InAlienable (2007)
4/10
Sexist rip-off!!!
30 May 2011
Warning: Spoilers
Firstly, we rented this movie to see what kind of an actor legally troubled millionaire Richard Hatch, season #1's SURVIVOR winner back in 2000, is when he's reading lines on a sound stage (as opposed to grunting utterances scripted for "impromptu" jungle delivery). Well, it turns out the DVD box designers gave some money (not very much, obviously) to director Robert Dyke and a few other people so an old geezer born during WWII and appearing in soap operas since 1971 (!) could be headlined as THE Richard Hatch of whom everyone has heard at the top of the flick case. This other Richard Hatch is an even WORSE actor than the notable one, making a movie centering around him a colossal bore from the git-go.

To add insult to injury, this decrepit Hatch (think Grandpa Clampett, or the hatch on LOST after the explosion) has a baby! Apparently in movies people can do ANYTHING, so normally one might greet this development with a simple "You go, guy!" But this kid has about half a dozen tentacles, and was "born" with Jason Voorheis' hockey mask glued to his face! The producers are implying, if a guy has a baby, it just naturally MUST be a monster. Talk about sexist! That would be like Hollywood implying if a woman is U.S. president, she just naturally MUST be a total screw-up (oops--I guess that was the whole point of the last couple seasons of Cherry Jones "work" on Fox TV network's Jack Bauer soap opera, 24). Hopefully, all those feminists out there will protest INALIENABLE's portrayal of male maternity just as shrilly as any of the other things squawked about.
2 out of 11 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Recently Viewed