Posts Tagged ‘shoes’
2 items.
It’s hard to think of good insults when you’re under threat of a Monty Python moment…
Cami and I went to see The 40 Year-Old Virgin this weekend and the exact scenario with the woman taking off her shoes and putting her feet up on the seat in front of her did transpire.
Well, everything except me calling her a “dirty pirate wench…” But the rest is all true!
This is the thing I don’t understand. This woman wasn’t some post-adolescent taking part in some kind of lazy summer-time rebellion. This wasn’t some girl casually kicking off her flip-flops and dangling her manicured toes over the seat in front of her.
No. The woman in question was middle-aged. In attendance with friends. Some of them balding. My point? She should have known better.
Folks, she had to unlace her shoes and take off her socks to perform this gross trespass against common decency. C’mon. That’s like taking off your pants in a crowded restaurant to scratch your ass.
Anyway, I’m only leaving a quick thought about The 40 Year-Old Virgin because I’m tired and need to go to bed soon.
I loved it. Honest to goodness, I think it’s the most entertaining movie I’ve been to all year. I liked it even better than I liked Batman Begins. I liked it better than I liked Wedding Crashers. And now that Cami knows that action figures are now a sound investment, she can’t make fun of me when I buy 5 or 6 figures from the Marvel Legends line.
I’m happy for Steve Carell. There was this lingering question if he could carry a movie by himself. I think he knocked it out of the park. He makes his character more real just by playing it straight.
Director/writer Judd Apatow has now cemented my status as a life-long fan. I think his script was brilliant. I was even more pleased to learn that his second canceled sitcom – Undeclared – was just released in its entirety on DVD, which I did not know. I will be snapping that up shortly.
Overall, I’m happy for the R-rated sex comedy. Hopefully the success of this film and Wedding Crashers will prove to Hollywood that there is an older audience out there starving for smart entertainment instead of films that have been watered down for a PG-13 rating and the loose purse strings of the fiscally irresponsible youth of America.
I was really pleased to see the support you guys have shown for the Theater Hopper LiveJournal syndication feed. Since it would seem that simply mentioning it gets people to add it to their LiveJournal friends list, I’m doing so again today. If you want updates to the comic and the blog as soon as they’re posted, this is the most direct line to them.
Well, it’s not as direct as actually checking the site first, but you know what I mean..
[ No Comments ]
Sex in the City comes out this weekend and seems to be as hotly anticipated by the fairer sex as every comic book movies is ready to be embraced this summer. Unlike most men who seem to be operating from a database of "I won’t watch this movie because I don’t have vagina" zingers, I’m not psyched out by this proposition. It’s been a while since there was a romantic comedy with any real pedigree. Seems to be you had to wait for some kind of Tom Hanks / Meg Ryan vehicle to come along before you could permit yourself to feel confident about the genre.
Cami is a big fan of the shoe, so I’ve seen enough episodes of the show to know what’s going on. I even went to a Sex and the City finale party when it ended. I bought her that huge pink velvet book that collects the entire series for her birthday a few years ago, so the occasional Sex and the City marathon is not a rare occurrence in our house.
These are all things MAN LAW tells me I should be ashamed to admit. But I’m not. What can I say? It was a good show and I can certainly understand why the power fantasy was so attractive to women.
Since Sex and the City went off the air a few years ago, every romantic comedy since then seems to extrapolate from it’s formula. Smart, career-minded women who can HAVE IT ALL! The Job, The Clothes, The Man. Think about it. Think about all of the romantic comedies that have come out just this year that share this formula. 27 Dresses and Baby Mama, for example. Nevermind all of the television shows that try to capture lightning in a bottle. Lipstick Jungle, Cashmere Mafia… even Gossip Girl, Dirty Sexy Money and Grey’s Anatomy try to capture this to a degree. Why needs men, right?
Ah, but therein lies the rub. Box office for romantic comedies has been down in the last few years not only because they’re all operating out of the same playbook, but because these movies and television shows almost entirely exclude men from the equation.
Contrary to conventional wisdom, men enjoy romance from time to time. But when the movies tell you over and over that you’re a prop for a successful woman, no wonder men lose interest.
I’m trying to avoid categorizing this in sexist terms. Certainly movies for men have been using women as props for years. Most, if not all of them, in fact. A little turnabout is fair play.
BUT for a genre that is supposed to be all about UNIFYING the sexes, does anyone else find it curious that it is so thoroughly alienating one half of its audience?
In a social climate where there are so many pretenders to the throne, it’s interesting to me to see if Sex and the City can return to the big screen and not feel completely stale. And, if it fails, what will become the next flavor of the month when it comes to romantic comedies?
A little food for thought over the weekend. Take care and I hope you guys have a good one. I’ll see you back here on Monday.
[ No Comments ]
