What a horror. As I recall, the late Roger Ebert would not review it, saying "I can't give a review because this is not a film or motion picture. I don't know what it is"
Movies that OFFEND you
- Thread starter Konata Izumi
- Start date
What a horror. As I recall, the late Roger Ebert would not review it, saying "I can't give a review because this is not a film or motion picture. I don't know what it is"
What a horror. As I recall, the late Roger Ebert would not review it, saying "I can't give a review because this is not a film or motion picture. I don't know what it is"
A non-fiction how-to guide.
Surprisingly there is quite a bit outside of the new testament of course. But Mel Gibson's re-creation was offensive because if you see the film it almost exclusively blames Jews for Jesus execution to the point of being anti-Semetic. When add in his behavior on several occassions and anti-Semetic drunken statements I think at least IMO the Passion of Christ was more so a Passion of Mel's against Jews.
Lucian of Samosata was a second century Greek satirist
Jesus in the Babylonian Talmud
Josephus, a first century Jewish historian
Reporting on Emperor Nero's decision to blame the Christians for the fire that had destroyed Rome in A.D. 64, the Roman historian Tacitus wrote:
If you want to see a movie about Jesus's last days that's based on the bible, don't watch Passion of the Christ, watch The Gospel Of St Matthew.
The South Park episode claimed (In their 'We're telling you something totally true now' voice) Passion was based on a Spanish play written during the Inquisition, and the Bible didn't go into such detail about the crucifixion. Don't know how credible that can be taken to be, but the film certainly fills in the informational gaps in the Bible with Mel's big ol' imagination.
The films that offend me the most are films that speak to the audience in the language of being open minded and progressive but at their heart are super-conservative. Films like Friends With Kids where characters try to have a non-traditional family and just realize they need to behave more traditionally at the end, not because they're forced to, but because human nature compels them to.
Also there's tons of cases in films where women have to prove they're not shallow by dating a man who isn't physically attractive, but nearly zero cases where men have to prove the same thing. Women in a lot of films basically exist as a reward for the most virtuous male.
The South Park episode claimed (In their 'We're telling you something totally true now' voice) Passion was based on a Spanish play written during the Inquisition, and the Bible didn't go into such detail about the crucifixion. Don't know how credible that can be taken to be, but the film certainly fills in the informational gaps in the Bible with Mel's big ol' imagination.
The films that offend me the most are films that speak to the audience in the language of being open minded and progressive but at their heart are super-conservative. Films like Friends With Kids where characters try to have a non-traditional family and just realize they need to behave more traditionally at the end, not because they're forced to, but because human nature compels them to.
Also there's tons of cases in films where women have to prove they're not shallow by dating a man who isn't physically attractive, but nearly zero cases where men have to prove the same thing. Women in a lot of films basically exist as a reward for the most virtuous male.
Movies based on Nicholas Sparks books. 
Pointless sequels and reboots irk me a lot, particularly when they're not really needed or desirable- of course I suppose that that's sort of subjective though I bet that we could agree on a few reboots or sequels that maybe shouldn't have ever been greenlit. Of course, some franchises like Star Wars and Star Trek had good sequels that kept things going but things like Disney going on a massive direct-to-DVD sequels to classic movies binge in the late 90's early 00's tarnished a lot of the classics and I'd actually rather pretend that most of them never existed. It seems like there is a disturbing lack of originality in Hollywood sometimes.
Movies which "offend" me are movies which insult my intelligence, or otherwise seem to show contempt for their audience. Horror movies tend to get a pass from me more often than the other genres, but...
...is a good example. One of many.
...is a good example. One of many.
Once you get over the shock of the idea, which is roughly 10 minutes in it becomes a boring movie full of muffled crying.
I advise going in with alcohol, some good friends and the desire to mock it. Because I really can't tell if the movie is taking itself too seriously or it a parody of movies that do that.
Personally I'm offended by the RoboCop remake existing.
I'd at least have more faith in remakes if they took some chances with it. Most just place it safe and try to appeal to a very wide audience.
With RoboCop, the original had themes of identity, a corporation that cares more about the bottom line than human life (even the lives of their employees), privatization of public services, massive corruption, man vs machine (both internal and external), life, death and messianic imagery while done through a dark satire of 1980s America with extreme violence about a cyborg regaining his humanity. All of that is still relevant today because we're starting to actually live in that world. We literally have flying robots that kill people, companies buying up public services (including the city of Detroit) and general notion that corporations really run the country due to lobbying the government. We just don't have a cyborg police officer we can root for as he recovers his identity from the company that stole it from him.
It can be done, but its easier to make an action movie where they have to explain to the audience that he's fighting his programming because they assume the audience is too dumb to realize it.
There were some great remakes in the 80s like The Thing and The Fly. Both took the original concept and went in a different direction. The Thing is more about paranoia than a monster and The Fly is more about watching someone you love being consumed by an illness than a giant fly. I actually saw a comment from Fox about remaking The Fly again because they wanted to see The Fly actually fly around.
With RoboCop, the original had themes of identity, a corporation that cares more about the bottom line than human life (even the lives of their employees), privatization of public services, massive corruption, man vs machine (both internal and external), life, death and messianic imagery while done through a dark satire of 1980s America with extreme violence about a cyborg regaining his humanity. All of that is still relevant today because we're starting to actually live in that world. We literally have flying robots that kill people, companies buying up public services (including the city of Detroit) and general notion that corporations really run the country due to lobbying the government. We just don't have a cyborg police officer we can root for as he recovers his identity from the company that stole it from him.
It can be done, but its easier to make an action movie where they have to explain to the audience that he's fighting his programming because they assume the audience is too dumb to realize it.
There were some great remakes in the 80s like The Thing and The Fly. Both took the original concept and went in a different direction. The Thing is more about paranoia than a monster and The Fly is more about watching someone you love being consumed by an illness than a giant fly. I actually saw a comment from Fox about remaking The Fly again because they wanted to see The Fly actually fly around.
I once got an angry three-page letter (by snail mail!) because of one throwaway line of dialogue that poked fun at Ronald Reagan.
How dare you, sir!!! I'm writing another. What's your address?
Wow ... for being so forward in labeling SST a "satire", they sure missed the irony of that attitude.
The really disturbing thing about The Human Centipede is knowing that it probably exists because that's a fetish for someone.
What's really disturbing is that everything is. I found a subreddit for people who get off on gaining so much weight that they can no longer walk. They post photos of themselves and post tips on gaining more weight than land mammals should be capable of gaining and surviving longer than a few hours.
Rumor has it the Borg go into the amputation and implant fetish region. It's everywhere.
I'm surprised that nobody has yet mentioned "Rabbit Test."
"Follow your dreams--you can reach your goal; I'm living proof. Beefcake. BEEFCAKE!!"
As for as remakes go...if it could be done correctly...Network. Still relevant today as in 1976. More so. Boy HOWDY, was that sucker prescient.
I really liked Pain & Gain. I thought it was hilarious. What was wrong with it?
Oh, that reminds me, Cars "offends" me for totally ripping off Doc Hollywood and then totally getting away with it!
As a gay guy I'm offended by how boring Brokeback Mountain was.
These were best movie nominees for 2004...
Brokeback Mountain
Capote
Good Night, and Good Luck.
Munich
Crash
Yeesh, that's an uninspiring bunch. I've only seen 2 of them but I don't really have any burning interest in seeing the other 3. Of the 2 I have seen:
I hated Munich. I didn't think it was physically possible for Spielberg to make a movie that dull.
Good Night and Good Luck wasn't terrible but it was a very dull hagiography and only exists because Edward R. Murrow isn't still around for George Clooney to give him a blow job in person.
The only movie I can ever recall being offended by was Guy Ritchie's "Sherlock Holmes", with Robert Downey, Jr. Nothing against RDJ; I loved him in "Chaplin", and I love him as Tony Stark. But Sherlock Holmes has been my favorite fictional character since I was thirteen, and that movie just made me want to throw things. I never had high hopes for it, but I tried to keep an open mind, because I didn't want to be one of those hard-core traditionalists. But I guess that's what I am. Apparently the director didn't think that audiences would be interested in a movie built around Holmes's brilliant feats of deductive reasoning, so he went with fistfights and explosions. I know, Holmes is an excellent boxer and swordsman, but he's no action hero. His greatest strength is his mind, but there was barely any of that in Ritchie's film. Just a lot of cheap thrills and pandering to the lowest common denominator. I refuse to even watch the sequel. Even though I always said Stephen Fry would make a great Mycroft.
Sorry. That was a bit of a rant.
I agree that the Guy Ritchie movies don't feature enough deductions for my taste. But then, that's kind of a tough thing to get on screen. Sherlock and a lot of the other adaptations kinda gloss over that stuff too. But I thought the Guy Ritchie movies got the characters absolutely right!
You mean like the part where Watson punches Holmes when he makes a sly jab at him? Yeah, some real fidelity to the source material there.
(I'm not saying it's horrible, or even that such a spin on the characters doesn't have its place. But to say that it accurately portrayed Doyle's heroes is just objectively and pathetically false.)
As a gay guy I'm offended by how boring Brokeback Mountain was.
Not to mention all the western-wear jokes and quotes you just know that film inspired.
Making Love with Michael Ontkean was at least set in sleepy suburbia, although Personal Best was easier on the eyes from my standpoint.
Even though I've never seen The Hunger Games or Divergent there is a part of me that I am certain would side against the heros.
I remember a comedy program where Fred Willard as himself was talking to Freddy Krueger, where Willard, like myself, had no problem with the slaughter of teenagers by the dozen.
"Nobody likes them anyway."
Even though I wasn't far from a teen myself--I understood perfectly...
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1534945/
Then too, I never root for the wildebeest in nature documentaries.
Man, everything takes them out. Lions...hyenas...crocodiles...rabbits...