Underwear

Rating: Null/10 (17 September 2004)

Spoilers herein.
Style and genre aside, the central engine behind this project is sex. This is fine with me, after all we go to films to define fantasy, and we demand ever new twists on what we want.
We don't have many kickass female heroines. I suppose the key milestone was Weaver's Ripley. Extremely stylish and dark surroundings, but we knew though she was in the darkness, she was fighting it. This was in the context of Michelle and Julie as Catwoman and TeeVee's Mrs Peel, all in tight leather.
Another touchstone was Angeline Jolie's Tomb Raider. All her female parts were pumped up to press upon that leather and give us a Playboy female version of 60's James Bond. In all cases, you start with the female character and wrap in some dark environment. All the rest, story and tone are subservient.
What we have here is something interesting. This 30 year old has the figure and face of a magazine model, with the bored flat expression to match. Pour this tight little body into a rubber suit with especially reflective pants and you have something to anchor your movie. Everything else - story, action, mythology etc, was just borrowed.
Imagine, a vampire story with no redheads! Just goes to show that no one involved understood the genre. They just wanted to feature that rubber underwear. All the style is simply in support.
But to make this work, you have to have a charismatic woman, or an extremely skillful filmmaker. This has neither and likely won't be cited as a touchstone by a commenter on whatever sex role experiment the movie world next produces.
Ted's Evaluation -- 1 of 3: You can find something better to do with this part of your life.