difficulty, and victory conditions, and realized there were areas where the game-play could be tremendously streamlined. Aside from a couple of major pet peeves – don’t worry, I’ll get into them – it feels like a natural evolution from the model of almost-perfection that Civilization IV presented.

Unfortunately, while this latest installment represents a step forward in many areas, it is a step back in several others. Most painful in their absence are any presence of religion. I understand all too well how thorny a topic religion is. How is the developer supposed to handle this? Providing distinct characteristics is inevitably going to draw accusations of religious bias, deserved or no, and is not a realistic option. Making all religions do the same thing is going to draw the same sort of criticism and, from a game-play standpoint, it made Civilization IV too easy – spread your religion, and you ensured victory!

At the same time, religion is a cornerstone of all of human history. To simply excise it is… disappointing, and probably the thing that I liked least about this latest title. Rather than providing total customization in the vein of Civilization IV we are forced to accept certain limitations. Culture points are banked and spent on civics, rather than allowing our level of technology and personal preference determine our government’s style, which creates a much more limited scope for your civilization. It just doesn’t have the epic “evolutionary” feel that I always had when advancing a civilization in Civilization IV.

A part of me regrets that Civilization IV was so good. I want the franchise to continue to grow, and it’s hard for me to admit that we may have just hit a ceiling. In terms of our own personal technology, we can hit strides forward, but there’s very little opportunity to gain a greater understanding of the history of the human race.

The Big Question

Where do we go from here? To be honest, I didn’t see a tremendous potential for expansion from where Civilization IV took us. Are we doomed to just re-live a classic game franchise, or can we re-invigorate it? Are there untapped gems of potential in human development that the developers haven’t considered?

Overall Game-Play: 9.5

Yep, I’m giving it an almost-perfect score. I’ve played a dozen civilizations or more, and I’ve yet to encounter an aspect of game-play that frustrates me, or causes me to stop and wonder why I bother playing. I understand that many people are evaluating games purely on their multi-player merits right now, but this is a game that delivers primarily in the single-player “us against them” mode.

The biggest problems you’ll encounter in the game focus around the A.I.’s style of play – which can make achieving cultural or other “peaceful” victories frustrating – but while I have heard others complain about this, I haven’t found it to be a tremendous stumbling block.

Story N/A

There is no “campaign mode” so we don’t have a true evaluation of story. However, this game does allow you to explore an alternate history of the human race in an infinitely varied way. I’ve given this an N/A, but it probably deserves some honourary points for letting you develop your very own story.

Graphics 7.5

You’re almost certainly not playing this game for its visuals if you are playing it. It is, after all, a strategy game, and a darn fine one. The visuals are beautiful for the most part – certainly not an area of complaint – but they’re hardly a focus of the title, and I’d struggle to recall one particularly stunning sequence. I also don’t think that you will be disappointed by the graphics, however, unless you have other issues with the core game-play.

Sound 7.0

If you’re a Civilization IV die-hard, then you will definitely feel the lack of Leonard Nimoy in this title, and the absence of Christopher Ting’s enchantingly beautiful rendition of Baba Yetu at the title screen. In fact, I found very little that ‘stood out’ to me as far as the audio effects in this title. The score was fine, if forgettable, and I found myself feeling bad for anyone who would be tasked with scoring a Civilization game or voice-acting for it after the release of Civilization IV. All of that negativity having been aired, I will say that while Civilization V‘s score lacks the epic feel of its predecessor, its audio is far from disappointing, and you’re unlikely to be overly disappointed once you get past the absence of Nimoy’s impeccable delivery.

Multiplayer 5.0

Unfortunately, the multi-player mode is still a huge weakness of the series and the genre. In all my years of gaming, I still struggle to name a single turn-based game that has suffered the transition to multi-player well. The genre just doesn’t lend itself to an exceptional multiplayer environment. If you have an insatiable lust to compete against other players – despite streamlining and advances in the multi-player environment – this just may not be the title for you. The experience against the A.I. works at a leisurely pace you may enjoy, and ultimately involves a lot less hassle. That having been said, don’t shy away from challenging your friends to a Civilization match – as long as you have the time! Just be aware that this is no quick feat.

A Quickie With Lisa Marie: I Knew It Was You: Rediscovering John Cazale (dir. by Richard Shepard)

Posted on December 24, 2010 by Lisa Marie Bowman

Despite only appearing in 5 films and dying 8 years before I was born, John Cazale is one of my favorite actors. You might not recognize his name but, if you love the films of the 70s, you know who John Cazale is because he appeared in some of the most iconic films of the decade. Though he’s probably best known for playing poor Fredo in first two Godfather films, Cazale also appeared in The Conversation, Dog Day Afternoon, and The Deer Hunter. All five of his films were Oscar-nominated for best picture and three of them won. All five are, in their own individual ways, classics of modern cinema and, though he was never more than a supporting player, Cazale gave performances of such unexpected emotional depth that he elevated each of these films just by his very presence. Tragically, Cazale died at the age of 42 of lung cancer. At the time, he had just finished filming The Deer Hunter and he was engaged to marry an up-and-coming actress named Meryl Streep.

I Knew It Was You is a documentary that both attempts to tell the story of Cazale’s life as well as pay tribute to him an actor. While it fails somewhat to do the former, it succeeds flawlessly as a tribute. The film is filled with footage of Cazale’s legendary performances and watching these clips, you’re struck by not only Cazale’s talent but his courage as well. As more than one person comments during the documentary, it takes a lot of guts to so completely inhabit a role like The Godfather’s Fredo Corleone. While other actors might be tempted to overplay a character like Fredo (essentially winking at the audience as if to say, “I’m not a weakling like this guy,”) Cazale was willing to completely inhabit his characters, brining to life both the good and the bad of their personalities. Watching the clips, you realize that Cazale, as an actor, really was becoming stronger and stronger with each performance. On a sadder note, this documentary make it painfully obvious just how sick Cazale was in The Deer Hunter. The contrast between the nervous, lumbering Cazale of Dog Day Hunter and his gaunt, unbearably sad appearance in The Deer Hunter is simply heart breaking.

The documentary is full of interviews with actors and directors who either worked with or were inspired by John Cazale and you’re immediately struck by the affection that they all still obviously feel for him even 30 years after his death. Among those interviewed are Steve Buscemi, Al Pacino, Meryl Streep, Robert De Niro, Francis Ford Coppola, Sidney Lumet, Sam Rockwell, and Richard Dreyfuss. (I thought I knew every bit of Godfather trivia but I learned something new from this film when I found out that Richard Dreyfuss came close to being Fredo before Coppola saw Cazale in a play.) Perhaps most interesting are the interviews where actors like Pacino, De Niro, and Gene Hackman talk about how acting opposite John Cazale caused them to give better performances than they might have otherwise. If nothing else, it’s a good reminder that a classic film is, more often than not, a collaborative effort.

Where this documentary drops the ball is in detailing who Cazale was as a person. Though everyone’s affection for him is obvious, we learn little about what drove the man who was so sad and tragic as Fredo Corleone. Cazale’s upbringing is covered in about 2 minutes of flashy graphics and his untimely death (and his struggle to complete his Deer Hunter role) is also covered a bit too quickly. There’s a fascinating and inspiring story there but this documentary only hints at it. For reasons I still can’t figure out, this thing only lasts 40 minutes. Even just an extra 15 minutes would have been helpful.

Hollywood director Brett Ratner is also interviewed and I imagine this probably has something to do with the fact that Ratner co-produced this documentary. So, I guess Ratner is a Cazale fan and good for him but it’s still kinda jarring to see him there with directors like Lumet and actors like Pacino and De Niro. Ratner, to be honest, is the only one of the people interviewed who actually comes across as having nothing of value to say. Which isn’t all that surprising when you consider that Ratner is pretty much the golden child of bland, mainstream filmmaking right now.

Still, even if it never reaches the heights of Werner’s Herzog’s My Best Fiend, I still have to recommend I Knew It Was You as a touching tribute to a truly great actor. As a bonus, the DVD contains two short films featuring a very young and intense John Cazale. Watching him, you can’t help but mourn that he wasn’t in more movies but you’re so thankful for the legendary performances that he was able to give us.

Hottie of the Day: Alice Goodwin

Posted on December 23, 2010 by Arleigh

ALICE GOODWIN

What better way to usher in Christmas Eve 2010 than by introducing the newest selection for “Hottie of the Day”. Our latest hottie is none other than UK glamour model Alice Goodwin.

Ms. Goodwin, like most glamour models in the UK, was discovered by talent scouts for one of Great Britain’s many tabloid newpapers. This time around it was a scout from the Daily Star who discovered Alice as she sunbathed on a beach in Bournemouth (coincidentally this was the very same beach where Daily Star model Lucy Pinder was discovered a few years earlier). She quickly made the Daily Star‘s roster of topless models and became a favorite of the paper’s readership. She has since expanded her modeling career by posing for other UK lad magazines such as Nuts, Zoo Weekly and Maxim. Alice has also released her very own pin-up calender her first two years as a model.

Alice Goodwin has become such a favorite with fans in Great Britain that she was voted hottest babe of 2009 in the UK edition of Maxim. With her career just starting to take off it shouldn’t be long before she joins past UK glamour models such as Lucy Pinder, Keeley Hazell and Rosie Jones in moving into videos and other branches of the entertainment media.

Red State (Teaser Trailer)

Posted on December 23, 2010 by Arleigh

I will admit that I’m not the biggest fan of Kevin Smith as a filmmaker though I don’t dislike or even loathe the man the way some film bloggers seem to. He’s definitely much more talented than Uwe Boll despite what some people may say. I just think that Kevin Smith had ended up listening too much to his own press about how he was the indie darling of the 90’s. He lived too much in his past glories and stagnated as a creative artist.

His last few films were either bombs financially and/or critically. Smith just tried too much to replicate what he had done in the past when he should’ve been trying to expand his horizons and attempt new things. To say that his Cop Out was awful would be an understatement. One of the worst films of recent memory, but for some reason actors still want to work with the guy.

It’s a good thing that good actors still want to work with him because his upcoming film, a horror film at that and a straight out one, in 2011 looks to be Smith reinventing himself beyond his “Jay and Silent Bob” era.

Red State looks like it’s just plain horror and the teaser trailer doesn’t seem to show any black humor or any humor at all that seem to be part and parcel of any Kevin Smith production. The teaser has a fundamentalist eerie vibe to it and with Michael Parks in what looks to be a Fred Phelps of Westboro Baptist Church infamy has definitely peaked my interest.

If Neil Gaiman, who has already seen the finished product (or close to being finished), was shaken by the experience but in a good way then my optimism for this film may not result in another Kevin Smith disappointmen. One can only hope.

Film Review: Tron: Legacy (directed by Joseph Kosinski)

Posted on December 23, 2010 by Lisa Marie Bowman

As we were sitting in one of the theaters at the AMC Valley View, waiting for Tron: Legacy, I leaned over to Jeff, placed my head on his shoulder, and told him that he should feel very special.

“Why’s that?” he asked.

“Because there’s like a hundred guys in this theater and you’re the only one here with a girl.”

And it was true! The theater was full of guys who all looked like Jesse Eisenberg but there were literally only three or four other girls in the audience and I think they were all together.

Now, one thing I’ve always wondered — why are guys so scared to sit next to each other in the movies? Seriously, there were all these little Jesse Eisenberg-looking guys out in the audience but each one had to have an empty seat on either side of him. Yet, it was obvious that they all knew each other because they were loudly shouting comments to each other through the entire film and, once the movie was over, they all left together. So, guys, sorry but it was a group date regardless of how many empty seats there were between you.

So, that’s one of two things I learned from seeing Tron: Legacy: boys who look like Jesse Eisenberg are homophobic.

What else did I learn? Well, whenever the hero of Tron: Legacy started fighting or talking about fighting or driving too fast, Jeff would go, “Let’s do this — LEROY JENKINS!” And I was like, “Who the frickin frack is Leroy Jenkins!?” Anyway, after the movie, Jeff showed me this video on Youtube. So, now I kinda know who Leroy Jenkins is.

Anyway, if I seem like I’m talking about everything but Tron: Legacy that’s because Tron: Legacy really didn’t make much of an impression on me.

Tron: Legacy is a sequel. The original film was called Tron and I’ve never seen it but I have seen the You Have 0 Friends episode of South Park and Jeff says that’s close enough.

Tron: Legacy is one of those movies that are mostly made to show off what can be done with CGI and the CGI is impressive in this film for about fifteen minutes. Then, after those 15 minutes, the CGI starts to get repetitive (I mean, there’s only so many times I can be impressed by the big orange space ships coming up over the horizon) and now you’re going to have to pay attention to things like plot and acting and that’s when everything pretty much falls apart.

Anyway, the plot of Tron: Legacy goes something like this: Sam Flynn (Garrett Hedlund) is the son of Kevin Flynn (Jeff Bridges) who is apparently some sort of video game guru who vanishes when Sam is 7. 20 years later, Sam is an angry young man who rides a motorcycle and posts silly Youtube videos of his dog and somehow he ends up getting sucked into a really old computer where he discovers the Matrix.

And wow, is the Matrix boring. There’s like these gladiator style games going on and all the citizens are actually computer programs and they’re ruled over by CLU (also played by Jeff Bridges) and everyone keeps calling Sam a “user” and then there’s this club that’s ruled over by a Castor (Michael Sheen) who is portrayed as being extremely fey and treacherous which I guess is meant to show that even computer programs can be homophobic.

Anyway, Sam is tossed into one of the gladiator games and then he’s rescued by a program named Quorra (Olivia Wilde) and it turns out that Quorra lives offgrid with Sam’s father! It seems that Kevin has been trapped in this world for the past 20 years and now Sam only has a few hours left to get out and Kevin wants to make sure Quorra gets out as well and this is important because Quorra has some sort of digital DNA that’ll end all world suffering but CLU wants to kills Quorra because she’s “an imperfection” and…

Oh, who cares? Well, the filmmakers apparently because this is an amazingly talky film. For all the emphasis put on the CGI and the endless stream of action sequences (Sam gets into either a fight or a chase every 10 minutes or so), this is a really verbose film. Once Sam finds his father, all of the action suddenly halts as the audience is subjected to a seemingly endless monologue that is designed to explain how CLU was created, why CLU looks like a young, sexy Jeff Bridges, and how Quorra can synthesize religion and science and philosophy. The dialogue brings up all these intellectual and philosophical questions but why? It’s all very shallow, like listening to someone who just finished an Intro. To Philosophy class trying to explain the work of Jean-Paul Sartre. (“Hell is other people! Shit, man…”) I mean, the explanations make little to no sense yet they keep going on and on! It’s one thing to make a movie with a nonsensical plot. It’s another thing to not only continually call attention to that fact but do so in a way that is so humorless and so lacking in any self-awareness that the plot goes from being silly to stupid to borderline offensive.

Anyway, I know this review has been pretty negative so far so instead of dwelling on everything that didn’t work in this movie, I’m going to mention some good things about Tron: Legacy.

Let’s see — well, I think I may have a girlcrush on Olivia Wilde now. She kicks ass with style and bring a sly sense of humor to her role. Unfortunately, she has next to no chemistry with either Bridges or Hedlund.

As CLU, Jeff Bridges is made up to look young and sexy and is obviously being filmed through a lens that has been coated with vaseline.

It’s always nice to see one of my favorite actors, Michael Sheen. Even though his role here is kind of a waste of his talents, at least he’s not playing Tony Blair again.

Speaking of Michael Sheen, Tron: Legacy might not be a good film but it’s still more entertaining than Frost/Nixon.

Some of the CGI is cool in a “Hey! Look! CGI!” sorta way.

However, the best thing about Tron: Legacy is the original score by Daft Punk. Seriously, this might be the best film score of the year. The score is a mixture of electronic and orchestral music and it has a perfect sort of other worldliness to it. To a large extent, the music provides the emotional highs and lows that the rest of the film fails to supply.

My final verdict on Tron: Legacy: Skip the film, buy the soundtrack.

The Worst Female Images In A Movie

Posted on December 22, 2010 by Lisa Marie Bowman

Did you know that there’s a group known as The Women Film Critics Circle and, much like the DFW Film Critics, I am not a member despite being 1) a woman, 2) a film critic, and 3) a feminist? I swear, I am feeling so rejected right about now…

Then again, looking over their 2010 movie awards, I’m not sure I would want to be a member. Check out their selections and then see if you can guess which one has got me all annoyed and profane.

BEST MOVIE ABOUT WOMEN
Mother And Child

BEST MOVIE BY A WOMAN
Winter’s Bone

BEST WOMAN STORYTELLER [Screenwriting Award]
The Kids Are All Right: Lisa Cholodenko

BEST ACTRESS
Annette Bening/The Kids Are All Right

BEST ACTOR
Colin Firth/The King’s Speech

BEST YOUNG ACTRESS
Jennifer Lawrence/Winter’s Bone

BEST COMEDIC ACTRESS
Annette Bening/The Kids Are All Right
BEST FOREIGN FILM BY OR ABOUT WOMEN: *TIE*
Mother
Women Without Men

BEST FEMALE IMAGES IN A MOVIE
Conviction

WORST FEMALE IMAGES IN A MOVIE
Black Swan

BEST MALE IMAGES IN A MOVIE: *TIE*
Another Year
The King’s Speech

WORST MALE IMAGES IN A MOVIE
Jackass 3D

BEST THEATRICALLY UNRELEASED MOVIE BY OR ABOUT WOMEN
Temple Grandin

BEST EQUALITY OF THE SEXES: *TIE
Another Year
Fair Game

BEST ANIMATED FEMALES
Despicable Me

BEST FAMILY FILM
Toy Story 3

LIFETIME ACHIEVEMENT AWARD
Helen Mirren

ACTING AND ACTIVISM
Lena Horne [posthumous]

*ADRIENNE SHELLY AWARD: For a film that most passionately opposes violence against women:
Winter’s Bone

*JOSEPHINE BAKER AWARD: For best expressing the woman of color experience in America
For Colored Girls

*KAREN MORLEY AWARD: For best exemplifying a woman’s place in history or society, and a courageous search for identity
Fair Game

COURAGE IN ACTING [Taking on unconventional roles that radically redefine the images of women on screen]
Helen Mirren/The Tempest

THE INVISIBLE WOMAN AWARD [Performance by a woman whose exceptional impact on the film dramatically, socially or historically, has been ignored]
Q’Orianka Kilcher/Princess Kaiulani

BEST DOCUMENTARY BY A WOMAN
A Film Unfinished

WOMEN’S WORK: BEST ENSEMBLE
Mother And Child

BEST SCREEN COUPLE
Another Year: Jim Broadbent/Ruth Sheen as Tom and Gerri

Did you catch it? Yes, that’s right. With all of the demeaning, insulting, sexist crap that both the mainstream and the independent film industries have released this year, Black Swan wins the award for “Worst Female Images In A Film.”

Uhmm, really?

Yes, Natalie Portman dealing with a society that forces an unrealistic expectation of perfection on young women — this is a far more negative image than every female character in The Social Network turning out to either be a bitch, a whore, or an idiot. Natalie Portman suffering from bulimia because she knows the consequences if she doesn’t maintain the right body type — this is a far more insulting image than Anne Hathaway being charmed by Jack Gyllenhaal pretending to be a doctor while leering at her exposed breast in Love and Other Drugs. This was the year that Rebecca Hall fell in love with a man who kidnapped her in The Town while The Killer Inside Me lingered lovingly on scenes of Casey Affleck beating both Jessica Alba and Kate Hudson to death. But no, out of all this, Black Swan featured the worst images of women on screen.

What utter and total bullshit.

I am a feminist and I am proud to be fiercely pro-woman (though never blindly anti-male). I have always been very aware of the fact that, regardless of intent, most movies are basically sexist fantasies. And, like a lot of women, I’ve come to accept that as the price I pay for loving movies. It’s something that I’m more likely to laugh at than to get outraged over. But that doesn’t mean that I don’t sometimes get tired of it, that I don’t sometimes wish that just for once, I could see a movie where the female lead didn’t need to be rescued by a man or where she wasn’t expected to epitomize some sort of stereotype.

To be honest, male filmmakers are not solely to blame. Some of the most demeaning images of women have come from films that were directed by women and which were advertised as being “feminist” films. Sometimes it seems like movies are either so busy trying to either keep women down or to build women up that they forget that most of us just want to be seen as human beings.

So no, Natalie Portman is not some sort of “feminist ideal” in Black Swan. She cuts herself, she’s bulimic, she fears her own sexual desires, she’s too hard on herself, and she’s manipulated by the men around her. And you know what? That’s not a sexist fantasy. For far too many women, present and past, that’s the life that has been forced upon them by an inherently sexist society. If anything, that’s the type of life that feminism was supposed to provide an escape from.

Instead, the stridency and judgmental attitudes of far too many so-called “feminists” has simply turned into another way to trap us into that life of guilt and shame and idealized demands of perfection.

The female images in Black Swan are not negative. They’re honest and that’s why Black Swan meant more to me, as a woman, than every single self-conscious, strident “feminist” film ever made.

As for the worst female image in a movie — give that award to Eat Pray Love for being yet another movie that basically gives us a spoiled, immature, rich, elitist lead character and then insults women everywhere by trying to present her as some sort of practical model for liberation.

Julia Roberts traveling across the world without once waking up with dark circles under her eyes might be the ideal but Natalie Portman being leered at by an old pervert on the subway is the reality.

For once, this has been a good year for strong women on American film screens. Whether it was Noomi Rapace as The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo or Jennifer Lawrence in Winter’s Bone, Katie Jarvis in Fish Tank, or even Angelina Jolie as Salt, this has been a year of strong female images. This has been a year of films that left me feeling empowered — not in the wishy-washy way that so many insultingly condescending films claim to empower but in an honest way that made me feel, for once, that I didn’t have to accept the idea of any limitations on my own dreams or desires.

It wasn’t just a good year to be a girl who loves movies. It was a great year.

And Black Swan was the best part of a great year.

(You can read my original review of Black Swan here.)

Vampires vs. Zombies…who would win?

Posted on December 21, 2010 by Arleigh

So, we finally have hit the goal of 500th post for the site’s first year.

I had thought to commemorate this achievement by writing up a film review or maybe one of the other writers post something appropriate, but I thought what better way to do this than post something about zombies.

Zombies have been big again of late. The recent premiere season of the TV adaptation of The Walking Dead and the continuation of the original comic book series it’s based on. The TV series’ success has brought the topic of zombies back to the forefront with fans and non-fans sharing a common appreciation for this horror sub-genre which has remained the dirty, stepchild cousin to the more glamorous and fantasy-fulfilling monsters calling themselves vampires.

Vampires have been in the general public’s consciousness due to the popularity of the Twilight book and film series not to mention the TV shows True Blood and The Vampire Diaries. These three franchises have made the vampires sexy and popular once again. While they’re not the silk and lace types popularized by author Anne Rice during the 80’s they still portray the vampires as dangerous, but also conflicted and over-emotional creatures who curse their lot as much as embrace it.

Zombies on the other hand have began their inevitable decline after the market was flooded by legion of sub-par books and films. For every Dawn of the Dead (remake) and Shaun of the Dead we got stuff like Day of the Dead (remake) and direct-to-DVD titles such as Zombie Wars and Last Rites. But thanks to the Robert Kirkman’s critically-acclaimed and very popular zombie comic book series and it’s subsequent TV adaptation by showrunner Frank Darabont the zombies have had a major resurgence that brought the question of which was better: zombies or vampires.

These two monsters have their histories both in entertainment and in folklore. The vampire legend and myth could trace itself back to the beginning of human history as early human civilizations always had in their stories and own legends creatures risen from the grave to drink the lifeblood of those still living. There’s Lilith of the Judeo-Christian faiths who some attribute to being the mother of all vampires. There’s also Cain himself who many thought was the progenitor of the original vampire myth. Every major religion both past and present have had their version of the vampire, but while they’ve remained as stories told to warn children of the dangers of the night they were never truly told as part of entertainment. Only in the past hundred or so years have vampires begun to make their mark on the realm of entertainment.

Zombies on the other hand have always been the younger sibling. It’s history has it’s basis on local religious folklore from African slaves brought over to work the plantations of Imperial colonies in the West. The zombies of these West Indies folklore were not the flesh-eating creatures we now know, but just another form of slavery. The flesh-eating aspect of the zombies would not make it’s appearance until a filmmaker from Pittsburgh decided to make his recently risen dead to become flesh-eaters. Night of the Living Dead gave birth to the zombies that’s turned legions of readers and monster aficionados into fans of the monster. A monster who wasn’t as strong or as sexy as the vampire, but much scarier and quite more apocalyptic in its nature. It’s this apocalyptic aspect of the zombie monster which keeps this younger monster from becoming fully eclipsed by it’s more older sibling the vampire.

Now, a question was brought up by the websites Zombie Ammo and Vampybit.Me about the topic on vampires and zombies. With the current popularity of these two monsters there was bound to be a debate on who would win in a match-up between the two monsters for domination of the world.

In one corner we have vampires who retain their intellect and have increased all their senses and even given supernatural abilities. They also remain living dead who need the blood of the living to survive with their faculties intact. No blood means having to waste away into a sort of limbo where death doesn’t truly come but also living death becomes a paralyzing curse only to be lifted with infusion of this life giving blood.

In the other corner we have zombies who are literally mindless with only the primal instinct to feed the only motivation for their existence. But feed on living flesh they must and their hunger has no limit. Their literally a locust on a global scale which would scour the planet of all living things. It doesn’t matter whether the flesh is human or animal but it has to be the warm, living flesh that feeds them. In the end, zombies would become the extinction-level event for humanity.

So, who would win in such a battle for domination.

Vampires need humans. While their appetites ultimately kills their human victims they do try to keep their feeding in moderation. While there are stories and films that paints a world where vampires rule the planet openly they still maintain slave-colonies and/or human farms where they allow their human cattle to breed and multiply thus their food source remains constant. Human extinction is not what vampires want, but control of humanity instead. Controlling their food and harvesting them in an efficient manner. Only a select few would be turned into vampires. Humans who are willing to serve their undead lords would protect them during the daytime and become Renfield overseers over those humans who do not feel the same.

Zombies on the other hand do not care whether their appetites have been sated by a recent feeding. They will continue to feed as long as a living human and/or animal is in their reach. They would gorge themselves to the infinite for that’s what their instinct drives them to do. Human won’t be able to reason or subjugate themselves upon these monsters. These monsters do not have the wherewithal to ration their food source. The fact that death itself (any death whether through zombie, accident or natural) would just add to their geometrically increasing numbers.

How can humanity find a way to stave off extinction in the face of such a surge of death?

The answer to that is the answer to who would win between vampires and zombies. An answer that some may not agree with (being a zombie fan I’m actually surprised I came to this conclusion), but is the correct one when the question was logically looked at.

Vampires would win over zombies.

I say this because despite the vampires having lesser numbers they would have the intellect and know-how to defeat the legions of walking dead. They do this not out of the goodness of their unbeating hearts, but out of necessity. A necessity that ties their existence with the continued existence of humanity. A humanity that becomes extinct due to a zombie apocalypse would inexorably lead to the very downfall of the vampires themselves.

Vampires on skill alone would be able to destroy any zombies they come across. The fact that their flesh are cold and they’re not living makes them invisible to the zombies. They don’t want to feed on dead flesh because if they did then they would turn on each other instead. This aspect of the vampire keeps them upright and ready to fight.

With their food source endangered by this upstart monster the vampire would have no choice but to protect this valuable resource. As we’ve seen with the more popular types of vampire stories and film it is that vampires are small in numbers, global and ruled over by a council of elders who governed clans of vampires. They impose rule of vampiric law to make sure that their kind remain secret from the world at-large and/or keep their numbers down to better keep the vampiric plague from becoming a wildfire that would scour the planet of life.

It would be up to these governing bodies of vampires to make sure humanity doesn’t succumb to any form of zombie apocalypse. The level of survival for humanity from such an apocalypse will depend on how quickly vampires marshall their meager, but powerfu forces to stave off the inevitable tide of walking dead. They could respond right away and stop the tide before it becomes a global pandemic or their response would be slow and bring humanity to the brink.

In the end, vampires would do whatever it takes to keep humanity from joining the likes of the dinosaurs and mammoth. Whether it’s using their own supernatural-given abilities to destroy zombies by the score and hundreds. Or they could reveal themselves to humanity as vampiric saviors and giving them a choice: become extinct by way of an unchecked zombie apocalypse or allowed to be ruled by a vampiric elite who would protect them from this tide.

It’s a lousy choice for humanity, but one that I think they would choose for the latter (until they find a way to defeat both and keep themselves whole). The prospect extinction is a powerful motivator for a species and choosing to continue one’s species even under the rule of a parasitic race is a better choice than dying out under the teeth and clawed nails of the walking dead.

As you can tell I’m a huge fan of both (though I lean more towards zombies) and have thought about this topic on more than one occasion. This site has seen many posts about zombies though not enough about vampires which would need to be remedied. There’s the ongoing reviews of The Walking Dead in both it’s comic book and TV series form. There was also the reviews of this past summer’s anime series hit which also dealt with the zombie apocalypse but with a level of T&A involved to spice things up a bit. I speak of Highschool of the Dead.

Feel free to leave comments about what you think the conclusion I arrived at. Who do you think will win out between vampires and zombies? Which of the two do you like to read and watch more of? If there was a zombie apocalypse would you try to survive on your own or submit yourself to a vampiric protector and hope they don’t run out of their own supply of blood?

20 Cinematic Moments That Will Define 2010 For Me

Posted on December 20, 2010 by Lisa Marie Bowman

Every year, there’s a handful of film scenes that come to define the entire year for us. At their best, these scenes can leave such an impression that they become a part of our shared history. For some people (though not me), 2009 will always be the year of Avatar. Meanwhile, for me (but not others), 2010 will always be the year I realized it was okay to admit how much I love to dance. Listed below are 20 of the many film moments that I will remember whenever I look back on this current year.

20) Carey Mulligan and Andrew Garfield discover what really happened to all of their childhood artwork in Never Let Me Go.

Permeated with an atmosphere of nonstop melancholy, Never Let Me Go never quite found the audience is deserved but I think it’s one of the best films of 2010 and the scene mentioned above is one of the reasons why.

19) Scott Pilgrim says, “Oh cool, coins!” in Scott Pilgrim Vs. The World.

And Lisa Marie suddenly realizes that she has fallen in love with a movie.

18) Keifer Sutherland says, “Tap that ass” in Twelve.

Truth be told, I don’t even remember what was happening on-screen. I just remember Keifer, as the film’s narrator, saying “Tap that ass” in that sexy, nicotine-fueld growl of his and thinking to myself, “Well, okay…”

17) Jake Gyllenhaal chases down a bus full of dying old people in Love and Other Drugs.

Yes, the old people desperately need to get up to Canada so they can get their prescriptions filled but unfortunately for them, Anne Hathaway happens to be on the bus as well and Jake — apparently realizing that he’ll never get to see her breasts again if they break up — chases the bus down in his Porsche so he can reconcile with her. And, of course, the old people are just so adorably excited at the idea of a 15-minute delay while these two deeply damaged characters stand outside and talk about their relationship. I mean, fuck it — who cares about getting these people their medicine when there’s a disposable pop tune playing in the background and Jake wants to talk to his ex-girlfriend? In so many ways, this scene represents everything I hate about mainstream filmmaking.

16) Joseph Gordon-Levitt flies through the corridors of a dream hotel in Inception.

Inception was a film full of amazing images but my personal favorite was perhaps the simplest — Joseph Gordon-Levitt (looking rather adorable in his dark suit) floating down those Argentoesque hallways while trying to figure out how to wake everyone up.

15) Jacki Weaver delivers the line of the year in Animal Kingdom.

“And you’ve done some bad things, sweetie.”

14) John Hawkes “talks” his way out of a traffic stop in Winter’s Bone.

While Winter’s Bone should rightfully make Jennifer Lawrence a star, John Hawkes also contributed some of the film’s best moments.

13) Patrick Fabian slips a recipe into his sermon in The Last Exorcism.

Cast as a modern-day Marjoe Gortner in this underappreciated film, Fabian gives one of the best performances of the year, if not the best.

12) Chloe Grace Moretz saves Kick-Ass from the mafia in Kick-Ass.

As far as women kicking ass was concerned, 2010 was a good year. Sure, the majority of cinematic female portraits were — as always — sexist to the extreme but there were a few rays of hope. Angelina Jolie in Salt, Noomi Rapace in The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo films, Mila Jovovich in Resident Evil — all were among the women who got to do something more than just look pretty while the boys saved the day. Seeing as how I’m honoring Rapace further down the list, I’m going to allow Chloe Grace Moretz (in the role of Hit Girl) to serve as a stand-in here for every single woman who was allowed to kick a little ass in 2010.

11) Christian Bale and Mark Wahlberg walks down the streets of Lowell at the beginning of The Fighter.

Seriously, this entire sequence — set to Heavy’s How You Like Me Now? (or “The Sock Monkey Song” as I call it) — could be a short film in itself. Call it: “Men and why we love them.”

10) Colin Firth fearfully waits to give a speech at the start of The King’s Speech.

One look at Firth’s terrified eyes and I was in tears. From that minute on, this unexpected gem of a film had me.

9) Jennifer Lawrence fishes for her dad’s hand in Winter’s Bone.

Southern gothic at its best!

8) James Franco is rescued by a purifying storm in 127 Hours.

Helpless and hopeless, Franco is suddenly freed by a sudden storm. Both Franco and director Danny Boyle handle this scene with such skill that the audience finds itself just as saddened as Franco when it all turns out to be a hallucination.

7) Katie Jarvis dances in an abandoned apartment and finds a momentary glimmer of hope in Fish Tank.

Between this movie and Black Swan, 2010 was the year that reminded me of just how much I love to dance and why. 2010 is the year that I realized it was okay for me to love to dance again.

6) Andy gives away his toys at the end of Toy Story 3.

And Lisa Marie cries and cries.

5) Lisbeth Salander (played by Noomi Rapace) gives her abusive guardian a tattoo in The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo.

For any and every girl who has ever been used, abused, hurt, spoken down to, insulted, manipulated, or betrayed by someone who claimed to only be looking after her best interests, this scene was truly cathartic. When I say that Noomi Rapace’s Lisbeth will be iconic, it’s largely because of scenes like this. In that one scene, Lisbeth is established as a woman who will never be victimized and it gives hope any for those of us who don’t have dragon tattoos.

4) Footage from Theirry’s completed “documentary” is revealed in Exit Through The Gift Shop.

And the audience is suddenly forced to question just how much of anything they’ve seen is the truth.

3) The spinning top wobbles at the end of Inception.

Or does it?

2) Kathryn Bigelow becomes the first woman to win the Oscar for best director while her ex-husband glowers in silence.

I wasn’t a huge fan of The Hurt Locker but I still squealed with delight as Kathryn Bigelow accepted the award that should have gone to Sofia Coppola back in 2004. Not only did Bigelow make history but she did it by beating her soulless jerk of an ex-husband, James Cameron. And then she gave one of the best acceptance speeches in Oscar history, all the while looking about 20 years younger than she actually is. In short, Kathryn Bigelow showed every Oscar winner — past, present, and future — exactly how it’s done.