What Movie Did You Just Watch? - Shh! It's Starting!

[ajmrowland]

Fantastic Mr. Fox-This is a really enjoyable movie. The characterization is nice, if a little cliched. Much of the casting wasn't necessary. Owen Wilson's character only has one scene, while Micheal Gambon is relatively uncredited in the ads as the villain, Bean. On the other hand, while Im not really familiar with Wes Anderson's other works, I found the humor to be very smart and witty, and the music is good, as well. I particularly like the old fashioned visual style they went for with the animation. It's not just stop-motion, but it's hardcore stop-motion-effects, framerate, and a few side-scrolling shots scattered here and there-and it's all very unique for a modern film. Though I shouldn't compare, It's not as strong as a Pixar film, but it's really good, fun movie. 8/10

On the other hand, the extras on the rental DVD suck. I know the blu-ray has plenty, but the store I was at didn't have that, and Fox seems to like to hold stuff off their rentals, which I hate. There are only two previews on the extras menu, one being for a sequel to Space Chimps, which I didn't even know warranted one in the first place.

[jpanimation]

Any chance of being able to import the 9-disc set?

Well, you have some options. They made regular Blu-ray and DVD sets and then they made Special Edition Blu-ray and DVD sets. The Special Edition sets include How Ponyo Was Born, which is an extensive making-of doc (over 12 hours of material), and is so big it can actually be bough separately from the regular Ponyo movie.

So if you were looking to purchase the 9-disc Special Edition DVD set, it can be found HERE, or if you were looking to purchase the 3-disc Special Edition Blu-ray set, it can be found HERE. The only difference in features between the 9-disc DVD and 3-disc Blu-ray is the Blu-ray set not including the 2-disc Joe Hisaishi in Budokan concert (available separately as a 1-disc Blu-ray). If you were looking for more information on any of the available releases, you can find it HERE.

I must warn you, these were limited edition sets, so they're hard to find. Also, How Ponyo Was Born (the extensive doc), is only in Japanese (no english subtitles). This is why I was hoping Disney would release it here.

Disney has stake in Ghibli, enough so to throw some weight around, and they pushed them into supporting Blu-ray with Ponyo. They pushed again and now have Nausicaä coming out in Japan on Blu-ray. Ghibli is taking their time with the Blu-ray releases, at Miyazaki's digression of the digital format, and is making amazing sets on Disney's request (they want to make them one-at-a-time to give the proper care and attention). Why the hell is Disney not taking advantage of all this effort being put into these sets?

[Lazario]

They weren't exactly clear at the start or throughout most of the documentary why this is such a huge issue to begin with. Along the way, they start to reveal that the issue is about how our information is controlled by corporations and that sort of thing. But this isn't about news, it's really about how artists are punished for not being in-line with the escapist movie-making mindset of Hollywood studios. This is really where they contradict themselves, if I'm not mistaken. Because they immediately tell us that the interview subjects are the people who are being confrontational with the subjects of their dramas, comedies, and documentaries. They don't interview any action or horror directors, though they name them (Clive Barker, Wes Craven). The only person who directed a horror film (unless you count John Waters' Serial Mom, and I do half-heartedly) they talk to is Mary Harron and she's usually known for doing retro dramas. They even treat her film to the same over-sexed jokes they make of all the other movies they feature which were cut for sexual content.

My problem with this, and why they've contradicted themselves, is by suggesting that better, less offensive films (the more sexual films) are confrontational and that horror films are actually harmful or may be reinforcing bad morals. Confused morals, yes. If what we're talking about is the MPAA's hypocrasy. But that's not all the movie is in fact suggesting. After Mary Harron's interview about the MPAA giving American Psycho an NC-17 and forcing her to cut it down to an R, they have Kevin Smith come on and say he thinks all films that feature a woman in peril are offensive. Out of context, this is true. But in the context of the film, they put clips of American Psycho which they basically just defended because the film was commenting on sexuality in a graphic way into a montage of women being terrorized in films. Most of those films were excessive, yes. But they just took Harron out of context. When they put a clip from Psycho of Patrick Bateman calling Cara Seymour's character a "piece of bitch trash!!", they've completely ignored the reason why. Which, by dealing with the 3-way sex scene, they were supposed to previously be understanding.

Overall, the film is silly and doesn't go as far as it needs to. In explaining things. It's much more interested in showing us the clips that were cut in full NC-17 form. And to the point where it's like we have to tell them... "we got the point already." I didn't have any real interest in seeing that puppet spoof movie the South Park guys did and I have even less now that we see the puppets pooping on each other during a simulated sex scene...while in this documentary Matt Stone tells us he didn't want to put that scene in the movie in the first place ...Okay. Than, what did you just prove? Nothing. There are too many scenes trying to make us laugh at sex. By repeating this one shot from I don't remember what movie of this guy doing this woman up against a wall and we see him nude from behind. Over and over again. They even cut it into later scenes. Like it's still funny. There's too much bouncing and they show footage that even shocked me.

I would have had a very hard time myself giving Jersey Girl an R-rating were they to simulate a scene in which a boy child exposes himself like that to a girl. I know it's not exciting or anything. But if the MPAA does its' job, parents don't want their kids to see that ever. I know, I still live in a small town. I was born and raised in another small town. The message they're trying to send is that the stupid board feels a conversation in which Liv Tyler says she masturbates frequently is more disturbing than children showing each other their sexual organs in a relaxed setting. I don't even want to know about that sort of thing, on my own. Let alone have to judge whether or not parents should allow children to watch it! And this movie is coming from the guy who tried to school us on what's wrong with horror movies. I don't exactly feel I should be taking my morals (which I already agree with) about women shown to be getting pleasure in a movie from people trying to make you laugh at bouncy sex and doll sex while expecting us to be shocked at Scary Movie and American Pie!

But really, that's the last item on my agenda against the movie. The rest of it is very positive. When it's actually talking about things rather than trying to show us yet more nudity when we basically get the point already. It takes a very long while of them pounding into our heads the issue of the MPAA's absurd security measures and secrecy for me to get the point that- we should think about why that is. And really, how the downside affects us at all. At first, it doesn't. We still have the freedom to watch what we want to watch and they don't address or attack the way this system might affects movie trends. Which I guess is for another documentary entirely. They bring up gay themes constantly but all of that feels almost irrelevant when you remember that at the very beginning they "explained" (with tons of jokes) what each rating means from the inside of the MPAA's supposed standards. "Abberant Sexuality" comes to mean any anal sex, doggystyle, 3-ways, oral, masturbation, and long orgasms. At least, as far as 90's movies go.

The funny thing about this was I didn't realize Natasha Lyonne - though I'd seen both movies many years before today - masturbated onscreen twice in the same year! I was sure this movie was going to mentioned The Slums of Beverly Hills, since that masturbation scene is quite long and happens in the bathroom. With a dildo, as well, and the movie mentioned that the MPAA hates dildos onscreen. Though her character is straight, so they don't bring up Slums at all. I wish they had. The one time you knew for sure the MPAA were being homophobic was the Kevin Bacon and Colin Firth 3-way in Where the Truth Lies. Especially since we see 3-ways being singled out in a montage of sexual moments cut from movies the MPAA gave NC-17 ratings to. But then, people were I'm told shocked that Wild Things wasn't cut in what seemed like any way. That's another movie conveniently left out of this doco. I mean, if the point of including all the really nasty, gross stuff from Scary Movie was to say the MPAA are hypocrites, why not Wild Things? Easy target, free shot. And with cast members like Neve Campbell and Denise Richards fresh in the time of Scream and The World is Not Enough...

Where this documentary really cooks is when they talk about the military. And, like I said, the more they show how freaked out Joan Graves gets and how rude the lawyer is and how many times people go, "I shouldn't divulge" or "answer" that. It goes beyond my first instinct, which is how damn self-important these people are. If the reason people don't want to talk is lawsuits, that might be more disturbing than anything else. There's also a section that mentions Valenti and company pushing to create new fines against ridiculous forms of piracy in terms of copyrights. The Mickey Mouse Birthday cake thing is especially sick. Whether it's likely to happen or not.

[Disney-Fan]

Alice in Wonderland - Honestly, it's after movies like these that I'm sure the only mad hatters in the room are the critics. Every moment of it was pure joy and fun. From the casting, to the SFX, to the artistic designs, everything was a pleasure to watch and experience. Is it a perfect adaptation? Far from it, but also far from the 50 odd percent rating Rotten Tomatoes is giving it. Anything combining Depp, Elfman and Burton's wacky designs is good just by the default of those three combined. 7/10

[Margos]

The Princess and the Frog - Pure magic. I've already seen it, but seeing it more times is just even better! I loved all of the subtle, cute little refrences in the end credits, too, I never noticed them until seeing the DVD. I saw it with my grandma, and she cried when Ray died.

[Goliath]

Lazario: honestly, sometimes I don't get you. I don't even know what's your beef with the film. I mean, I'm a film scholar myself, so I know a bit about over-analyzing, but sometimes you really take it to extremes. Such as with this film. I really don't get your complaint. Maybe if you wrote it down in one sentence, I could comprehend it? That whole novel you wrote about it seems so vague and it looks like you're nitpicking a lot (maybe because you're into horror movies yourself?).

The point of the documentary is clear: the MPAA is a joke, because its rating system is hypocritical and uses double standards all the time. But we knew this for decades, right?

The last film I watched:

Election (1999)

Sold as a clever satire on American politics, this film about a high school student election is nothing more than an average teen comedy. Some parts, while funny, seemed very out of place due to the strong sexual content. Now everybody knows I never object to this kind of thing, but it felt out of tone with the rest of the film. Matthew Broderick is very good. He has lost all of this charm and charisma from the days of Ferris Bueller and now plays a complete loser with a midlife crisis. But the storylines about his private life didn't mix well with the main storyline about the elections. Overall, this film didn't know what it wanted to be.

[Scarred4life]

The Hunchback of Notre Dame. I've watched this movie twice a day this whole week. I think I am border-lining obsession.

[ajmrowland]

They weren't exactly clear at the start or throughout most of the documentary why this is such a huge issue to begin with. Along the way, they start to reveal that the issue is about how our information in controlled by corporations and that sort of thing. But this isn't about news, it's really about how artists are punished for not being in-line with the escapist movie-making mindset of Hollywood studios. This is really where they contradict themselves, if I'm not mistaken. Because they immediately tell us that the interview subjects are the people who are being confrontational with the subjects of their dramas, comedies, and documentaries. They don't interview any action or horror directors, though they name them (Clive Barker, Wes Craven). The only person who directed a horror film (unless you count John Waters' Serial Mom, and I do half-heartedly) they talk to is Mary Harron and she's usually known for doing retro dramas. They even treat her film to the same over-sexed jokes they make of all the other movies they feature which were cut for sexual content.

My problem with this is, and why they've contradicted themselves, is by suggesting that better, less offensive films (the more sexual films) are confrontational and that horror films are actually harmful or may be reinforcing bad morals. Confused morals, yes. If what we're talking about is the MPAA's hypocrasy. But that's not all the movie is in fact suggesting. After Mary Harron's interview about the MPAA giving American Psycho an NC-17 and forcing her to cut it down to an R, they have Kevin Smith come on and say he thinks all films that feature a woman in peril are offensive. Out of context, this is true. But in the context of the film, they put clips of American Psycho which they basically just defended because the film was commenting on sexuality in a graphic way into a montage of women being terrorized in films. Most of those films were excessive, yes. But they just took Harron out of context. When they put a clip from Psycho of Patrick Bateman calling Cara Seymour's character a "piece of bitch trash!!", they've completely ignored the reason why. Which, by dealing with the 3-way sex scene, they were supposed to previously be understanding.

Overall, the film is silly and doesn't go as far as it needs to. In explaining things. It's much more interested in showing us the clips that were cut in full NC-17 form. And to the point where it's like we have to tell them... "we got the point already." I didn't have any real interest in seeing that puppet spoof movie the South Park guys did and I have even less now that we see the puppets pooping on each other during a simulated sex scene...while in this documentary Matt Stone tells us he didn't want to put that scene in the movie in the first place ...Okay. Than, what did you just prove? Nothing. There are too many scenes trying to make us laugh at sex. By repeating this one shot from I don't remember what movie of this guy doing this woman up against a wall and we see him nude from behind. Over and over again. They even cut it into later scenes. Like it's still funny. There's too much bouncing and they show footage that even shocked me.

I would have had a very hard time myself giving Jersey Girl an R-rating were they to simulate a scene in which a boy child exposes himself like that to a girl. I know it's not exciting or anything. But if the MPAA does its' job, parents don't want their kids to see that ever. I know, I still live in a small town. I was born and raised in another small town. The message they're trying to send is that the stupid board feels a conversation in which Liv Tyler says she masturbates frequently is more disturbing than children showing each other their sexual organs in a relaxed setting. I don't even want to know about that sort of thing, on my own. Let alone have to judge whether or not parents should allow children to watch it! And this movie is coming from the guy who tried to school us on what's wrong with horror movies. I don't exactly feel I should be taking my morals (which I already agree with) about women shown to be getting pleasure in a movie from people trying to make you laugh at bouncy sex and doll sex while expecting us to be shocked at Scary Movie and American Pie!

But really, that's the last item on my agenda against the movie. The rest of it is very positive. When it's actually talking about things rather than trying to show us yet more nudity when we basically get the point already. It takes a very long while of them pounding into our heads the issue of the MPAA's absurd security measures and secrecy for me to get the point that- we should think about why that is. And really, how the downside affects us at all. At first, it doesn't. We still have the freedom to watch what we want to watch and they don't address or attack the way this system might affects movie trends. Which I guess is for another documentary entirely. They bring up gay themes constantly but all of that feels almost irrelevant when you remember that at the very beginning they "explained" (with tons of jokes) what each rating means from the inside of the MPAA's supposed standards. "Abberant Sexuality" comes to mean any anal sex, doggystyle, 3-ways, oral, masturbation, and long orgasms. At least, as far as 90's movies go.

The funny thing about this was I didn't realize Natasha Lyonne - though I'd seen both movies many years before today - masturbated onscreen twice in the same year! I was sure this movie was going to mentioned The Slums of Beverly Hills, since that masturbation scene is quite long and happens in the bathroom. With a dildo, as well, and the movie mentioned that the MPAA hates dildos onscreen. Though her character is straight, so they don't bring up Slums at all. I wish they had. The one time you knew for sure the MPAA were being homophobic was the Kevin Bacon and Colin Firth 3-way in Where the Truth Lies. Especially since we see 3-ways being singled out in a montage of sexual moments cut from movies the MPAA gave NC-17 ratings to. But then, people were I'm told shocked that Wild Things wasn't cut in what seemed like any way. That's another movie conveniently left out of this doco. I mean, if the point of including all the really nasty, gross stuff from Scary Movie was to say the MPAA are hypocrites, why not Wild Things? Easy target, free shot. And with cast members like Neve Campbell and Denise Richards fresh in the time of Scream and The World is Not Enough...

Where this documentary really cooks is when they talk about the military. And, like I said, the more they show how freaked out Joan Graves gets and how rude the lawyer is and how many times people go, "I shouldn't divulge" or "answer" that. It goes beyond my first instinct, which is how damn self-important these people are. If the reason people don't want to talk is lawsuits, that might be more disturbing than anything else. There's also a section that mentions Valenti and company pushing to create new fines against ridiculous forms of piracy in terms of copyrights. The Mickey Mouse Birthday cake thing is especially sick. Whether it's likely to happen or not.

I saw the movie and think it was very clear from the get-go as an attack on the MPAA and the confused Morals of America. With the violence, I think you're both right and wrong in the way that disturbing images are given lighter consideration than what most 13 yr olds already are aware of like masturbation. I also expect a lot of movies weren't mentioned simply for time reasons, or because the filmmakers were unaware of them. Not every NC-17 movie was ever gonna make the cut.

The rest of your comments, I simply dont really see where you're coming from. Watching this for me was like having someone take out the screw that was keeping my Jaw up. I have no faith in the MPAA anymore.


Anyway, I watched Capitalism: A Love Story, and I like it. It's heavy and only lightens up for the stunts that Micheal Moore pulls mid-movie. Nothing really is new to me, except for the flashbacks of yester-decade and even much of that is stuff I'm already aware of. Other than that, the film does well with it's material, and I accidentally returned it in a Simpsons case.

[jpanimation]

Night at the Museum: Battle of the Smithsonian (2009) 4.5/10 - very different from the original, but not much else positive to say about this movie. Heck, I’d say its worst then the first one, which wasn’t very good, if only for the lack of cohesive narration this time around. The story is almost non-existent and is only there to support as many cameos as possible. At least the first one had somewhat of a mystery and a clever antagonist (instead of the annoying one we are presented with here). I was really getting annoyed hearing The Simpsons guy (Hank Azaria) voice the major characters with these ridiculous/irritating personas. I missed the character development that Larry Daley went through in the last movie as he tried to solve his family problems with his son, or as he dealt with his new responsibility to protect the residents of the museum (even how he solved his individual problems with each of them), or how he tried to win over his love interest (which is absent from the sequel, neither seen or spoken of). This sequel just seems too loud and clustered for no apparent reason. It also asks us to suspend all disbelief and just accept that no one in Washington would see all the creatures and destruction happening (where the hell are all the Night Guards at the Smithsonian?). Even Alan Silvestri’s score seems over the top in this one and lost the magical mysterious quality it had in the original. With that said, Amy Adams was inspired casting as Amelia Earhart and Jay Baruchel’s cameo was very cool (he seems perfectly suited in the 40’s). The first one wasn’t that good but this one just seemed to loose anything the original had going for it. Didn’t think I could be disappointed but I was.

Astro Boy (2009) 5/10 - they did all the wrong things by copying the Dreamworks formula and completely failed in doing so. They took a franchise that would appeal to nostalgic adults, the main demographic of a movie like this, and then dumbed it down so much that no adult could ever really enjoy it. This movie is aimed squarely at children, nothing put in for adults to munch on. It has dumb dialog that is written with children in mind and is quite possibly the worst I’ve ever heard. Then you have the major actors delivering their lines like they were reading them live for the first time off of teleprompters. What’s worst is them hiring an all-star cast, that probably cost them half their total budget, and almost all of them were miscast in their parts. In fact, the all-star cast were probably the worst voice actors in the movie (with their voices not even matching the characters they were playing), and only the professional voice actors, that probably cost 1/9th as much, seemed to do a good job (I consider Nathan Lane a veteran voice actor by now). Nicolas Cage was probably the biggest miscast of them all, with Charlize Theron doing a part that anyone could’ve done and probably better at that (opening narration). Add on top of that a story that just seems like one event after another, with no character development at all. Heck, the real Astro Boy (Tobey in this movie) is killed in the first 12 minutes and we don’t even care, as we never got to know him at all (just a few quick lines), making the father's disconnect with the robot recreation less meaningful. You won’t find any more depth here then a 15 minute saturday morning cartoon show. What really killed this one was the break-neck pacing of the movie that just goes from one event to the next, while completely forgetting the characters. Add in the completely worthless expensive all-star cast and the poor script/dialogue aimed at children (that abandoned their key demographic), and I’m starting to see exactly why this movie bankrupted the studio that created it (Imagi).

[ajmrowland]

Any chance of being able to import the 9-disc set?

Well, you have some options. They made regular Blu-ray and DVD sets and then they made Special Edition Blu-ray and DVD sets. The Special Edition sets include How Ponyo Was Born, which is an extensive making-of doc (over 12 hours of material), and is so big it can actually be bough separately from the regular Ponyo movie.

So if you were looking to purchase the 9-disc Special Edition DVD set, it can be found HERE, or if you were looking to purchase the 3-disc Special Edition Blu-ray set, it can be found HERE. The only difference in features between the 9-disc DVD and 3-disc Blu-ray is the Blu-ray set not including the 2-disc Joe Hisaishi in Budokan concert (available separately as a 1-disc Blu-ray). If you were looking for more information on any of the available releases, you can find it HERE.

I must warn you, these were limited edition sets, so they're hard to find. Also, How Ponyo Was Born (the extensive doc), is only in Japanese (no english subtitles). This is why I was hoping Disney would release it here.

Disney has stake in Ghibli, enough so to throw some weight around, and they pushed them into supporting Blu-ray with Ponyo. They pushed again and now have Nausicaä coming out in Japan on Blu-ray. Ghibli is taking their time with the Blu-ray releases, at Miyazaki's digression of the digital format, and is making amazing sets on Disney's request (they want to make them one-at-a-time to give the proper care and attention). Why the hell is Disney not taking advantage of all this effort being put into these sets?

hhhhmmmmmm......On second thought, maybe I'll just wait until someone subtitles them and puts them on youtube.

[Lazario]

I saw the movie and think it was very clear from the get-go as an attack on the MPAA and the confused Morals of America.

Hello.

You didn't read me correctly. I didn't say it was unclear what the documentary was, I said it was unclear why it was such a serious issue. What it means to us, the viewers. Why corruption and hypocrasy... for movie ratings... is such a serious issue. They really never did come right out and say it. People take most movies too seriously, anyway. And think most of them mean more than they really do.

With the violence, I think you're both right and wrong in the way that disturbing images are given lighter consideration than what most 13 yr olds already are aware of

How can that be? I didn't really say anything about that. I didn't dispute that the MPAA were light on violence. We all know that. I believe what I said was that the documentary took the horror violence of American Psycho out of context to try and claim the film glorifies violence against women. Another funny thing about that- when they show the movie's famous "Hey, Paul!" ax killing... they don't show us that the victim is a man! They only show the torso shot of the body splashing in a pool of blood from the back of his shirt. From that angle, the viewers who hadn't seen American Psycho could easily think that's a woman. But there's a huge difference between between typical horror violence and the action film violence we see. I also called this out when I said the documentary mentions how art is confrontational. Well, they put Gunner Palace in that section and pretended that American Psycho's violence was just offensive and gratuitous - even after they interviewed the director, including her in a montage of people who think the MPAA's rating system is flawed. That's insulting. It's like they either forgot what movie the violence was from or they themselves are hypocrites.

like masturbation. I also expect a lot of movies weren't mentioned simply for time reasons, or because the filmmakers were unaware of them. Not every NC-17 movie was ever gonna make the cut.

That's not the point. Not even close. Wild Things and The Slums of Beverly Hills were rated R. That's the point. Things includes a 3-way and full-frontal male nudity and Slums has a female masturbation scene. In the same year as a film they did mention, But I'm a Cheerleader- originally rated NC-17, and featuring the same actress. We see a dildo onscreen, as the documentary said is considered an MPAA don't, and we see a long shot of the girl's face as she has an orgasm. Something they mentioned was cut from another film, Boys Don't Cry.

The rest of your comments, I simply dont really see where you're coming from. Watching this for me was like having someone take out the screw that was keeping my Jaw up. I have no faith in the MPAA anymore.

Did you ever trust them to begin with? I'm a horror fan. The threads on the MPAA's cuts for the Friday the 13th series are more abundant on horror boards than posts on this board about The Lion King! Or Beauty and the Beast. We've known about their hypocrasy for many, many years. And I've got inside stories on several of my horror DVD's about the MPAA and how they've been very tough on violence in the past. To me, this documentary is mostly old news. Only the military and war stuff was really new to me.

[PeterPanfan]

According to Greta - I watched this in hopes of finding Hilary Duff to be an improved actress. She is. Duff plays 17 year old Greta, a dark and suicidal teenager who is sent to her grandparents house after her mom can't take anymore of her. Greta, to her grandparents, is annoying, selfish, conceited, and pretty much a bitch, especially with her outlandish and rude comments about life. Only when Greta meets a certain boy does she start to change. Recommended.

[Lazario]

According to Greta - I watched this in hopes of finding Hilary Duff to be an improved actress. She is. Duff plays 17 year old Greta, a dark and suicidal teenager who is sent to her grandparents house after her mom can't take anymore of her. Greta, to her grandparents, is annoying, selfish, conceited, and pretty much a bitch, especially with her outlandish and rude comments about life. Only when Greta meets a certain boy does she start to change. Recommended.

A Disney production?

[PeterPanfan]

According to Greta - I watched this in hopes of finding Hilary Duff to be an improved actress. She is. Duff plays 17 year old Greta, a dark and suicidal teenager who is sent to her grandparents house after her mom can't take anymore of her. Greta, to her grandparents, is annoying, selfish, conceited, and pretty much a bitch, especially with her outlandish and rude comments about life. Only when Greta meets a certain boy does she start to change. Recommended.

A Disney production?

Nope, it was independent.

[Goliath]

I didn't say it was unclear what the documentary was, I said it was unclear why it was such a serious issue. What it means to us, the viewers. Why corruption and hypocrasy... for movie ratings... is such a serious issue. They really never did come right out and say it.

Well, that's pretty obvious. The ineffective, corrupt rating system influences the size of audiences. If a film gets rated 'R', it's likely to have a much smaller audience. So the filmmakers then have the choice to compormise their creativity to get a better rating, or to accept a smaller audience and therefore potential financial losses. I don't mind a rating system, but I object to such a corrupt system. Many people let their choice of film depend on the rating, and they are being lied to by the MPAA.

Furthermore, I think your love for horror movies makes you more biased than the makers of this documentary.

[PeterPanfan]

How To Train Your Dragon - I actually really enjoyed it. I have never read the book series, but that didn't taint my liking of it at all. It was adorable, funny, and sad. It rivals Pixar's worst.

[ajmrowland]

To Lazario: Goliath made my point clear for me. Thanks, Goliath!

Micheal Jackson's This Is It-As a non-fan of his when he was alive, I like his music that's in the film. Thriller and Smooth Criminal being my favorites. I was really captivated by the material filmed for the two aforementioned in the show, as well as the other song closer to the end that I cant remember the name of. Either way, with filmic material-2 of which was made for 3D-and many awesome special effects to go with the equally-awesome music, I would've to see the show! Alas, it was not meant to be, and many of that crew have moved on to other things.

[Lazario]

A Disney production?

Nope, it was independent.

Does she still do anything with/for Disney?

The ineffective, corrupt rating system influences the size of audiences. If a film gets rated 'R', it's likely to have a much smaller audience. So the filmmakers then have the choice to compormise their creativity to get a better rating, or to accept a smaller audience and therefore potential financial losses. I don't mind a rating system, but I object to such a corrupt system. Many people let their choice of film depend on the rating, and they are being lied to by the MPAA.

I understood that. But - why is the size of audiences such a big issue? They didn't mention why we should care so much. That's one thing. I can imagine an answer to that for myself. In the meantime, the documentary was lightweight in nearly every regard. And these people rely on some already-established Michael Moore type tactics and have the same attitude, thinking we should all really care about a few already overly self-indulgent dramas that had a thing or two taken out of context for them by someone else. But Michael Moore is dealing with life-or-death issues. We knew the issues of those films were really impotant and affected us all. Again- I've known the MPAA were corrupt and hypocritical before this documentary came out. That's how I'm biased. They couldn't even keep consistency with the claims they were trying to make. As my examples of gay-themed films proved.

Furthermore, I think your love for horror movies makes you more biased than the makers of this documentary.

If you were trying to toss off my observations like they don't have any meaning, that's probably what you would think.

All my being a horror fan means is that I understand the validity of that artform. When it was an artform and not a pretentious series of "survival" films trying to use 9/11 as a lame excuse to indulge in any sadistic exploitation or torture scenarios screenwriters can think up involving kidnap, rape, victim revenge fantasies, and sexualized mutilation. If that's the kind of thing you're suggesting I find worthy of the MPAA being light on - you're, to put it mildly, way off base.

My comments about American Psycho were spot-on.

[PeterPanfan]

Nope, it was independent.

Does she still do anything with/for Disney?

Not that I'm aware of. She left their record company, Hollywood Records, in 2007 and moved to a new one.

The only thing related to Disney she is currently doing is starring in ABC Family's "The Business of Falling in Love" in April.

[PeterPanfan]

I came home from school early and decided to watch something that has been collecting dust on my shelf for a while...

Pretty in Pink - I had, surprisingly, not seen this John Hughes jem before. Molly Ringwald starred as the overcompensating Andie, a high school senior who is typically called a nerd, or in this movie, a "droid." Her best friend, the infamous Ducky played by Jon Cryer, is secretly in love with her, Andie of course being oblivious to the fact. She, instead, lusts after Andrew McCarthy's character, and they of course, end up together. Harry Dean Stanton (is that his name?) had the best scenes with Ringwald, in my opinion. Recommended.