Was The "Feminist" Furor Over Mad Max: Fury Road Fabricated?

"Don't worry, we'll save humanity using our feminine wiles!"

Sure looks like one to me!

Sounds about right!

Yep!

"I am woman! Hear me explode!"

"How dare you call MY movie feminist, you chauvinistic bastard!"

Salon.com: one of the "feminized" sites that praised MM.

You can also take my balls since I'm NOT using them anymore!

Yes, we ALL win! Especially the feminists!

This is the Mad Max I prefer! "Feminism" NOT included!

Return Of Kings writer Aaron Clarey stepped into a hornet's nest when he dared wrote how the film Mad Max: Fury Road might—and I say might—just be a (gasp!) feminist film and encouraged men to not go see this cinematic piece of outright feminist propaganda. Media outlets like The Huffington Posts and The Daily Beast furiously (pardon the pun!) condemned Mr. Clarey, accusing him of being a (double gasp!) misogynist and such. This in spite of the fact that both the top stars of Mad Max Tom Hardy and Charlize Theron (or, more appropriately, Charlie Theron and Tom Hardy!) both called MM a feminist movie. Plus the film's director George Miller—who, of course, directed the original Mad Max—hired none other than the author of The Vagina Monologues Eve Ensler as a consultant on the film. Not only that, but Miller herself came out and admitted—sort of—that he had in fact directed a feminist type film.

What I found most intriguing about the controversy is that the controversy went from “How dare they call Mad Max a feminist movie!” to “How dare they criticize Mad Max for being a feminist movie!” In other words, these sites claimed Mad Max wasn't a “feminist” movie while at the same time extolling its “feminist” virtues. Also, in all the articles I read addressing the controversy, the only source of the boycott was Mr. Clarey's article. There was no other mention of any other so-called Men's Rights Activist or any specific MRA group attached to said boycott. I mean, one would think that if this boycott by those damnable MRAs were as widespread as the media led everyone to believe, there would be at least a couple of other names and/or organizations attached to said boycott. But that wasn't the case. So either all the writers of these articles bashing the boycott were either misinformed or the whole entire controversy was little more than a fabrication to help sell movie tickets and/or pushing a feminist agenda.

I choose the latter.

Honestly, would this really surprise anyone, including all the feminized commentators, both female and male, who lost their minds over ROK's boycott of Mad Max? I mean, I can just imagine someone in the movie studio's marketing department finding Aaron Clarey's ROK article about Mad Max and they sent out a few strategically-placed links in the comments section in feminized sites such as HuffPo and The Daily Beast and presto! Instant controversy! Let's face it, moviegoers by & large weren't clamouring for another Mad Max movie the way they were for, say, another Star Wars movie, thanks in no small part to star Mel Gibson's by-now-infamous drunken anti-Semitic tirades and/or his over-the-top crazy phone calls to his baby mama. This was actually one of the reasons, along with 9/11 and Heath Ledger's death (who was initially slated to play Max), why it reportedly took so long for director George Miller to make his latest Mad Max film. So, when Mad Max: Fury Road was finally completed & released, he needed publicity as all films need. And, in today's politically-charged feminized climate, what better way to help publicize a film like this than to insinuate its feminized message and bash anyone who dares question said feminized message (even though it didn't have a feminized message!).

For the record, I myself have not yet seen the latest Mad Max flick nor am I really clamouring to see it, controversy or no. So I can't really say for sure whether or not I personally feel it's a feminist movie. However, judging from what I read about the film (including from those that actually praised the movie who, while they condemned the boycott, conceded that indeed it was a feminist movie), there is indeed a case to be made for Mad Max's feminist credentials. Of course, George Miller or any movie director is perfectly free to make any type of film they wish. But, what I'd like to know is, if Miller wanted to make a female-driven action film, why didn't he just go ahead and make one? Just drop the Mad Max character entirely, especially since Max was apparently more of a secondary character in this film, and make Charlize Theron's character the main star? Of course, the answer to that may be because female-driven action films have a rather spotty track record at the box office. For every Thelma & Louise (which was an apparent ripoff of an earlier B-movie called Assault Of The Killer Bimbos) there are at least a half-dozen Tank Girl's (which bombed so bad that it virtually killed actress Lori Petty's movie career). Even Charlize Theron's attempt at headlining an action flick—i.e. the live-action version of the cult cartoon Aeon Flux—bombed at the all-important box office. And the reason for that is, for all the talk of feminism and such, moviegoers, both men and women, don't want to see women in the dominant role in action films. They want to see the men swoop in and rescue everyone, including—and especially—the girl, similar to the way they want things to work out in real life. Again, in spite of all the cinematic feminist talk, men want to imagine themselves as the rescuer and women want to imagine themselves the ones being rescued. Period.

At the end of the day, it's all about money, feminism or no. And, while the movie will undoubtedly make a profit (at the time of this writing, it has reached the $100 million mark), it still didn't make the big splash at the all-important box office George Miller and the movie studio were obviously hoping for, which, like I implied earlier, is what I believe really drove the controversy. I mean, it didn't even reach number one on the box office charts the weekend it was released as it made about half the money that the flick Pitch Perfect 2 which did debut at number one.

Of course, the thing I found most hypocritical of all about the whole insipid controversy surrounding Aaron Clarey's Mad Max article—which even Clarey himself said was ridiculous—was that the same feminists/feminist sympathizers who scoffed at the idea of a boycott of Mad Max: Fury Road by the apparently imaginary MRAs were the same ones who all but advocated a—that's right—boycott of the Clint Eastwood film American Sniper about military sniper Chris Kyle months earlier—many of whom hadn't even seen the film—because not only they claimed it “promoted” the Iraqi war but that it also promoted—again, that's right—masculinity. And we all know just how much the feminists and their sympathizers really hate that!

Besides that, one thing the feminized reviewers of Mad Max: Feminist, uh, I mean Fury Road failed to address is that, if Charlize Theron's character Imperator Furiosa was so strong and whatnot as said feminized reviewers insisted she was, why then did she need the “help” of Max to begin with? Just saying!

A sidenote: Here's the link to the Aaron Clarey article from "anti-feminist" site Return Of Kings for anyone who is interested in reading the piece that started all the Mad Maxine, uh, I mean Mad Max feminist furor to begin with: http://www.returnofkings.com/63036/why-you-should-not-go-see-mad-max-feminist-road

Here's a video review (from YouTube) from someone (yes, a man!) who actually watched Mad Max: Fury Road and said yes, it WAS a "feminist" movie!

And, while we're at it, here's Aaron Clarey's video response to all the critics of his article:

Fifty Shades Of Wayne (Batman/Fifty Shades Mashup Trailer)

Thanks the stars Ben Affleck WASN'T in this trailer!

RELIGULOUS

Religulous is comedian/talk show host Bill Maher's documentary--or mockumentary, whichever way you want to look at it--about organized religion. Anyone who knows anything at all about Bill Maher knows he's most definitely NOT a "fan" of organized religion, and he most definitely holds NOTHING back in this film. In the film, he targets pretty much all of the major religions, including Islam, Mormonism, Scientology, and, his seemingly favorite target, Christianity. About three-fourths of the film consists of Maher interviewing various "religious" figures and mocking their "beloved" religions to their faces. Some take it in stride while others are quite noticeably upset at Bill's mockery; like, for instance, towards the beginning of the film where Bill is challenging the members of a little--and, no, I'm NOT making this up!--Truckers Chapel and one of the members expresses his disdain at said mockery of his "religion" and kindly walks himself right out of the church. (At one point during the film, Bill himself walks out of an interview after he gets rather annoyed at this rabbi who blatantly contradicts himself to Maher.) At times during the film Maher speaks directly to the camera and talks about the "questionable" parts of various religious stories; like, for instance, when he compares what he calls the "similarities" between the stories of Egyptian deity Horus to that of Jesus Christ. (This drew some heavy criticism from "Christian" scholars, as one might have expected.) Overall, Religulous will no doubt play well to Bill Maher fans. Religious types, of course, might take "issue" with it. I actually started to feel kind of sorry for some of the interviewees as Bill was blatantly mocking them, but then I recalled all those times one of these "religious" types would come up to me and denounce ME for not "believing" as they do and kindly inform me that I was going to you-know-where, so whatever feelings of empathy I may have had for some of these people quickly went away as Bill was throwing some of their sanctimonious BS back at them. (This, of course, doesn't include all those times a Jehovah's Witness or two would show up at my front door and bug the hell out of me about their "religion" and such.) And, if you haven't figured it out already, I, like Maher, am NOT what you'd call a "fan" of religion, organized or otherwise, so I didn't really take "issue" with Religulous. Actually, I thought the most interesting parts of the film were the deleted scenes that were featured on the DVD, which features mostly more interviews that for whatever reason weren't included in the final film. I actually think Maher should re-release the movie with the deleted scenes included on video. (I know that would REALLY make these "religious" types happy!)

Here's the aforementioned Truckers Chapel scene from Religulous (from YouTube): 

WHY I WON'T BE SEEING AMERICAN SNIPER

The movie poster of American Sniper.

The book cover of American Sniper.

Bradley Cooper as Chris Kyle.

Chris Kyle holding a copy of his book.

American Sniper is the movie based on the "autobiography" of the late Iraqi war veteran Chris Kyle who was deemed--I think by Chris himself--"the most lethal sniper in U.S. history." The movie was directed by Clint Eastwood (yes, THAT Clint Eastwood!) with actor Bradley Cooper (of The A-Team fame) playing Kyle. The movie has even garnered a few Oscar nods. With all that said, I will not--I repeat--NOT be going to see American Sniper. Why? Well, for one, I am SO sick & tired of being told who to "admire" in this country. I mean, I can make up my OWN mind who I want to "admire" and/or hold up as a hero. And, though I feel sorry for Kyle's family (who was shot to death at a shooting range along with a companion by an ex-Marine reportedly suffering from PTSD named Eddie Ray Routh), I can't muster up admiration for someone who was a trained killer and, above all, someone who publicly boasted of being said trainer killer and who propped his own self up as a hero. I know, I know there'll be those--mostly on Fox (Non) News!--who'll undoubtedly denounce me as being "unpatriotic" and how I don't "support" the troops by not lending my "admiration" of Chris Kyle. To which I say is complete & utter BULLSHIT! I mean, there are countless veterans who acted just as "heroically" as Mr. Kyle and even more so but we'll NEVER hear their names much less their stories. That's, of course, partly because a number of veterans don't wish to "exploit" their war experiences. There's also the countless number of veterans who are languishing away at veteran's hospitals--remember the controversy about the shoddy medical treated of military veterans at VA hospitals like Walter Reid?--and who are suffering from PTSD and who are homeless--an estimated one-third of our nation's homeless are in fact veterans--or who have committed suicide. You get the picture. So, I ask, what makes Chris Kyle's "story" more "heroic" than any other veteran's? Going back to the movie, the film itself is probably a "good" movie, at least technically so, and I'm sure Bradley Cooper did a pretty good job portraying Kyle (he, at the time of this writing, has garnered an Oscar nod for his role in the film). But, there again, I have absolutely NO interest in seeing this apparently overly-jingoist film. (I also felt the same about that torture porn-fest Zero Dark Thirty.) In any other context, and I know I'm going to get flak for saying THIS one, Chris Kyle would probably be regarded as a serial killer, you know what I mean? Once again, for those who would denounce me--once again, on Fox (Non) News!--as being an unpatriotic troop-hater, Chris Kyle boasted in his book how much he "loved" killing and how much "fun" he thought his "job" was. Writing of the Iraqis in general, he wrote, "I hate the damn savages," adding, "I couldn't give a flying fuck about the Iraqis." He also stated how he knew without a single shred of doubt how EVERYONE he shot was a "bad guy," including the women AND children he apparently "loved" to shoot. Hell, he even bragged about murdering Hurricane Katrina looters (although that was never verified). On top of all that, he also reportedly boasted of looting the homes of Iraqi families in Fallujah. So, once more, I ask the question: WHAT IN THE "UNPATRIOTIC" FUCK IS SO DAMN "HEROIC" ABOUT CHRIS KYLE? AND WHY IN THE "UNPATRIOTIC" FUCK SHOULD I PAY GOOD MONEY TO SEE A FILM GLORIFYING HIS MURDER-LOVING ASS? AND, MORE IMPORTANTLY, WHY ARE WE GIVING CHRIS KYLE MORE "ATTENTION" THAN ANY OTHER VETERAN WHO WOULD NEVER BOAST ABOUT HAVING TO KILL ANOTHER HUMAN BEING REGARDLESS OF WHETHER THEY WERE AN "ENEMY" OR NOT? Well? I also can't for the life of me understand why Clint Eastwood would choose to make a movie glorifying THIS (so-called) "hero" after he made what was deemed an "anti-violence" film the western Unforgiven (but then, he WAS Dirty Harry, so there you go!). Also, I must say I find it more than a little ironic--and, yes, hypocritical!--that the very same right-wingers who've been Chris Kyle's BIGGEST cheerleaders have routinely condemned the "violence" of, say, rap music. Just saying! In any case, Chris Kyle's life AND death prove the old adage to be VERY true: You live by the sword, you definitely die by the sword! And if THAT makes me an "unpatriotic traitor" or whatever in the eyes of the Republican-ass-kissing D-Bags who've propped THIS guy up as some type of damned superhero, then so be it. So be it! A sidenote: Chris Kyle, before his death, claimed on shows like--where else!--The O'Reilly Factor how he punched out Jesse Ventura (yes, THAT Jesse Ventura!) at a bar because he, according to Kyle, was "bad-mouthing" the military and the government in general (and this surprised him WHY?). He even mentioned the "fight" in his book, although he didn't mention Ventura by name. Ventura ended up suing even after Kyle's death and wound up winning in part because of the reported "inconsistencies" in the witnesses accounts of the alleged incident, including from Chris's very own testimony. So, again I ask, if this part of Kyle's book is (allegedly) false, how the hell am I supposed to "believe" the REST of his book?

Here's a clip of Jesse Ventura discussing his case against Chris Kyle on Piers Morgan's now-defunct CNN talk show:

BATMAN

Batman is the 1989 theatrical version of the legendary comic book character directed by noted eccentric film director Tim Burton. The film stars Michael Keaton--who had previously starred in the title role of Tim Burton's earlier film Beetlejuice--as Bruce Wayne/Batman and Jack Nicholson as Batman's archenemy The Joker. The film shows billionaire Bruce Wayne as he begins his "moonlighting" as the Caped Crusader in his quest to fight crime in the fictional city of Gotham, the very crime that led to him witnessing the shooting deaths of his mother and father during a robbery as a child (which we see in flashbacks). Also in the film, we see the origins of The Joker who starts off being a murderous henchman of a major Gotham crime lord. During a fight with Batman, the future Joker falls in a vat of acid and winds up with a permanent smile on his face and all but winds up insane, which, of course, makes him all the more dangerous. Not only that, but Bruce Wayne figures out it was The Joker--back when he was a low level criminal--who had murdered his parents, which, of course, makes him all the more determined to stop the murderous clown. The issue I've always had with the Batman character is that he's either made too campy (ala the classic sixties TV series starring Adam West in the title role) or he's made too serious (ala the Christopher Nolan films with notoriously intense actor Christian Bale in the title role). I think Tim Burton's Batman finds the perfect balance of camp and seriousness. I also felt Jack Nicholson made the perfect Joker (some Batman fans, of course, might cite the late Heath Ledger's performance as The Joker in Christopher Nolan's The Dark Knight as being the all-time best, but I digress). Of course, an added bonus to the film is that there's no Robin ("Holy annoyances, Batman!")! And it's most certainly a damned sight BETTER than the hilariously campy Batman & Robin (which starred incredibly miscast George Clooney in the title role and pretty much killed the Batman franchise until Christopher Nolan rebooted it with his Batman Begins)! A sidenote: Diehard Batman fans took serious issue with the casting of "comedic" actor Michael Keaton as Batman, at least initially so, but most eventually warmed to him when they saw his performance as The Dark Knight in both Batman and its darker sequel--which, of course, was also directed by Tim Burton--Batman Returns (which also DIDN'T include Robin!). Batman was also noted for its breaking box office records at the time and also for beginning the "trend" of "darker" superhero films. (I'll, of course, let YOU decide if that's a good or a bad thing, OK?) 

ONE FOR THE MONEY

One For The Money is a 2012 action "comedy" that stars Katherine Heigl (of Grey's Anatomy fame). In the film, Katherine plays a down-on-her-luck former--and, no, I'm NOT making this up!--lingerie seller who turns to--and, again, I'm NOT making this up!--bounty hunting to help makes ends meet. She goes after a former flame of hers--whom she once ran over with her car on purpose--who's an ex-cop wanted for murdering a suspect. While she believes he's guilty of the crime he's accused of, at least at first, she finally reluctantly agrees to help him prove his innocence. The film, though it does have its entertaining moments, is pretty formulaic and has a nineties feel to it. The main reason to watch this particular flick is for Katherine Heigl's performance. Although she might not have the best reputation in Hollywood (Anne Hathaway, are you listening?), I myself have long been a fan of Katherine Heigl even back during the days she was starring in such low-budget cinematic fare like Bug Buster (co-starring the guy who played Sulu on Star Trek). I would recommend this film for diehard Katherine Heigl fans and/or if it's a slow night and you've got nothing better to watch. Oh yeah, there's also a sexy shower scene in this flick that, while Katherine doesn't show EVERYTHING, she comes pretty damn close!   

Here's a clip of the Katherine Heigl shower scene from One For The Money (enjoy!): 

HALLOWEEN II (the Rob Zombie remake)

Halloween II is the sequel to rocker-turned-film-director Rob Zombie's controversial remake of John Carpenter's late-seventies horror classic. The film, for those few of you who have never seen or heard of the Halloween flicks, further documents notorious mask-wearing murderer Michael Myers. The sequel focuses less on Michael and more on Laurie who is Michael's long lost sister (who was played by actress Jamie Lee Curtis in John Carpenter's film and following sequel along with two other sequels). The film begins showing the aftermath of the first film where Laurie shoots Michael and she gets sent to the hospital while Michael "escapes" out of the ambulance he's being carried off in. Just like in the first sequel, Laurie "imagines" Michael is stalking her while she's in the hospital. She and everyone else involved with the case believes Michael is dead. However, unbeknownst to Laurie, not only is Michael still alive and continuing his gruesome killing spree on his way back to her but she also learns that she is Michael's long lost sister after reading Dr. Loomis's book--Dr. Loomis being, of course, the doctor who "treated" Myers before his bloody escape from the loony bin--about Michael's bloody killing spree. It probably goes without saying that Laurie is none too happy finding out about this and it ends up seriously screwing with her head. Michael ends up kidnapping Laurie and takes her to an abandoned shed. Throughout the movie, Michael sees visions of his mother along with his younger self who "instruct" him on what do to. While in the shed, Laurie also "sees" their mother and her younger brother who likewise "instructs" her what to do. To make amends for what he's done, Dr. Loomis enters the shed while the police is surrounding the shed with their guns drawn and tries to convince Michael to let Laurie go. Now there's two different endings to this flick. The theatrical version--spoiler alert!--shows Michael stabbiing Loomis literally to death before being shot by police. Laurie then grabs Michael's knife and, after telling him that she "loves" him, stabs him to death before stepping outside the cabin while wearing Michael's infamous murder mask. The "alternate" ending, the one which Zombie reportedly preferred (and another spoiler alert!), shows Michael gripping Dr. Loomis in a bear hug outside the shed before removing his mask and showing his face (something he, of course, has NEVER done in any of the earlier films) and he says "Die!"--his first works EVER spoken--and fatally stabs Loomis. The police then shoot him down. Laurie then steps out and grabs Michael's knife and walks over to the lifeless body of Dr. Loomis. As she's staring down at the doctor's body while holding her dead brother's bloody knife, one of the cops inexplicably shoots her. Both endings show Laurie in a loony bin imagining her mother walking towards her next to a white horse. Frankly, I prefer the theatrical ending myself since I think it makes Michael Myers LESS scary unmasking him and showing the actor's face (the actor in this case being former pro-wrestler Tyler Mane who played mutant villain Sabretooth in the very first X-Men movie). Plus it didn't make much sense, at least for me, to have Laurie shot by police and THEN showing her in the nut house or whatever (so does THAT mean she only "imagined" her encounter with Michael like she did in the hospital?). Again, frankly, I think Rob Zombie likes screwing around with moviegoers (as he seemingly did in his notoriously nonsensical the earlier-reviewed Lords Of Salem flick). However, in spite of the two vastly different endings, I still think Rob Zombie's Halloween II is a pretty decent--albeit gory-as-hell--remake of the classic film (which, I must admit, I wasn't the biggest fan of to begin with). It was certainly a hell of a lot better--again, at least to me--than the rather crappy sequels throughout the eighties and nineties (with the exception of H2O which marked the return of Jamie Lee Curtis in the Halloween franchise and which would have to be my all-time favorite Halloween film). And DON'T get me started on that godawful third Halloween sequel which didn't even feature Michael Myers at all. Even WITH the rather questionable "alternate" ending, Zombie's Halloween sequel was certainly a hell of a lot better than THAT! A sidenote: Halloween fans will probably know there was likewise an "alternate" ending to the first Halloween sequel that was shown on TV known as the TV cut. Maybe--just maybe!--Rob was paying "homage" to this by filming an "alternate" ending to his own Halloween sequel. You think? There was also a grisly murder "connected" to the first Halloween sequel where a deranged man by the name of Richard Delmer Boyer repeatedly stabbed elderly couple Francis and Eileen Harbitz to death back in 1982. It was revealed in court that Boyer suffered from hallucinations and that he had seen Halloween 2 while under the influence of PCP, marijuana and alcohol. Boyer was convicted and sentenced to death. The case became known in the press as the Halloween II Murders when the flick became the first motion picture in American legal history to be entered as "evidence" in a murder trial. Predictably, the brutal murders caused SOME "moral" critics to call for ALL horror/slasher flicks to be--that's right!--banned. Good thing that DIDN'T happen! Actually, I think Rob Zombie or somebody ought to do a movie about this, wouldn't you agree?

Here's a video someone posted on YouTube combining both the theatrical and alternate endings of Rob Zombie's Halloween II that I found rather interesting: