la_belle_laide | This Means War

Okay, this movie was dumb and insulting, let's just get that out of the way. Two dudes stalking a woman and fighting over her like she's a piece of steak or something. And what was that ending line in "alternate ending 1?" "I'll be your bitch?" Really? And FDR was horrible. Horrible.

WITH THAT SAID, it did have some good laughs, mostly from well-timed lines and Chelsea Handler. Unless she's done something gross and creepy that I'm unaware of, I like her and think she's hilarious. She reminds me very much of a friend I used to work with, and actually, her character could have been this friend.

If it had been possible for me to ignore the sexism of the film, I would have found it really entertaining. There were parts of it that were super entertaining, in fact.

But aside from all of that, Tom Hardy. WHAT EVEN IS HE? I don't get it, I don't understand his existence. How was Reese Witherspoon not straddling him every second? How was EVERYONE not straddling him in every frame? I damn near climbed onto my TV set. I legitimately can't even look at him for too long because his face hurts my eyes. I'm being honest when I say I hope I never get the chance to meet him, because if I did, I'd probably just try to mount him and it wouldn't even be my fault. "Hi, nice to meet you, I want to hug you with my legs." Also, I'm pretty sure I would lick him.

It seems weird to me that he's a real, living person and not someone made up – and I actually feel bad about that, because I think it's horrible to misunderstand someone's humanity because you see them in movies or whatever. It's not because he's in movies, it's because HE CAN'T EVEN BE REAL. My eyes feel like the want to reach out of my head and pet him. He's so impossibly lovely with his stupid perfect nose and crooked teeth that it physically pains me to look at this bastard.

And if you disagree with me, you're wrong.

I hope I've made myself clear.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

I don't think that anyone who gets in the ring, even if it's for sport, is a "gentle hippy."

Further, even if I did think so, I don't think there's anything wrong with being a "gentle hippy."

You can do something for art and still have it be effective. The "game stuff" turns automatically into the "real stuff" the second someone puts their hands on you. That's why we train. Would I bust out a damn form if that happened? No, I'd probably just go directly for the weakest spot. I don't think the two are mutually exclusive.

There is no implication that anyone we're talking about is a gentle hippy. That's a direct and straightforward statement. The glamorization of gentle hippies, for instance, is better than the glamorization of violence, in my opinion.

The two are indeed not mutually exclusive. A form serves it's purpose - to strike effectively - but with the embellishment of grace, or whatever other artistic aspect is seen to add value. What I was speaking of was a matter of focus points.

Form without the function of a good strike is closer to dancing than fighting, I would think, though I've not given that particular point of analysis much thought.

That a form hits is natural, though a particular, traditional, or beautiful form is not always necessary to hit.

This Means War

no subject

no subject