criterionforum.org

Angels were portrayed as females - nude, very nude. God was called many vulgar and hateful names. Satan was glorified. Jesus was equated with sexual anatomy. A child was graphically incinerated by igniting his flatulence, then another kid tried to beat out the flames with a stick and was concerned about the stick catching fire. Body parts dripping with blood were ripped from a child by a surgeon who expressed shallow concern. The dead child was then seen with an exploded chest. The dead child, after being rejected from Heaven (by nude female angels) and cast into Hell (which is a violation of Scripture in and of itself), was then presented as a ghost trying to influence the other kids. An all-male chorus line wore pink bikini briefs. Homosexual acts were described.

kaujot wrote:My God, who could watch such a film?

And you cannot imagine the depths of the influence of this sort of entertainment! In the months that followed our posting of this analysis report we received thousands of emails from adolescents who have seen this movie and spoke just like it. With the same or more severe level of contempt for wholesome and righteous ethics. I would post examples of their email here but most of them would look like "You --- ---, ---. You are a --- and a ---. Go --- ---. And see who cares about your --- ---, you --- --- sorry --- --- --- ---. --- my ---. And Satan's, too, you --- uncle ---- donkey ---." Just like South "Puke": BLU. And some people actually believe movies do not influence kids.

MichaelB wrote:

kaujot wrote:My God, who could watch such a film?

Well, you'll end up mentally scarred, that's for sure. According to Mr Capalert:

And you cannot imagine the depths of the influence of this sort of entertainment! In the months that followed our posting of this analysis report we received thousands of emails from adolescents who have seen this movie and spoke just like it. With the same or more severe level of contempt for wholesome and righteous ethics. I would post examples of their email here but most of them would look like "You --- ---, ---. You are a --- and a ---. Go --- ---. And see who cares about your --- ---, you --- --- sorry --- --- --- ---. --- my ---. And Satan's, too, you --- uncle ---- donkey ---." Just like South "Puke": BLU. And some people actually believe movies do not influence kids.

Antoine Doinel wrote:Why do these people willingly watch films that are morally reprehensible to their central beliefs? Are they really that naive, or do these reviewers secretly get off on writing down descriptions on everything that is naughty about the films? (I'm guessing the latter).

MichaelB wrote:The all-time classic C(r)apalert review is the one for South Park: Bigger, Longer and Uncut.

The whole thing is here, but this is a taster:

Angels were portrayed as females - nude, very nude. God was called many vulgar and hateful names. Satan was glorified. Jesus was equated with sexual anatomy. A child was graphically incinerated by igniting his flatulence, then another kid tried to beat out the flames with a stick and was concerned about the stick catching fire. Body parts dripping with blood were ripped from a child by a surgeon who expressed shallow concern. The dead child was then seen with an exploded chest. The dead child, after being rejected from Heaven (by nude female angels) and cast into Hell (which is a violation of Scripture in and of itself), was then presented as a ghost trying to influence the other kids. An all-male chorus line wore pink bikini briefs. Homosexual acts were described.

I thought long and hard (fnarr) about leaving that last bit in, but I thought it was important to underline just how truly depraved this film is.

colin wrote:Take this section from the review of the lacklustre Matrix Revolutions:

Sexual Immorality (S)

- dressing to maximize the female form and/or skin exposure
- two women arm in arm (more than friends) going to a "party" with other gay/lesbian presences
- a woman massaging the breasts of another woman
- men showing intimate affection to each other
- upper female nudity
- excessive breast exposure, repeatedly
- open face kissing

How did I miss this when I last saw the film?!

Mr_sausage wrote:

colin wrote:Take this section from the review of the lacklustre Matrix Revolutions:

Sexual Immorality (S)

- dressing to maximize the female form and/or skin exposure
- two women arm in arm (more than friends) going to a "party" with other gay/lesbian presences
- a woman massaging the breasts of another woman
- men showing intimate affection to each other
- upper female nudity
- excessive breast exposure, repeatedly
- open face kissing

How did I miss this when I last saw the film?!

I don't remember any of this stuff, and I'm pretty sure I would. This guy must have been watching very, very closely. It never ceases to amuse me when people are deeply offended by a movie, but nevertheless sit there and diligently record every offense with hawk-like precision.

Sex/Homosexuality (S)

- cohabitation
- excessive cleavage and breast exposure, repeatedly
- open face kissing
- intercourse with nudity with replays
- vulgar dancing with upper female nudity, repeatedly
- ghosting of female anatomy through clothing
- after sex conversation while nude
- vulgar imagery
- woman in men's room

colinr0380 wrote:The only non-Left Behind film I've found the site recommending so far is Who Gets The House.

DM Kilgore wrote:Okay, let me get this straight: an 11-year-old child, who is neither a lawyer nor a member of the family, approaches a judge with a totally bogus "legal document" asking that a family's house should be taken away from the legal owners and given to their pre-teen children. The judge obligingly approves this homemade "court order" despite the fact that no divorce papers have been filed and the parents are not even separated yet. The pre-teen kids then brazenly inform the parents that they have to take turns living in the house, Dad this week and Mom the next. The parents, being utter morons, obligingly accept this decree and move out without even consulting a lawyer. Makes perfect sense, doesn't it? No, it doesn't. This movie is pure gibberish, and so squeaky-clean you want to slap the characters. Good for an incredulous laugh, but that's about it.

jkillah1 wrote:I didn’t like most of these… they were to dull! Kind of depressing, actually.

There were a few I liked, but most of them just looked like something from an old magazine from the 80’s!

Bukator wrote:Are u ppl blind? These are garbage. It looks like they were drawn with pencil crayons and markers by a ten year old. We live in a world of photoshop now. These poters look to be drawn in Microsoft Paint. Get with the times man. I like vintage design just as much as anyone else but these are just terrible excuses for art. Very lazy designs here that seem to be whipped up in minutes by whoever created them. If this is what it looks like throughout Poland, then they are missing out big time.

jkillah1 wrote:Many of you may call these “art”, but maybe you are just giving them too much credit because they are old. To me, they just remind me of all those dirty, boring, drab things from decades ago. Like watching TV shows from the early 90’s.

I love good art, and don’t get me wrong. The modern hollywood posters are not that great, but at least they have some vibrant color!

Nowadays, all that these posters would do is depress people and make them think that the films were boring! I’m surprised that so many people like these. It just gives me a sinking feeling in my gut. Uggh!

abcd wrote:pretty depressing lot. some frustrated soul working on them. didnt like any. morose and not really communicative.

luridedith wrote:Truly beautiful and inspiring collection of film poster art from Poland unsurprisingly provokes moronic comments from blog readers who "know better"

What exactly is the message here? Society sucks? Poverty is inescapable? Don't respond to stealing with more stealing? Or, at least, never try to lift someone else's bike when 10,000 people are ready to spring upon you from every doorway and stop you? The truth is, I can't figure out the movie's message. Nor can I relate much to the depths of poverty shown here - can the guy really not afford to buy another bicycle, or borrow one, or *something*? Or must his whole life be an endless tale of frustration and woe?

This is another one of those "Top 100 Films" (or top 250, whatever) that is very overrated and will always be overrated because critics don't have the guts to ever change their lifelong opinions of anything, or go against their peers. In other words, it's the "thing to do," meaning rate some films higher than they deserve. It's almost an elitist-type of attitude among critics. Maybe it makes them feel smart. It's always been "in," too, among North American critics to overrate these European films. That, too, somehow makes this Liberal morons feel intelligent. They do this with Kurosawa, Bergman, Tarkovsky, Truffaut and others. In this case, it's director Vittorio De Sica.

As for the death scene, at an estimated weight of over 16 tons it's unlikely that King Kong could leap in the air, smack an aircraft, and land back atop the Empire State Building as depicted without doing major structural damage both to the ape and the building. The gigantic ape was repeatedly raked with .30 cal machine guns fired from biplanes. Given the size of the beast , he would most likely have died slowly from blood loss, yet little blood was shown. When he fell, Kong's gravity to air resistance force ratio would be about 3 times that of a human sky diver. A human jumper would hit the sidewalk at a terminal velocity of around 120 mph (193kph). Kong's terminal velocity would be about 3 times higher but he would never reach it. Even without air resistance the maximum velocity of a fall from the top of the Empire State Building would only be 193 mph (311 kph). Kong would hit the sidewalk with the explosive power of between 10 and 27 lbs of TNT. Ape parts and blood would be splattered all over.

As for the death scene, at an estimated weight of over 16 tons it's unlikely that King Kong could leap in the air, smack an aircraft, and land back atop the Empire State Building as depicted without doing major structural damage both to the ape and the building. The gigantic ape was repeatedly raked with .30 cal machine guns fired from biplanes. Given the size of the beast , he would most likely have died slowly from blood loss, yet little blood was shown. When he fell, Kong's gravity to air resistance force ratio would be about 3 times that of a human sky diver. A human jumper would hit the sidewalk at a terminal velocity of around 120 mph (193kph). Kong's terminal velocity would be about 3 times higher but he would never reach it. Even without air resistance the maximum velocity of a fall from the top of the Empire State Building would only be 193 mph (311 kph). Kong would hit the sidewalk with the explosive power of between 10 and 27 lbs of TNT. Ape parts and blood would be splattered all over.

It may come as a jolt to film historians that Welles’ hallowed classic, so embalmed as the ‘Greatest Film Ever Made’, has only just squeezed into the top 30. Has time finally caught up with it? While Welles’ achievement is never in doubt, it remains a film that appeals more to the academic and critic than the film fan, partly because of its reputation. Talked of with hushed voices and nodding heads by wise arbiters of film, for the non-acolyte it can feel like an enigma — a whopping cathedral of a movie, awe-inspiring, but too vast and ornate to love. If the list embodies only technical prowess and thematic power then its demotion is a shock, but is it a friend for life? A comfort? On current showing, perhaps not.

domino harvey wrote:Not to get into this, but Ernest Goes to Jail is the best Ernest movie...