Mulder Posted June 7, 2014 Share Posted June 7, 2014 How was Emily Blunt better than any other "badass military chick" we've seen in a ton movies? Not starting an argument but genuinely interested. She was more competent then any of the guys. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dashrendar44 Posted June 7, 2014 Share Posted June 7, 2014 (edited) How was Emily Blunt better than any other "badass military chick" we've seen in a ton movies? Not starting an argument but genuinely interested. The difference between Charlotte Riley and Blunt in the same movie. Riley is a caricature riffing on Vasquez, Blunt is a three dimensional character, dry humor, competent, badass but not extreme macho, still feminine as a whole with a sense of melancholia in her gaze, she got a nice balance and keep it restrained in her acting to avoid the badass chick cliche.(Her "Droopy" side works wonder). She's not a perfect Mary Sue either. Edited June 7, 2014 by dashrendar44 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Founder / Operator Shawn Robbins Posted June 7, 2014 Founder / Operator Share Posted June 7, 2014 I don't think a couple of weeks of good promotion is enough when you're trying to sell people on a tent pole film with an $180m budget. The buzz should have been building for months as it did with Godzilla, Maleficent or any of the comic book movies. Heck, Neighbors had greater earlier awareness. Even in the last couple of weeks WB didn't do enough to highlight what was unique or great about it. I think legs for recent openers show more of reaction toward those specific films than genre weariness. Two of those movies had mixed WOM and the other comes from a series with notoriously short legs. I don't disagree on the awareness issue (it tracked about 20% lower than something like TASM2). On the flip side, that sets it up to have better legs if the positive WOM/reviews are any indication. As for genre weariness, that point's very debatable. Average Joe and Jane (who are a big part of Cruise's target demo nowadays) don't see many movies (1-2 per month on average, if not less), and they had a fairly cramped May in terms of that genre. It comes down to what looks more appealing to them, and the last rat to the cheese usually ends up on the short end of things by sheer circumstance. That's EOT in a nutshell. This is just a dead weekend historically. There's no surprise to EOT's opening, in my opinion. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
superstancer Posted June 7, 2014 Share Posted June 7, 2014 i loved emily blunt shes way better than tat black widow scarlett 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TalismanRing Posted June 7, 2014 Share Posted June 7, 2014 Maleficent doesn't allow her victimization to define her, it's kind of the whole point of the movie. Her defining action as a a character has always been that she curses a BABY - a female baby. Oh yeah - female empowerment! I think the the whole re imagining of Magnificent is annoying. Why can't she just be deliciously evil - reveling in her own rottenness and power - as she always has been and why she's been rightly infamous? Instead we get a poor innocent victimized woman getting revenge on mean men - giving men the power to twist her into something bad - but because she's the star not really bad but justified. Pooh. It's just another stinker on a pile of Alice In Wonderland, Oz, the Snow Whites. I really hope Branaugh's Cinderella bucks the trend. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Last Man Standing Posted June 7, 2014 Share Posted June 7, 2014 (edited) How was Emily Blunt better than any other "badass military chick" we've seen in a ton movies? Not starting an argument but genuinely interested. well for starters she's more believable in the context of the movie. she's like a normal woman who had tons of practice, not some fetishized ideal of a hot ninja or some shit(looking at you Whedon). Edited June 7, 2014 by Last Man Standing 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mulder Posted June 7, 2014 Share Posted June 7, 2014 The difference between Charlotte Riley and Blunt in the same movie. Riley is a caricature riffing on Vasquez, Blunt is a three dimensional character. I liked how most of Blunt's characterization was subtle. It was a really nice touch. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ddddeeee Posted June 7, 2014 Share Posted June 7, 2014 But it's kind of the original start of it all for the character in this take. Why is she evil? Because of a man. She becomes blinded by revenge because of a man, yes. And it's not like some actual sexist idea like she falls for him and he's not interested, it goes far beyond that. And her revenge consists of one action that she immediately regrets. It's not some 'Go girl, get that man who wronged you!' nonsense, but a story of a woman wronged who learns to rise above it and admit her wrongs. If anything it subverts the 'turns evil because of a man' trope. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mulder Posted June 7, 2014 Share Posted June 7, 2014 well for starters she's more believable in the context of the movie. she's like a normal woman who had tons of practice, not some fetishized ideal of a hot ninja or some shit(looking at you Whedon). Here we go again...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thegirl Ofthetworiver Posted June 7, 2014 Share Posted June 7, 2014 (edited) Edge Of Tomorrow is actually the most "girl power" movie compared to Maleficent all things considered. Blunt's character isn't some poor thing victimized by men that defines her traits and destiny, she just owns and exists on her own prerogative as a hardass soldier (no "I'm like I am what because I'm a former innocent poor thing mistreated by a man that broke my heart, victim of circonstances") and teaches Cruise as a m Well then don't complain if major audience connected to maleficent more than Blunt EOT because they see her strength and weakness more related to their life than Emily. Strong people not only win battles but also own up to their mistakes. Edited June 7, 2014 by enastein Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
baumer Posted June 7, 2014 Share Posted June 7, 2014 Just finished watching FIOS. Rwally good and quite faithful to the book. I balled....a few times. yes this is a teenage love story with young cancer victims but anyone who has gone through someone close to them passing away from cancer will relate to this movie. This is a romance but if you have lost a parent or a brother or sister or anything else it's a movie everyone can relate to. 6 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rockNrollaDIM Posted June 7, 2014 Share Posted June 7, 2014 Maleficent doesn't allow her victimization to define her, it's kind of the whole point of the movie. This, and this guy sums it up pretty nicely. But oh, thematically speaking! This is a Disney movie about date rape and PTSD, with all the primal, horrific sexual and violent insinuations that theme entails. When Jolie's character has her wings taken off, it's explicitly played as a violation of a bubbly drunk girl; when she wakes up disheveled and broken-hearted, the imagery is even harder to deny. The rest of the film sees her regaining the strength drained by that violation, including a literal return-to-form. The suggestion is that inner worth is something that sexual abuse can drain from you, but not something it can rob from you - that quality remains within, at all times. Yet apparently the talking point on this one is that it's not feminist enough. If this isn't, then what is? 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ACSlater Posted June 7, 2014 Share Posted June 7, 2014 Just finished watching FIOS. Rwally good and quite faithful to the book. I balled....a few times. yes this is a teenage love story with young cancer victims but anyone who has gone through someone close to them passing away from cancer will relate to this movie. This is a romance but if you have lost a parent or a brother or sister or anything else it's a movie everyone can relate to. Any other guys besides you in the theater? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack Nevada Posted June 7, 2014 Share Posted June 7, 2014 The difference between Charlotte Riley and Blunt in the same movie. Riley is a caricature riffing on Vasquez, Blunt is a three dimensional character, dry humor, competent, badass but not extreme macho, still feminine as a whole with a sense of melancholia in her gaze, she got a nice balance and keep it restrained in her acting to avoid the badass chick cliche.(Her "Droopy" side works wonder) Fair enough. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack Nevada Posted June 7, 2014 Share Posted June 7, 2014 Just finished watching FIOS. Rwally good and quite faithful to the book. I balled....a few times. yes this is a teenage love story with young cancer victims but anyone who has gone through someone close to them passing away from cancer will relate to this movie. This is a romance but if you have lost a parent or a brother or sister or anything else it's a movie everyone can relate to. "Bawled", I hope. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ent Posted June 7, 2014 Share Posted June 7, 2014 (edited) well for starters she's more believable in the context of the movie. she's like a normal woman who had tons of practice, not some fetishized ideal of a hot ninja or some shit(looking at you Whedon). LOL. One is a comic book adaptation with comic book super hero, the other not...even the males in comic book adaptations are not believable compared to normal, every day people...they are by essence enhanced, fantasy related characters with over the top body types ... Edited June 7, 2014 by Ent 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
baumer Posted June 7, 2014 Share Posted June 7, 2014 Sorry....bawled.....stupid auto correct. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TalismanRing Posted June 7, 2014 Share Posted June 7, 2014 i loved emily blunt shes way better than tat black widow scarlett I though Scarlet's BW was terrible and worse boring in Iron Man 2. I liked her in The Avengers but thought the character more of a type than a character . I thought she was fantastic in CA2 playing a character who was finally a three dimensional human as well as a bad-ass. CA2 also gave SLJ his meatiest turn as Nick Fury and a chance to act more than just being cool as f***. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Last Man Standing Posted June 7, 2014 Share Posted June 7, 2014 (edited) LOL. One is a comic book adaptation with comic book super hero, the other not...even the males in comic book adaptations are not believable compared to normal, every day people...they are by essence enhanced, fantasy related characters with over the top body types ... yeah, what about Firefly? Buffy? Dollhouse(i haven't seen it so i'm guessing here tbh)? dude has a thing for tiny chicks who are impossibly badass. i've got nothing against badass women, but i prefer something more realistic(e.g. Blunt in EOT, or Carano). Edited June 7, 2014 by Last Man Standing Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bishop54 Posted June 7, 2014 Share Posted June 7, 2014 Sorry....bawled.....stupid 6th Grade Education. Fixed it for you my man. I kid. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
