V for Ultraviolet in the Underworld's Fluxing Tomb

First I would like to suggest that Yahoo begin putting Erin Brokovich's picture in their advertisements rather than Angelina Jolie's. Not that I have anything against her. Evidently she is a humanitarian spreading her cause in Africa. I would like to see some evidence of her work rather than mug shots of her and Brad and their new baby. In terms of a successful movie career I would have to rate Pitt as one of the most successful actors of our time. He is a young Redford, and movies such as A River Runs Through It and Legends of the Fall will go down in cinematic history. There are epic qualities in his performances, and I hope he gets back to work after the hub bub of their new baby. Jolie on the other hand? Mr. and Mrs. Smith, as its director suggested, was the first time Jolie exhibited these particular qualities on screen. What were these? They were "womanly" characteristics reminiscent of Marilyn Monroe, and they were directed at Brad Pitt. Just like the recent romance of Jennifer Anniston and Vince Vaughn, those interactions were strong enough to light semi-permanent fires in their loins. It just proves the emotions involved in acting are real. Artists are able to interject real life experiences into chosen situations lending an authenticity hopefully that transcends the screen and sustains the test of time. Does Jolie have a filmography substantial enough to merit plastering her mug all over pop culture America? I'm not sure, but her appearance on Anderson Cooper's 360 may spread some light on what she is trying to achieve. I don't know if Laura Croft, Tomb Raider does it. For that matter I am not sure any of the films in that category are doing much for American society. What is that genre, a group of films with desolate, lonely, female super heroes? I don't know where it came from, just like I don't know where the "metrosexual" movement came from. South Park made fun of the latter poking fun at a government that tried to feminize society only to be taken over by Crab People. I wish they would do an episode on these films.
V for Vandetta with Natalie Portman.
Laura Croft Tomb Raider with Angelina Jolie.
Ultraviolet with Milla Jovovich.
Underworld with Kate Beckinsale.
Aeon Flux with Charlize Theron.
Crouching Tiger Hidden Dragon with Ziyi Zhang.
I would consider them women's lib films, because they glorify women as super heroes rather than sex symbols. Although the characters are feminine in certain situations, say Jolie's artificially enhanced breasts bulging from beneath her tight costume, that combination is not traditional. The film industry is breaking ground in a way liberating itself from that sexual stereotype of Marilyn. In doing so is their purpose well-conceived? What are they trying to accomplish? Redefining human perception is a risky concept, as we have found with the current Republican political regime. I would rather not wake up everyday with media and government redefining my sensibilities. Am I supposed to be attracted to these creatures, super heroes in Spandex, fighting world corruption trapped in a lonely, bleak, and desolate life? That isn't appealing. What is appealing is a character that has their feet firmly planted in reality. It is not a new problem, because many films are presenting similar scenarios of human ambiguity. Broke Back Mountain took the first step in trying to glamorize homosexuality. It seems our creative society is trying to become more liberal, but on what grounds? Does this trend have moral and ethical roots? Is the agenda going to help and enlighten American society, or is it just trying to create controversy to make money? I would say the latter, because upon examining human history these films are dealing with situations that aren't based in reality. Okay fiction, or say comic books. We know that has been a huge trend in the last decade, and I still say it is failing. Comic books don't translate well to the big screen, because the big screen traditionally has dealt with human perceptions. There have been lots of fictitious stories and situations, but they are usually dealt with in human terms. Now the film industry is interjecting inhuman characteristic, behaviors that are not traditionally human. When a film abandons traditional human emotions such as compassion, disappointment, love, and bemusement they are in essence trying to re-define humanity. Do we as a culture really want to question our emotions and ethical and moral systems? Should we allow Sony Playstation characters, DC Comics characters, and aliens to create a new belief system? Wouldn't we feel more comfortable and secure with a reassurance of our traditional belief systems? I really don't find soul searching that enjoyable in the theatre. I try to work those issues out in my own time. Watching films with confused characters isn't easy or fun. I usually attempt to find some basic human instinct in a film, and that is becoming more difficult. Isn't my gut reaction as a man supposed to lust after a busty Laura Croft? Is this what the creators intended? I'm not sure they know. What purpose do these characters serve? Take women as attractive as these and cloud human response with despondency? I don't get it. Beautiful sexy bodies wrapped in a shroud of despair and loneliness? I am waiting for a film where my sensibilities as a 43 year old are reinforced, that blessed feeling that allows me to be intrigued and titillated by a woman character without being chastised as a male chauvinist pig. My life as a single adult seems to have been reduced to a continual state of guilt, because I would like still to be attracted a women. Why should I have to defend what used to be the majority sentiment of man? That is why I enjoy the movie Lolita so much. It allows me to indulge in unbridled love with no societal agenda projected upon me. I don't have to try to understand what I feel and believe, because it is reinforced. This trend in film reinforces in my mind there is a Totalitarian regime trying to achieve some unknown agenda. It appears to be homosexual in nature.