Resident Evil Apocalypse is better than women

I don't think his attitude was entirely out of line. It costs a shitload to see a movie these days; far too much to miss parts of the movie because your date wouldn't behave like a civilized audience-goer.

Oops, you're right. My bad.You're certainly right that the choice of a movie that not everybody was on board for was inconsiderate. A considerate host, as one should be on a date, chooses activites that all the guests will enjoy.

It's a mark of maturity, in the life of one who appreciates art and cinema, that one is able to distinguish between the movies that one likes and the movies that are good.By any measure. Kill Bill II is a better movie than the first one. But I enjoyed it much, much less than the first one.Roger Ebert isn't in the business of telling us which movies he likes; he's in the business of telling us which movies are good. That doesn't mean you don't get to enjoy bad movies. My favorite movies (The Shadow, Cutthroat Island) are terrible by any critical standard. But I enjoy them greatly.Or for that matter, it doesn't mean you have to like good movies. Osama was one of the best movies that I've seen this year; I hated it. Buddy, I don't know that a 24-year-old like me should be the guy to tell you this, but none of that is new.This message has been edited by crashfrog, 09-13-2004 06:12 PMThis message has been edited by crashfrog, 09-13-2004 06:13 PM

Oh, I'm sure it's new to you, but they've been doing that in Asian cinema for like the last 30 years.If you watch the credits of any action movie these days, you'll see a lot of chinese names. There's been a huge influence of Hong Kong action directors and actors into Hollywood in the past 7 years or so; some of the stuff they brought over includes martial arts wirework (what you're calling "moon physics") and other hyperkinetic action styles.It's the Hong Kong influence. It's new to us, sort of, but they've been doing it that way over there for three decades or so.

C: Saving your movie dollar to go see Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow this weekend.I'll take Angelina Jolie in an eyepatch (Arr!) over Milla J any day.P.s. Zombies are stupid.

Modern feminism seems to be about women thinking about and with their vaginas; which is odd because the often-lamented trait about men is that we do the same thing with penises.

I'm sorry that my statement didn't really come off the way I intended it to. (Clearly I did not engage all of my brain when I posted that.) It wasn't my intent to speak about all modern feminists; rather, those individuals who seem to typify the most "visible" members in feminism today, like Eve Ensler of the "Vagina Monologues."I understand that the theme of the Vagina Monologues is to use the vagina to tie together disparate narratives about a variety of women's issues, but with Eve Ensler talking about "the vagina vote", it seems like the issue of equality in women's sexuality, and women taking ownership of their sexual experience, has been brought to the forefront when there's a whole lot of more important issues - pay equity, health issues, justice equality, etc. These are the real feminist issues, to me.Obviously, feminists like Schraf are just feminists. I'm a feminist too. But I don't understand how what appears to be the modern trend in public feminism - the obsession with the vagina, or with sexuality in general. There's a hell of a lot more work in feminism to be done. I think the focus on sexuality is a distraction at best and, at worst, the diversion of time and effort into something where its easy to achieve the appearance of results without actually accomplishing anything (activist masturbation, if you will.)I hope that clears it up a bit. I'm proud to stand with folks like Schraf and be counted as a feminist; one who believes in equality between the genders.This message has been edited by crashfrog, 09-16-2004 09:54 PM

I take severe umbrage at that. I say stupid things all the time!Seriously, though, I don't know how I managed to put my foot in my mouth to such a degree. What I was trying to say is that the public face of feminism seems a lot more interested in women "connecting with their vaginas" than in pay equity, reproductive choice, the elimination of barriers to employment, etc.It's gotten so bad that the most feminist women I know refuse to identfy as feminists, for fear of being connected to things like the Vagina Monologues. I think these things are distractions from the real issues of feminism.

I don't think it's "anti-male", though. I've never said it was anti-male. I've known some hardcore feminists, some who were lesbians, but none of them are anti-male.As for "femme-Nazis", this is just a perjorative term that folks use when they're made uncomfortable by a woman asserting choice over her body, life, and career. There's no behavior that you would ascribe to one of your "femme-Nazis" that you wouldn't consider assertive and manly if a man was doing it.People like you seem to think that if a woman concentrates on the things that make her different than men, and the situations in which her differences might be advantagous, that that means she's "anti-man."

I think it's part of a larger trend in youth activism; namely, a focus on masturbatory acts of "raising awareness" and "taking back the night", etc. - acts that don't take a lot of work to achieve meaningless, public results.It's easy to get 20 women to wander around their campus at night and feel "empowered." It's a lot harder to learn a black-belt in self-defense, which is how one really takes back the night. It's easy to toss up a card table in the cafeteria and "raise awareness" for reproductive choice and hand out condoms, etc. - it's a lot harder to get young women to contact their Congresspersons or become community leaders.I dunno, maybe it's just a college thing. At the age I'm at and the background I'm from, college students are the only feminists I see. You milage may vary, I guess. I think there is such a division (which explains perhaps the goofiness of college feminism) but unfortunately it seems to be the academic feminists who get in the papers and are allowed, for some reason, to be the public face of the movement.

Remind him that all movies based on video games have sucked, and then go see Sky Captain instead.Everybody will be happier.

Absolutely she is, but to tell you the truth, I haven't heard much from her lately.I've heard way more from Eve Ensler than Gloria Steinem, and that may be an anomaly, but it seems to be a trend to me.

Woah, hey, cool off, chief. If you want to see words being put in mouths, you need to read your own post 47 again. Ok, but who here has said that? Who anywhere has said that, except for your hypothetical, non-existent "Femme-Nazis"? I don't know how to break this to you, but people your age say things of superlative stupidity almost every time they open their mouths. These people do not represent any sort of trend in real, grown-up feminism. Well, now you're talking about something totally different.Consider, if you will, every situation throughout history where women have been oppressed and disenfranchied against their will.By definition, who must be responsible? A man. Some man, or men. That's just obvious.But extrapolating that to a condemnation of all men is something you're doing, not feminism. Feminism is the equality of sexes, not the blame of men which you seem to percieve.Some men are bad people, and oppress women. To be told that, and hear a condemnation of all men, suggests either a massive chip on your shoulder or a guilty conscience. Sure. RE:A, by virtue of being a movie based on a video game, sucks. On the other hand, Sky Captain was totally bitchin'.

Yeah, just like the civil rights movement. Oh, wait.I don't see the joke in the very real problems of gender inequality. Who said it was? If you're getting blamed, maybe you're being blamed for the things you're doing. Yeah, come back and talk to me when you've developed an ability to evaluate movies with legitimate critera.

Maybe you hadn't heard, but women still get paid less on average in basically every single field. Something like 79 cents to the male dollar, or so. I can hardly blame you for limited experience, just as long as you realize that your experience (and mine, for that matter) is no basis to make sweeping generalizations. That, of course, is a question for the ages, but I'm fairly sure that legitimate criteria don't include motorcycle chases-per-minute or fake gore spray-by-volume.How was the writing? How was the pacing? How was the cinematography? How were the characterizations? Did the actors act well? Did they bring a sense of realism to their roles, or did they just go through the motions? Was the plot coherent, or were there enormous holes?