Movie news on your iPhone today!
Advertisement
Sign in
Username   Password         Forgot password?
Wanna join? Sign up
Find movies you'll love

kristen Blog

  • A Plastic Face the only Human Part

    Was this review helpful? [Be the first to tell us!]
    Under discussion:

    Get Smart  (2008)

    Get Smart (2008, Peter Segal, USA) *

    Anne Hathaway began her movie career as the ugly duckling in The Princess Diaries (2001). But as we know, the ugly duckling turns into the most beautiful swan. And Presto! A little bit of makeup and beauty coaching completes her transformation. A darling new woman appears on screen and even snags her prince charming. In 2006, Hathaway co-starred in The Devil Wears Prada playing an unfashionable assistant who transforms into savvy fashion queen. That same year she was named one of the 50 most beautiful people by People magazine. But in life did something strange happen to Anne Hathaway's innocent face? Did she feel the need to undergo a real transformation? Don't her lips seem to crinkle in the most unnatural way? There have been rumors of plastic surgery though none have been confirmed (to my knowledge).

    In her latest movie Get Smart, Hathaway disguised as Agent 99 discusses her (rumored) plastic surgery. In the self-proclaimed most honest part of the movie (Maxwell Smart played by Steve Carell coaxes the truth from Agent 99). Agent 99 confesses that she used to look like her mother and that she regrets having lost that unique feature. This true moment comes out in the most artificial way because the movie is completely devoid of human nature and incapable of inspired human interaction. In Get Smart, Agent 99 underwent a complete cosmetic makeover because her identity was compromised on a mission. And in the process, she took a few years off her face. Now the agent uses her face to complete her missions. She escapes death by kissing a terrorist (who plummets to earth). She seduces evil Russian Ladislas Krstic to gather necessary information. The actresses' looks are constantly referenced. At dinner, Agent 99 remarks on how it seems she can eat all the carbs she wants without worry because she never seems to get fat. Maxwell Smart creates the funniest part of the movie (or the only funny part) when he consciously mimics Agent 99's kiss tactic in order to throw the enemy off guard.

    Hathaway's career is marked by an obsession with beauty. This is not unique. Most women, especially actresses, feel the pressure to be beautiful. And fortunately for her, many people think she is beautiful (even if her most sexy role is Agent 99 who had complete facial surgery). As Agent 99, every character in Get Smart finds her attractive regardless of her artificial face. The characters accept her altered face the way the audience accepts her new look for this movie. The characters believe that the face she has is the real Agent 99. And that artificial face does belong to her. So what's all this talk of plastic surgery about? Hathaway denies having plastic surgery but in an interview with the Herold Sun she reveals that “When I was growing up, I wanted a nose job because I just didn’t think my nose was good. Now I feel like it’s [acting] what lets me change my face a lot".

    Isn't acting a little bit like plastic surgery? She changes her face to fit the demands of the audience. And that is the kind of surgery she is talking about through her character Agent 99. In the same interview, Hathaway exclaims, "I can be glamorous as Agent 99, but I’ve just made a movie with Jonathan Demme where I play a recovering drug addict and I look really rough". The face of an actress is always altered to the movie. So in a strange way, Get Smart touches on an issue directly related to Hathaway's life. Unfortunately, the connection is a little too vague and there are no other human parts in the movie.

    In many ways, Get Smart is like The Love Guru. The comparisons wrote themselves. These two miserable comedies opened on the same day, inviting the fight to the death competition. The Love Guru died though Get Smart is just as dead boring. The Love Guru offended many of the Roger Ebert type with its juvenile penis and defecation jokes. If this sounds promising, its a facade. Mike Meyers regurgitates his old persona's into a careless plot with mind rotting results. Get Smart suffers from the same insipid nature. In Get Smart, the audience was so starved for jokes that they laughed hysterically when Maxwell slams into a wall and exclaims, "missed it by that much!" (a joke we've all seen a mission times in the trailer). The plot of Get Smart is a rehash of action movies like Mission Impossible and the James Bond series, which could provide fertile ground for a comedy. Unfortunately, the movie includes the never-been-done-before parody of Entrapment where the characters seductively weave their bodies through a web of lasers (obviously a hilarious joke). Terrence Stamp plays an unoriginal villain (one bent on destroying the world). Of course the love story is weak, but at least Hathaway is more than a stupid sex toy existing only to sleep with like Jessica Alba (and she always plays this insult to womanhood). The jokes are so stale that both movies fail even to be escapist entertainment. Instead we realize how miserable we are for having nothing better to do than sit through these blunders of cinema.

    ~Kristen Gorlitz


  • "Are you two Gay?" "Nooo... YES!!!"

    0 out of 1 people found this review helpful. [What do you think?]
    Under discussion:

    A Night at the Roxbury (1998, John Fortenberry, USA) **

    This is the most unintentionally gay movie I have ever seen. I know that Doug (Chris Kattan) and Steve Butabi (Will Ferrell) are brothers in the movie but everyone knows that they aren't brothers in real life. I know, I know, movies require a suspension of disbelief. But the characters act less like brothers and more life lovers to remember that they are supposedly siblings.

    So you want examples of their gayness? They sleep in the same room on silk sheets in leopard print underwear. Steve wakes up Doug with a twisler and the eats it. They wear matching (flamboyant) outfits. They keep disco balls in their bedroom. They listen to the Bee Gee's while strutting down the street. They work out together in spandex outfits (and Steve allows the equally queer trainer to feel his pecks). Both Doug and Steve are virgins (because they are so in tune with each other that they cannot interact with women). Doug is extremely jealous when Emily tries to steal Steve away. Doug ruins Steve's wedding by holding a boom box high above his head (a Say Anything move- clearly an act of trying to get back together with your girlfriend (or boyfriend)) blasting Haddaway's "What is love?" (I might add that this is the only hilarious part of the movie). Steve is so in love with Doug that he leaves Emily at the alter. He's not ready to give up with "brother" (is it strange that they never fight?). All Steve and Doug like to do is dance like animals in-sync on the dance floor.

    I like that the movie is secretly gay but it should have been more aware of itself. The movie tries to be about two awkward guys who think they are cool enough to score with hot women. As a result, there are many scenes that unconvincingly try to show that these guys are into women. When Emily has sex with Steve, he does enjoy it until she gets passionate and then he looses interest (gay? yes). When two gold diggers seduce the brothers they keep telling their one-liners and try to figure out what the other one is doing. The girls have a hard time keeping these brothers apart. The movie becomes a mediocre success story of two ignorant club junkies. These not-being-able-to-get-a-woman jokes fall flat because these guys are so clearly gay. When will the wake up to that fact? The movie acknowledges that they are unaware of themselves but still insists that they are straight. Come on Hollywood; let these two out of the closet. The movie tries so hard to mask their gayness. But they're not fooling anyone. The real comedy lies locked away behind the mask of straightness.

    ~Kristen Gorlitz


  • Wall-E Destroys Mankind!

    1 out of 2 people found this review helpful. [What do you think?]
    Under discussion:

    Wall-E  (2008)

    Wall-E (2008, Andrew Stanton, USA) **1/2

                Be warned: humans grow fatter by the day by consuming fast food in a cup, the earth is in a state of decay, trash lines the cities, and robots- well robots are more cute and cuddly than ever (except…). EXCEPT the evil Hal robot (ok, so the computers name isn’t Hal, but it looks like Hal) bent on destroying man. It must want humans to get fat and it definitely does not want humans to return to earth. But why not? Earth is the universe’s biggest junkyard thanks to the humans’ carelessness (which presumably sent them up into space in the first place). But I guess evil Hal knows that complacent, fat humans are better than environmentally conscious ones. And good thing this Hal does not have a brain, because if it did it would know that letting fat humans who barely have a bone structure because of extreme decay (so much so that they can barely walk) and who think that pizzas grow on trees wouldn’t survive a day on the barren waste filled earth. Or maybe this evil Hal likes the human’s and wants them to survive, even if it means they live in The Brave New World.

    The mission? For humans to return to earth- for after 3,500 years the earth’s atmosphere is finally able to support life, again. But Hal cannot let them complete the mission. Thank goodness for the anthropomorphic robots Wall-E and Eve.

     

    Aren’t they adorable?

    They can get the plant to the center of the spaceship so that humans can return home. Too bad these intelligent, capable, and loveable robots do not realize that earth for these pathetic humans is a death trap. The humans on the ship may envision earth as a utopia but they are unaware of the death and struggle that awaits them on earth. Without their food in a cup (their soma) how will they live? Food does not grow in a matter of days unlike the cheerful ending implies. No one realizes the utter destruction that the darling robots Wall-E and Eve unknowingly inflict upon these bestial humans. I would say even the creators at Pixar did not think that their safe, family friendly entertainment would secretly be the end of mankind. But now they have been warned, even the cutest robots reap destruction.

                Is this evil what unknowingly happens when a movie tries to be the family friendly 2001: A Space Odyssey? Let’s face it, Wall-E opens in the full glory of 2001: A Space Odyssey. Using the avant-garde technique first discovered by 2001- visuals as a means of storytelling- Wall-E discards dialogue for the first 27 minutes. Standard narrative storytelling has never been as abstract as this curious little robot Wall-E, after all isn't it shocking to hear no dialogue and just sound effects! 2001 would be glad that its avant-garde techniques (such as no plot, a 30-minute sequence of rapid colors, a star child, and monoliths) would be realized in this non-threatening, easy to swallow story made for audiences of all ages. After all, Kubrick intended to make a heartwarming, human tale, its just that Hal destroyed the mission.

                And now the humans in Wall-E stand to meet a similar fate as the humans in 2001. Why did we ever trust the robots!

    ~Kristen Gorlitz


 

Like what you're reading?

Subscribe
Search
  Go

Browse previous
<July 2008>
SunMonTueWedThuFriSat
293012345
6789101112
13141516171819
20212223242526
272829303112
3456789


Categories
 


Advertisement