|
|
Post by chrisfan on Mar 10, 2005 10:54:50 GMT -5
What I found to be most interesting about Anchorman (in a sad way the funniest too) was the exact way it captured the old boys club mindset of that era. Think Barbara Walters entry into the nightly news realm. To damn hedonistically chauvinistically funny! That was exactly what inspired them to write the movie too. Will Ferrel saw some program talking about the first female news anchor, and was laughing so much at the attitudes towards women being in the workplace that were being so freely shared as if "Well duh, doesn't everyone think this way?" that he wrote it. I agree with Luke that the fight scene is the best part of the movie. It is even better with the outtakes, where at one point, someone loses an arm, only the guy who cuts it off doesn't have any weapon in his hand! |
|
|
|
Post by Adam on Mar 10, 2005 10:57:02 GMT -5
Those fellas over at Disney are sick fucking bastards...
|
|
|
|
Post by Thorngrub on Mar 10, 2005 11:34:32 GMT -5
Ugh . . . I don't even wanna go there . . . *koff*, er . . .uh, Phil . . .that part in the middle . . .the "COMMENT" where it says:
"COMMENT: The central theme was about a bad girl's desire to kill dogs to get their coats. Animals have been used to clothe humans for thousands of years. But what made objective analysis of this movie difficult was the dogs were well personified with human personality traits by the script writers and choreographers, thus giving the viewer the sense that to kill the dogs would be akin to killing human babies. "
. . . . was that bit penned by yours truly . . . ? Or is it part of the Christian reviewer's script -?
...
|
|
|
|
Post by Philemon on Mar 10, 2005 11:48:59 GMT -5
HÉ ! Even I can't be that surrealistic ... !!
In their review of *Chariots of Fire* (which they generaly found acceptable)
here what they had to say at the end ...
This Oscar winner for Best Picture of 1981 is an intricate weave of highly detailed character and story building. It is deep and rich in human nature while not ever losing the ability to keep the attention of the non-adolescent viewer. Faith in Christ and His Word are openly portrayed, upon which much of the film depends. One might go as far to say this might be a Christian film.
The only sexual matters to this film were display of excessive cleavage (but not as severe as contemporary films), two instances of gaping face kissing between an unmarried heterosexual couple which were clearly lustful [1Cor. 7:2], and brief full rear male nudity [**].
There are six uses of the three/four letter word vocabulary [Titus 2:6 - 8] plus two uses of "fool" which God warns against sternly [Matt. 5:22] and two uses of God's name in vain but without the four letter expletive [Deut. 5:11]. Smoking and drinking is rampant [Eph. 5:18]. Though rather short, the listing in the Findings/Scoring section reveals all that was noted.
...
Regarding the full rear male nudity, to escape suffering it follow these instructions. When the scene shows a train arriving in London in 1923, shortly after that the scene is of Liddell in a locker room. At the first frame of Liddell in the locker room if you look away and fast-forward for about 15 seconds you'll be spared the nudity. For those of you with time display capability on your playback device (VHS or DVD) the nudity occurs (in Chapter 16 for DVD users) at 47 minutes and 31 seconds and is about four seconds long. You won't miss any key information to the plot or story.
It is clear the filmmakers engineered that sequence just to get nudity into the film.
LMFCAO
FC = fully clothed ...
|
|
|
|
Post by Philemon on Mar 10, 2005 12:14:09 GMT -5
*Lord of the Rings* questionable contents ...
Wanton Violence/Crime (W)
- action violence, repeatedly, some graphic
- lust for possession, including to kill, repeatedly
- planning killing
- arrow killing, graphic
- long battle violence/gore, quite frequent
- beatings, with and without tools/weapons
- graphic arrow impalements
- use of severed heads as throwing weapon(*Bowling for Hobbitville* ??)
- graphic crushing deaths, frequent
- great falls with impacts seen
- decayed and encapsulated bodies and body parts
- graphic attack by larger-than-actor spider, repeatedly
- attempted murder, repeatedly
- fighting, repeatedly
- impalement by huge spider
- human incineration
- attempted ritual suicide/murder by fire
- close-ups of death and dying
- pointing finger bitten off (Did I miss a *Bird Flip* ??)
- perils of danger from risk of great fall
- fall into lava
Impudence/Hate (I)
- spreading dissent among friends, allies
- lying
- framing of guilt by deceit
- deceit with intent to kill
Sexual Immorality (S)
- sparse dress on male character, repeatedly
- excessive cleavage
- open face kiss
Drugs/Alcohol (D):
- smoking
- drinking
- drunkenness
Offense to God (O)
- unholy transformation by evil power
- talking trees (?!?)
- unholy healing
- evil control
- unholy possession
- threat by wizardry/sorcery
- prophesying
- tale of sorcery
- evil beasts/demons, repeatedly
- enlisting tens of thousands of "walking dead" to do good
by assisting the "good guys" in battle
- frequent and repeated graphic views of many unholy creatures (Orcs)
many times in close-up
- use of evil (sorcery/witchcraft/wizardry) to do good
by assisting the "good guys" in battle
- grant of immortality
- seeking evil for help in battle
- control of humans with a curse
- demon beast attacks, some quite graphic and with many deaths
- light by sorcery, twice
- transporting people by unholy magic
- attempted ritual suicide/murder
- walking dead walking on water
- many instances of using evil for good
- seeing the non-seeable by wizardry
- images of supreme evil
Murder/Suicide (M)
- murder to possess object
- brutal murder of battle-injured man with impalement shown
In conclusion ...
I am not going to elaborate the plot of this installment since it is basically more of the same from the first two, even with most of the same characters. Return of the King is a very well engineered and creative movie.
The talents of they who put it together and performed it are clearly standard-setting. But what standard is being set? If one uses the evil of witchcraft, wizardry and sorcery for whatever reason, one serves evil.
My biggest issue with the LotR movies is their defiance of Isa. 5:20. And to think it is good to use evil (witchcraft/sorcery/wizardry) even for good purposes is calling evil good: is putting darkness for light; is serving evil.
PS : Note how the first letters in the five *objectable* categories spell ...
That's one hell of subliminal message !!
|
|
|
|
Post by Thorngrub on Mar 10, 2005 12:26:04 GMT -5
[glow=purple,2,300]"COMMENT: The central theme was about a bad girl's desire to kill dogs to get their coats. Animals have been used to clothe humans for thousands of years. But what made objective analysis of this movie difficult was the dogs were well personified with human personality traits by the script writers and choreographers, thus giving the viewer the sense that to kill the dogs would be akin to killing human babies. " HÉ ! Even I can't be that surrealistic ... !! [/glow] - philemon Good (I didn't think it was you) . . . because that part, in particular, made me sick. The way this "Christian reviewer" so flippantly disregards DOGS by lumping them into the general category of "animals that have been used to clothe humans for thousands of years" is one of the most offensive things I've read in a good while. How dare he. Would that someone would skin his ass and make a lamp of it. And then, just when I think it couldn't possibly get worse than that -- this dipshit & disgrace to real civilized human beings goes on to say " But what made objective analysis of this movie difficult was the dogs were well personified with human personality traits by the script writers and choreographers, thus giving the viewer the sense that to kill the dogs would be akin to killing human babies" -?!Hold on a sec there, "Christian" champ: The DOGS were *well personified*?!?! with "human personality traits"-?!?! By the script writers and choreographers -?!?!?! FUCK YOU, A-HOLE!!  I'll have you know you smug christian schmuck that DOGS HAVE PERSONALITIES OF THEIR OWN THANK YOU VERY MUCH. (He was talking about the 1996, *LIVE-action* version, right-?? I take it these were REAL DOGS, correct-?) Here's a NEWS BULLETIN for your sorry, brainwashed, zombified, spoonfed ass, dumbfuck: Reasonable viewers the world over are horrified enough as it is at the prospect of KILLING DOGS FOR COATS, PERIOD, you sick piece of shit. What a deplorable waste of human meat that guy is. That's it, I'm tracking this son-of-a-bitch down and giving him a thoRn in his spIne. |
|
|
|
Post by Philemon on Mar 10, 2005 12:39:14 GMT -5
HOLY COW !! LOOK WHAT I HAVE SET IN MOTION ...  Hé ! I mean ...
Aren't *we* taking this shit a bit too seriously ? |
|
|
|
Post by chrisfan on Mar 10, 2005 12:45:20 GMT -5
HOLY COW !! LOOK WHAT I HAVE SET IN MOTION ... Hé ! I mean ...
Aren't *we* taking this shit a bit too seriously ?Oh, those unintended consequences ... yeah, that's it.  |
|
|
|
Post by Thorngrub on Mar 10, 2005 12:50:31 GMT -5
Alright, I shot that guy an email. Here it is, for your reading pleasure, word for word, exactly as I typed it:
To Whom It May Concern:
I read your objections to Disney's 1996 real live action version of their animated classic 101 Dalmations, and I wanted to share with you my feelings about certain comments made.
In particular, the comment "The central theme was about a bad girl's desire to kill dogs to get their coats. Animals have been used to clothe humans for thousands of years. But what made objective analysis of this movie difficult was the dogs were well personified with human personality traits by the script writers and choreographers, thus giving the viewer the sense that to kill the dogs would be akin to killing human babies ", I found irredeemably offensive to real civilized human beings of today's day and age. I thought you would appreciate my criticism, because as you must know, both negative and positive feedback have their value. Although my feedback is negative, I hope you will hear me out.
The way this "Christian reviewer" so flippantly disregards DOGS by lumping them into the general category of "animals that have been used to clothe humans for thousands of years" is one of the most offensive things I've read in a good while. But it gets worse when your article states "But what made objective analysis of this movie difficult was the dogs were well personified with human personality traits by the script writers and choreographers, thus giving the viewer the sense that to kill the dogs would be akin to killing human babies", and I'll tell you why I think so. DOGS HAVE PERSONALITIES OF THEIR OWN THANK YOU VERY MUCH. And furthermore, I'll have you know that reasonable viewers the world over are horrified enough as it is at the prospect of KILLING DOGS FOR COATS, PERIOD.
To suggest that the dogs used in the film were "well personified" with "human personality traits" by the script writers and choreographers all in the name of trying to prove your insane theory that this would be tantamount to killing human babies, is not only a gross misunderstanding of the point (that skinning dalmations for coats is just sick, wrong, and evil in and of itself, period), but it betrays a fundamental aspect of your organisation that I simply find deplorable.
Maybe if you step down from your holier-than-the-animals viewpoint, your God might consider easing up on his relentless assaults against your kind (human beings, that is).
A good day to you, sir,
and never yours truly,
Shaun Lawton
|
|
|
|
Post by Thorngrub on Mar 10, 2005 12:52:06 GMT -5
HOLY COW !! LOOK WHAT I HAVE SET IN MOTION ... Hé ! I mean ...
Aren't *we* taking this shit a bit too seriously ?So I'm a dog lover. And the problem is -- ? |
|
JACkory
Struggling Artist
Posts: 167
|
Post by JACkory on Mar 10, 2005 12:52:36 GMT -5
HOLY COW !! LOOK WHAT I HAVE SET IN MOTION ... Hé ! I mean ...
Aren't *we* taking this shit a bit too seriously ?Oh, those unintended consequences ... yeah, that's it. No joke. How many other ways do you think Phil can express his loathing for and disgust with Christianity? I'm sure he'll surprise us all... |
|
|
|
Post by Thorngrub on Mar 10, 2005 12:58:56 GMT -5
Disclaimer:So, if ya'll haven't figured out by now that my modus operandi on these boards is to implement excessive 1) sarcasm; 2) satire; and 3) black humor to a degree seldom seen unless you're a prominent reader of Jonathan Swift or Ambrose Bierce, then I'm sorry, I can't help ya. As sick or brutal and unnecessarily vile, sadistic or just plain wrong as my writings may appear to you -- (do I have to spell it out 4U?) -- the things I post here are, as often as not, *tongue-in-cheek*, and I do it purely for my own entertainment, as well as those few in the minority here who might get a sick laugh out of it. If I offended anyone's sensibilities, get over it already. Blame Bill Hicks. Bad influence. 
|
|
|
|
Post by Philemon on Mar 10, 2005 13:00:08 GMT -5
LoL ! I really should think twice before bringing any kind of animall into the conversation around here ... Horses already got me in troubles twice and now the pooches ...  |
|
|
|
Post by Philemon on Mar 10, 2005 13:06:50 GMT -5
I apologize in advance to each and every Hindus who might have been offended by me using the term Holy Cow ... Better safe than sorry ...  |
|
|
|
Post by Thorngrub on Mar 10, 2005 13:07:13 GMT -5
On an addtl. note: There was nothing "tongue-in-cheek" about my outrage, that is very real. Albeit levelled at something as seemingly "insignificant" as a pansy-assed article from some overzealous organization allegedly concerned about moral values as portrayed in the movies, I still felt it warranted my response, however diminutive on the scale of importance this whole thing might appear. And of course, I took care that there was nothing "tongue-in-cheek" in the email I sent "cap@capalert.com", as (I would expect) you should have been able to perfectly well see for yourselves.
|
|
