Barbie (2023) | a Review
originally published on 28/07/2023;
Hello everyone, I am the fabulous G.E.M.Simov, a doll that’s more of an Allan than a Ken or a Barbie, and I’ve come to tell you about the film “Barbie” (2023).
Simple review details - I rank movies on an out of 10 basis, granting up to 3 points in 3 categories, as well as a last, single point from my own self, depending on my experience with it.
A disclaimer - the terms 'movie' and 'film' will be used interchangeably in this review.
Presentation
Should that, which is presented, be featured under Presentation, or should it be put in the Story section? I will opt for the former option and talk about what was presented here, for I think the way it was presented is important (and also quite good).
The movie is incredibly wonderful to watch. It’s a delight - for it features a plethora of approaches. There is a narrator, there are musical performances by the characters, there are lengthy monologues, there are other bits of narration done by characters, rather than the narrator, there are visual artifacts that break the fourth wall whilst also remaining somewhat rooted in the world of the movie - there’s a lot.
That stuff is all weaved together into a mess of bright and pleasant for the eye colors, songs that would have been cringe-worthy, had it not been for the well-timed interruptions that remind the audience that this film is not entirely serious and has, as a goal, to entertain, rather than purely enrich the viewer. Jokes were present, here and there, and a decent portion of them landed, while the rest dwelled between the realm of: “I see what they were going for” and the dreaded zone of: “That’s cringe”
Overall, though, it’s more funny than it is uncomfortable, and that’s a decently sized plus for it. Coupled with the brightness and the color palette used, it manages to present a very high-energy, uplifting and positive viewing experience - when it wants to do that. Naturally, there are some moments that purposefully present a more grim, darker visual meld.
Those scenes are not exclusively dark, though, for the presence of the characters - namely the titular pair, Barbie and Ken - who are always clad in wondrously bombastic and colorful outfits invites that pleasantness which would otherwise be absent. Regardless, the scenes that aim to be more discomforting, more unnerving and less cozy, for the audience and the characters in the movie, are well conveyed as being such, without having a moment wherein one is told that it is so.
Music-wise, I would not say that this movie was spectacular. Sure, it had some neat tracks - namely those that were musical pieces performed by the characters - which were neat due to the fact that they got interrupted on occasion and served as a means of conveying the state of the story and the characters performing said songs. The rest was a mixed bag of nothing unique, but it was not too invasive and thus managed to avoid displeasing me.
Now, onto the content that was presented. I will treat this section as a pseudo-reaction to the reactions of reactionaries who subscribe to conservative, right-wing ideas, whilst also presenting some of my interpretations of that which is shown.
Starting off gently, there is a lot of representation in this film - and some people might find that problematic - but truly, is it? There is a single gay couple that is shown for a couple of seconds, there is a single overweight (or should it be plus-sized?) Barbie that fits in, and then there’s a disabled Barbie in a wheelchair, who shows up for one scene.
Admittedly, I found that last one a bit weird, but the fact that she was framed by at least ten other, not-disabled Barbies made me consider that her inclusion could be construed as both tokenization - there has to be a disabled Barbie - but also as a perfectly natural addition. Now, the fact that she was dancing might be what I found odd, but it is important to note that such things should not be areas of exclusion for disabled people, and it should be considered perfectly normal to dance however one can whenever one desires to do so.
So, is there an issue with just how much diversity is put on display? I’d argue that there is no issue here - after all, squaring them up to all the other characters on display, they’re 1 in a 100, maybe even 1 in a 1000, so one can’t complain that there are too many folks of that variety.
Excuse the use of that set of words - “folks of that variety” - but they were intentionally used as a means of segwaying into the next important thing that was presented to the audience. Each person is a certain type of person, at least in this movie. Well, not the people - the Barbies, the Kens and Allan - but I’ll use person, for they are reflections of reality.
And, in truth, there is such a thing, such an idea - a very pervasive one at that - which seeks to separate everyone into different types. There are persons who are X, persons who are Y, persons who are Z, and so on and so forth. The fact that there are such varieties of people is not problematic - the problematic element is the separation and the exclusion that comes with those types.
In the movie - which mirrors reality - there’s a type of person - the Ken - which type of person can not ever be anything but a Ken. The same applies to the Barbie type of person, though those have sub-sections, such as the stereotypical Barbie, or a smart Barbie, yet those, too, are exclusionary. A stereotypical Barbie can’t stop being a stereotypical Barbie and become a smart Barbie.
That’s the beginning of the film, mind you. With these groups that people are put into - Kens and Barbies - these people wind up having to be what they are marked as. If one is grouped with the Kens, then he must be a Ken - and that features a set of requirements. To be a Ken, one must be athletic, one must be good at beach, one must live their life exclusively in search of Barbie’s approval.
With the way the world is set up, initially, none of the characters has actual agency in being themselves, in being human (since they’re dolls). However, when we bring that into reality and make the parallel with the current state of affairs, do we not see a problem that is being presented to the audience?
There’s a type of person - the Ken - and then there’s the other type of person - the Barbie. The Ken will be equated to the Man, Barbie - to the Woman. So, men have a certain set of requirements laid out before them - they must be X, Y and Z. Women, on the other hand, must be K, L and M. If a man is not X, Y and Z, then he is not a man, and by extent - wrong.
In the movie, the man is someone who does not show emotion that could make him appear weak - he is strong. The man drinks beer, drives big vehicles, likes horses. If a man does not do one of those things, he is not being a man right, and thus he is not correct. He is not a proper man, he is failing, and he is wrong for being the way that he is.
Is the problem visible here? Hopefully, yes. Let’s get back to the way things are presented in the movie - we have Barbies and Kens, and they are so separated by something beyond them - not by themselves. Be it God, Nature, Mattel - there is something that is far, far beyond and outside their reach and understanding that has created these definitions and separations, that has decreed what the varieties are.
In the beginning, when things are still working in accordance with this order of things that is established by something divine, it could be said that “there is no problem”. In truth, there is a problem, but the problem is wrong to exist, so there is no problem. There is no alternative to being a Ken, if one is not a Barbie. There is no alternative to being a Barbie, if one is not a Ken.
Thus, it is right to be a Ken if you are not a Barbie, and a Barbie if you are not a Ken. And there is no other way for things to be, the world just is that way and it can not change and no one wants it to change, nor does anyone know how it could change.
But when we look at the world presented in the film - Barbieland - one notices that half of society - the Barbies - have a lot more agency and opportunity than the other half of that society. The Barbies have their own sub-sections, whereas the Kens are just one big blob of Kens. The Barbies also do everything - the Kens do nothing, and there are societal norms and customs that dictate how life goes on, with life going on in a manner that clearly excludes one of the two groups.
That’s a problem, which problem is related to the other problem. If a Ken wants to do something, they don’t get to do that something, because only Barbies do things, and only Barbies do things, because that’s the cosmic order of things, that’s what Mattel (God/Nature) has decreed. There is no freedom, no humanity in that existence, and it is clearly conveyed to the audience - the Kens and the Barbies are DOLLS.
When humans are introduced into this mixture, when the Kens and the Barbies are exposed to human complexities, that rigid system breaks down. Why? Because that, which differentiates humans from dolls and animals, is the ability to go beyond what was “intended” for them.
Examples:
A - Nature has intended for humans to do certain things. To mate whenever is convenient for the male, who, thanks to a difference in body structure and hormonal make-up, is stronger than the female, thus being capable of overpowering her, if she were not willing, and mating still. Humans have surpassed that, they’ve gone beyond that, and it is why we are human, rather than animal.
B - Another example that can be drawn from Nature is how humans react to illness. If a human contracts an illness, Nature intends for them to die or live thanks to their immune system. However, humanity has gone beyond that, transcended that, by introducing means of bolstering the immune system or curing diseases through external means. So, by buying medicine and using it, as well as employing the services of a doctor or a surgeon, we defy or transcend nature to truly be human.
C - God has intended for humans to do certain things, and He has presented humans with a set of rules. Humans have gone beyond that by simultaneously being Christians, serving God and praising Him and supposedly living by His rules and laws, AND also ignoring whichever laws of His that they find convenient. Remember when Jesus Christ urged humans to love each other? Well, a lot of Christians have a mighty disdain for certain groups of people, regardless of claiming to be Christians and to be followers of God’s laws. Or perhaps the urging of Moses in Deuteronomy 10:19 NKJV to: “...love the stranger, for you were strangers in the land of Egypt.”, yet here are the Christians who hate and fear the stranger, regardless of the Bible’s teachings.
So humanity is all about transcending these boundaries set for it by some external power that is beyond itself, and by transcending these boundaries humanity maintains its humanity. For, the film presents the audience with the example, twice - by sticking to these boundaries and amplifying them as much as possible, our humanity is collectively lost.
The ideal of what a Ken or a Barbie is happens to be harmful, because one strives to emulate that ideal as perfectly as possible, whilst also believing that failure to emulate that ideal indicates failure of the self. A Barbie emulates the ideal of the Barbie and lives in accordance with what a Barbie is, and if she fails to be Barbie - say, she starts walking on the soles of her feet, or she does not have a perfect hair-do, or she’s permanently in a split - she, herself, is wrong entirely. She is a failure of a being, she is wrong for existing the way she exists (not as THE Barbie).
Living with the idea that you should not be living the way that you are, and that it is all your fault for living wrongly, is incredibly harmful for you, the living one. In fact, it is so problematic that I’d argue you’re dead - because if you’re not living up to that Ideal, and there’s no alternative to not living up to that Ideal, you’re not living at all. So, if a Barbie is not living up to the ideal of a Barbie, and a Ken is not living up to the ideal of a Ken, then they are not living at all - they’re dead.
What does the movie do, then? It presents that to us and relates it to reality. We have men and we have women. We have the ideal for a woman and the ideal for a man, which are both created by entities beyond us, and we are forced to fit into these molds that have been set for us. Whether it is Nature, God or Society, it does not matter - something beyond us has forced us to consider these Ideals the ONLY option, and if we simply emulate the Ideals and attempt to live up to them, we are losing our humanity and becoming beasts, animals. By transcending these restrictive ideals we truly reaffirm our humanity.
The film, Barbie, showcases just that. There are these restrictive ideals that define what is what set in place, then they get shaken up by an outside influence that is beyond the individual, yet that only replaces them with other, reverse ideals of a nature just as restrictive as the previous ones, and, finally, the end features a liberation of these restrictions, these bonds.
Ken does not have to live exclusively for Barbie, he does not have to be beach, he does not have to like beer and he does not have to be strong. Barbie does not have to be with a perfect hair-do, she does not have to be the emulator of an Ideal, she does not have to be perfect. They are granted the freedom to shape their own molds, which, in turn, invalidates the necessity for a mold, as they are all recognized as unique in a splendid manner.
What this movie presents to the audience is incredibly valuable - and it explains the concept of gender roles in a manner that does not mention the word gender even once, whilst also keeping it absurd and comical enough to not bog down the viewer with the gravity of the problems of our real world.
I’d argue that it presents such an important thing that it is a movie more poignant for men than for women, even if it is still very valuable for the latter. The reason I’m saying it has the potential to be more impactful for men is because more and more intensely an ideal of a man is being reinforced in popular culture and the media. Pick a male protagonist from an action movie, or a video game - they tend to fit in a mold. Or take a listen to some “influencers”, such as the infamous Andrew Tate or Jordan Peterson, who lead their listeners into believing that there is a proper way to be a man.
This movie attempts to shatter that illusion by stating that there is no need for any human being, more specifically any man, to embody an external Ideal that has been forced upon him through means that make him believe he has willingly accepted the Ideal. It recognizes that it is ENOUGH for a man to just be himself, without needing to emulate someone else.
The same applies for women - as these are universal messages - but the way it is presented is directed at a male character and, essentially, at the men in the audience.
With all that said, I’d like to topple a pair of “critiques” that have been leveled at this movie by a pair of right-wingers.
First, a lady who advertises living the “tradwife” lifestyle and maintains heavily conservative views stated that the differences between the two worlds are not owed up to a problem, but because there are no babies in Barbieland. In the real world, where women are oppressed, as the individual I’m referring to expresses herself, there are babies. In Barbieland, where women do everything and men have nothing to do, there are no babies. Can you see where this is going?
Clearly, this here “critique” indicates that there’s nothing wrong with the real world, there is no oppression of women - it’s just that women have babies and take care of these babies, whereas the men work. Due to the fact that this is so, the point that the movie attempts to make falls flat - its presentation is, apparently, wack.
But this indicates the one critiquing the movie has not actually gotten the point - that these Ideals that are forced upon people and need to be emulated to be considered alive, which are essentially gender roles, are a major cause of the problems that are observable in reality (and Barbieland). Due to the fact that women and men are struggling to emulate the ideal for a woman and a man, they can not do the other things - women can’t work, because the ideal for a woman takes care of the children and raises them. Men, on the other hand, can’t care for and raise a child, because the ideal for a man works.
It is a problem, and it features oppression, because these people, who emulate these ideals, are force-fed the concept that there is no alternative. You either emulate the ideals, and are a proper human being, or you don’t, and you are wrong, you are not alive, you are some kind of discrepancy, a degenerate, and so forth. There is no agency, and that lack of agency leads into a violent compulsion to live up to the Ideal, for there is no alternative to living up to the Ideal. And forcing a group into doing, or not doing, something on a societal scale qualifies as oppression.
So, 1 point against any conservative/right-wing/reactionary critique of this film’s presentation.
Second, a man who strongly supports right-wing views and the American Republican party stated that this movie is bad, because it has no target audience. It is, apparently, not made for anyone.
I’d like to object by saying that this movie is made for everyone, safe for children under the age of 12 (unless provided with parental permission). As previously stated, this film has a universally important and applicable message - and the way the film is shot, as well as the way the message is presented, indicates that it is made for everyone, with as many people as possible in mind.
So, 2 points against any critiques of this film from supporters of the American Republican party.
Lastly, Ted Cruz’s critique of the film as being Chinese propaganda, due to the way it shows a number of lines on a “map” of the “world”, should be disregarded as the early signs of dementia or senility.
In conclusion, this film presents everything it presents in a very appropriate manner. It puts in great effort into staying visually coherent and unique, which lends incredible recognizability to it, whilst also featuring some other specific quirks that differentiate it from its competition. The issues that were mentioned - the occasional cringe worthy joke or the borderline unpleasant musical pieces are not enough to drag the Presentation’s grade down. 3/3
Acting
With a cast as star-studded as this one, it was going to be difficult to not have some proper performances. Not only that, but it also appears as though the director, Greta Gerwig, approached the task of directing this film with the idea to involve her actors with the characters that they are portraying.
Not that this does not happen in other films, but the fact that this movie is 100% a feels good movie, in which the characters have decently sunny outlooks and have fun most of the time, I’d argue that the actors were provided with the conditions to have this light-hearted, fun experience of presenting the characters they were embodying.
In the case of Margot Robbie and Ryan Gosling, it appears quite evident that the pair enjoyed their time as Barbie and Ken, and had a decent amount of fun with those roles, which, in turn, has seeped into the characters themselves and given them an air of… Plausibility, in a sense. The performances are good all around, and I’m finding myself hard pressed to find and point at an actor who did not do that good a job.
Naturally, some of the more distant side-characters could be regarded as “not as good”, but I’d chalk that up to them not having enough screen-time. Overall, it appears to me as though the process of making this film was an enjoyable one, which has seeped into the movie itself, by merit of the actors liking what they were doing and giving it their all. 3/3
Story
A decent amount of stuff was covered in the Presentation section, though I did as much as I could to avoid explicitly talking about the story. It is, as you might have been able to gather, a bearer of a very poignant and, for me, important message. The way it is presented is good, and that indicates that the story that is told is also good, and I’m inclined to agree.
Not only does this film deal with problems of self determination, gender roles, societal issues relating to those gender roles, the meaning of life, it also deals with parenting - mainly motherhood - and the perceptions one has of things. The depths at which those topics are explored varies, but they are all at least present and noticeable, which, in turn, indicates that a seemingly superfluous movie manages to eke out some valuable things. Thus, the story might be good.
I will now go on to spoil the entirety of the story! This film features at least three distinct characters, who happen to have a main role, who go through a set of events that help them to grow into better, more complete versions of themselves.
There’s, naturally, Barbie, who starts off living the Barbie life - plastic, unflinching and unchanging, that of a doll - and is incredibly happy with the way things are. There’s Ken, who is living the Ken life - plastic, unchanging, very doll-esque - but filled with a constant longing. Whereas Barbie does not want for anything, for she is, essentially, perfect (in regards to being a doll and being a Barbie), Ken’s entire existence is based around wanting one thing - Barbie’s attention, in which regard he, too, is perfect, because he infinitely craves her attention and never changes his desire to have her attention.
It must be noted that this thing that Ken is doing - craving Barbie’s attention - is not necessarily love. Whenever someone’s purpose for existence is to do something - in Ken’s case, to crave Barbie’s attention - it would not be sensible to say that he loves Barbie. It might be proper to say that he loves Barbie’s attention, for that is what his purpose is.
The way we construe things, and the way Ken also construes things, is via love - he, finding fulfillment in Barbie’s attention, evidently believes that he needs to spend his entire life with her. Well, there’s this concept - love - which ultimately leads to that state of affairs, to spending one’s entire life with another. However, that concept relies on the discovery of fulfillment in the sheer, gracious existence of the other being, rather than the recognition of one’s own existence by the other. What Ken feels, then, is not exactly love - it is similar, but not exactly.
For, remember - love can not be something that is forced. In the case of Ken, he is forced by his creators to be the way he is, to crave what he craves - and that is Barbie’s attention. That might be similar to love, but it is not love, for it is artificial, it is fake and, most importantly, it is not something that comes about as a result of combined agency on Ken and Barbie’s behalf.
So we have these characters who start off living perfect pseudo-lives. Then, one day, everything changes for Barbie, and she stops being a perfect Barbie - things go awry. The status quo, which has so far been everything Barbie has ever wanted, is threatened, and so it must be restored. She sets off on an adventure to do just that, with Ken joining her, because he figures that by doing this he will get her attention.
The pair travels to the Real World and finds out that things are not as they were. Initially, it is assumed that Barbies have, through their very existence, solved all issues related to feminism. Women are perfectly equal to men and have the same opportunities and live in absolute harmony. Well, when one considers the state of affairs in Barbieland - which is reminiscent of some kind of matrimony, featuring a woman president, a supreme court made up of exclusively women, a work-force made up of exclusively women, and a bunch of Kens (men) who exist purely to seek the attention of Barbies and live through that attention - that’s likely not going to be true.
And, of course, it winds up not being true. The real world is a patriarchy, in which men rule the world - the work-force is made up of mostly men, with them taking the positions that have any power associated with them, the president is a man and the supreme court is made up of men. Women are not in the position of the Kens - they get to do something, they get to work and feel emancipated - but there is a very real rift in power. The patriarchy is present, though those benefiting from it maintain that they have gotten better at covering up the fact that the patriarchy is, indeed, present.
In a sense, Barbieland is better, because there is no simulation of equality, as there is in the Real World - the honesty of the matrimony there is very pure, and the Kens, who are mistreated, are mistreated in a far less insidious manner, due to the fact that Barbieland, prior to its contact with the Real World, is a very simple, straightforward realm of rigid structures in which no human beings live - there’re only dolls.
So, mistreatment of the Kens is really not mistreatment, as the Kens are dolls and they have no souls nor human rights. In essence, they are not being mistreated or oppressed, they are just being… Treated.
The Real World, with its complexities, presents a Simulation of equality, ala Baudrillard, which creates a situation similar to that in Barbieland, with the important distinction that in the Real World live human beings, not dolls, and human beings can’t exist under the same conditions as the dolls.
So Barbie and Ken are shaken up by the discovery - Barbie, because her perceptions of her role in the Real World have come crashing down, and Ken, because his life of eternal struggle appears to have suddenly been changed for the better, via the vindication of his being a Ken(man).
Ken learns about the Patriarchy and about the role of the man, whereas Barbie tries to find the reason for the shuddering of the status quo. The two split up, with Ken heading back to Barbieland in an attempt to recreate the patriarchy there, as it would massively improve his life and bring far more meaning to it than was previously present. Barbie finds a girl, whom she believes to be the source of the troubles, and they have a friendly chat.
The perceptions of the two regarding the idea of Barbie clash, and Barbie is stricken down in that struggle. Some trials and tribulations later lead Barbie to a fated meeting with the girl’s mother, who is revealed to be the unintentional source of the troubles. There’s a moment of catharsis, but Barbie feels herself forced to take the mother and daughter to Barbieland, as they are being pursued by Mattel (business related).
There’s a rediscovery of childhood that occurs for the mother, and a bit of bonding that slowly starts taking place between her and her daughter, who is in school and in her teenage years and is, all around, being a grouch. However, the status quo has been almost irreversibly altered when Barbie gets back home, for Ken has succeeded in bringing the patriarchy to Barbieland.
This world, which operates based on these rigid structures, has simply replaced the rigid rules of: “Barbie does everything, Ken wants Barbie’s attention” with the rigid rules of: “Ken does everything, Barbie wants Ken’s attention”
However, that is what Ken thinks has happened, as does Barbie and the rest of the characters. In truth, what has actually happened is an odd mixture of these rules. Ken, who has no identity, who has no self, has this Ideal of Ken that he must always embody perfectly. Due to that fact, even the introduction of the Patriarchy is a means to live up to that ideal.
For, truly, he wants to make himself incredibly appealing for Barbie, to become an irresistible magnet for her attention - by way of gaining all the power and agency and forcing Barbie to rely on him for every aspect of her daily life. He might have changed some rules - such as instating a programmed subservience in the Barbies - but he has failed to change the rules affecting him. He is still drawing his meaning in life through the pursuit of Barbie’s attention.
The status quo has shifted, slightly, but it is still very reminiscent of what it was before. Regardless, this is a harsh blow for Barbie, and she winds up thoroughly depressed. That, in conjunction with her experience of the Real World, is enough to plant the seed of the self within her, and she is not affected by the reprogramming of Barbieland.
Together with an old, wise and weird Barbie, as well as the mother and daughter, the outcasts - discontinued Barbies, Kens and Allan - Barbie manages to return Barbieland to a more reminiscent of its previous state… State, by utilizing the contradictions within the role presented for women (Barbies) in the Real World (and Kenland/Kendom/Reprogrammed Barbieland). I’d say that it is quite dialectical, and leave it at that.
She then confronts Ken and helps him shed his dependency on the perfect emulation of the Ideal that he strives to live up to. His own experience with the Real World and the countless disappointments associated with his pursuit of Barbie’s attention have allowed him to also cultivate the genesis of a seed of self, and Barbie’s affirmation that he, himself, is enough winds up being the last straw.
A new age dawns for Barbieland - one which will, slowly, introduce equality between the Kens and the Barbies, though it will start off slow. The status quo is simultaneously restored, but it is also completely shattered. So much so that Barbie, who now has a self and is so changed by the events, can no longer remain a Barbie… Thus, she leaves and starts living in the Real World.
That’s the story. It is incredibly easy to apply the Hero’s Journey to it:
Barbie lives in Barbieland and everything is wonderful. Status Quo.
Barbie stops being a perfect Barbie. Call to Adventure.
Barbie meets weird Barbie who tells her how to solve the problem. Supernatural Aid.
Barbie goes to the Real World with Ken. Threshold + Helper
Barbie meets the daughter, the mother, Ruth, escapes the Real World. Challenges and Trepidations + Mentor + Helper
Barbie returns to Barbieland, which is now Kenland. REVELATION, Abyss, death & rebirth
Barbie hears Gloria’s speech. Transformation.
Barbie and co. help the other Barbies regain their senses. Atonement.
Barbie and co. save Barbieland and change it for the better. Return + Gift of the Goddess (Ruth?).
Status quo restored, but the hero is too changed to remain and must leave.
Overall, the simplicity of the story does not take away from its quality. In fact, that simplicity might be one of its greater strengths, as it does not require the audience’s investment of great mental effort into figuring out what’s going on, which allows the audience to focus on enjoying the experience and receiving the film’s message.
The characters were entertaining and likable, even the corporate representatives. The story was complete, with perhaps the exception of Allan, who wound up being a bit of a loose end. Even with that in mind, he, too, gets some kind of growth, for he winds up cheering for Barbieland’s return, even though he previously appeared unhappy even with Barbieland.
The growth experienced by the characters and the situations they find themselves in are very pleasant to observe, especially the resolution of the conflicts. Even though Barbie does not return Ken’s affection (which is, as previously stated, artificial) she still does not want to hurt him and cares for him in her own way, which way proves to be enough to make him self-sufficient and better as a person.
Overall? A wonderful experience. 3/3
Legendary Point
Does this film get the legendary point, so craved and wanted by all and none at the same time? I’d like to say that it does not get it, because otherwise this film will get a very, very high grade that I’m not sure it deserves, but there are other factors.
Reason number one - Ryan Gosling is in this movie, and so it should get the Legendary Point. There’s a scene in which a Barbie’s breasts grow bigger when her arm is pulled down like a bolt being operated on with a wrench. There’s a scene which makes light of “2001: A Space Odyssey”, which I liked quite a bit. The journey from the Real world to Barbieland is neat.
And, of course, the point that the movie makes. While the point is very good and important, I doubt this film can have the right cultural impact to actually have it mean anything, which, in turn, saddens me and brings me closer to depression. In truth, this film is a humongous advertisement for Barbie products, and everything else is only a second-hand afterthought. The point is there, because it was concluded to be in the business’ interest, not because it was at the core of the film, even if the movie was well constructed around it.
Thus, I will say no, Barbie does not get the Legendary Point. 0/1
Conclusion
9/10. An impressively good movie. It’s a perfect watch for any young or old girl out there, and an even better watch for any young or old boys that are willing to watch it. Of course, allowing oneself to be open to the message borne by the movie is also important in that regard! It might be very pink, but that’s pretty much everything that’s exclusively girly about it. Watch it, though there might be no point in re-watching it.
I tuck it under my belt, another shining achievement that I proudly display.