Blondes

I haven’t discussed women in some time.  I guess I’m overdue to address the topic once more.  In this case, it’s blondes.

My preference is for brunettes.  The darker the hair, the better, which is why I’ve dated Asians.  Come to think of it, “blonde” necessarily means “white”, because – hair coloring notwithstanding – few black or Asian women come equipped with blonde hair.  And I can’t say that blonde hair is such a huge benefit such that black or Asian women should feel compelled (except out of sheer boredom) to try being a blonde. 

Obviously I can’t comment on ALL blonde women, so I’ll keep my analysis brief.  The list is NOT exhaustive.

Kate Upton.  This woman is as noticeable for her….assets…as her hair color.  She could be any color and we’d still lose our tongues rolling to the ground, Tex Avery style.  But she still counts.

Scarlett Johansson.  Nowadays she’s more of a redhead as Black Widow, but still scrumptious anyway.  Check her out in “Vicky Christina Barcelona”, or – if you’re inclined to see her as a nude, slightly out of shape brunette, “Under The Skin”.

Emily Wickersham.  I was watching “NCIS” at the gym, and saw this girl “Bishop”, with the dark eyebrows and killer smile.  If she’s on the screen, I can’t take my eyes off her.  I haven’t seen her in anything else, though she has been busy. 

Marilyn Monroe.  The original.  In “The Seven Year Itch” she’s highly provocative, tempting poor Tom Ewell whose wife is away on vacation.  You can’t tell whether she means to tease him or just does so by nature. 

Helen Mirren.  Still a fox, but she was definitely HOT HOT HOT in “The Age of Consent”, a 1969 film with James Mason.  She plays a young Australian girl who swims around half naked and poses nude for Mason’s character, an artist. 

Amanda Seyfried.  I liked her in “Mama Mia” and look forward to seeing her in “Ted 2”.

Reese Witherspoon.  Pretty, but not hot.  She has her moments.

Pamela Anderson.  “NO TO MAKE HAND PARTY WITH PAMELA!”  No, she didn’t marry Borat.

Christina Applegate.  Or Alicia Silverstone?  I get them mixed up.

Jenny McCarthy.  Cousin of Melissa McCarthy.  JMcC doesn’t seem to do much except be hot.  I prefer her as a brunette, though.

Britney Spears.  Still desirable, though in a kind of white-trashy way. 

Sofia Vergara & Emma Stone.  Remarkably, both women are natural blondes, but almost never portray blondes on screen.  Vergara usually plays brunettes as – for some reason – us Americans can’t fathom a blonde Latina (they do exist).  Vergara is hotter now than she was when she was younger.  What makes her irresistible is this ability to laugh at herself (which Carrie Fisher has as well). 

            Stone found she got more work as a redhead, though she went natural in “Birdman”. 

Dumb blondes?  I haven’t known any blondes to be any dumber than brunettes or redheads, nor is there any reason why hair color would have any effect on intellect.  If so, could a woman improve her intelligence by changing her hair color?  Doubtful.

REDs 1 & 2

This is the first of my trilogy of blogs on movies with excellent sequels, the RED-Ass-Burgundy Trilogy.

RED.  Frank Moses (Bruce Willis) thought he had retired from “The Company” (CIA), but his life gets considerably more interesting when masked intruders break into his house in an unsuccessful attempt to kill him – instead of simply banishing him to a boring little village until he reveals why he retired.  He shanghai’s his pension case worker Sarah Ross (Mary Louise Parker, best known as Nancy Botwin from “Weeds”) and off they go across the US in a Big Adventure, the primary purpose of which is to find out who is trying to kill him and why.  Along the way they pick up old buddy Joe (Morgan Freeman), paranoid maniac Marvin (John Malkovich) (maybe not as paranoid as he appears), MI6 assassin Victoria (Helen Mirren) and KGB counterpart Ivan (Brian Cox).   Even Richard Dreyfuss has an amusing role in this whole thing.  RED stands for “Retired, Extremely Dangerous”, which all these old folks definitely prove to be.

            Naturally they get some official scrutiny from a currently serving CIA badass Cooper (badass Karl Urban) who senses that his boss isn’t being completely forthcoming in the information department. 

            Like “True Lies”, the movie is simultaneously a parody of the action shoot-em-up big explosion genre, but also an excellent example of the genre in its own right.  Like that film, its charm is that it doesn’t take itself too seriously.  Because of that, it’s a blow-‘em-up film that the female half of the couple can watch and enjoy too, not rolling her eyes like “you KNOW I hate these films!” but loving it almost as much as the male half does.

RED 2.   Apparently “RED” was successful enough to merit a sequel and a larger budget.  While the first film was 100% baseball, hot dogs, apple pie and Chevrolet, taking place in the USA (“America!  F**K yeah!”) this film got its passports stamped….

            Frank and Sarah’s domestic bliss and boredom are rudely interrupted when Marvin accosts them in Home Depot…and the fireworks begin again.  This time around a befuddled, absent-minded mad scientist who is not quite as dead as everyone assumed, Bailey (Anthony Hopkins) enters the equation.  Paris, London, and Moscow are the scenes this time around.  Ivan and Victoria return, but Cooper’s role [sympathetic adversarial US official authority figure] is taken by Jack Horton (Neal McDonough) and Katja (Catherine Zeta-Jones, as delicious here as she ever is) stops by to make Sarah jealous and uneasy.  There’s even Han (Byung-Hun Lee), a mysterious assassin whose role seems to be ….to satisfy the EEOC and put an Asian person in the film, and naturally he does martial arts.  At least it’s not Jet Li or Jackie Chan.  RED 3 will probably have to include an openly gay character, as they cavort from planet to planet. 

            Bottom line: minor cast changes, major scenery changes, but the same zany fun, explosions, and witty dialogue.  Watch them back-to-back.   

Arthur v Arthur

A few months ago I saw the recent “Arthur” remake in the movie theater – the one with Russell Brand as the title character.  Only recently was I able to watch the original, with Dudley Moore, on DVD – it was heavily backlogged on Netflix.  I’m not the only one who seems to do this.  So in any case, a comparison between the two is appropriate.

 Story.  Arthur is a 30-something playboy with absolutely no responsibility.  His family has finally lost patience with him and insists that he marry a rich girl from another wealthy family, or they will cut off his inheritance – all $75 million.   With no job skills or clue how to look after himself, this should act as an incentive for him to get with the program.  But Arthur finds a simple girl he likes much more than his intended fiancé, and threatens to marry her instead.  The rest of the film is simply the resolution of this…issue.

 Original.  Dudley Moore played Arthur.  I never liked his “I’m sloshed!!  I’m in NY! I have an English accent and I don’t know why!” shtick.  Of course, this was the whole point, but he barely got likeable by the end of the film.  John Gielgud played his butler, Hobson (“shall I wipe your butt for you?” he asks out of earshot); Jill Eikenberry plays his intended (not very attractive at all); and Liza Minelli, always with a spectacularly unflattering short haircut, was actually fairly pretty and likeable as the rogue-ish simple girl (father played by Morty Seinfeld actor) who wins Arthur’s heart.   

 Remake.  This time around it’s Russell Brand as Arthur, Hobson has ovaries instead of testicles (Helen Mirren), the intended bride is MUCH hotter (Jennifer Garner – actually not that bad here), and the Liza replacement is fairly dull and oddball Greta Gerwig, snatching a role which should have gone to Zooey Deschanel.  She’s actually quite dull compared to Garner, whereas Minelli had easily topped Eikenberry.

 Between the two, I MUCH preferred Russell Brand.  He was more an overgrown man-child than an annoying lush.  Moore’s character hits into this problem I have with the Hollywood depiction of boozers:  if you’re drunk on wine, champagne, fancy drinks with paper umbrellas in them, or martinis (e.g. Hawkeye Pierce) that makes you 100x more sophisticated and likeable than the brute who drinks beer and whiskey, right?  WRONG.  Brand brought something to the role beyond simply “watch me fall over drunk and bring a prostitute to the restaurant”.  His irresponsibility (e.g. latemodel Batmobile) was enjoyable and entertaining in its own right, not merely as a contrast to his later sobering and mann-ing up. 

 What’s odder about this is that before this movie, I really did NOT like Brand.  The only role I had seen him in was “Forgetting Sarah Marshall”, in which he played Aldous Snow, the doofus rock star who the title character elopes with.  Since then I’ve read his book on West Ham FC, Irons in the Fire (no mention, whatsoever, of Steve Harris and Iron Maiden – what’s the deal with that?) but have only scanned through his autobiography.  Apparently he was a heroin addict but overcame his addiction.  This cuts both ways: he was a bonehead for getting hooked in the first place, but deserves credit for kicking the habit without OD’ing.  So far as I can tell, however, this “man-child” role is about as far removed from the real Russell Brand as Charlie Harper is from Charlie Sheen – except that Sheen has yet to fall in front of a Paris Metro train.   Anyhow, my preference for Brand in this role is for the simple fact that he made the character endearing even in the early phase of the story, whereas Moore was simply annoying.

 As for the rest, I have a slight preference for Mirren: she brought a motherly quality to the role that Gielgud could not. He was more like Benson from “Benson” – mostly (though not only) a nasty smart-ass.  Liza was better than Greta, Jennifer was better than Jill.