|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
Today I took my 9 year old granddaughter to see “Scary Movie” after reading Roger Ebert’s glowing 3-star review in our local paper and seeing the clever clips on TV. Less than half way into the movie I told Taylor “Let’s get out of here.” Thankfully she readily agreed. Why did I do this? “Scary Movie” is the most degenerate, filthy movie I have ever seen. Mind you, I’m not a prude (far from it), but this was a step below “Deep Throat!” The “scariest” thing about this movie was that the theater was filled with pre-teens, mostly girls, even though it was rated R (which I had neglected to notice and soon found out). I blame the theater for not enforcing the rating policy, but mostly I blame the producers who are allowed to spew this kind of filth for our children to watch (and, unfortunately, be influenced by). One of the Wayans, can’t (and don’t want to) remember was the producer and filled the screen with not only sexual visuals and dialogue, but blatant racism as well. This was another example of my interpretation of “Blackploitation”, where blacks can capitalize on the twisted mentality of the liberal (Democrat) wackos and wreak havoc on moral values unabated. Yes, and even with their blessing.I ask one question. Where in the hell are the parents (mothers) who don’t have the time to investigate the filth of these films and allow their children to attend them without adult supervision? Probably too busy marching for gun control and the like. Let me tell you, and please do not answer unless you have seen this movie, all the guns in the world cannot do as much harm to our society as allowing our children to be influenced by this kind of garbage! Not much shocks me, but I was ready to (and probably would have if not for my granddaughter) break into the projection room and destroy the reels. What the hell is wrong with our society? That’s more of a rhetorical question. I know what is wrong, and so do most of you. Liberalism allows despicable people the “right” to corrupt our children in the name of political correctness. Smoke in a bar? You are a criminal. Show BJs, sexual intercourse (f’ing to youse who don’t comprehend), racism, violence on the screen, and guess what? You are expressing your creative freedom. Bullshit!!!
What to do about it? The correct (and stupid) thing to do is boycott the theater. But, it is not us who are accomodating the film makers, it’s the children, and we (not me by the way) are too lazy and unconcerned (brainwashed?) to do anything about it. Whats left? Anyone out there remember the ‘60s??? Physical confrontation with those responsible to the point where thay cannot function. Interpretation: Hit ‘em where it hurts, in the pocketbook! Physically deny people entrance to the theaters - we did it back then, we can do it now. Believe me, it works. And the reasons then were not as important as they are now. Or has apathy become the “easy way out?”
God help us. We may be incapable, or unwilling, of helping ourselves.
Daryl R
PS: The movie did not elicit much laughter, mostly groans of embarrassment from the viewers. Yet others will attend because people like Roger Ebert praise this shit. And responsible people remain silent.
“They came to take away my neighbor and I didn’t say anything; they came to take away my other neighbor and I didn’t say anything; they came to take me away, and there was no one left to say anything”
http://www.kgw.com/artsent/story.html?StoryID=2775
.
Well, at the risk of coming off as some sort of liberal relativist, I can't help but present the following episode of cultural history:In 1774 Goethe published the novella The Sorrows of Young Werther (anonymously). It was an epistolary novel about a young man who falls in love with a woman who is engaged to marry another man. < <200-year-old spoiler alert: at the end of the novel, the protagonist commits suicide> >
* It was an enormous popular hit, unprecedented in its time. In fact, I would argue that it was the first modern literary sensation. People dressed up like the characters, adopted their affects, bought plates and teasets with their likenesses painted on it, etc.
* Literary critics gave it a lukewarm reception. Some noted literary figures expressed reservations about the moral content -- or lack of it -- of the novel.
* Social critics across Europe condemned the novel, arguing that it was a damnable book that romanticized and encouraged suicide, that it glorified self-indulgent reverie, that it infected its readers with its melancholic sensibility. The novel was banned in some cities; some religious leaders forbade its reading.
* The novel was widely held out by critics as the epitome of the decline of European civilization: it was identified with the decline of religiosity, with the rise of philosophical and moral skepticism, with the spread of materialism, with the disintegration of social bonds, etc.
* Some two centuries later, "Werther" is considered one of the masterpieces of modern European literature.
* I can't think of many periods in modern history that weren't -- at least in the minds of some interested group -- about the decline and fall of our society as we know it. The idea of degeneration itself has a fascination history; I can trace its modern usage back to about the mid-19th century. It includes some pretty nasty moments, including the rise of the eugenics movements in Britain and the United States at the turn of the 20th century.
I don't mean to lecture, and certainly not to chide. None of this is meant to minimize any real substantive critiques of the film, of which I've not seen. I'm just trying to bring another perspective to bear upon some of the language in which some of the critiques are wrapped.
--daryl
...but what does that have to do with allowing pre-teens into a theater to view a sexually explicit movie meant for adults? I have no qualms about the content of a movie - sex, violence, whatever - so long as it's kept in the proper perspective. That is, adults only. If you maintain that "Scary Movie" is proper fare for 11 and 12 year olds, then I must say you have a very twisted mentality.Perhaps you are also saying that books such as The Sorrows of Young Werther should be included in 8th grade literature. I do not get your point. We are talking about exposing youngsters with highly impressionable minds to filth, not the puritanical attitudes towards risque books clearly meant for adult consumption. Good try, but not even close.
Wow, that's one misdirected reading of my post. (Incidentally, I re-read Joe S.'s posts, and I can only conclude that you've misread them, too. I think that wanting to warn people that "Scary Movie" is not suitable for children is a commendable thing. I think that accusing others that they are not concerned with the welfare of children -- indeed, that they desire the opposite when it is obviously not the case -- is not.)So, what's the point?
1. The argument that some film, book, opera, or other cultural artifact is decadent, trash, filth, etc. is not particularly new. "Scary Movie" is not the end of society. History would suggest the very opposite.
2. We can learn from history, not just in the non-specific sense of "those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it", but in the specific sense that it provides a perspective that might let us say interesting and specific things about the state of violence, racism, or sexuality in contemporary culture. Knowledge -- specific, reasoned, grounded knowledge -- is a wonderful, liberating thing.
3. As an example, there is a rather devastating critique of "The Patriot" at Salon.com that suggests, among other things, that the film articulates in a rather disturbing manner the United States' ambivalent encounter with genocide. I'm not a knowledgeable enough person to judge the historical accuracy of the review, but its a pretty decent example of an interesting, historically-informed critique.
4. The "shock" genre of film is not new. The very fact that "Scary Movie" is a parody of horror and slasher films literally announces this fact. More generally, the argument that mass culture is essentially one founded on the experience of shock, as well as its antidote, goes back at least a century. As an example, one might check out Nietzsche's critique of Wagner ("The Case of Wagner").
5. So, what is it about the "shock" genre of films that makes it so appealing? What kind of experience creates the conditions where shock, and even moreso, the repetition of shock, can be experienced as pleasurable?
--daryl
...suggesting that this material is approapriate for 11 and 12 year olds. Dont even try to paint us with that brush.joe
You've done a pretty good job of it all by yourself. I suggest you re-read your posts.Case closed.
...on that point. I suggest you try comprehending my posts.joe
Makes ya' kinna wonder, doesn't it.Unfortunately, Hollywood knows its audience; and it's a lot younger than you are.
We can only hope they will grow up.
RBB --
"Still getting the wax out of my ears."
That's exactly my point. Reading the reviews and seeing the previews on TV, you have to think that this is a harmless, funny, spoof of teen horror movies. Much in the vein of Naked Gun, etc. It is only after you are seated in the theater that you realize you've been had. Hell, you can make anything sound good the first time around just to get bodies in the door.
You learned a BIG lesson about how the movie industry gets off the hook - it's YOUR responsibility to check the movie out beforehand. Nuff said.As far as being R instead of NC-17 (which is apparently deserves), our local (Everett, WA) movie critic explained it this way. There appears to be a different standard for comedies than these is for other film genres. Your complaint has been voiced about other films as well. For some reason the "board" considers such exhibitions more appropriate for comedy and less deserving of a NC-17 rating. Nuff said.
I do not trust Roger Ebert or most movie critics who review films from an adult perspective to inform me about the content of a movie for my children. If you are sincerely concerned about what your children are seeing, I suggest you look at ratings from a conservative movie site like the link below. The sad fact is that over 60 percent of movies released today are R rated, leaving little behind. I believe G rated is about 5 percent with the remainder PG and PG-13. In spite of making the most money on G and PG rated films, Hollywood continues to turn out stuff like this. I used to argue it was economics until I was confronted with these facts. You can interpret the data in whatever way you wish, but I prefer to believe you were on the right track to begin with.
If I hear another self righteous comment about how communism did this versus christianity did that versus whatever. Get off it. If you want to post a link to a particular review site, this is fine but it might be helpful for you to point out that there is a particular slant to it.In other words, preview it for US just as others suggest that parents preview for their children. If someone doesn't want to be exposed to ideologically based reviews, then why subject them to it. Just give a disclaimer such as, "If you'd like some alternative views on various movies from an XYZ viewpoint, you might visit the following". Imagine if you had linked us up with a neo-nazi, supremicist website having "movie reviews". This would be highly objectionable.
I'm not saying DON'T post your links, but just try warning us about them -- clearly, you've gotten this reaction a couple of times so why not work WITH others and not just antagonize them.
As for this movie, I for one intend think people are taking themselves a bit too seriously if they think that this is the beginning of the end of humanity. Hollywood does this and that's life.
In my original post, I clearly identified the site as one that presents a conservative viewpoint. Thus I did reveal its ideology - conservative. There is nothing on that site which proselytizes and there is only one link identified as Christian. So what are your objections? My old stock brokerage used to have a Christian link on its site. So does that make it a Christian company with Christian ideology for investing? It is a major northwest brokerage that is secular in its philosophy - capitalism. It also had secular links as well. Nothing in the "Content Rules" would lead me to believe I HAVE to say anything about the content of a link. You'd think it was a porno site by your reaction.Every review site is ideologically biased in some way so I guess we all need to take your advice and I will try to do so in the future. I would ask you to do the same for me if you post a link to a political, religious, or morality based site that I might not agree with. So, oh great wise one, what site do you consider suitable for me to find out the true sexual, violence, language, nudity, drug content of a movie? I await your sage answer.
Self righteous? Check the threads. I did not start this. Maybe you would like to mention your first paragraph to "whatever." Let's be fair here, eh. Rather I wished only to provide a link that people may wish to consider to try to screen movies from a conservative perspective. I was merely responding to whatever's uncalled for attack that was launched against me. Do I have that right or do you believe that free speech is only for those who hold your views? BTW, yours and the former thread are the only ones that have objected on the Internet so your conclusion is false. My reference was to snail mail I have received this week in response to a letter I sent to a local newspaper.
The wonderful secular world seems unwilling or unable to provide comprehensive screening information. I'm glad someone will take the time to do it from a conservative standpoint be they Christian, Muslim, Jew, Hindu, or whatever.
So you put a christian link on your post? More people have been brutally murdered in the name of christ than any other religion. At least movies are fantasy, and everyone knows that. But christianity, in fact all religions are brutally true. I'll take Hollywood any day!
I never thought I'd get assaulted for trying to provide a source of conservative reviews for films that provides information no other review site will concerning language, sex, violence, drugs. Whatever, do you have an alternative? I bet not. I love folks who blambast others only to have no alternative. Roger Ebert? You have to be kidding. So what source are we who wish to shield our children from this filth to turn to? The ratings board? This thread shows how poorly it performs at least in this case.BTW, this is the second assault I've received this week in this vein, and my response was the same as Victor's. Joseph Stalin, Mao Tse Tung, Pol Pot, need I go on? Ask the millions of Red Army troops who were slaughtered as cannon fodder and those in the Gulag and Killing Fields. The total approaches 100 million at least from the atheistic communists who supported universal brotherhood and equality in their credo. Name me a time in recorded history when mankind was living in perfect harmony with each other. There is none. If you live in Seattle, whatever, I think we may have corresponded via snail mail.
***More people have been brutally murdered in the name of christ than any other religionMost likely not true. Most likely that honor belongs to communism.
When I was younger my parents would let me go see R rated movies only after they had seen them beforehand. Some they would let me see, others I snuck into. :-)
Tom §.
...but it looks like pilot error to me. An R rated movie is an R rated movie.joe
Ok gang, here goes:
1) Do you check a movie's rating before taking a 9 year old to see it?
2) Do you complain about other people for your mistake?
3) Did you call the police about the theater letting in children?
-or-
do you whine, and make insincere threats of boycotts, and violence? I especially liked the use of "f'ing" and "Bullshit" in the defense of moral purity.
Hell, I'm not defending moral purity - I'm disgusted that filth is foisted upon our unsuspecting youth. As for my use of "f'ing" and "Bullshit", I apologize if I offended you. But I sincerely doubt this board is frequented by pre-teens of the female gender.As for taking a 9 year old, I read the review and saw the previews, neither of which even hinted at sexual displays. On the contrary, they both indicated a humorous spoof on scary movies. You missed the point, or obviously didn't read my post. I am disappointed at the UNSUPERVISED pre-teens in attendance. At least I was there and able to hustle my granddaughter out in a big hurry. Where were the other (responsible) parents/grandparents/guardians?
To start,
it sounds like this movie should have an X rating. The cynicism of the movie industry in it's use of ratings is excessive.
If they can't tell the truth; perhaps ratings should be handled by the govt. Personally i avoid teen movies like the plague. But from what the other posters have said; i gather this one exposes minors to stuff we don't want them seeing.
Teen horror movies. My pre-teen granddaughter loves these, as just about everyone her age does. Ya know, trying to be grown up. Anyway, she bugged me to take her. I saw the previews on TV several times and it looked like a harmless spoof of teen horror movies. I read Roger Ebert's review and he raved about about it. The entertainment headline for it in our local paper read: "Satirical attack of horror movies is mindless, but good fun." The full review gave absolutely no indication of sexual content. I relented and took her, knowing full well that if things got out of hand, we'd be outta there in a flash. Exactly what happened. There was absolutely no redeeming values whatsoever in this flick - filth, perversity, racism, foul language - you name it, it was there. What the hell was Ebert thinking? Better yet, what the hell were the producers thinking??Yes, the movie deserves an X rating. But how is anyone to know beforehand??? Irresponsible journalism leads them to believe it is "good fun."
It's just too bad other parents weren't there to lead their children away.
This is about "normal" people, a bit detached from the modern "culture" perhaps, who sudenly come in contact with rivers of shit that are flowing through our society today. Sort of like your nice average grandpa (a WWII vet, to be sure) suddenly being confronted buy a mugger - good people are generally NOT ready to deal with garbage in large doses. Many of them don't spend time in drug infested back alleys (can't say that I blame them for that) and they are not aware of all the decay around them. They go through life presuming that most people are good, and that good is good and bad is bad. They don't know that it all "depends on what your definition of *IS* is" today.Daryl is absolutely right in his indignation. He has beed detached obviously, or he would have checked more carefully. But you can't blame him for that. Do you take every milk bottle you buy to a lab?
What comes to movie theaters in US today is 90% trash, with 8% super-vicious trash, and the remainng 2% fit for "normal" people's, Daryl included, consumption. And forget about that Ebert idiot, smart people stopped paying attention to that baffoon many years ago. If you listen to someone with a whole lot more credibility (Michael Medved, for instance, although I don't think you will see him on TV any longer), then you will hear jokes about Ebert - "Two thumbs up what" kind. Michael is one very smart guy, and used to host sometimes the Rush show - and those were always the days to listen.
Where is he now? I think he writes for some mag - is that so? See, I am detached too...
Daryl, if you pay attention to the US movie industry, then you will eventually develop the feel for what is potentially garbage. If you are too busy (like many of us are), here is the simple rule: all what comes from Hollywood should be simply ignored until someone you know personally says it is OK. Ebert needs not apply for that position. I think the stuff from Walt Disney is generally fine, albeit corny, but great for kids.
Outside of that, man, we are largely out of luck. Garbage makes money by garbage bags, no, make it "garbage trucks", today, and if you go to see really good movies you are in an empty theater (a blessing, really) - Ritz in Phili, for example. Is it worse today than it was hundred years ago? I think so, and by a lot. Are we degenerating into an sub-Roman society? Yes. Are we there yet? Not quite.
As far as boycot - I have been boycoting Hollywood with my money for decades. I don't expect them to notice, I simply do so because my wife and I would rather see something that is worth seeing. But deep inside, I also don't want my dollar buy a single brick of their new mension. All trash that I need to develop the immunitet I can get from TV and I don't pay for it.
Like you I am far from being prude. I can and have watched the worst kinds of porn and slashers. It takes a lot to offend me. I just refuse to be taken for and treated like an idiot.
Best of luck. If you stick around you might learn about some good stuff too.
For you to condemn over 90% of the movies produced by Hollywood is just silly. Come on, there are lots of very good movies made ranging from adventure-filled and fun (The Mummy remake) to sentimental (Titanic) to comedic (The Muse) to traditional/heroic (Saving Private Ryan). And there are even some excellent quasi-documentaries produced by the likes of HBO! (From the Earth to the Moon series comes immediately to mind).Give me a break. If you can't find a wide variety of enjoyment of excellent entertainment from movies released, I'm saddened for you.
Yes, there are lots of turkeys as well, but this is like condemning all music because of The Beastie Boys or Spice Girls (sorry to the BB and SG fans, but you know what I mean).
***For you to condemn over 90% of the movies produced by Hollywood is just silly. Come on, there are lots of very good movies made ranging from adventure-filled and fun (The Mummy remake) to sentimental (Titanic) to comedic (The Muse) to traditional/heroic (Saving Private Ryan).Yep. All of these I put in the trash category. So sue me. At best they are one notch below mediocre.
***And there are even some excellent quasi-documentaries produced by the likes of HBO! (From the Earth to the Moon series comes immediately to mind).
Remember, I have reserved that 2% for decent stuff. I loved the HBO's "barbarians at the gate".
***Give me a break.Given. Take a break.
***If you can't find a wide variety of enjoyment of excellent entertainment from movies released, I'm saddened for you.
Don't be. There are plenty of good movies out there that I have not seen yet. I am afraid my life is too short. They usually are not from Hollywood, though. SOme are.
***Yes, there are lots of turkeys as well, but this is like condemning all music because of The Beastie Boys or Spice Girls (sorry to the BB and SG fans, but you know what I mean).
No, this is like condemning The Beastie Boys.
I presume you are NOT equating Hollywood with world movie production, or are you? Hollywood produces probably 80% of world movies, but only 1 or 2% of good movies. Their fault, not mine.
Back to watching good movies.
is what AA is about. I think that if you check the world for output of movies, you'll find that the number one market (total volume) is actually India.Movies, like any form of art, is very much a matter of taste. After reading your posting, I have a sense of what you don't like but not much insight concerning your likes. Is it that you don't like movies in general? What might come up on your approved list? I provided a number of pop movies as examples of what I found to be enjoyable entertainment. To this we can add more "serious" movies but the point is simply that we are in strong disagreement as to the merits of movies. Obviously, this isn't going to be resolved but I'd feel as if I knew more about your position if you were to elaborate.
Medved got fired and is now residing in Seattle, still trying to bring sensibility and sanity to the entertainment industry. However, he receives a ration from liberal and so called progressive minds when he dares to tread on their hallowed ground (the constitutional isue of free speech). All animals are allowed to speak freely only some are allowed to speak more freely than others. His is a lone voice in a great wilderness.
***Medved got fired and is now residing in Seattle, still trying to bring sensibility and sanity to the entertainment industry. However, he receives a ration from liberal and so called progressive minds when he dares to tread on their hallowed ground (the constitutional isue of free speech). All animals are allowed to speak freely only some are allowed to speak more freely than others. His is a lone voice in a great wilderness.I love that man. Every time I got a chance to hear him it was time well spent. He is extremely well educated, very articulate and even-tempered - an ideal combination for a cause promoter. Good sense of humor too.
I wish him best of luck.
Actually its about naive adults who take 9 year olds to R rated movies. I always wondered who those folks were. Now I know. My parents sure didnt do it.And Victor, while I can relate to what you say to some degree mass media entertainment has never been about quality. It been about entertaining the masses. Using is as a barometer of societal health is a bit of a reach. The US has NEVER been a country in with the majority of filmgoers would have sat through (never mind enjoyed) a screening of the films you typically enjoy. I know its popular for some to look over hollywoods history and name good films of the past and decry the drop in quality its worth remembering that that library of exceptions is culled from a population of thousands of ordinary or worse movies accumulated over the better part of a century. And never mind the pre code days in which sex / drugs and moral ambiguity were a staple, or the post code exploitation flicks. This movie has always been out there and there has always been an audience for it. Sweeping it under the rug doesnt make that magically disappear nor does using it as an object lesson in social decay makes any sense.
I suspect what really drives the frustration with this movie is the violation of a traditional US film taboo - showing the penis or a representation of it. There is something about male frontal nudity that seems to define a rather ridiculous US moral standard which permits female nudity in movies yet reactions of moral outrage if a male is involved. Both this movie and the new Jim Carrie movie (in this case in the form of a dildo) have crossed this rather parochial US barrier and have gotten slammed for it.
joe
...unfortunately both you and Victor have strayed from one of the most important, and frightening, aspects I mentioned in my original post. The responsibility, or irresponsibility in this case, of the press to disclose the true nature of the film. The front page of our local paper (a New York Times owned rag, I might add) states, "Spoof of horror movies is mindless, but fun." Roger Ebert's column failed to disclose ANY instances of sexual display, explicit or implied. As did the syndicated capsule review. Nowhere, I repeat, nowhere, did any reviewer allude to the filth and toilet humor (not to mention the pro drug use and racism) rampant in this film. No, they all concentrated on the "humor", which IMO was non-existent.Anyone with money (or backing) can produce and distribute a film, but it will only attract viewers if it is sufficiently publicized. In many cases, this precludes an honest, objective review which would drive prospective customers away. Had not the local rag, Roger Ebert, and the syndicated capsules suppressed the fact that this was NOT a harmless spoof of horror movies, but instead a degenerate sexploitation film, it would not have been as popular as it is today.
While it may be true that some people are thrilled by this type of crap, the negative reaction of the audience proved that they are in the minority. I am willing to bet that half the people at the showing that day would have stayed home if they had but known the true nature of the film.
Incidently Joe, my family owned movie theaters most of my life and your statement that "...the pre code days in which sex / drugs and moral ambiguity were a staple" is simply not true. This impression is a figment of the imagination of folks like yourself who attempt to decry films of the past to justify those of today. For your information, "the [Scary Movie type] movie has NOT always been out there", even though there may have been an audience (albeit small) for it.
> > I suspect what really drives the frustration with this movie is the violation of a traditional US film taboo - showing the penis or a representation of it. < <
Traditional US film taboo?? Parochial US barrier?? Please, your condescending nature is unappealing. As is your ignorance of the feelings of the majority of our population. This is not a question of "film taboo", but rather moral integrity. Decency. Heard of it?? We are speaking of the gratuitous display of male frontal nudity and the penis, not something that is an integral part of the plot. We are talking about injecting disgusting sexual displays into the spoof of a movie which had no sex in the first place.
And what in the hell do the ordinary movies of the past have to do with the filth we are discussing here? Your analogy is skewed.
Daryl R
There was precious little in this movie that hasnt appeared numerous times in other movies before. That you arent familiar with that is more evidence of your insularity that any condecension on my part."the [Scary Movie type] movie has NOT always been out there"
Well what do you define as a scary movie? Would Frankenstein, Dracula, Dr Jeckle & Mr. Hyde qualify? All films from the '30s in which innocents were stalked and murdered by evil? And in which audiences shrieked with fear (& delight). Sound vaguly like the basic plot of and number of teen slasher movies of the past two decades you've ever heard of?And moral integrity and decency? Have I ever heard of it? Yep. I'm not the one who takes 9 year olds to R rated movies. Perhaps rather than registering your indignation publicly and decrying not being protected from your own errors you should instead take responsibity for your own actions. Thats what living in this country is about last time I checked. We have the opportunity to do as we please within the limits of the law, but no one can protect us from ourselves without curtailing our rights. That puts a bit of a burden on us as individuals. Deal with it.
And I would suggest that if you are such an authority on what the majority want perhaps you could expalin why this movie had the #1 grossing box office in the US this weekend @ $42.5 million?
joe
Comparing this movie to Frankenstein??? Wow, what have you been smoking??? Get serious, you cannot compare the Monster" movie genre of the '40s and '50s to today's slasher/sex movies. And just where did you get the screwy idea that we are talking about "scary movies". That happens to be the name of the movie, Joe. Get it? "Scary Movie".Name one scene in any of the movies you mentioned that showed explicit, degenerative sex acts. Can't do it can you? Name one scene in any of the movies you mentioned that shows any sex scenes. Can't do it, can you? Name one scene in any of the movies you mentioned that shows excessive violence and bloodshed. Can't do it can you?
So, my taking a 9 year old to this movie somehow justifies the movie's content in your opinion? What a wacko idea of right and wrong!!!
Who's talking about being protected from my own errors? I'm trying to protect others based on my own experience.
I have never in my life heard anyyone mix their metaphors as much as you. Sorry Joe, but your analogies simply do not ring true.
Oh yeh, the Frankenstein monster never stalked and murdered innocents. In fact, he was NOT evil (which anyone would know if they saw the original movie). And Frankenstein himself (that's the doctor, Joe) was equally innocent of your accusations.
You just don't get it, do you?
I misinterpreted yor comment Daryl - not hard to do given the incomprehensibility of your arguments. Cleary I dont equate this movie with Frankenstein. But it isnt clear exactly what you do object to here (though my comment on male frontal nudity does appear to have been rather close to the mark). Lets go back to one of your prior comments ---We are speaking of the gratuitous display of male frontal nudity and the penis, not something that is an integral part of the plot. We are talking about injecting disgusting sexual displays into the spoof of a movie which had no sex in the first place.--
Earth to Daryl - the entire genre of scary teenage slasher flicks has included gratuitous nudity since the 1980s. Go back to the Haloween films, Friday the 13th series of teen targeted dreck and its there for you to see. It was precisely this that the film spoofed. Dont like it? Thats a matter of taste, not the decline of western civilization.
Oh yes (and I cant believe a person whose family has been in the theatre busniess for years could screw this up) - Frankenstein murdered a young girl (albeit unintentionally) in what at the time was regarded as the single most controversial scene in the movie - something you should know if you had actually payed attention while you watched the movie.
But paying attention doesnt appear to be one of your strong points - IT WAS AN R RATED MOVIE. You failed to notice that and didnt like the consequences. Deal with it instead of decrying the movies existence.
---Who's talking about being protected from my own errors?.---
You are only you dont appear to be suffieciently sentient to reailize that. What your original post basically communicated was "Boycott this movie because I failed to note the rating and exposed my 9 year old to it". Face it Daryl - you screwed up and now you're channeling your outrage at Hollywood. I cant say any plainer than that so if you still dont realize it I give up.
joe
> > > Earth to Daryl - the entire genre of scary teenage slasher flicks has included gratuitous nudity since the 1980s. < < <The main spoof in the movie, according to ALL the critics, was towards The Matrix, a film devoid of explicit sexual contact.
> > > Frankenstein murdered a young girl (albeit unintentionally)... < < <
Self contradictory. There is no such thing as unintentional murder - it's called manslaughter.
> > > What your original post basically communicated was "Boycott this movie because I failed to note the rating and exposed my 9 year old to it". < < <
Wrong again Joe. Those are your words. The basic premise has nothing whatsoever to do with my (or anyone) taking a 9 year old to the movie. I made the mistake, that's a given. It has never been denied, yet you keep clinging to it as your only hope of pleading your case.
The point, if you have the ability to realize it, is simply that "Scary Movie" is filled with degenerative sex, pro drug use, blatant racism, and as such is not a fit vehicle for our young. The young being the overwhelming majority of those in attendance. Allowing them to be exposed to such filth is not a very pleasant thought and can do a hell of a lot more damage than one might think. This has nothing to do with me personally - get it?
---The main spoof in the movie, according to ALL the critics, was towards The Matrix, a film devoid of explicit sexual contact.---This is simply not true. This film had in jokes referencing Haloween 1, 2, 3, 4, etc, Friday the 13th 1-etc., I Know What You Did Last Summer, Scream & Scream 2, The Sixth Sense and a few I dont even remember at the momenet. Ever even see Scream or Scream 2? The mask wearing character came straight out of it. Both were R rated movies by the way. Saying its primarily based on the Matrix is like saying war is primarily about loud noises.
---The point, if you have the ability to realize it, is simply that "Scary Movie" is filled with degenerative sex, pro drug use, blatant racism, and as such is not a fit vehicle for our young. The young being the overwhelming majority of those in attendance. Allowing them to be exposed to such filth is not a very pleasant thought and can do a hell of a lot more damage than one might think. This has nothing to do with me personally - get it?---
This from the guy who brought a nine year old to the movie. I do get it. I dont take minors to R rated movies & when I attended I didint see a single minor in the audience. Get over it.
joe
I viewed "Starship Troopers" with a rather sparse audience. In front of me was a young mother with two chilren under the age of 5. They freaked out. The mother insisted on watching the film with them and stayed. I've viewed preadolescent children at many of the R films I've see albeit I do not see that many. My wife teaches 3rd grade and has heard many of her students over the years revel at going to films that would make a prostitute blush or Dracula vomit. They seem to be in the company of an adult as our area is tough on enforcing the ratings code. Then there is the side issue of videos. I am not aware that video stores enforce the ratings code. The responsibility here lies clearly with the parents and many of them want to play laissez faire when it comes to raising their children.No one here is suggesting that your right to see this "entertainment" should be denied nor should Hollywood be denied the right to produce such stuff. The Constitution gives you and them that right. I think what is bothersome to many is that this sort of stuff is becoming mainstream (you sound old enough to remember Stag films and "art" theaters), and that producers seem to be hiding or camouflaging the actual content. Since a very large group of moviegoers is adolescent and male, movie producers know this group is a veritable gold mine. So I believe it is becomes the viewer to ascertain the content of the film and if it is suitable for his/her eyes and those of their children. Then the parent must no cave in to the screams of his/her child(ren). However, there are few places where this information can be found. I gave a link to one of the few I know of and received a barrage of anti-Christian rhetoric. Is this the voice of sensibility and reason?
Daryl is not a loonie nor are you. Yes, Daryl made a mistake but who is perfect. Unlike the mother I mention above he did remove his child. That was wise. I've done that with one of my children at "Anastasia", a cartoon that was scaring the pants off of him. But afterall it is a Disney film, eh? So much for that logic. Daryl seeks to move on from what he did. Now can I ask you and others to help him and me to find avenues of discovering the actual content of a film rather than relying on a faulty ratings system and reviewers who are concerned with the adult content rather than suitabiltiy for adolescent and preadolescent children. So can we help each other out here?
BTW, I learned that if you discover within a reasonable time that the film is unsuitable for you or your party and you wish to leave, the theater will refund your money or give you passes to another show. I think this is a fair way of treating customers.
I think a few comments have alredy been offered by others. I dont have kids but several close friends and business associates do. The rules I see them go by include:1. Skew towards studios that focus more on family entertainment - that usually means Disney. As you say, not always a guarantee, but its a start.
2. Skew towards G & PG films. Hey, but you do that already.
3. If in doubt prescreen the movie yourself. I know LOTS of folks who do this. The first time I heard of it I was a bit surprised but since, I've stumbled across a lot of folks who do.
4. Network with friends with kids to get the scoop on new releases they or other like minded people may have seen. Resist the temptation to go to the movie the opening week.
5. I'm sure there has to be a review site on the web that focuses on family value type pics (lord knows there is a site somewhere on any topic you care to mention) run some searches and see what you come up with.
Hey, I dont know all the answers but I can understand the dilemma. This is just a bit of what I've seen work for my friends.
--BTW, I learned that if you discover within a reasonable time that the film is unsuitable for you or your party and you wish to leave, the theater will refund your money or give you passes to another show. I think this is a fair way of treating customers.---
Absolutely. I find they will refund if you just walk out complaining you think its not a good movie and ask for a refund.
joe
Thanx for the laffs... the asylum needs more loonies like you.
***Actually its about naive adults who take 9 year olds to R rated movies. I always wondered who those folks were. Now I know. My parents sure didnt do it.Criticism well placed, agreed. At first I missed that it was an R-rated flick.
***And Victor, while I can relate to what you say to some degree mass media entertainment has never been about quality. It been about entertaining the masses.
So I don't get any credit for knowing this? No proble so far.
***Using is as a barometer of societal health is a bit of a reach.And here IS a problem, Joe.
The point is that we are not talking abot quality of that entertainment, but its offensive value. The way I see it, the degree of that offensive shock is only getting higher and higher, and you will not convince me that we had all this in the fifties. True, I was not here, and you got the head start on me, but my impression is that it was perhaps at times corny, poor quality, naive and in poor taste, but we can't compare it to the current river of decayed matter. I think we all know that the movie producers have been pushing the envelop since the beginning, and they really now have only few things uncovered.
***The US has NEVER been a country in with the majority of filmgoers would have sat through (never mind enjoyed) a screening of the films you typically enjoy.That is unfortunate enough in itself, but on top of that we are the major source and trend setter in the offensiveness department. Not only have we failed to build a robust and healthy movie culture here, at home, we have also done our best to destroy the cultures of many other countries. They all to large degree have succumbed to the relentless pressure and cheap temptation - ala the McDonald penetration. And this is not just the American fault - the French, the Italians, the Germans, etc hold as much respolsibility for allowing the bad things happen to THEIR movie cultures as well. They complain too much and do too little.
***I know its popular for some to look over hollywoods history and name good films of the past and decry the drop in quality its worth remembering that that library of exceptions is culled from a population of thousands of ordinary or worse movies accumulated over the better part of a century.
Again, Joe, it is NOT the quality that I am talking about, but the shifted focus towards the shock. And while in the art area you can keep expanding forever, the shock thingy is limited. At some point you simply start recycling the old junk.
***And never mind the pre code days in which sex / drugs and moral ambiguity were a staple, or the post code exploitation flicks. This movie has always been out there and there has always been an audience for it. Sweeping it under the rug doesnt make that magically disappear nor does using it as an object lesson in social decay makes any sense.I don't doubt it was always there to some degree, but there is large difference between existing on the fringes of the society and being actively pushed, promoted in the most "mass of the mass" media. You can't deny that the trash like the teen movies was not there with all the morons and idiots being presented as "nice lovable slightly inti-social rebels". I don't think there was a phenomenon like that king of morons, John Belushi (sp under time pressure) and those who keep copying him.
***I suspect what really drives the frustration with this movie is the violation of a traditional US film taboo - showing the penis or a representation of it. There is something about male frontal nudity that seems to define a rather ridiculous US moral standard which permits female nudity in movies yet reactions of moral outrage if a male is involved.
We are mixing things here. The naive and ridiculus reactions come from ALL angles, and the fact they exist doesn't take from the fact that they are largely justified. You are simply talking about the arbitraty line, and no matter how you draw it it will not look right, that's given. And I don't share your concern about the male nudity - it has been used without bad effects for a long time and by the British, of all people.
***Both this movie and the new Jim Carrie movieOh, please, don't even mention THAT name in relation to the movies...
***(in this case in the form of a dildo)
You are right, he IS one large dildo.
***have crossed this rather parochial US barrier and have gotten slammed for it.It is not the mere existence, it is what you do with it. The Clockwork Orange used the dildo before.
...Jim Carrie fan eh? I never would have guessed ;-) Actually, I'm not either.I dont think its fair to single out this type of entertainment and read to much into its achieving mass distribution compared to the past because thats a technology issue, not an art or societal issue. With the internet, cable, satellite communications and the myraid of other communication channels spewing information forth EVERY form of expression has increased exponentially. We've got 24/7 religous cable TV channels, Consevative (as well as liberal) talk radio hosts with national syndication, 24/7 coverage of congress on TV (2 channels), and a half doxen 24/7 domesitc and international news channels - we didnt have that in the '50s. And lots more people watch TV than go to movies. A movie in in 1950 was true mass comunication when it came to visual imagery - people didnt have TV. What portion of available viewing time and audience reach does a movie like this have in the TV era of today in comparison? I think one could argue that this is still the fringe and that the number of people it reaches in proportion to other media is no greater than it ever was...
joe
...what do they all watch on that dreaded tube?You point about the TV vs. movies is right, but the TV did not replace the bad movies with good news or art movies on the tube - far from it.
Look at the fast growth of movie channel after movie channel - they all show trash (with a possible exception of Bravo, but its presence is near zero).
I get funny feeling when I drive past the $40K homes with small dishes on top - that means the river of shit is reaching the masses with 500 channels of it to watch.
So unfortunately the same trashy movies are on every tube in every home - mine included.
...but the average American doesnt subscribe to many (if any) of those premium movie services. DSS penetration isnt that great in the bigger shceme of things. Most still soldier on with cable and maybe one or two movie channels at most due to the high monthly cost. And from what I've seen those folks with kids are more concerned about getting the Disney channel than those services anyway. I've also noticed among those folks with dishes I know, they are pretty scrupulous in controlling what their children watch on it....joe
Is there a technical (or economic) reason as to why cable is bundled? I would be much more likely to actually subscribe to cable if I could pick the channels (and only the channels) that I want to watch. That way, I wouldn't have to pay for crap like skinimax 1,2,3,etc just to be able to get one or two of the more obscure channels (like MTV-2, the MTV channel that actually shows videos).
The Cinemax Movie Channel, HBO and other "premium" (jeez, what award for a sewer pipe!) channels are not bundled into the basic service that you need to get in order to see the MTV whatever. I think you can selectively subscribe to paid channels - check your local provider. There is no technical reason why you should not be able - they can turn your access to any paid channel on and off from their office.
So I guess this means I'm a sexist pig with a double standard. But this film does have "simulated" fellatio and cunnilingus and the world's largest cumshot.Okay, I probably am a sexist. I laughed hardest when the killer stabs Carmen Elektra in the chest, and instead of a mortal wound, he pulls out a breast implant impaled on his knife.
I've never been understand how a movie is rated PG when a guy gets cut in half by a lightsaber yet a movie gets an R rating for a woman doing a quarter turn into the camera w/o her shirt on. How the "parental" MPAA rates violence is beyond me.Tom §.
Tom §.
> > He [Daryl] has beed detached obviously, or he would have checked more carefully. < <Actually, this was the opening day for the movie - second showing. All I had to go by were the previews on TV and Roger Ebert's column. Not his review, but any indication of what the content was. He made it out to be pure as the driven snow "Satirical attack on horror movies is mindless, but good fun." Nowhere, in any reference to the flick, was there any mention of nudity, sexual situations, perversity, etc. Irresponsible journalism?
> > Best of luck. If you stick around you might learn about some good stuff too. < <
My film library of several hundred is filled with classics, very few of recent vintage. From "Fitzcarraldo" and "The Garden of the Finzi-Continis" to "Spellbound" and "Notorious." Even complete sets of "Charlie Chan", "The Saint", and "The Falcon." I'm working on "Mr. Moto" and "Lord Peter Wimsey" now. Just love those old corny mysteries. Now, that's what I call "good fun."
This movie is probably the most vulgar film I've seen, an all-out assault of one-upsmanship on the standards set by "American Pie", "Road Trip", and the Farrelly Bros. films. There is a barrage of penis and testicle shots, semen jokes, etc. that push this film well into the NC-17 category. Don't know how it got an R (attn. Jack Valenti!). The teenagers in front of me were mostly in deep shock. I wouldn't want kids to see this film, and I'm not sure that I should have. The teenage horror film genre is ripe for parody and although there are funny moments in it, the overdose on toilet humor just crushed the wit out of it. Made Howard Stern's show look like MacNeil/Lehrer. Director Keenan Ivory Wayans has done a better parody: "I'm Gonna Git You Sucka".
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: