My super ex-girlfriend

[RobertScorpio]

Okay...I just saw this movie over the weekend, at great urging by my wife. If taken as what it is, a chic-flick superhero movie, I liked it. The FX are actually pretty good, and the plot, whimsical as it is, is pretty cute.

And if you're like me, and you have angered girls in your past, this movie makes you glad you never dated a superheroin. Uma Thurman is still sexy, and I think she did great.

This movie is not made for the 'Big Bang Theory" crowd, but it is aimed at 'couples'. And, shockingly, I think it is better than Spiderman 3, 2008 Hulk, either of the Fantastic Four movies, Ghost Rider, Electra and DareDevil, and all but two Batman movies....

If you have seen the movie, please explain one part. When Uma is having sex with Wilson, exactly what is causing the bed to thrust into the wall if they are both on the bed?? I think I know what it is, but I want to make sure...and if it is what I think it is, then....wow....if only they sold Krytonian Vagina toys at the local sex shop!!!

Rob
Scorpio

[Hermiod]

RobertScorpio wrote:

---

And if you're like me, and you have angered girls in your past, this movie makes you glad you never dated a superheroin. Uma Thurman is still sexy, and I think she did great.

Exactly why I won't be watching it.

[John Picard]

Dude, if you don't know what's causing the bed to move, you just outed yourself as a virgin

[Lindley]

Dismembered Picard wrote:

---

Dude, if you don't know what's causing the bed to move, you just outed yourself as a virgin

Why is that funny?

[RobertScorpio]

Dismembered Picard wrote:

---

Dude, if you don't know what's causing the bed to move, you just outed yourself as a virgin

Well, as a father of three kids, I know what makes a bed squeek and move, we've all done that (hopefully). But for the bed to be smashed through a wall? I know that in the very next scene he is walking with a 'pained look' on his face...but if she thrusted him that hard? I don't know about you, but even my penis would have had elignment issues the next day..

Rob

[Norrin Radd]

Just a terrible film. Why does Luke Wilson have to waste his talent in such shite? And what happened to Ivan Reitman? He hasn't made a decent movie since Dave.

[God Magnus]

It wasn't a horrible film, but not particularly memorable either. What I enjoyed were the performances of the actors in a relatively absurd situation. I do agree the FX were pretty good and I could relate to the "psycho ex" angle quite well.

[RobertScorpio]

God Magnus wrote:

---

It wasn't a horrible film, but not particularly memorable either. What I enjoyed were the performances of the actors in a relatively absurd situation. I do agree the FX were pretty good and I could relate to the "psycho ex" angle quite well.

Which is exactly how I saw it, just like you. The post above yours totally misses the point. If "he" or "she" were to see it with their significant other I think they'd have appreciated it more...but as I said, the movie was not made for the nerdy crowd, it was a chicflic. And, on this site, chicflicks are not appreciated...for obvious reasons. Wrong crowd.

rob
scorpio

[John Picard]

RobertScorpio wrote:

---

Well, as a father of three kids, I know what makes a bed squeek and move, we've all done that (hopefully). But for the bed to be smashed through a wall? I know that in the very next scene he is walking with a 'pained look' on his face...but if she thrusted him that hard? I don't know about you, but even my penis would have had elignment issues the next day..

Rob

Well then, maybe you need to stop with the "lights out, missionary position only"

I thought the film was funny. It could have been more, but damn, I've had the clingy type girlfriend once, which made me both laugh and wince at Uma Thurman's character. I thought it was funny when she put his car up in orbit around the earth.

[Hermiod]

RobertScorpio wrote:

---

Which is exactly how I saw it, just like you. The post above yours totally misses the point. If "he" or "she" were to see it with their significant other I think they'd have appreciated it more...but as I said, the movie was not made for the nerdy crowd, it was a chicflic. And, on this site, chicflicks are not appreciated...for obvious reasons. Wrong crowd.

The fact that it's a chick flick loses it points, sure. The fact that they've turned Fatal Attraction in to a comedy by giving the equivalent of Glenn Close's character super powers loses it more. The subject of violent, deranged ex-girlfriends isn't a particularly good source of comedy despite the perception that being a "Bunny Boiler" is okay.

[RobertScorpio]

Hermiod wrote:

---

The fact that it's a chick flick loses it points, sure. The fact that they've turned Fatal Attraction in to a comedy by giving the equivalent of Glenn Close's character super powers loses it more.

Umm, I like the Fatal Attraction nod, I hadn't noticed that.

That movie, Fatal Attraction, came out at a time when I was dating this girl who was, well, nutty. The only reason I dated her was because she looked like Rosanne Aquette. But this chic had issues, and obvious hate for her father and ex-husband. Well, it lasted for about five dates. I got what I wanted out of it, sex, and put the brakes on....but we broke up about a year after that movie, and I was fearful she might remember me and come after me and my new girl at the time!!! yikes

Rob

[Christopher]

The idea was okay, but I didn't like the execution. I wasn't too fond of the casting, especially that Rainn Wilson guy, who's unbearable. The characters were too broad. I don't remember all the things I didn't like about it, but overall I give it a C-.

The problem with the bed scene wasn't that the bed was moving, but the direction that it was moving. Spoiler-boxed for more-or-less explicit discussion:

As I recall the scene, he was on his back and she was upright on top of him as they copulated. Therefore, her predominant motion would've been up and down. But the bed was moving horizontally, more the way you'd expect if their positions had been reversed, with her on her back and him thrusting in and out. It's like showing someone push an object northward and have it move eastward -- it doesn't make physical sense. I suppose it's possible she could've been thrusting forward and back with her pelvis, but doing so with such superhuman force in that position would've probably done severe damage to his genitalia.

[RobertScorpio]

Christopher wrote:

---

The idea was okay, but I didn't like the execution. I wasn't too fond of the casting, especially that Rainn Wilson guy, who's unbearable. The characters were too broad. I don't remember all the things I didn't like about it, but overall I give it a C-.

The problem with the bed scene wasn't that the bed was moving, but the direction that it was moving. Spoiler-boxed for more-or-less explicit discussion:

As I recall the scene, he was on his back and she was upright on top of him as they copulated. Therefore, her predominant motion would've been up and down. But the bed was moving horizontally, more the way you'd expect if their positions had been reversed, with her on her back and him thrusting in and out. It's like showing someone push an object northward and have it move eastward -- it doesn't make physical sense. I suppose it's possible she could've been thrusting forward and back with her pelvis, but doing so with such superhuman force in that position would've probably done severe damage to his genitalia.

C- is what I would give it..maybe a C. My wife loved it. And at a recent party we were at, it came up in conversation. And the women seemed to like the movie a lot, which was the targeted audience.

As for your 'censored' topic about the bed. I totally agree. I think his 'organ' would have been inverted; for life!!

Rob

[Gojirob]

I could buy every part of her 'if I'd wanted to kill you, I would have' argument when explaining her tantrums - except the shark. A thrashing about shark does not know shit about her desire to scare but not kill him. Cute and all, but if it'd been a guy, this would have been a horror movie. That said, I knew a woman who had no friends of her own, a fact that worried her husband who did, especially when she wanted 100% of his attention, as opposed to 95-97%. I think Thurman's character having a BFF at the end will help her super-low self-esteem. That part was an interesting take on powers not changing who you really are. The movie is what it is, but one part I do find objectionable - her ex was not this womanizing creep, but a fairly nice schlub who tried to let her down easy. That could be viewed as a change of pace, but it really made me feel a lot like he didn't deserve it.

[Hermiod]

Gojirob wrote:

---

I could buy every part of her 'if I'd wanted to kill you, I would have' argument when explaining her tantrums - except the shark. A thrashing about shark does not know shit about her desire to scare but not kill him. Cute and all, but if it'd been a guy, this would have been a horror movie.

Exactly how I feel about it.