Jump to content

MrZoom

Member
  • Content Count

    112
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by MrZoom

  1. Oh how could I forget.... "Only one man would dare give me the raspberry.........LONE STARR!!!!!!!" THUNK
  2. I'm of two minds about this. On the one hand, he does have new material that he can parody. On the other, I'm not sure he can top "Radar about to be jammed" or "Ludicrous Speed"!
  3. MrZoom

    Shark Tale

    SDG, From your review at DecentFilms.com:
  4. Hmmm. I'm a wheelchair user myself, and I have liked the fact that disabled seating in stadium-style cinemas is more towards the front. When I saw the first X-Men in the cinema, it was at an older Showcase Cinemas, in a theater that was a very elongated box, and the handicap seating was way in the back. The screen seemed like a postage stamp. My local cinema, the Carmike Morgantown Mall 8, is not stadium and has its handicap seating more toward the back, but at least their theaters are fairly small and I still have a good view of the screen. Plus, I can get into any Carmike cinema for one free viewing per day. Still, I do like going to stadium-seating cinemas when I can. Carmike has such a cinema near Pittsburgh - I saw my second viewing of The Fellowship of the Ring there, as well as Spirited Away. And I think at least one other movie that I'm forgetting. Two of my five cinema viewings of The Return of the King were also in stadium theaters, and I think one of them was a Regal.
  5. I've been a fan of the Back to the Future series at least since the sequels came out in 1989/90, and have become even more interested since then since my buddy Daryl (whom I met in 1992) says it is his favorite movie series. However, the last time I watched 'Part III', I was troubled by what I regard as seriously problematic content in the film's final act. After Marty defeats "Mad Dog" Tannen in 1885, it's time for him once again to go "Back to the Future", per the series title. However the problem here is how it is accomplished: he and Doc Brown steal and wreck a train. In fact they had been plotting this for most of the time since Marty arrived in 1885! At first, it might be seen as justifiable as it was a means to spirit Doc Brown back to 1985 before he could be shot to death by "Mad Dog" (as in the first two films, a Tannen is the villain of the piece). But once "Mad Dog" is defeated and arrested, there seems to be no moral imperative for Doc Brown and Marty to carry through with their time travel plan. I consider this now to be a huge blunder on the part of the writers. Never mind the Ten Commandments - even secular law would frown on what our heroes do here to get Marty back to his own time. Grand theft - that is a felony. Property damage/destruction of that scale could also be a felony. Yet in the very last scene of the trilogy, Doc shows up back in 1985 (in his new peat-powered time machine) with his love interest in the film, Clara, and their two young children, and there's no hint that Doc suffered any consequences from the law as a result of the theft/destruction of the train. Granted that the BTTF universe is different from our own, in that it is established that one can travel through time, and change the course of history as a result; nevertheless, our 'normal' rules of right and wrong still seem to apply. Biff is established as a villain in Part 1 by showing that he bullies weak-willed George McFly into doing something wrong. Marty succumbs to the sin of greed in Part 2 and later comes to regret it. Etc. So, the question I throw out to the group is this: do you think there is a better, more 'moral' way that the writers could have written the end of Part 3, to get Marty 'back to the future'?
  6. MrZoom

    The Girl Next Door

    I saw a flash ad on comingsoon.net for this, basically the ad was "what's her secret?" and it quickly flashes "psst she's a pornstar" or somesuch. It's quite obvious to me that particular ad is appealing to the less honorable motives of the male population. :roll:
  7. Runs away. Which came first, the tit or the titillation? :roll:
  8. That would be The Electric Company. It was in its prime when I was a kid, and I was a big fan. (I liked Zoom, too. Figures that would become my nickname all these years later.)
  9. Steven, I caught that also. Taken hyper-literally, it would not cover, for example, pictorials in Playboy magazine and suchlike (about which I got a fair amount of grief from basketball teammates my freshman year in college because I didn't want to view them, and after a while, I suspect out of frustration with my resistance, they accused me of being gay. :roll: ).
  10. This subject has been bugging me for several months. The "bugginess" had lain dormant for a while, but was agitatied yesterday by this article at Catholic Exchange. It is worth pointing out that SDG's movie reviews often are posted at that site. The subject being: "When does a movie cross the line into pornography?" The article cited above gives the definition of pornography from the Catechism of the Catholic Church: "removing real or simulated sexual acts from the intimacy of the partners, in order to display them deliberately to third parties" (no. 2337). It seems at first glance a succinct and helpful definition. But then looking at how individual Catholics, the USCCB, and even the Vatican actually apply that definition, causes me confusion. Examples, point by point: 1) Schindler's List. Granted I have not seen this (would like to when it comes out on DVD next month). This film made the "Vatican Film List" as one of 45 films outstanding in the areas of art, religion or values. SDG, in his site FAQ, notes that the bedroom scene in this film is "far from pornographic" and notes that the USCCB "helpfully" described the scene as "discreet". The USCCB I believe gave the film a rating of A-III - appropriate for adult audiences. So, I figure, OK, if the sexuality depicted in a film is such that it is the primary reason the USCCB rates the film Morally Offensive, then the film has crossed the line into porn. For example.... 2) Revenge of the Nerds. A film that I used to like when I was young and foolish. :oops: There is a scene in this film where the "heroes" - the Nerds - ogle naked sorority girls on video cameras they have secretly installed. ISTM that the intent of the filmmmakers in this instance is clearly designed to tiltillate, and thus is pornographic. The USCCB review states, "The underdog heroes' attitude toward women is as reprehensible as that of their tormentors. Director Jeff Kanew's farce is full of vulgarities, much nudity and the romantic treatment of what is in effect rape." On the other hand, there is..... 3) Last Tango in Paris - with Marlon Brando. I have not seen it (and don't plan to), but ISTM that a film rated NC-17 for sexuality, and rated O by the USCCB, would clearly cross the line, given the Catechism definition ....Or maybe not. The USCCB review states, "... the sex scenes, while not pornographic are needlessly extended and explicit." ...which leaves me exasperated thinking, if that doesn't fit the Catechism definition of porn, what, for the love of heaven, does?!? I realize most of the folks on here aren't Catholic, but I was hoping this could be an ecumenical exercise to form our consciences. Plus I would imagine SDG will be along presently to put in his two cents.
  11. You're welcome. 8) Now as a point of clarification, I don't recall the character of Ana defending losing her virginity in those terms - IIRC, she said something to the effect of there's more to her than what's between her legs. But the actress who plays her uses that reasoning in the audio commentary. It disturbed me because it reminded me of the line they used to warn girls about getting from guys in sex ed ("If you love me you'll sleep with me") except in this case with a gender reversal.
×
×
  • Create New...