Knocked up – see it if you want some really good light entertainment
Posted by Nicholas Gruen on Wednesday, July 18, 2007
Killing a night in Sydney I went to see Knocked Up which I’d heard good things about. Thoroughly accurate things. It’s terrific. I’m afraid I couldn’t take my eyes of Katherine Heigl. These are the unfair things that Hollywood does to us little people out here. Anyway, go and enjoy.
Edit 2007/12/29: There is no Elisha Gray on this page, sorry. I don’t know why MSN sent you here. May I recommend going to Wikipedia? — Jacques.
This entry was posted on Wednesday, July 18th, 2007 at 12:17 AM and filed under Films and TV.
Follow comments here with the RSS 2.0 feed.
Apologies. Comments and trackbacks are both currently closed.
I just came back from Transformers myself. It was chockers full of crunchy geek goodness. I couldn’t take my eyes off Megan Fox, but then, neither did the director.
Posted on 18-Jul-07 at 2:22 am | Permalink‘Tis a splendid film, isn’t it? Though Heigl is so ludicrously skinny it’s hard to imagine her being pregnant at first.
The Troppo quote for today – ‘To hold a pen is to be at war’ – at first read to me like this:
‘To hold a penis, to be at war.’
Perhaps they’re not so different after all.
Posted on 18-Jul-07 at 7:37 am | PermalinkI’m looking forward to seeing it sometime soon, with the 15 year old daughter once she has recovered from the current bout of Pottermania. I was interested to hear Judd Apatow say that he has had some flak from pro-choice groups in the US, who see it as an anti-abortion film. That is, to portray anyone choosing to proceed with a pregnancy when abortion is clearly the sensible option must mean that you are anti-abortion.
Posted on 18-Jul-07 at 9:06 am | PermalinkInteresting, BG. Here are two examples:
http://newsblaze.com/story/20070627085656tsop.nb/topstory.html
http://www.prochoicemaryland.org/politicalupdates/press/200706111.shtml
Posted on 18-Jul-07 at 9:17 am | PermalinkI didn’t see it as anti-abortion – it was clearly mentioned that it was an option she was considering.
I found it very funny – and very crass! And I think it put back my plans on having kiddies a good five years with the crowning scene. Eeeeeeegggggghk.
Posted on 18-Jul-07 at 9:43 am | PermalinkThanks TimT – and do the pro-choice lobby really need to wonder why so many people think they are pro-abortion?
Posted on 18-Jul-07 at 12:20 pm | Permalink“Tis a splendid film, isnt it? Though Heigl is so ludicrously skinny its hard to imagine her being pregnant at first.”
Is it fashionable to like fat chicks or something now?
http://www.hollywood-celebrity-pictures.com/Celebrities/Katherine-Heigl/Katherine-Heigl-16.JPG
How is Katherine Heigl skinny? If anything she’s one of the more built actresses getting around.
Stop pandering to womynists and grow a sack TimT.
Posted on 18-Jul-07 at 3:35 pm | PermalinkYobbo! This chick just called me! She’s got the hots for young libertarians in the north of Australia, and she wants your number!
Posted on 18-Jul-07 at 4:40 pm | PermalinkYes BG, Infuriating that the film is regarded as anti-abortion. It shows someone wanting to keep their baby. No angst, no moralising about the subject whatsoever. If anything it would have been more realistic – and still not anti-abortion if it had contained that. But then that’s the logic of (a certain conception of) political action – any admission of alternatives is to be anathematised.
Posted on 18-Jul-07 at 6:37 pm | PermalinkIf Heigl had had an abortion, = no plot, hence no film. However, we do have to stretch our credibility a little to believe Heigl deciding to have the slacker guy’s baby. However, I did notice the subtle hints which you might have missed: was it a coincidence that Heigl’s mum was the one wanting her to have an abortion and she was portrayed as a tragic, cold, botoxed, selfish old caricature. Whereas Slacker’s dad, who would rather they carried the pregnancy to term, was portrayed as warm, human, lovable.
The film didn’t delve into the issue far enough to come out as clear pro- or anti-, but the stereotypes made the message loud and clear, at least to me.
Posted on 29-Dec-07 at 6:46 pm | PermalinkSorry about the two Howevers in that comment.
Posted on 29-Dec-07 at 6:47 pm | PermalinkHelen, do you think it is possible that they weren’t hints?
Posted on 30-Dec-07 at 1:08 pm | PermalinkSometimes a cigar is only a cigar.
But. Portrayal of individuals presenting the opposing sides is not nothing, given the fact that we’re talking about a film here, not a random event in reality. The director and writer portrays things a certain way for a reason.
The forced-birth movement in the US is simply too powerful for an American moviemaker to make a film sympathetic to a woman choosing an abortion. They’d simply be crucified, and be a box office flop. But, to be fair, as I’ve said they need the pregnancy to go ahead in order to have a plot.
Posted on 31-Dec-07 at 2:37 pm | Permalink