If you must describe an actress as "actually 18 and looks it despite preventative measures" in a review while complaining that this movie isn't believable bc it depicts a "pre-sexualized version of youth" maybe you - and your editor - should rethink what you're actually saying. https://t.co/d9N4ytzKl5— Mallory Yu (@mallory_yu) July 29, 2019
ALSO, separate from being super gross and objectifying, this THR Dora "review" isn't actually /useful/ for the reader. What is this telling audiences? How - exactly - will this ill-conceived slew of words help us evaluate whether this is a movie we or our children should watch?— Mallory Yu (@mallory_yu) July 29, 2019
( Read more...Collapse )
The Hollywood Reporter's review of the upcoming Dora and the Lost City of Gold is drawing attention on film twitter because of the uncomfortable way the male critic writes about its lead, Isabel Moner. His whole review seems preoccupied with its leads appearances and how the characters have been aged up to appeal to a more "hormonal demographic" and yet the film lacks a certain bite. And then it closes with the following:
What keeps things alive, up to a point, is the imperturbable attitude of the titular heroine, who is invested with try-and-stop-me spirit by Moner, who's actually 18 and looks it despite preventive measures. The same goes for Wahlberg, who's 19. There's a palpable gap you can't help but notice between the essentially innocent, borderline-pubescent nature of the leading characters and the film itself, and the more confident and mature vibes emanating from the leading actors. The director seems to be trying to keep the hormones at bay, but there are some things you just can't disguise, perhaps human nature first and foremost. Dora seems committed to projecting a pre-sexualized version of youth, while throbbing unacknowledged beneath the surface is something a bit more real, its presence rigorously ignored. To be believed, this story should have been set in 1955.