(no subject)

[which_chick]

Went to see Saw with brother Roy last night. The movie choices were not spectacular, because I live in bumfuck and it's not like we have art cinema or anything here. (My exposure to less-mainstream films is by way of DVD -- anyone I know locally buys one, we all watch it because that way you get full value *and* have someone to discuss the film with. Films are things that I have to buy on DVD. Movies are things I can go to Altoona and see in a theater.) At my disposal, I had...

The Polar Express, that horrible Christmas movie with Tom Hanks
Alexander, which has not gotten a single positive review
National Treasure, disqualified by virtue of being a Nicholas Cage film
The Incredibles, which I've already seen
Christmas with the Kranks, which I would not watch if you paid me
Spongebob Squarepants, The Movie, an effort that holds negative appeal for me
Bridget Jones: Edge of Reason, wasn't she the bitchy british twentysomething? With diaries?
Shall We Dance -- no clue
After the Sunset -- no clue
The Grudge -- Roy said he'd heard it wasn't bad.

and, obviously, Saw, which I'd heard was at least relatively interesting and had a guy cutting off his foot. (Yes, that is a selling point.)

Movie theaters now show huge amounts of ads before they get to the movie. I don't mind movie trailers -- they're one way I find out about new movies -- but I'm a bit peeved about ads for shit like Diet Coke and cell phone services. I am not laying down my money to be marketed consumer goods, damn it.

So, how was it? Not bad. Not bad at all. It was very clever. We thought it was kind of like Se7en in the relative clue and coolness of the serial killer guy and we liked the ending rather a lot. That was the clever part. Full points for having the gun over the mantle in the first act, as it were.

I thought that the colors and lighting were really quite good and set the mood effectively. Set wasn't bad, either. There was a lot of blue and green, very cool and institutional, what with the tile and exposed pipes. We were both impressed with the blond guy's makeup at the end of the movie, how they made him look all pale and stuff.

I never did get what the deal was with the freaky puppet thing, though. That was just disturbing.

The nonlinear narrative... it was okay. That and the not-random fastforwarding of the camera work were kind of effective. We thought that the nonreliable narrators were pretty realistic -- people act that way in real life. I'm not sure I'd enjoy this sort of thing in regular movies and I damn sure wouldn't have wanted more of it in this movie, but this was just enough. It was okay.

There were a few things that royally pissed me off about the movie, though.

1. Stupid cop behavior. They would have called for backup as soon as they found something definite. Even if they were there without much probable cause. They would have called for backup or 911-ambulance as soon as the first guy was down. Man down. They would have called for fucking backup, hot pursuit or no. Cops run *towards* gunfire. Killing one does not scare the rest of them away. It attracts more.

2. Some of the dialogue was a little skiffy. In particular, the "incoming calls only" cellphone. Are there such things? If not, why aren't there? Seems like it'd be a hell of a way to keep track of one's teenagers without running the cellphone bill from hell. This line of inquiry distracted me from several minutes of movie.

3. If you are a chick and you have what you've got reason to believe is an insane madman on his knees in front of you and you're holding a loaded gun on him, the next thing you should do is shoot the bad guy. Yes, even if your baby girl is tied up four feet away for a ringside view of mommy-the-killer. If, for whatever reason, you do not shoot the guy (you fool!), stay at least ten feet away from the motherfucker. If it comes to a hand-to-hand struggle over the gun, he's going to get the gun. You are NOT AS STRONG AS HE IS. It's genetics, which gives fuck-all for equal rights. You are going to have to give up the gun if it comes to hand-to-hand, so don't let the fight go there.

Comments

[which-chick.livejournal.com]

I realize that there is a great deal of overlap in the bell curves. I agree with you that, in sizing up an insane madman vs. woman confrontation, the question of whether or not the woman can take the insane madman should, of course, be based on the actual woman and the actual insane madman involved. :)

However, as a general rule, genes have NOT loaded the dice in favor of women here. (There are other areas where the dice are loaded in favor of women. It's not entirely a losing situation, no matter how much I whine about it, and I don't think swapping for a set o' XY would be trading up.)

Patrick J. Bird, Ph.D., of the University of Florida, has the following to say on the subject: Men are about 30 percent stronger than women, on average. This difference is mainly in the upper body, where men have an edge of about 40%. In the lower body the difference is only about 15%. This strength advantage is do to the fact that men are generally bigger and heavier. They typically have more muscle mass and less body fat. And their taller and wider skeletal frame provides a leverage advantage. But there are no inherent gender differences in muscle quality or capacity. Women can generate the same force per unit of muscle as men. And with training, they make the same relative strength improvements. Moreover, there is a considerable range among both sexes, and some women are stronger than some men. Source: http://hermes.hhp.ufl.edu/keepingfit/ARTICLE/STRENGTH.HTM

In the taking-the-gun-away thing, the contest will be primarily one of upper-body strength, the area where men are acknowledged to have the largest advange versus women.

I am willing to lay money that if you have a hundred men and a hundred women (take 'em from your local college) and you pair them up randomly, stand 'em in a wrestling mat circle, hand a toy gun to the woman and tell the pair of them that whoever has the gun at the end of three minutes wins... better than ninety of those women wouldn't be holding a gun at the end of three minutes. The results could get a lot better if you handpicked the pairings to slant them in favor of chick-success... but the way to bet is that the guy is going to take the gun off the chick every damn time.

I wish it were otherwise. You've no idea how much I wish it were otherwise... but wishing doesn't make things so.

[almiqui.livejournal.com]

I agree... my point was that when you don't have a few hundred women and a few hundred madmen, the population stats become virtually meaningless. By definition, statistics do not apply to single events.

[which-chick.livejournal.com]

Oh. *blush* Okay, I totally missed that -- didn't see where you were coming from, there. Got it now.