Oh, jeez. Medved is blathering on even more than usual (I used to actually like his reviews when he cohosted the PBS movie-review show with Jeffrey Lyon, but not anymore).

Yes, all of Hollywood's ills are due to tough female characters, not something as paltry as good writing!! Right wing chauvinist pig...

Ah. I take it he's known for this kind of thing, then?

I'm pretty sure the Ned Flanders character on The Simpsons is based on him, with some added humanizing touches.

This sentence, about Mr. and Mrs. Smith, made my brain hurt:

With her luminous eyes and luscious lips, Jolie is always riveting to watch, but her buxom, waiflike form and skinny arms make it wildly improbable that she could hold her own against the brazenly buff Mr. Pitt.

(a) I had no idea that it was physically possible for the same human form to be both buxom and waiflike; and (b) skinny arms, wha-huh? Jolie has always struck me as rather brazenly buff herself; Michael Medved is the first person I've ever heard, ever, EVAR, expressing any degree of disbelief that she could not only take Brad Pitt down if she really wanted to, but reduce him to a featureless pulpy mass with one hand tied behind her back without breaking a sweat.

Michael Medved is the first person I've ever heard, ever, EVAR, expressing any degree of disbelief that she could not only take Brad Pitt down if she really wanted to, but reduce him to a featureless pulpy mass with one hand tied behind her back without breaking a sweat.

You didn't ask me. She was not buff in the movie. She was scrawny as hell. Not buff. I disagree with most of his points, but the weakest part (well, the whole no-plot thing was an issue too) of a movie I really enjoyed was how one of the equal physical protagonists looked like a lollipop with breasts. And Mrs. Smith wasn't as crazy as Jolie can seem, which is what I'd chalk up as Angelina's main equaliser.

Ehn. In the first picture, she still looks, to my eyes anyway, at any rate physically tougher than Reese or Julia Roberts or whoever else Medved mentioned approvingly in that article. If she actually looked in the film the way she did in the second picture, that'd be bad, but it looks so creepily perfect and airbrushed it's hard to tell. I totally defer to your far more informed who's-actually-buff judgment, though.

Doesn't make me like the article, or Medved's general Flandersness, any better, though.

He doesn't have to be wrong about every opinion to be an idiot.

As for Mrs. Smith, I was most struck in the chair balancing scene of how little muscle mass she was toting. I'm pissed to drop to 135 - I'd have to be at least ten (at least) pounds lighter again to have arms like her. And they call me skinny at the centre at 145.

Fighting up in weight classes is hard.

She's definately not as physically impressive/potentially intimidating as she is in the image I have of her in my head.

She's definately not as physically impressive/potentially intimidating as she is in the image I have of her in my head.

I'll have to agree with Debeyesse here.

And, speak of arms, my viewing of the movie Chicago was somewhat spoiled by the scrawny yet muscular arms of Renee Zellweger in flapper garb. It just looked non-period and WRONG to me. Either really thin, or with a bit of flab, but Roxie Hart wouldn't have those arms.

In the two Kill Bill movies, lithe, lovely Uma Thurman becomes a sadistic avenger who, in one much-heralded scene, uses Samurai swords to dismember more than 80 highly trained, male Ninja assassins.

Hereby proving that he can't do his job very well. If he had watched the second one, David Carradine actually SAYS that there weren't that many.

Despite political correctness, most of us continue to harbor a visceral preference for brawny male cops or firefighters to come to our rescue in emergencies.

This sounds to me like Michael Medved's personal preference. Not that there's anything wrong with that.