Tom Martin

Movies like this pokes fun at the feminist movement. In the 70's there were many movies preaching about independent women (Coma, Norma Rae, anything with Jane Fonda). There is NOTHING wrong with that, it's common sense, so why are we being told repetitively? From that came out the slasher genre in the 80's. It's what happens when you go overboard, there will be blowback. You are not telling us anything new, it will make fanboys want see it more.

May 14 - 09:34 PM

Mike MacIsaac

Awesome!

Jun 1 - 09:32 AM

Parker Sperry

Ah, yes. The SWEEPING misandry. /sarcasm

May 25 - 03:19 PM

Mike MacIsaac

Awesome as well!

Jun 1 - 09:34 AM

Brian Elston

It's also a common fallacy to equate one's taste in movies to a specific set of traits. MaryAnn Johanson and Jocimar Dias J Are clearly under the impression that to some degree the people who watch this kind of stuff are morally bankrupt, anti-women, etc.

People like these kinds of movies, including women. I don't see why people should have to answer for what they happen to like. You don't know anything about me, yet you seem to be making an assumption that I have some sort of mental defect that causes me to like these kinds of movies.

Here's why I like these movies: They're funny, thrilling, or both. Gratuity is a great way to go about adding a level of irony to any scene. In Kill Bill (awful movie, but good example), when someone's head gets sliced off, blood shoots out like a geyser, which totally trivializes the seriousness of a decapitation and provides a tongue in cheek element that I appreciate in movies. When someone boxes Jason Voorhees, then he punches them once and their head launches hundreds of feet, then falls into a dumpster, it's so incredibly silly and unreal that I can enjoy it.

On the other hand, and movie like the original Halloween isn't over-the-top, but it does a good job of building up tension and keeping you on the edge of your seat. Instead of a comedy slasher where you wan Jason to come up with new and inventive ways to completely overkill everyone, in Halloween you're rooting for the potential victims. You want them to get away. You become invested in their characters. You're afraid for them. Effectively fleshing out likable characters and putting them in deadly situations isn't too unlike a roller coaster ride. It's that sense of danger that makes it exciting to watch.

Nudity is always nice. There's nothing more beautiful than a woman's body, and if a guy's stuff shows up on screen, I'm not going to make a fuss over it. I don't root for the blonde with the big breasts to get killed just because she showed some skin. If she does get killed, I'm not going to be thinking about the fact that she got naked. If she was an likable or interesting character, I'll be disappointed to see her dispatched. If she was hollow or cruel, I'll shrug it off.

As for this specific film, I have no interest in seeing it (despite loving the previous film in the series). I loathed the director's debut movie "Feast," and I knew this would get bad reviews. However, one thing I have trouble swallowing is that this is a "misogynistic" movie, because the most heroic characters in Feast were two women. They took charge and, with their leadership, the human cast managed to hold the monsters off and have a few survivors by the end of the movie.

Neo-feminists read a lot into EVERYTHING and come to the conclusion that men are trying to bring them down in every walk of life. If a video game has barbarians and the male barbarian has a leopard thong and the female has fur bikini, that's sexist because the reasons for the characters being stripped to what is essentially underwear are completely different. The male gaze, and all that. Sometimes there really isn't anything to these things. Just kick back and enjoy the movie or don't watch it if you're not interested. Sheesh.

May 31 - 02:25 PM

Anthony Johns

Starting from the top, if a movie is trying to appeal to such traits, it's not unwarranted assume at least some fans have those traits, though it may not be the case for you personally.

Now, though poor taste among audiences should be discouraged (self-aware material in which we're supposed to know that it's deliberatly bad taste is different), true, the audience should not have to answer for what they're being sold. As I commented before, my problem with Johanson is that she's directing her attack to the viewers, and there will always be some who don't deserve it, such as yourself from what you say. (Plus I'm also leery of the would-be feminists who think beating down men = building up women.) It's the people encouraging viewers to buy it who should be brought to task.

The examples you cited are all true, but it's also true that some movies (mainly the less innovative cash-grabs) are not exceptions to these criticisms. The remake of Texas Chainsaw Massacre (though it did manage to stage some tense scenarios), made the point of each chase to watch the victims get mutilated and die on screen. It didn't understand that, in and of itself, just watching someone feel pain or die isn't scary; it's sad. But it wanted its audience to see it as exciting and fun.

Nudity has it's place as well, such as the effect it added to Willow's song in the original Wicker Man. It can lend itself well to eroticism. But there's a reason people ussaully don't go naked in public, and if someone's bare on screen for no greater reason than the movie deciding it's what they're good for, it definitely doesn't discourage what feminists criticize in people.

Maybe you shouldn't have said "these kinds of movies". So far, Piranha 3DD just sounds like a turd.

May 31 - 05:17 PM

Brian Elston

You have valid points. I'm sure there are plenty of those who watch these kinds of movies for what we would consider to be the wrong reasons. My problem, as is yours, is that she went after the viewers. She also said something about "fanboys." I don't think she knows what that means...

To me, a critic is just setting themselves up to be hated when they do this, because they are directly referring to random people who may be interested in the movie. It reminds me of a review I read for The Dark Knight in which the author, Armond White, basically calls people who enjoyed the movie morons. That review has 325 comments on it because people don't appreciate being spat on (his profile pic doesn't help).

Now picture Armond White calling people stupid for not just liking that movie, but liking superhero or action movies in general. That's basically what Johanson did here, only I think stupidity is a much better thing to suffer from than something as volatile as misogyny. I think she owes her readers an apology, or at the very least an edit of her rather ignorant vitriol.

On an unrelated note, I can't believe this thing's up to 20% right now. I'm guessing it'll drop back down into the teens (could we possibly see mid to high single digits?) once the rest of the reviews start flooding in.

May 31 - 07:21 PM

Anthony Johns

Oh, I think Armond White was hitting lower than that before he finished. Eventually it just became that anyone not an Armond White fan was a pitiful moron.

And yeah, Johanson comes across like she's trying to be the bold, opinionated crusader while making the mistake of picking an unwarranted (losing) fight.

May 31 - 08:17 PM