Quantcast
subscriber help

artisanal film reviews | by maryann johanson

boys on ‘Knocked Up’ and women who don’t like it

And so it begins. Reader Tim so eloquently responds to my review of Knocked Up thusly:

Wow. After reading that review I only had one thought.

“This chick needs to get laid ASAP.”

It’s a comedy, stop treating it like it’s life & death.

Another friend of mine thought “I hate women like her, because she is ‘edgy,’ ‘hip’ and probably buys sweaters for her cats. Also, she’ll probably die alone and her pets will eat her face.”

For someone who proclaims themselves as a “geek” you don’t seem to know much. I mean, you gave a “see it” to the worst piece of garbage produced all year, Spider-man 3! It’s like shoving a piece of dog shit in someone’s face and saying “I don’t like how this smells, but you should smell it too.” At least you liked Pirates 3, that redeems you. Oh, and I dare to say that Alfonso Cuaron’s Harry Potter 3 rivals but not bests Indy 3.

And here I thought my Friday night was going to be boring. You should thank Rotten Tomatoes for linking to your site.

At least his friend concedes that I am edgy and hip. And of course my cats don’t have sweaters. Who needs a sweater when you’ve got your own fur coat? Moron.

(Technorati tags: , )



Warning: Invalid argument supplied for foreach() in /home/flick/public_html/wptest/wp-content/themes/FlickFilosopher/loop-single.php on line 106
posted in:
maryann buzz
explore:
  • I am constantly amazed to see people write stuff like that in an e-mail. I mean, it’s one thing to think it… yet another to say it… and another thing entirely to actually write it down and then send it to someone else.

    I’m the first to admit that I occasionally (OK, often) self-censor when I am e-mailing someone. For example, I swear like a sailor in person, but I almost never do it in e-mail or in blog entries. The difference, beyond the obvious question of decorum, is that spoken words are evanescent (unless someone’s recording me, in which case I go into “PG-13” mode) and written words last forever.

    Besides… if anyone around here really needs to get laid, it’s me. ;-) (Ten minutes to the weekend!)

  • Patrick

    Proof that when movies scrape the bottom of the barrel, all that they pick up is filth.

    I love you MaryAnn! Keep up the great work!

  • You rock, Mary Ann. And I think you’re wrong-wrong-wrong about Knocked Up. But you still rock. Because you mean what you say and you can back it up and we could (theoretically) get into a giant screaming online slap fight about this film and I know I’ll still respect your opinion at the end of it. Around these parts, we call that “good film criticism.”

    And if your cats wore sweaters, I’d bet they’d be the coolest cat sweaters ANYWHERE.

  • Well, you know that someone’s absolutely indisputably full of shit when they hop on board the “Spider-Man 3 is the Worst. Movie. Everrrrr” bandwagon. Disappointing, maybe (I wouldn’t agree, but I can see where people are coming from with that) but the worst movie of the year? Bunch of trend-following fanboys, the lot of ’em.

    Bandwagon!
    Bandwagon!
    Let’s get on board the bandwagon!
    Parrot what everyone else says!
    If someone disagrees then THEY R GAYZ!
    Look out! It’s a tiresome fanboy bandwagon!

  • MaryAnn

    Maybe someone should tell Tim that *Spider-Man 3* is just a comic book movie, and that he should stop treating it like life & death. Sheesh.

    I find it disturbing and yet hilarious that so many men seem to feel that the “problem” with women who disagree with them is that they should be having more sex, presumably with men like them. I mean, as if…

  • Wackoid.
    I kinda wonder what guys like this are like in person. Are they as abrasive and as transparent in their vapidity? Do I know any of them? Perhaps they are quiet in person and unleash their venom only when they get online or are with “friends” who think the same way.
    It’s interesting that he is a referrel from RT, which perhaps explains why he thinks your review on this movie indicates a “life-and-death” level of concern on your part. He doesn’t understand that you are that intense or more so on every review you write. That’s what makes your articulations interesting. I guess.

  • Paul W.

    Well, it’s not so much that you need to get *laid*, Flick Filosopher, it’s that you need to get *wooed*. You know, the good-old-fashioned, coyly wordy, extreme flirtiness, Scully-debating-Mulder, where’s-Shakespeare-when-you-need-him type wooing. If only a commentator could come along and chatter winningly along the lines of, um, well actually ole Will was a bit of a sexist… hmmm… would John Fletcher be more to your liking…?

  • First, let me just say that I really enjoy reading your blog. You’re a good writer and I often agree with your point of view. However, you can, at times, be a bit narrow-minded. Would it kill you to be a little more objective? A film can be good even if it doesn’t conform to your ideals and expectations.

  • JT

    I agree with Marius. And it would also be nice if you didn’t make up your mind about a movie before watching it.

  • Mel

    Tim: It’s a movie review, stop treating it like it’s life & death.

    Good lord. No critic is going to totally agree with any given viewer, because humans are not mental clones. Sometimes even geeks disagree! (I know many who take issue with the Pirates franchise.)

    Movie reviews are, pretty much by nature, not objective. The trick is finding a reviewer whose biases *mostly* mesh with yours.

  • MaryAnn

    Would it kill you to be a little more objective?

    Of course it would not kill me. But it would be antithetical to what I’ve been doing for 10 years here. If it’s not to your taste, there are plenty of other critics on the Net who pretend to be objective.

    it would also be nice if you didn’t make up your mind about a movie before watching it.

    I don’t do that. What on earth makes you think I do?

  • Phil Urich

    I don’t do that. What on earth makes you think I do?

    Maybe the addition of it to the “I’m dreading” section? Or maybe it was

    Cuz it’s not like there are other options when a woman finds herself unexpectedly and unwantedly in a family way… at least none that this flick will broach, I’m sure. I’ll find out tonight. I’m going to torture myself by sitting through this. I am not looking forward to it.

    Now, lets be fair. Does it sound like you’re

    (a) open minded
    (b) cautiously optimistic
    (c) mildly cynical
    (d) already loathing everything you believe the movie stands for

    I’m going to go for (d). Still not having seen the movie, I don’t know if you’re right or not. I wouldn’t be surprised if you were. I wouldn’t even be entirely surprised if you had managed to walk into the movie with a bit of (b) overtop of mostly (c) only to be overwhelmed by the movie . . . but that’s not how it sounds. Do you honestly expect people to read between the lines of “I’m going to torture myself by sitting through this” and see “but I haven’t made up my mind”? You’re far from an idiot, how can you not notice how you were sounding?

    But oh, I can’t stay mad at you, I’m too busy nodding along with your review of Severance; I saw the movie months and months ago and have been recommending it to every even remotely non-squeamish person I know since. And if, as things often do, this polarizes into a two-sided debate, I really don’t want to be on Tim’s side.

  • MBI

    So… she’s not supposed to have expectations? I don’t agree with Maryann, like, ever, but given the fact that a) she doesn’t like the director’s work, b) she doesn’t like the actors, and c) she didn’t like the clips she saw in the marketing campaign, she’s supposed to go on in their as a blank slate? How the hell is she supposed to do that? If I had to go to Delta Farce, I sure wouldn’t be thinking “Well, maybe it’ll be all right!”

  • MaryAnn

    Thanks, MBI.

    Do you honestly expect people to read between the lines of “I’m going to torture myself by sitting through this” and see “but I haven’t made up my mind”? You’re far from an idiot, how can you not notice how you were sounding?

    I don’t think there are lines that need reading between to understand. Talking about how the marketing of a film forms my expectations for the film does not mean I’ve made up my mind about the film, only about the marketing. I haven’t seen the film yet, so how can I react to it?

    Or do you mean to tell me that you don’t have ANY preconceptions in mind before you see a film?

    And you’re also seriously deluded if you don’t think that every other damn critic on the planet has films they’re dreading and films they’re psyched for. If you could hear the way some very big name, very famous, very well paid critics talk about films they have not yet seen… Well, the difference between me and other other critics is that I’m totally upfront about these things. I don’t hide it, or pretend that I go into a movie theater a blank slate.

  • Phil’s pretty much nailed it, I’m afraid. MaryAnn, I love your reviews, and you and I agree probably 90% or better of the time. But you didn’t even give this one a chance. You’d pre-reviewed it (maybe even down to a few phrases you were going to use in the review) before you set foot in the theater.

    Do the characters in this movie make mistakes, neglect important parts of their lives, and have character flaws wide enough to drive a truck through? Yes. Do *real people* make *huge* mistakes, neglect *critical* parts of their lives, and have character flaws wide enough to drive a *fleet* of trucks through? Ummm… YES. Were these characters intended to be “representative” of “American” anything? Only in the broadest possible sense, in that the movie was trying to make them recognizable for the purposes of comedy.

    I know guys just like Ben Stone who have married women like Alison Scott. Unfortunately for me, I know married couples that act just like Pete and Debbie.

    Would we all like to be Spencer Tracy and Katharine Hepburn? Yes. Are most of us more like Seann William Scott and Winona Ryder? Ummm… yes. *Particularly us GenX types?* Yes! Should we deplore being *who we are?* You can, if you like. I’m not going to. Sure, occasionally a Paul Rudd slips through, and I like to think of myself as a Paul Giamatti type, but most of us GenX’ers are not charming, romantic, or suave. It just isn’t in our make-up. ;-)

    So, I think you were unfair to Knocked Up, yes. But I also think Tim was totally out of line.

  • MaryAnn

    I know guys just like Ben Stone who have married women like Alison Scott. Unfortunately for me, I know married couples that act just like Pete and Debbie.

    Once again, I will reiterate that I am not denying that the film is “realistic.” I am decrying this realism being presented in the positive way that it is. Of course there are couple like Pete and Debbie. But this film pretends that this is what marriage inevitably is, and that we should all just accept that and give in. Obviously these characters are “just” characters… but the way that they and their situation is depicted is meant to representative of a larger truth. To compare this film to 30s screwball comedies is unfair: they were fantasies, and everyone knew that. This is not meant to be a fantasy.

  • bats

    What stuns me is that this “typical romantic comedy” has been given its own “Talkbalk” at Ain’t It cool News, a privilege usually reserved for blockbusters and Major Action films. The commentary there is overwhelmingly supportive (I guess that’s a good thing — at least this movie doesn’t advocate just dumping a woman once the one-night stand is over and its consequences are known and getting a big hawhaw out of it), but my jaw dropped to see it. I had put this on a “maybe see when it gets to the dollar dive” list, took it off when I read your review, and I’m absolutely ambivalent now.
    (For the record, I rarely see one movie in a theater per month, so a film really has to catch my interest to get my cash; I don’t go just because it’s a Friday night.)

  • What an ass, geez. But I’m sure every popular blogger gets shit like this on a regular basis, I’m sad to say. Though I can;t help suspecting you posted this because its what you think most of Knocked Up‘s defeneders are really like on some level.

    In any case:

    Mary Ann, in response to some of your comments in this thread:
    I’m not entirely sure as to what, in the movie, you think is being presented in a “positive light” that you have a problem with. I found the movie was itself deeply ambivalent (at best!) about nearly everything in it. And I really take issue with your claim that a relationship like Pete and Debbie’s “is what marriage inevitably is, and that we should all just accept that and give in.”

    I’l pretty sure it isn’t saying that that is what “marriage inevitably is,” but rather, what marriage between self-absorbed insecure people with ridiculously overoptimistic expectations is. If anything I thought they were meant to be an example of what marriage shouldn’t be. They’re not normal and ideal they’re screwed up and so is everyone else in the movie in some way.

    Now if your problem is that the movie says it’s okay be be screwed up as long as you “grow up” and conform, all right. I can at least understand that kind of reading, even if I disagree. But if your problem is what it sounds like, that you think the movie pretends being screwed up like that is not just okay but inevitable and even possibly ideal, then I’m pretty sure we must not have seen the same movie at all, and can understand why some people think you “prejudged” it…though you have every right to, and think that it actually made for a more nteresting review.

  • Sorry, that opening was unfair. But my previous comments got rather condescending replies, and you do seem rather frustrated that so many of us don’t see this movie the same way. And it’s 4 am and I really should not be posting blog comments.

    Just please, don’t focus in on that and ignore the rest of what I said.

  • MaryAnn

    They’re not normal and ideal they’re screwed up…

    I have not complained that the movie presents these characters as “ideal.” But it does present them as “normal,” in the sense that it seems to believe that this is how most people actually believe, and this is how most people actually think.

    ridiculously overoptimistic expectations

    No! The problem is not that these people have ridiculously overoptimistic expectations but that they have dramatically *lowered* their expectations. Surely Alison did not expect to be lumbered with a child like Ben for the rest of her life. Surely Pete did not expect to be stuck with a shrew like Debbie for the rest of his life. But the only reason both of these “couples” are together is because they got pregnant. I don’t see anything like love or respect between them. They appear to have little in common except their children. Is this what they wanted for their lives? I doubt it.

  • Tim (Yes, THAT Tim.)

    Wow, my comment gets it’s own post and everything? Fantastic, I was hoping for a reply via email perhaps but I certainly wasn’t expecting to be featured in a post.

    Let me say that as an openly gay man, I am probably one of the biggest champions of women’s causes there is. I’m pro-choice, I support equal pay & benefits, etc. In fact, a great majority of my friends ARE women since I relate to them so much easier than I do men. There are of course the exceptions to the rule.

    MaryAnn, the review you wrote for Knocked Up read as if it was written by a bitter, old and cynical spinster. Granted I’m not familiar with your ‘style’ of writing movie reviews but I can clearly see from your picture that you are not old and I would hope you’re not as bitter and cynical as your review may seem.

    Your rantings against the character of Debbie in particular seem to bother me the most. Leslie Mann, the actress who plays Debbie is married to Judd Apatow, the writer and director. Are all women psycho, neurotic, controlling c**ts like Debbie? No, of course not. Some of them are, and some relationships work like that. I understand your frustrations in the portrayal of women in this movie, but do you really think Apatow’s own wife would take on a role like this if she didn’t find it funny? Her breakdown scene with Paul Rudd speaks volumes as to who this character is. She loves her husband, she just has problems expressing it.

    And Allison not getting an abortion? There are people out there who say this movie is clearly pro-life and it’s nothing more than propaganda. Here’s the problem with that argument; if Allison was to get a “smuh-smortion” as they say in the movie, THERE WOULDN’T BE A MOVIE! It’s called Knocked Up, it’s a movie about a one night stand gone wrong and the ensuing developments.

    Is the movie genuine, real and all that stuff? I’d say so. Family friendly? Hell no. It’s rare that there are movies where everyone can be entertained. My mother is looking forward to seeing this. I saw it first in April at a preview and seeing it again over the weekend at least 50% of the audience at a 10pm showing was age 40 and up.

    Normally I’d be right on the “Americans are children” or “Americans are stupid” bandwagon there with you, but when a movie has a 92% positive review and douche bags like the NY Post’s Kyle Smith give this 4 stars I’d say that while your opinion is fine and valid, it’s clearly not what most believe.

    Oh, and I stand by my claim that Spider-Man 3 is the worst movie of the year so far. Granted I didn’t subject myself to Delta Farce…

  • MaryAnn

    MaryAnn, the review you wrote for Knocked Up read as if it was written by a bitter, old and cynical spinster.

    I can’t believe someone in the 21st century is using the word “spinster.”

    And while “old” is a matter of perspective, I think it’s totally fair to call me “bitter” and “cynical.” How anyone with half a brain can be otherwise today is an enormous mystery to me.

    Your rantings against the character of Debbie in particular seem to bother me the most. Leslie Mann, the actress who plays Debbie is married to Judd Apatow, the writer and director. do you really think Apatow’s own wife would take on a role like this if she didn’t find it funny?

    How on earth does my opinion of the film have anything remotely to do with that of one of the stars? Presumably most filmmakers, actors, writers, painters and other creative people think their work is worthwhile. How does that make my reaction — or anyone else’s — to it invalid?

    if Allison was to get a “smuh-smortion” as they say in the movie, THERE WOULDN’T BE A MOVIE! It’s called Knocked Up, it’s a movie about a one night stand gone wrong and the ensuing developments.

    And one of those developments would be the woman considering an abortion. We don’t see this at all. As I said in the comments section of the review itself, the movie spends more time on throwaway stuff like the movie Web site Ben and his friends are setting up than on dealing with some of the actual consequences of Alison’s pregnancy.

    Normally I’d be right on the “Americans are children” or “Americans are stupid” bandwagon there with you, but when a movie has a 92% positive review and douche bags like the NY Post’s Kyle Smith give this 4 stars I’d say that while your opinion is fine and valid, it’s clearly not what most believe.

    What does “what most believe” have to do with my opinion? And how does “most people like this movie” translate into “most people are not children”? It seems to confirm the opposite from my perspective. If I believe that “to like X means Y,” and most people like X, then isn’t the corollary, at least from my point of view, that most people are Y?

    And I’m delighted to hear that I am in disagreement with a “douche bag.”

  • amy

    I made a remark about abortion and dispending disbelief on that front for this film and got reamed by someone who was “anonymous” which I found annoying. He accused me of lacking imagination or creativity. I am a critic giving my opinion about what I see.

    Totally agree with you on this one.

    http://steeleonentertainment.blogspot.com

  • This is ridiculous. In general people may agree or disagree on a given critic’s review. But so many of the posters here seem to be taking it personally and even trying to get MaryAnn to change her mind or something. What good is that?

  • Sherry – it’s all to do with that posturing, anti-intellectual loathing of The Critics that’s so prevalent now. You’ve probably heard it – “I never listen to The Critics. Everything The Critics like, I hate”, as if The Critics are some sort of massive hive mind that thinks as one. Ironically, MaryAnn’s getting slated over her Knocked Up review because she *isn’t* following the crowd and agreeing with other critics – but she’s still one of that terrifying anti-general-public elite of The Critics, so she’s fair game. Or something.

    Me, I always find it strange, because critics – even ones like Victoria Alexander or Tony Medley who clearly write their reviews in yellow crayon – are the only people even tangenially related to the movie industry who *aren’t* paid vast amounts of money to lie to the general public about how so-and-so is the greatest thrill-ride of the year, or whatever. It’s bizarre that people would have such a kneejerk distrust of independent writers, but put their faith instead in multi-million dollar advertising campaigns designed to tell you that shit doesn’t smell.

    The other thing I find annoying about this tendency is that it gives terrible directors the opportunity to position themselves as The Public’s Champions. You do get an increasing number of hacks and – thank you, Defamer – “fauxteurs” saying “The Critics always hate my movies, but the public always go to see them! The Critics are out of touch!” without ever mentioning that the massive advertising splurge might be one reason why a lot of people watch these movies, or indeed that quite a lot of The Public hate their movies too. (No doubt these members of the public have been brainwashed by The Critics’ evil mind rays, or somesuch) Even Uwe Boll is positioning himself as an anti-critic populist, despite the fact that he’s not actually popular.

    Myself, I think there’s a Caliban-in-the-mirror aspect to it all; the AICN-style fanboys see people who have come, quite independently, into opinions that are different from theirs, and it makes them feel guilty for being such a bunch of bandwagon-hoppers, so they lash out. Which isn’t me positioning myself as someone who always agrees with critics, or even MaryAnn – I thought ‘Pirates of the Caribbean At Worlds End’ was one of the most unendurable experiences I’ve ever had in a movie theatre, for example. But I’m not one of the Fanboy Taliban, so I’m not going to go crazy and accuse her of being part of some sinister elite devoted to promoting the directorial career of Gore Verbinski.

  • dave

    I think it’s pretty wrongheaded to frame this disagreement about the film in terms of men vs. women. I’ve seen plenty of positive accolades from women (including a fairly excellent one – with which I mostly agree, except on the ending – here: http://pandagon.net/2007/06/03/movie-review-knocked-up).

    And, while it’s silly to throw personal insults at MaryAnn as Tim did (“this chick needs to get laid?” – please), I don’t see what’s wrong with taking her review to task intelligently. I don’t perceive MaryAnn as any more or less an authority on film than the dozens of film fans I know who are equally capable of articulating an opinion. Her opinion, like theirs, isn’t sacrosanct and can be challenged without some ultimate goal of having her change it. This is the nature of public debate.

  • MaryAnn

    I don’t see what’s wrong with taking her review to task intelligently. I don’t perceive MaryAnn as any more or less an authority on film than the dozens of film fans I know who are equally capable of articulating an opinion. Her opinion, like theirs, isn’t sacrosanct and can be challenged without some ultimate goal of having her change it. This is the nature of public debate.

    Just in case it’s not clear, I absolutely welcome intelligent dissent on everything I write. And I don’t consider myself an authority on anything other than what is going on in my own head.

  • Josh Gilchrist

    “ironically, MaryAnn’s getting slated over her Knocked Up review because she *isn’t* following the crowd and agreeing with other critics”

    Not at all true. There’s no problem with Mary Ann disliking the film. The problem arises when she uses a film review to write a political tirade, which she has been doing a lot of lately, and when she contradicts herself in her reviews, as she does in praising the Rudd character when he’s maybe more sophomoric than the Rogen character.

    I have been going through some of MaryAnn’s reviews and responses from the past few months and she is growing increasingly more hostile to any kind of criticism. While it may be a low blow to say that “she needs to get laid” I think MaryAnn obviously needs to find some place of happiness right now because her reviews and comments have just gotten nasty

  • Josh Gilchrist

    “I saw it first in April at a preview and seeing it again over the weekend at least 50% of the audience at a 10pm showing was age 40 and up.”

    Exactly. This is not a film targeted at teens or even twentysomethings. My experience with this movie was a lot like my experience with Wedding Crashers. When I saw Wedding Crashers for the first time, I was probably one of the youngest in the theater. It was full of people 50+. They absolutely loved it. When I saw it again with an audience of teens and 20 somethings, they were not so enthused with it. The older women sitting next to me at Knocked Up, maybe in their 70’s, could not stop laughing.

  • MaryAnn

    she is growing increasingly more hostile to any kind of criticism.

    I fail to see how defending my opinion equates to “being hostile to criticism.”

  • MaryAnn

    The problem arises when she uses a film review to write a political tirade, which she has been doing a lot of lately,

    I’ve been doing it for 10 years here, actually. This is what I’ve been doing since the beginning. Not for every film, but often enough that it should come as a shock to no one.

    and when she contradicts herself in her reviews, as she does in praising the Rudd character when he’s maybe more sophomoric than the Rogen character.

    You’re conflating two separate issues. It’s not about how *I* see the two male characters so much as it is about how *the film* sees them. I honestly don’t see how you could be confused about that.

    I’m not “praising” the Rudd character: I’m complaining about the fact that the movie presents him as a pretty okay guy who nevertheless suffers at the hands of his horrible wife: she’s a bitch, but marriage is all about women treating men like garbage, apparently, because women can get away with this, I guess. I hate how that scenario puts both men AND women in a terrible light, as if this were a normal and inevitable aspect of how men and women treat one another.

    I’m not denigrating the Rogen character but complaining about the fact that the movie presents him as a dolt and a loser, someone Alison cannot even bear to touch the morning after she has sex with him — she can barely bear to nudge him with her foot. But then, even though she finds him repulsive — and please note that I am repeating myself from my review when I say that I DO NOT FIND HIM REPULSIVE but that the movie does — she still agrees to shackle herself to him for the rest of her life. (And yes, I know that they don’t get married at the end of the film. But having a child with someone, whether you’re married or not, means you are connected to this person through the child forever.)

    I am saying — AGAIN — that the movie does not make a case for either Alison or Pete giving in and giving up as they do. I am saying — AGAIN — that I find this terribly sad and dispiriting, and not — as the film seems to find it, and as so many members of the audience seem to find it — charming and delighful.

    If that makes me sound “hostile,” believe that it is not because I am actually hostile to constructive feedback but that I wish people would actually read what I have written.

    And my take on the film as sad and depressing is MY INTERPRETATION of what the film presents. It is MY OPINION. I absolutely realize that many, many people do not share that opinion and do indeed find the film charming. But this is, nevertheless, how I feel, and no amount of comments along the lines of “lighten up, it’s just a movie” and “it’s supposed to be funny” will change that.

    While it may be a low blow to say that “she needs to get laid” I think MaryAnn obviously needs to find some place of happiness right now because her reviews and comments have just gotten nasty

    I would love to hear how my ranting against idiotic movies means I’m in a place of unhappiness…

  • Patrick

    I have a question that’s partially about this review and indeed about a lot of reviews you’ve written. I may be completely wrong, but it seems (at least from my perception) that you’re hostile to the idea of a homely guy attracting or “winning” a beautiful woman (for instance this movie that you’ve gotten so many comments on). Sometimes, I’ve noticed you condemn actors or the characters they play specifically for their looks. Perhaps I shouldn’t be judgemental in this regard for I do it to– I’d have a hard time reaching out to a woman that I’d find unnattractive (it’s in our damn genes, I think). But I’d like to think that you consider the inner beauty a character or the actor/actress projects in their performance.

    With respects,

    Patrick

  • MaryAnn

    Patrick:

    If you’d care to point out some of these instances you’re referring to in my writing, I’d be happy to address them. But honest, I cannot imagine how anyone could have read — really *read* — my review of *Knocked Up* and come to the conclusion that I am “hostile to the idea of a homely guy attracting or ‘winning’ a beautiful woman.” Indeed, if you had read the comment immediately above yours, I directly address that bizarre “criticism” with regards to this movie. Which, is, I point out one more, something I also directly address in my review!

    I’ve noticed you condemn actors or the characters they play specifically for their looks.

    Such as…? I do frequently admit that the attractiveness of certain actors makes it easier to enjoy bad movies, but I don’t remember ever “condemning” an actor or a character for his or her looks. Once again, in the case of the specific instance of this movie, I condemn the film for treating a character like he’s repulsive when this is far from the case.

    And I will once again point out that my problem with this film is that Ben does not “win” Alison — the film forces her into a corner in which he is the only option. This is NOT “winning.”

Pin It on Pinterest