such a nasty woman | by maryann johanson
Tue Jun 24 2014, 02:53pm | 18 comments
I’m “biast” (con): nothing
I have not read the source material
(what is this about? see my critic’s minifesto)
(My Ratings posts are a quick way for me to share my reaction to a film. This post will be updated if/when I ever write a review. Feel free to discuss the movie in depth in the comments section.)
This isn’t a review and while the idea of patriarchal proprietorship is a worthwhile exploration, you miss the mark by suggesting that the two undertake any such argument (the accusations were strategic, insincere and came from Anthony only). I wish you expanded on your thought, though. You might of had something interesting to say.
if you take the time to read other reviews on this site, you will see that the “idea of patriarchal proprietorship” has been explored several times. this movie seemed to the reviewer to not require an in-depth review.
You know what? I’m sick to death of talking about movies about men and their butthurt over property rights over women.
Great that you would express your frustrations by using a euphemism about male ass-rape in your acrobatic attempt to concisely pin this movie as nothing more than a misogynist trope.
As a critic it would be awesome if you could spend more than 30 seconds to express more than your disappointment at being born a woman, and instead offer some insight as to why you didn’t like this movie.
“men and their butthurt over property rights over women.” Christ… get a grip on yourself.
And I’m sick of people completely misinterpreting movies to fit their own social agenda. Only a dark and pessimistic mind would be so misguided as to see a certain aspect of a story, rip it out of it’s context and then use it as an example of injustice.
Maybe I should rage about how the movie portrays all men as being exactly the same?
It’s cute that you don’t think you interpret movies to fit your “social agenda.”
Maybe you should. That’s a good interpretation… and an enraging attitude that I have raged against before.
Greetings! The author of the book made it perfectly clear what the movie is about. (spoiler ahead) It’s about an insecure guy cheating on his pregnant girlfriend because he feels surpressed by her and the unborn child. There is no doppelgänger and no giant spider attacking the city. But don’t worry – you are not the only one who didn’t get it.
You do realize that I’m not reviewing the book, right?
I guess I took Gyllenhall’s characters to intentionally be creeps, two obsessive, possessive men responding to a bizarre situation. (I kinda like movies about horrible people :P)
You have missed the mark so hard on this breathtakingly brilliant film, it’s disturbing, and I hope the rest of your professional career allows you to look more closely at imagery and symbolism in film when writing reviews for movies.
Patriarchal proprietorship is not a theme present in this movie. You dumbed this film down to what it is without its imagery, and without any deeper thought. Check out Chris Stuckmann’s Youtube video explaining the film so you can better understood the majesty of it.
The film spelled that imagery out quite clearly. Please pay attention to a film when you view it. Watching it in the background while you do something else is no way to review a film with deep, thoughtful imagery.
Well, this is just ridiculous. One of the points of the movie was to put down such attitude towards women and you see it as a fault? Oh boy.
Did it not occur to you that I did not see any such point in the movie?
That’s exactly my point. The whole idea of the movie flew right past you.
Or else “the whole idea of the movie” isn’t as definitive as you think it is.
It’s not. But it certainly looks as if you’re dismissing it for being one-note and obvious.
People struggle to realize that this movie isn’t one that’s up for interpretation. There is no doppelgänger they are in fact the same person. Half the movie is a battle of the subconscience
“People struggle to realize…” means that the movie is up for interpretation. You just don’t like MaryAnn’s interpretation.
I find it really interesting that so many people think there’s only one way to interpret a movie, and it’s always the interpretation they’ve chosen. I’ve had similar conversations about the Bible.
based on the Aggregate theme by Elegant Themes | powered by WordPress