Oh. Well, my apologies to the straight ladies in the group for being too inclusive. For you, there’s this poster which has very little if anything to indicate what the movie is about.
Ah, if only it were showing Denzel’s ass… 
:emphasis mine:
Isn’t that redundant and repeating itself? 
Here is the poster in question. I’m guessing short shorts, but who the hell cares. Yum.
After further searching… the people on the IMDB messageboard are having the same “discussion” as us (I especially enjoy the “Get a life loser” post). Also here’s another picture of Ms. Hudson’s better side. Lastly Kate and I share the same birthday. Yea, Aries born on the crux! Um, what were we talking about again?
Felicity Huffman and Joan Cusack? But I like them.
(Thanks for the links, Wolfian!)
Huh. I’ve seen this poster but couldn’t remember what it had on it. Not that memorable to women, apparently.
Anyway, I guess the movie has to be about something, so it may as well be about Kate Hudson’s ass. The premise to me seemed rather ridiculous. She “inherits” her sister’s children? Um, if you’re going to put something like that in your will, don’t you generally have to ask the person first? But if it’s really just about her ass, I’m fine with that.
Hey, she has two cheeks, right? 
Wasn’t she somewhat ‘chestless’ in the past? Saw her on Letterman last week, and Ellen this week, and she is downright ‘Perky!’
Perky, I say. And, I LOVE perky. Nothing like perky.
It's true -- the poster is jarring, particularly if you know the basic plot of the movie. The lack of any relevance to the film can only mean one thing.
When I saw the poster, I knew instantly what that one thing was. It meant "This movie is going to suck so badly it will pull planets out of their orbits, but if you concentrate on Kate Hudson's ass for the two hours, you'll barely notice and won't hardly mind."For some reason, the full-sized images in the IMDb galleries won’t load for me. The thumbnails load fine, so I can get an idea of what the image is. (But the thumbnails are very small.) Does anybody else have the same problem? This is really, really bothering me. (And not just because I want to see Kate Hudson’s ass. )
Help me. Anyone.
Considering it’s not a very prominent view of her backside, does that mean the movie is doomed?
(Having seen the trailer, I might try to finangle the wife into seeing it. Looks like an “Awwww, shucks” date movie kinda deal)
Considering the scathing reviews, they probably should have made a two hour movie of her ass.
Isn’t Raising Helen kind of a family film?
It is PG-13 and it is about my personal nightmare, someone dies and leaves me a boatload of children. I’m guessing in reality hilarity would not ensue.
I don’t think guys interested in KH"s ass will enjoy a movie about her finding the joys of motherhood very enjoyable.
Re Subliminal Seduction
Cecil has written on the book twice. I own a copy, and agree with Unca Cec. Many of the hidden images and text the author discusses are present purely by accident, or not present at all. But, I agree with some of what Subliminal Seduction has to say on the hidden meaning of obvious images. (Fer example, a year or two ago there a was a full page liquor ad featuring the standard scantilly clad woman. If you just flip past it, you won’t notice that one of her hands is yanking at a partially out of view necktie. She’s clearly pulling an unseen man towards her in order to initiate sex. The other hand is removing the lens cap from a video camera on a tripod. Neither the necktie nor the camera are hidden or obscure. They are simply on the edges and away from the focus of attention. But actually giving the add attention, reveals that this isn’t just a hot woman promising sex. She’s eagerly initiating sex and thrilled to have it filmed.)
Back To The Helen Poster
It’s definitely a classic cheesecake pose.
Note that her arms cover her breasts and her butt is seen only from the side. This is a pose from the old barbers magazines (roughly they were 1920’s style Maxim mags). It allows for the model to be naked without actually revealing anything.
Note her clothing- a thin, nearly transparent shirt, short shorts (they’re definitely shorts, not a towel. Look closely and you can see the seam). These are clothes made to display the body. Heck, it’s nearly the Hooters uniform.
She’s in a do me pose and do me clothes.
Except for the boots. They’re not just boots. They are fur trimmed boots. The soles clearly show that they were designed for either snow and slush, or possibly hiking. If they are snow boots the message is clearly ‘It’s freezing and icy out. But I refuse to hide my hot bod under winterclothing.’
If hiking, I’d go with ‘I like to go out into the woods and get in touch with my animal sexual urges.’
Mr. Blue Sky:
Don’t know what you’ve been reading, but New York Newsday, at least, has given it three stars.
Weird. I wonder what it is about this poster that has caught all of our attention to such a degree. Granted, we’ve all seen our share of hot wimmins on movie posters, and sometimes it’s the entire poster… but I’ve noticed… something about this one, too.
The couple I’ve read suggest that Miss Hudson’s “talents” are being wasted by a movie that takes no chances amd is wholly predictable.
Gee, I wonder if she’ll learn something about herself by the movie’s end?
Nah I’m a straight woman, so it’s memorable to at least some women.
The boots are UGGS—hot fashion item for “young Hollywood” maybe 6 months ago. Bad idea to market a movie w/ the starlet wearing outdated footwear IMHO. The flick is lacking obviously.
“Honey, do you feel like going out tonight? I thought we might go see Kate Hudson’s ass. Uh, I mean that movie about Kate Hudson’s ass. Whoops, no, I mean that movie - what the fuck is it called again - you know the one - …”
Straight woman here with almost no interest in mainstream film. Why would I have noticed this ad? (I saw in newspaper, not the poster?) Why would I even open this thread? I do remember feeling specifically skeeved after skimming the review and seeing the ad in this morning’s paper. And I’m introspective enough to have asked myself why, even before seeing this thread. The best I could come up with was a sort of discomfort about dads taking their kids to see it. Yeah, it’s a kid movie, I guess, but I can’t think of any guys I know who’d find that plot appealing. So are they just planning to drool for an hour while spending “quality time”? If that’s more common than I imagined, please don’t fight that little piece of my ignorance. I’m not skeeved by the occasional unexpected paternal drool moment while watching a movie, but a sort of premeditated let’s spend 2 hours on this—yukk!