subscriber help

such a nasty woman | by maryann johanson

question of the day: What movie do you find offensive (but no one else seems to)?

Today’s question comes from reader Dardo, who writes:

I always thought the first Narnia movie was one the most offensive movies ever made, with Santa Claus giving a knife to a six year old girl so she can go to war, and a group of children marching to war with no training or any military knowledge other that a prophesy, but no one ever mentions this…

What movie do you find offensive (but no one else seems to)?

Mine would be, of course, It’s a Wonderful Life, which I think sends a terrible message about perpetual self-sacrifice, which is not as noble a thing as the film wants us to believe it is.

Have fun storming the movies!

(If you have a suggestion for a QOTD, feel free to email me.)

Warning: Invalid argument supplied for foreach() in /home/flick/public_html/wptest/wp-content/themes/FlickFilosopher/loop-single.php on line 106
  • t6

    Fight Club. That movie filled front front to back with sexist, Iron John-esque, men’s movent rhetorical crap. I really can’t stand it. Yeah, it is clever and well filmed…but the whole men’s movement thing about how men are being feminized and must get back to there violent caveman roots is sexist and classist and I can’t stand that movie.

  • Judy

    The scene in Yes Man with the elderly woman offended me – our culture disrespects older people and especially women. Also – smoking seems to be making a comeback on film and filmmakers are pandering to the tobacco companies and glorifying smoking again. I sound like an old fogey but there you go. (I’m an ex-smoker so tend to avoid these movies – which means missing out on some good ones)).

  • amanohyo

    American Beauty. It glorifies the Lester and Ricky characters and demonizes Carolyn, but the main reason it’s offensive is because it’s so damn tacky. Every other line is awkward and pretentious enough to make me cringe or chuckle derisively, and this is coming from a pretentious person who usually loves cornball moments in movies.

    Honorable mention goes to 300, a confused soulless mix of xenophobia and homoerotic machismo that takes itself way too seriously. It’s Professional Wrestling with swords, and everyone who isn’t a straight, shaved, macho white dude is the enemy.

  • Mike

    It’s been a while since I’ve seen it, but if I remember correctly at the end of Top Gun they actually say something like “and nobody got hurt” when two MIGs were shot down. I guess the Russian pilots were either indestructible or nobodies. It’s not the most offensive thing in a movie, but it seems to me to be the most overlooked offensive thing.

  • The Dark Knight I wrote about what I didn’t like when it first came out: “Without the white knight, the voiceover said, we need the dark one. Oh, we’ll disavow the vigilante. We’ll hunt him. We’ll curse his disregard of civil rights, but this jurisdiction-less hero who operates in secrecy and beyond the law, he is just what we need.” Not in my book.

  • Hasimir Fenring

    Anything by Kim Ki-duk, but especially Spring, Summer, Fall, Winter, and Spring in which he demonises all three of the women on screen and gleefully punishes one of them with death immediately after her ‘crime’.

  • Robert McCoy

    I have no problem with stoner, boys will be boys humor, but I thought Knocked Up was pretty lame. There’s always a cop-out moment at the end of any Apatow movie, where the regressive man-child “grows up” with help of some perfect hot babe way out of the said man-childs’ league. This justifies all the crude behavior displayed throughout the previous 2 hrs. I don’t mind vulgar or crude, just the cowardly attempt to have it both ways. Plus, Apatow movies are way too long. They should learn from other great comedies like Airplane, Blazing Saddles, or any Woody Allen classic; 90 minutes is just enough for comedy.

  • Anne-Kari

    I am loathe to say it, because so much of the movie is wonderful/touching/funny, but The Philadelphia Story has one scene that makes me absolutly want to vomit. The best description including quotes can be found here (starts close to the bottom of the page, paragraph beginning “Her father remarks how Tracy has no heart or ability to understand his present major weakness: mild philandering with a pretty young dancer”):



  • mortadella

    I hate Sabrina, the old one and the remake.

    david didn’t know Sabrina was alive while she was living under the same roof as him…but then she goes to Paris, gets a make-over, and he suddenly SEES her. Yippee! She’s pretty now, which means she has value now? The richy dude’s shallow reaction was totally romanticized.

    Funny thing about the above posts…I thought Fight Club was actually kind of feminist. Yep, they dressed it up in macho clothing, but basically, I felt like the protagonists were talking about typicaly female issues. Like, having to look a certain way, having to live an Ikea perscribed existence….how all of that contributes to emotional numbness and so on.
    Smoking in movies doesn’t bother me; people in the real world smoke.

  • KLW

    Seven. It was number one at the box offices for weeks and weeks, made over $300 million, so it seems a lot of people liked it. I thought every moment of it was repulsive, from enduring the screaching of 9 Inch Nails through the opening credits to enduring them again at the closing credits. And in between just about the most perverse, cynical, sadistic and grim stories I’ve ever endured sitting through. Worst movie ever? It gets my vote.

  • Will

    What pisses me off the most (and probably because of some of my dating experiences when I was “the nice guy) comes from two completely different movies with similar themes. Dumb choices women make in love stories. The two films which I speak of is the Notebook and Wedding Crashers. I guess what makes it worse are that many of these are a case of film imitating life because I’ve seen so many examples between myself and friends I’ve had over the years, which is why it irritates me so much.

  • I have to distinguish myself between distasteful and offensive. There are two movies I found distasteful while at the same time admiring the acting, story or cinematography.

    The aforementioned Seven is a movie I swore I’d never watch again. I also found Terry Gilliam’s Tidelands — a strange but disturbing film that I’d have to really work up the nerve to watch a second time.

    Offensive? The Bone Thief. It lies to the audience, it presents characters for what they represent not who they are, and it treats everyone like idiots actors and audience combined.

    My wife finds the movie Magnolia to be offensive in that it is manipulative in an unrealistic and unfair way.

    I guess we don’t offend like most people.

  • Man on Fire. The “hero” goes on a murdering and torturing spree for revenge, and the cops sit back and love it. I guess Mexicans don’t care about civil order?

  • Karen P

    Well – there’s always Gigi…

  • Judy

    Philadelphia Story is one of my absolute favourites – but I agree about that part of the film mentioned above about female “intolerance” for philandering and certainly it also minimizes and justifies male violence. It is certainly a product of it’s time. Also agree with MaryAnn about It’s a Wonderful Life – it does glorify self-sacrifice to a perhaps unhealthy degree – hadn’t thought of it that way before. Re: smoking – of course people in the real world smoke – but they are addicted – quitting was one of the hardest things I’ve ever done. It would be great if people’s well-being was more important than economic gain.

  • MaSch

    Now, my vote goes to a movie probably none of MaryAnn’s readers will know (those lucky ones), but I can’t help myself: I must name Keinohrhasen (Rabbits without ears) by writer, director, producer and star Til Schweiger, who among other things wrote dialogue for his female co-stars where his arse is described as really sexy and had a nude scene for the emale star which was plainly embarassing (she is naked while he is sleeping, has to go to the toilet, the door doesn’t close and he wakes up to see her urinating. Yuck.). It also features such wisdom as “women who say they only want some fun sex are lieing and secretly hoping that the man who proposes said fun will fall in love with her”, a sex scene where the woman suddenly vomits for no reason and an explanation about the different ways men suck at cunnilingus. It also has lots of cute children for the cuteness factor and the woman choosing the reformed jerkass in the end instead of the caring nice guy who has more charisma in his little finger than the main character in his whole body and is the really cool actor Jürgen Vogel.

    And then, some months later, a feminist website praised the director/writer/producer/star of this misogyistic dreck, which even offended *my* feminist sensibilities, because he said that women should cheat as much as men do (well, I would say neither shuld cheat their partners) and that he made cunnilingus much more of a pleasure for German women because of his movie. Arrrgh!

  • Der Bruno Stroszek

    I’d second Wedding Crashers, but for a different reason. I’m pretty amazed they didn’t get more flack for the character of the gay guy who becomes obsessed with Vince Vaughan, one of the creepiest, nastiest and most spiteful stereotypes I’ve seen in a long time. I remember feeling really uncomfortable in the theatre because the whole audience just roared with laughter the first time they saw him, before he even opened his mouth, because he was just made to look and act like such a hateful psychopath. Mark my words, we’re going to look back on that one in the same way that we look back on Mickey Rooney’s “Mistless Gorightry!” act in Breakfast At Tiffany’s.

    As for Fight Club, I have to agree that I thought it was lampooning feelings of male disenfranchisement, especially when you watch it a second time and realise that Marla Singer’s treatment of the Narrator, which may seem unjustifiably hostile and inconsistent on first viewing, is completely reasonable and appropriate throughout due to the twist.

  • D

    KLW, Seven is a horror movie. It wouldn’t be doing it’s job if it hadn’t disgusted you. It’s about the worst side of huamnity, if not how it is, then how we feel it. The opening credits set the entire tone for the film. But I understand how you might have found it repulsive.
    As for me, An American Carol. I don’t need to say much more, other than that the previews I saw on TV were enough to make my stomach feel funny. I can only thank Mary Ann’s bravery for watching the whole film and writting a review that states exactly why that film is…just… wrong.

  • jillian in nevada

    I never watched The Notebook because I knew that at the end, for one moment, the woman would remember their epic love, despite her alzheimer’s or dementia, or whatever-it-is that she’s got, and I felt that it sent a really screwed-up message along the lines of “if you can’t make your elderly loved-one remember you, then that means you do not love them or have not loved them *ENOUGH* …” Now for two and a half years I’ve worked in a video-rental store, and at least once a week, but usually more often, someone has come in and told me how The Notebook is the best movie they’ve ever seen. Scads of people, loads and loads of people, usually women, usually young women who seemed a little naive, like maybe they’d never bother to stop and think about the deeper ramifications of the way the story ends and I shouldn’t ruin it for them. But ultimately the conclusion I’ve had to come to is that there are dozens of movies (not to mention books or political opinions) which I consider quite good but which other people will find offensive. And sometimes it’s worth it, trying to get two people who have strongly differing opinions to see eye-to-eye, but most of the time it’s not. MaryAnn, as the sayig goes, there is simply no accounting for taste.

  • Kenny


    Aaaarrrgghharrgg!! I hate it with a passion beyond description, and yet everybody I ever mention this to reacts with surprise.

  • AJS-DC


    I’m male, and can’t understand why so many women seem to love this movie. Maybe the music and dancing is a distraction from the fact that to get the guy (who happens to treat her like crap, hides her from his friends, etc…), Newton-John has to utterly change who she is into his type. Not to mention that Travolta changes too but gets to immediately revert back when he sees that she changed. I got pissed when I saw my little sister (5 years younger) obsessing over it. Don’t worry ladies, just become exactly what your desired man wants you to be. Your identity isn’t important…

  • KLW

    I would dispute calling “Seven” a horror film. “Halloween” and “Nightmare on Elm St.” are horror films, fantasies verging on ugly fairy tales. There’s a genre of mystery film plots maybe called “the cops/good guys pursuing the mystery psycho-killer before he kills again.” “Silence of the Lambs” and even “Speed” fall into that category, two films I enjoyed. “Seven” follows that line, but the addition of the moralistic element that all the victims deserved the grisly way they were killed because they commited one of the 7 deadly sins was so self-servingly added to allow for merely wallowing in gore. It just struck me as deeply perverse.

  • Hank Graham


    While everyone was laughing at it, I was cringing. It was mean-spirited about every character, even Marge. And the scene with the woman, afraid for her life, running around with a bag over her head like a scene out of a Three Stooges comedy had me shaking my head, as the audience around me found it funny. All I could see was her fear.

  • lanchid

    I will second the loathing and offense at Grease. I have always hated that Sandy had to change for a creep like Danny.

    On the other hand, I usually get the funniest reactions when I mention that Grease 2 is superior to the original because in that story, only perceptions of people are changed, the characters don’t have to change to fit in.

  • Kundun: I really wanted to like this movie, but the Philip Glass soundtrack was nails-on-a-chalkboard annoying!

  • Bluejay

    “The Illusionist.”

    – Spoilers – Unpleasant jerk gets between hero and heroine. Hero and heroine frame unpleasant jerk for heroine’s apparent murder. Resulting accusations and investigations drive despairing unpleasant jerk to commit suicide. Unpleasant jerk has unsavory personality but is, in the end, an innocent man. However, he is also dead, so hero and heroine (she’s alive!) are free to be together and live happily ever after.

    Uh… yay?

  • t6

    I know I already gave one (Fight Club…which I still stand by as sexist). But someone mentioned Sabrina…which I also found offensive…and that reminded me of…

    My Best Friend’s Wedding.

    What was that? I couldn’t stand that movie. Julia Robert’s character is a terrible, terrible person. She is not cute. She is horrible. And it bothered me that the move didn’t seem to know it.

    And on romantic comedies in general (this goes back to Sabrina)…any movie where Person A, treats Person B (regardless of gender presentation or identity) like crap for then entire movie, then near the end changes their mind and says…nevermind, I love you! And Person B goes for it rather than says, “Screw you, I’m going out with Person C who is actually nice to me” — I haaaate.

    I’m offended by Pretty Woman, too.

    And although *some* people consider it a lesbian classic I am terribly offended at how embarrassingly bad Clarie of the Moon is.

  • Paul

    I was more annoyed than offended, but I believe there was a movie called “A Sure Thing” where the main character turns a woman who is just shy of being my dream girlfriend into a beer guzzling flasher, after which she dumps her boyfriend who was a lot like me if I’d been played by Christopher Reeves in the movie.

    My Mom often points out that “A Wonderful Life” is much darker than most people realize. After all, the villian gets away with everything he does and keeps the extra $5000, which I suppose used to be a lot of money.

    It also annoys me that Jack could have survived Titantic if only Rose had stayed in the damn lifeboat, because then he would have had the table to himself and could have floated until rescued.

    There was also a Robin Williams movie about Robin’s character going to Heaven and then goes to Hell to rescue his exwife. Now, the general plot I’m on board with, but there is a subtext that the only way Robin can save her is to also lose his mind with her. I know from experience this is called being an enabler and not generally recommended.

    And in “Lord of the Rings,” Jackson changed the dwarven nature so he could make more fun of them. Nor do I like it when SF movies have anti-science themes.

    Anyway, the only movies that flat out offend me tend to offend lots of people, and I can usually avoid watching them in the first place. I just get annoyed a lot.

  • Eric

    My vote for the most offensive film in recent years has to go to this spring’s box-office hit Taken, which seemed like a Dirty Harry film as written by Donald Rumsfeld. I don’t mind a guilty-pleasure vigilante thriller every now and then, but I was disgusted with the way our “hero” got away with murder, torture, and all-around depraved behavior all in the name of preserving the purity of his white virginal American daughter from scary foreign baddies. I nearly walked out during the scene where Neeson shoots an innocent woman in the arm simply to intimidate her husband. Good thing there weren’t any F-bombs or naked breasts though, or this wholesome piece of PG-13 entertainment wouldn’t have been able to make millions from teenage moviegoers.

  • bats :[

    Offensive: The Cell. Oooh, so artsy and fartsy and cerebral! Misogynistic to the core with physical and pychological torture everywhere.

    Annoying: My Big, Fat Greek Wedding. I didn’t see this until it was available on DVD, so perhaps I was jaded by all the hype (I doubt it). Ooooh, are different ethnicities so charming?
    (And to add insult to insult, there’s a Greek chain in Arizona now by the name of My Big, Fat Greek Restaurant. During the evening hours, every 15 minutes, the staff is required to line dance through the restaurant (yeah, guess what song is always played) and finish by breaking a dish. It’s just like being in Greece, I’ll bet!

  • Kate

    I’ll second My Big Fat Greek Wedding. Don’t get me wrong, I love it for many reasons, but the fate of John Corbett’s character is just sad. If a WOMAN had to change her behavior to placate clearly insane in-laws, convert to a different religion, and then be forced to live next door to said insane in-laws…it would never be seen as a happy ending. Poor guy.

  • Tony

    Rob Roy…I haven’t seen a lot of movies with an explicit rape scene, thankfully, but I think the rape scene in this movie disgusted me more than anything I’ve seen or read in a long time. I was angry, not at Tim Roth’s character, but at the cast and crew for filming the scene. Blech…I’m angry now. / (angry eyes)

  • Arco

    I’d second that Robin Williams ‘Heaven’ movie, but for a different reason: the notion that all people who died by their own hand are stuck in some horrible, torturous purgatory state and ‘no one ever got out’. What the hell did they think people who lost loved ones to suicide were going to feel when they saw that scene? Did they think at all?? Unbelievable.

    Also: Driving Miss Daisy. Oh yes, i said it. It’s one of those examples where a character is literally nothing but nasty. The entire movie through, every time she opens her mouth, something nasty, mean and hurtful comes out. And in the story, that was decades worth! Then waay at the end, when she’s old, almost dead and half crazy, she utters one single friendly line and I’m supposed to be all touched?? Puh-lease. I need a little more kindness in a character than that. Sorry.

  • Vanessa

    Million Dollar Baby (or Thelma and Louise II)

    I’m not absolutely sure I know the difference between a horrible movie and an offensive one, but this was both.
    This was so bad I walked out.

    So, the female fighter gets her comeuppance for being successful by being paralyzed and forced to choose to die. It reminded me of Thelma and Louise (which I otherwise loved) where the female leads have to die at the end.

    In some ways it also fits the manipulative tearjerker mode, like “Steel Magnolias” which I am also offended by.

    I could go on and on….

  • Vanessa

    I’m sorry–I tried to put the word “Spoilers” in that last comment, but I must have done something wierd with formatting cause it disappeared.

  • Arco

    Okay, I gotta say something here:

    Seven: It’s SUPPOSED to be about the dark underbelly of our world, how much darkness there is and what we can do about it. Just because the killer felt those people deserved to die like that for their ‘sins’ doesn’t mean the makers of the film think so or that you should think so! He is a crazy killer. And he is presented at such!

    American beauty: No one is glorified and no one is demonized. All characters are shown their side of things without judgment. That is up to the viewer. I mainly felt pity for all of them.

    Rob Roy: The rape scene was disgusting?? Yes. It was a RAPE SCENE! What, were they supposed to film it in a nice way? So that it was a nice and friendly rape scene? Seriously???

  • doa766 (Dardo)

    I guess my suggestion was well received

    but I think some people didn’t get it, fight club and seven are meant to be “offensive” or at least present some sort of shock value

    the question is about movies that on the surface appear to be just regular mainstream fare but they hide (sometimes without realizing it) a terrible lesson or message

    the person who said Armaggedon was spot on, also that’s George W. Bush favorite movie (for real)

    the gay guy from wedding crashers was pretty offensive too

  • doa766

    while reading the comments I remembered one movie that I found offensive, or at least offensive in it’s stupidity

    it’s “along came a spider”, it’s a unusual movie to offend you but bear with me

    the bad guy kidnaps a senator’s daughter as part some crazy plan, during the pursue lead by morgan freeman the bad guy kills about 12 people because they almost caught him or they were witness to something he did or they just got on he’s way, he kills two cops, a teacher, a guy on a beach and more

    then at the end of the movie morgan rescues the little girl and everything is supposed to be fine

    wouldn’t it better if the bad guy had won? he would probably have killed the little girl but that would’ve been much better than what happened

  • doa766

    one that some people find offensive but most people don’t: “the patriot”

    IMO is one of the more disgusting and offensive movies of all time, I could mention dozens of things offesive about it but I’ll just mention one

    two white soldiers on the army are mocking and insulting a black guy fighting on their side because he’s force to fight because he’s a slave, not like them who are free

    then on the final battle the white guys ask the black guy why he’s still figting with them now that he’s free, he says somethying about being the right thing and the white guys say that it’s an honor to fight next to him

    I’m not the kind of person who shouts things at the screen but I really wanted to tell those guys that they don’t know a shit about honor and they should be ashamed to be near the guy they were mocking a few scenes earlier

  • Victor Plenty

    Why is Armageddon offensive? So far, two people have mentioned being offended by that movie, but have neglected to explain why. This makes me curious to learn what their reasons were. (I’m assuming that in both cases there is a more detailed explanation than “because George W. Bush liked it.”)

    Don’t get me wrong here. I can think of plenty of reasons a person might be offended by that movie. The trouble is, I know a wide variety of extremely hypersensitive people with a broad spectrum of ideologies. I could find something offensive to at least one of those people in just about every movie ever made.

    Knowing you were offended is not nearly as interesting as finding out WHY you were offended.

  • doa766

    how armegeddon is offensive?

    how about the scene where bruce willis fires his shotgun several times at ben afflect and actually hits him because he had sex with his daughter and he does it on the narrow corridors of a small and crowded oil rig?
    how about the offensive russian stereotype on the space station?
    how about liv tyler mocking the japanese guys?

    there are many many more examples, it happens on every Michael Bay movie

  • doa766

    someone mentioned movies that want to have it both ways and I agree it’s very offensive

    for example on “zack and miri make a porno” the female title character is willing to have sex with strangers on camera but not to appear naked, she even tells seth rogen’s character, whom she has agreed to have sex with to make money “I’m not letting you see my ass”, on their filmed sex scene she’s not even on her underwear, she’s fully clothed

    that sure makes a lot of sense Kevin, if Elizabeth Banks didn’t want to get naked you should’ve hired a different actress, it’s not that people wanted to see her naked (most people didn’t know her before that movie), it’s that the plot called for it and you chickened out

    another example is the latest Rambo movie, Stallone wants us to know he’s a badass in front and behind the camera, so we get to see the most extreme violence

    the bad guys raid a town and killed everyone and within minutes we see them raping the women, then they have a mass orgy on their lair

    but when they kidnap a white/blonde/beautiful american woman they don’t rape her, they put her in cage, they wait more than a week to try to rape her, just enough time for Rambo to save her at the last minute, it just a big cop out, it’s not that the movie needed a rape scene, they could just implied that it happened, but what did happen makes no sense, it’s taboo to have an american woman raped on a movie by a bunch of evil bastards but the plot called for it, there was no way around that fact, they had her in captivity amd they were seen raping other local women, but showing a guy being decapitaded with a knife it’s just fine

    say what you want about george lucas but he doesn’t chicken out when the plot takes him to dark corners: on episode 2 the plot called for a group of outlaws to kidnap a woman a keep her with them for some time, so when anakin finally finds his mother it is strongly implied that she was raped and tortured. On episode 3 the plot called for the jedi order to be wiped out and that meant that children had to die, so we see anakin firing up his light sword in front a group of them, not to mention the children would’ve been having it both ways like stallone and kevin smith

  • Tony

    So that makes it ok?

  • RogerBW

    Wayne’s World – because the female character is an entirely passive prize for whichever man does more impressive stuff for her. The idea that she might have feelings or preferences of her own is simply unthinkable in the context of the film.

    Regarding Armageddon – all female characters are bitches or whores, except for the Liv Tyler one.

  • Astroprof

    First off, Fight Club was deconstructing the idea of “men finding purpose through violence” — showing how empty it was by having them all turn into “space monkeys”. That is, they were supposedly being freed, but to do so, they gave up their identity and were cut off from women, rather than finding a way to have healthy relationships with women. This movie doesn’t propose a solution, it shows that violence doesn’t work, and then dumps the problem back in your lap: what are *you* going to do about it?

    But, offensive movies? Gosh, there are so many. Where do you even start? I’ll pick Forrest Gump. Everyone seemed to love that movie (up to and including the acadamy award for best picture), but what I saw was the most anti-intellectual, misogynist tripe I’ve seen in a while on screen. When the (only) woman character tries to head out on her own, be independent, and explore life, she is mercilessly beaten down, until she accepts her bliss by embracing her domestic role. And then they kill her with AIDS, just to drive the point home: stay in the kitchen ladies — it’s safer. Blech.

  • stingraylady

    I’m glad someone else mentioned Titanic. I’ve had people actually threaten me when I said I hated this movie. To me, it’s the height of offensivness to boil down a tragedy of such immense proportions to the fates of two characters, especially two characters I didn’t like or believe. Kate Winslett is one of my favorite actresses, and yet the dialogue seemed off through the entire movie and I couldn’t find anyway to feel any sympathy for her character as written. Leo’s character at least had some nice traits, but I just didn’t believe the preformance, though again, I’ve liked him in other films. The fact that there were flashes where the scope of the larger tragedy was apparent just served to underscore why the focus was on one selfish, cheating gold-digger who ended up killing her lover because of a congenital disablity to think of anything other than her own whims from moment to moment.

  • I find ‘Being John Malkovich’ simultaneously dazzling and nauseating. I may be a confirmed cynic, but even I can’t stomach Kaufman’s despairing message that most of us would be mind-rapists if only we had the opportunity.

  • nolacuse

    @t6 I gotta go with some others here and say that Fight Club decries that very form of release you think it celebrates. I thought that by what happens to Bob and how the film ends, it points out just how ineffective a lifestyle of violence and isolationism really is. I always felt it pointed out the obvious numbing that a materialized culture has had on men, but then went on to explore how the emotional draw of a “caveman” life was misleading and that such a life is, in the end, not the answer. Both from reading the book and seeing the movie I felt the sexism we are presented with is meant to underscore the flawed logic of Tyler.

  • KLW, fair enough to your reaction to Seven, however it’s David Bowie playing in the end credits, not Nine Inch Nails (who did indeed play at the start).

    I’d have to say X-Men 3 offended me. The first two films featured a subtext that suggested the mutants are the oppressed minority (thus could be black, gay, Jewish, whatever…) which was a clever spin on the superhero genre.

    Then the third film comes along and features Rogue getting herself ‘fixed’ so that she’d become like everyone else. It’s almost like it condoned someone going off to ‘straight camp’, or Michael Jackson’s surgery… I found it really repulsive.

  • MaSch

    Rogue didn’t get herself “fixed” so that she could be like everyone else, but in order to be able to kiss/touch other people without nearly killing them.

    The notion that some people (in-universe, and possibly out-universe) assume she did it just because her boyfriend finally wanted to have sex with her is more offensive, I think.

    PS: I understand that I am talking about the “text” and am ignoring the “subtext”; but I really think the subtext already suffered from Rogue’s being really suffering from her mutation, no matter how other people treat her because of it.

  • Muzz

    Fight Club. That movie filled front front to back with sexist, Iron John-esque, men’s movent rhetorical crap. I really can’t stand it. Yeah, it is clever and well filmed…but the whole men’s movement thing about how men are being feminized and must get back to there violent caveman roots is sexist and classist and I can’t stand that movie.

    I don’t wish to pile on, but as others have said this view is getting the film backwards and is a common misunderstanding.
    It is quintessentially a tale of man’s love/hate relationship with his ideal self (spoiler…oh hell everyone knows by now, surely) and how he’d much rather have that fight, splitting himself in two, and even destroy the world than face his feelings for a woman. (and there’s plenty more to it besides, which is why it is a film for the ages).
    The thing is, the film was almost universally reviled when it came out so it’s not as if the rest of the world likes it.

    My contribution; probably Signs or The Green Mile are the worst. Anything with that particular brand of playing the god card.
    The Green Mile fills me with peculiar rage. It dares suggest some of the worlds worst injustices – institutional cruelty, racism/prejudice, the death penalty – can slide as part of some ‘greater plan’, even hinting we can all get a little closer to knowing this plan via these horrors. It’s Mother Teresa the movie.
    Some tell me I have it backwards it’s a great anti-death penalty movie. I can’t see it. I think once you play the god card like that there’s only one real way to see it. That or the films morality is wishy washy enough to please everybody.

  • Matt

    The antiDeath Penalty message of the Green Mile was more apparent in the book than in the movie. The book took great pains in showing the reader that a ‘gift from god’ was snuffed out due to narrow minded prejudice.

    I’m not really offended by a specific movie per se, but I’m constantly dumbfounded by the ratings system. Not just by the fact that decapitation is A-okay but we can’t drop the f-bomb or show a woman (or a man) naked either. I get pissed off by the fact that movies with a decent messege are decryed but some movies with a truly horrible messege are lauded as family friendly entertainment.

    Take for example: Dogma. Dogma made a lot of jokes at the expense of religion in general and the Catholics in particular. A lot of people were offended by this, the movie was protested, apparently Jesus wept (or maybe just the Pope), and then everyone had a bad day… Especially Kevin Smith. Let’s not mention the fact that the movie itself presents that mockery as a way to pose legitimate questions about inconsistencies in the doctrine of the church while not belittling the actual faith behind them. Which I personally believe is an outstanding thing to teach any kids that get a hold of the movie.

    Then in the other corner we have crap like Gorgia Rule, where Lindsay Lohan is a 16 year old sent to Idaho by her parents to live with her grandmother so she can ‘straighten out.’ At which point we find out her Dad has been having sex with her since she was twelve. You’d think that this would turn into one of those dark dramas that would force us to take a good long look at what happens right under our noses. Nope! Instead it kind of becomes Pretty Woman in Idaho, and treats the situation with so little pathos that you start to wonder what the filmakers home life must have been like.

    So what offends me is that movies like Dogma get protested, and movies like Georgia Rule don’t get a peep.

  • mortadella

    If I may add another film to the list….
    “My Super Ex-Girlfriend.” Holy crap, that film hated women. I know, I know, it was a comedy. But man…

    Let’s see. Uma Thurman gets her superpowers while she’s dating Eddie Izzard’s character….up until that point, she occupies the same social shelf as he does. Then the meteorite hits, she’s exposed to it and gets her superpowers….in additon to blonde hair and bigger breasts. To which I say, whaaaaaaa?
    The powers wouldn’t have been enough without the makeover? I dunno. Then she and Eddie’s character split up, and he spends his adult life trying to rob Uma’s character of her powers because secretly, he loves her and wants her back. Getting her back means smacking the bitch down and making her vulnerable again? Because if she were “ordinary,” she wouldn’t have thought herself too good for him in the first place?
    Then there’s the rest of the film, which basically implies that chicks in relationships are buggershit, and that even though the Uma character saves the city on a regular basis, she’s depicted as a flaming psycho who doesn’t really care about other people….which doesn’t jive.Oh yeah,women fight over men….with their fists.

    Now, the ending seemed to ammend all that stuff…since Uma got her powers back and the Anna Faris character ended up being superpowered too. The final scene is them working together to avert a disaster….I guess that’s cool…but the journey to that ending was suspiciously misogynist. The gals ended up with the boyfirends, so what, they finally stabilized emotionally?

  • mortadella

    Sorry about the misspellings in the post above…I meant “amend” and “misogynistic.”

  • Astroprof

    Speaking of Titanic, has anyone else noticed how Titanic has mostly the same plot as Terminator? Man from “another world” breaks into a woman’s life, shows her a different way to live, meanwhile their lives are threatened by an implacable, unstoppable killing machine that they must flee, they have sex, and then he dies, leaving her to live on with the new insights she has gained from the experience. One movie has a boat, the other a robot, but it’s the same story. (Tongue planted partly in cheek.)

    Personally, I think the *real* stories of the real people on the titanic would have been compelling enough without having to invent a ficticious (and cliche-ridden) romance. Watch “A Night to Remember”, and imagine what Cameron could have done with it. Oh, well, it’s one of the most successful movies of all time, so he must know something more than I do. :-)

  • Sorry to shit in your cereal, kids, but I gotta say this: finding any movie “offensive” is a waste of your valuable time. Taking offense is just about the most diabolical human indulgence short of actual physical violence… it’s a pointless exercise toward centering ourselves in the universe; it invokes arguments, anger, and has been the basis for all manner of censorship throughout history.

    Let’s move past being offended; we’re better than that.

    Free speech forever!

    Your pal,


  • Will

    I have to say, I’m with this guy (or gal). There are so many of you I want to take by the shoulders and shake and yell “WTF MATE????”.
    My example is not because I’m offended by the movies themselves (although I am offended by how bad they are). My example offends me because I guess I’m offended by the reality of it. People (such as Al Sharpton) walk around and make their livelihood on the basis of people being overly upset at things. Which leads to firings and censorship and why people on the radio can’t even say things like “boobies” lest they be fired.

  • Sorry to shit in your cereal, kids, but I gotta say this: finding any movie “offensive” is a waste of your valuable time. Taking offense is just about the most diabolical human indulgence short of actual physical violence… it’s a pointless exercise toward centering ourselves in the universe; it invokes arguments, anger, and has been the basis for all manner of censorship throughout history.

    Let’s move past being offended; we’re better than that.

    Free speech forever!

    But no one is advocating censorship.

    They’re just saying why they dislike certain movies.

    To argue otherwise is to argue that they don’t have the right to post their opinions here.

    Which would be–wait a second, it’ll come to me…

  • Tonio Kruger (Wed Jun 17 09, 12:10PM):

    To argue otherwise is to argue that they don’t have the right to post their opinions here.

    Well, disliking a movie is not the same as being offended by it. Hopefully we’re not playing a game of semantics here, because there’s a specific (and measurable) difference between those two words.

    I dislike all kinds of stuff, and listing your most hated movies is a fun way to spend thirty minutes at dinner… so you’re gonna have to work a little harder to tie a diatribe against “being offended by movies” to an argument about whether people should post their opinions on a website.

    For instance, I dislike your post (and your fat face!), but I am not offended by it.

    Nobody, least of all me, is asking you (or anyone) to stop stating your opinions about what offends you. But I am going to call it a “waste of time”, “diabolical”, and something we should “move past” because that is my opinion.

    PS: The bit about your fat face was a joke. I’m sure you have a lovely face.

  • mortadella

    Oh come on, we’re actively disliking these movies and that’s OK. Do you honestly think I’d waste my time picketing “My Super Ex-Girlfriend?” Please.

    Sometimes bitchy discourse is fun. Yeah, everyone who posted here was having fun. Sometimes snarking off really hits the spot.

    Oh, know what else? I was “offended” by Southland Tales, because whoever adapted the screenplay assumed no one ever saw Repo Man before. If you remember the end of the film, you’ll know what I mean.

  • Sometimes bitchy discourse is fun. Yeah, everyone who posted here was having fun. Sometimes snarking off really hits the spot.

    Well, of course… but that’s not the problem. This is part of what I was saying toward the end, though: the question wasn’t “what movie do you dislike?”, it was “what movie do you find offensive?”. Taking the question at face value, and then applying it to the responses, you can see what I mean. In other words, one doesn’t merely “snark off” about stuff that is genuinely offensive. One takes a stand. And as I said, taking such a stand is a fruitless (and arguably harmful) enterprise. To clarify: I am whole-heartedly against the idea of claiming offense against movies (or speech of any kind for that matter).

    And hey, it’s not my problem if everyone else ignores the actual question and just makes lists of their least favorite films. Trying to determine who is making an effort to address the issue and who is ignoring it entirely is difficult (and unreliable); it’s best to just assume everyone is on the same page and go from there.

  • The Gaucho

    OK, back on topic, be it a little late: Star Wars.

    If ever there was a series of offensive movies it has to be this. My god! The dialogues! The direction! Jar Jar Binks! The non-stories! The Von Trapp-moment!

    It is all enormously offensive when it comes to our intellect as a movie-going audience. These last three films (parts one, two and three, think about it)… where they really necessary? Part six, anyone? Ewoks???

    Just thought I had to mention it.

  • Robert McCoy

    I can’t believe no one has mentioned Patch Adams. The messiah-like way Williams’ arrogant, meglomaniacal, sociopath is portrayed, the gratuitist murder of the female lead, the bombastic score, the final court room scene (complete with the slow clap), and ,especially, the spaghetti bath w/ the old lady. These are just a few of the offensive ways that this horrid film has plagued my memories.

  • Victor Plenty

    Newbs, your instinct to champion free speech is one I applaud, but I can’t agree with your implication that freedom of speech requires us to abandon the concept of offensive speech.

    Taking a stand and identifying certain ideas as offensive is not the same thing as calling for the censorship of those ideas. Many advocates for free expression have articulated strong reasons for protecting offensive speech.

    That being said, I agree with you that we do ourselves a disservice if we confuse truly offensive works of art with those we simply find distasteful because they were poorly done.

  • Astroprof

    Perhaps it’s worth remembering what “offensive” means. It’s obviously the same actual word as “to attack” — the offensive side is attacking, the defensive side is defending. When we say something *is* offensive, we are saying we feel attacked by it (or that something is attacked by it). A corollary, particularly when talking about art, is that something of value has been attacked or denigrated. Hence, “piss christ” was offensive to many people, because they felt something valuable (the symbology of christianity) was being attacked (by being placed in urine).

    To deny the value of the word “offensive” or to decry those who feel offended is to essentially argue that nothing has any value, or at least in a specific case, that the putatively offensive thing in question is not actually attacking, and the perception of those who are offended is incorrect. Clearly, offense is a personal and relative reaction. Some people are offended by naked human bodies. I am not. But I recognize that (in the best case scenario — that is, not considering issues of shame or displaced lust) they feel something valuable (modesty) is being attacked and/or eroded. I may disagree with them, but I can see their point.

    So when I say I think Forrest Gump is offensive, it is because I feel that some valuable qualities (intelligence, women’s independence) are being attacked or devalued by that film. I think the point of MaryAnn’s question gets at the disconnect between your personal set of values and your perception of society’s values as expressed through the general lack of other people being offended by the film. That is, the things you value are either not valued by society, or others do not feel that they are under attack by these films.

    To say “I am offended by that” means to say “I feel that my values are attacked by that”, which could be an opportunity to *open* communication about values and what we think is important. It does not have to mean “I want to censor that and shut down all communication” (although I recognize that it often gets used that way).

    In short (too late!) I think there is room to be offended and still seek dialogue. I don’t think one needs to censor the offended out of fear of censorship (irony). Of course, if the offended do take that extra step of wanting the offensive art to be censored, simply because it offends them, I’m against that, too, because it also shuts down communication, leaving everyone isolated in their little paradigm bubbles where everyone thinks the same way.

    I’m for openness.

  • Astroprof (Wed Jun 17 09, 5:33PM):

    In short (too late!) I think there is room to be offended and still seek dialogue. I don’t think one needs to censor the offended out of fear of censorship (irony). Of course, if the offended do take that extra step of wanting the offensive art to be censored, simply because it offends them, I’m against that, too, because it also shuts down communication, leaving everyone isolated in their little paradigm bubbles where everyone thinks the same way.

    I’m for openness.

    I guess I just don’t see how someone can logically claim something offends them and yet not want that offensive thing to stop being so offensive. You either allow it, or you don’t — and if you’re going to allow it, then complaining that it offends you is just jibber-jawing, which is (as I’ve stated) a complete waste of time.

    Admittedly, arguing about this is also a waste of time, but at least it’s fun, whereas arguing about what gives the most offense is just booooring. :)

  • Victor Plenty

    Newbs, there is more than one way for the offensive to stop offending.

    If one of my friends makes a racist remark, and I tell them it’s offensive, I’m not necessarily trying to silence them by force or deny their right to freedom of speech. I might simply seek to discuss the issue openly.

    Maybe they didn’t realize the racist origins of the word or stereotype they used. Or maybe they did know about it, and intended to disparage that group. But if our friendship is strong enough to withstand the difference of opinion, they might change their mind after I tell them I’ve known many people in that ethnic group who did not fit the stereotype.

    If people and cultures change and become less offensive to each other as a result of free choices and open conversation, that’s no threat to freedom of expression, and it’s certainly not a waste of time.

  • Blank Frank

    I watched an indie movie, either on the Sundance Channel or IMC or something, called AKA.

    The plot was a twist on Pygmalion: a mid-to-low class gay British boy, who was abused by his father as a kid, finds himself with nowhere to go as he comes of age. By chance, he ingratiates himself with the local gay crowd, whereupon a upper-class boy despises him for being a commoner, yet takes some sort of bizarre liking to him and trains him on how to hobnob with the elite, between bouts of class-based abuse and hate-sex.

    I forget the details, but it felt like there was an implication that all homosexuality was a reaction to sexual abuse in childhood, and that gay men never fell in love or develop deep relationships, they just find some poor sap to pound furiously and then discard.

    I mean, it’s how life is for the protagonist, and that alone doesn’t offend me, but something about the movie implied (to me) that it’s true across the board for all gay men, and that ruined it for me.

  • Muzz

    I guess I just don’t see how someone can logically claim something offends them and yet not want that offensive thing to stop being so offensive. You either allow it, or you don’t — and if you’re going to allow it, then complaining that it offends you is just jibber-jawing, which is (as I’ve stated) a complete waste of time.

    So, wait… if you believe in free speech or expression nothing can ever offend you is that it? That seems the logical extension of your position.
    You realise free speech came about to promote discussion, not end it right?

  • JoshB

    No Muzz, you can be offended, but to be so is a jibber-jawing waste of time. Preach it Newbs.

  • Muzz (Thu Jun 18 09, 1:40AM):

    So, wait… if you believe in free speech or expression nothing can ever offend you is that it? That seems the logical extension of your position. You realise free speech came about to promote discussion, not end it right?

    Well, no, free speech came about the day humans first said “Urg” to one another and beat their chests in agreement. It’s a basic human right and has been for millennia.

    More importantly, though, you’ve misunderstood my position. I’m not saying you won’t or can’t be offended, I’m saying complaining about it is a dumb thing to do because censorship is wrong and just because I don’t feel good about something somebody says in their movie doesn’t mean I should try and stop them from saying or doing it. In other words, you might get offended, but you should move on past those feelings because they’re unproductive.

    Claiming offense is, in every example we’ve had so far, at best a way to gently urge the “offender” into changing his/her ways to better suit the “offendee”, and at worst a blatent attempt to change those ways by force (if necessary).

    Regardless, words have only the power we give them. Sticks and stones, etc… you remember, from kindergarten. Being Offended is a behavioral luxury of the perpetually bored. It’s a call to arms, rather than a discussion.

    You want to start a discussion, you do what most of the posters did here without thinking: you talk about things you like or don’t like, you say why and how they could be better, etc… claiming offense doesn’t start conversations, it starts arguments. It’s the last resort of intellectuals, and the first response of children (echoed in cries of “no fair” throughout the playground).

    I think that’s about as clear as I can be on the matter (not that it does). After this and my ridiculously long angry rant about Pelham 123, it’s time to hang up the spurs and hit the sack. But first: new Mythbusters tonight!


  • mortadella

    Wow….we all get a free lesson on the etymology of the word “offend.” Awesome.


  • Brian

    A couple of movies that seemed patently ridiculous to me in recent years got big box office and lots of acclaim from many others. This is not unusual, but the “offensive” part was about both (American) films’ treatment of Japan. I don’t find them personally offensive from a cultural standpoint, since I’m not Japanese and wouldn’t presume to get offended on behalf of the Japanese — just from the standpoint of an intelligent moviegoer (who’s seen plenty of actual Japanese films to boot) being obviously pandered to by Hollywood.

    I liked The Last Samurai much better in 1990, when it was set in the Dakotas and called Dances with Wolves . . . and was somehow less flagrantly patronizing. The design and look of the film are beautiful, but the ease with which Tom Cruise’s American character is accepted into the culture of an extremely reactionary group of samurai is loony. Add to that the scenes of John Cleese’s (un?)intentionally hilarious Scotsman and Tom learning how to win in kendo by using the Force (basically), and you’ve got a pretty, but pretty stupid movie.

    Then there’s Memoirs of a Geisha, directed by an American, featuring Chinese leads (they’ll never tell the difference!), with music by the most famous American composer there is. Each of those individual components is just fine, and they look and sound lovely – but all ends up looking much more like a Western idea of what Japan must be like than a story about actual Japanese people and how they deal with a very peculiarly Japanese institution. I found it rather insulting to the audience’s intelligence, and not nearly as compelling as the sum of its parts.

  • Muzz

    Claiming offense is, in every example we’ve had so far, at best a way to gently urge the “offender” into changing his/her ways to better suit the “offendee”

    This is the only thing you’ve said Newbs that makes any sense without having untenably rigid definitions of words and structures of conversation. Yes, in most cases the people talking would probably prefer the film inquestion did not do the thing they didn’t like.
    Of course, even this vaguely accurate position doesn’t make any sense. All the “offendees” aren’t even adressing the “offender” in any way. And presupposing that such expressions must always represent an intenet to censor, by virtue of the label ‘offense’, is ridiculous. There’s no censorious legal instrument waiting to cater to their every whim that I’m aware of. If there were they might choose their words more precisely. But then it wouldn’t be freedom of speech now would it. (incidentally the Inquisition(s) would like a word with your inaliable human right)
    They are engaging in what we call conversation. You’ll note that the rubric of “offense” didn’t actually end discussion and civil disagreement over people’s interpretation of these films. Perhaps that means people aren’t actually “offended” by your standards, or that your peculiar definition is inappropriate. Or a little of both.
    See, adults do generally have a tacit grasp of context and the fuzziness of language, as well as the difference between thought, feeling and action and even the interplay between will, desire and the experience of other individuals. It’s all part of the fun of communication.
    If MaryAnn had titled the discussion “What films tweaked your personal moral ickiness button but not that of anyone else you know?” would you feel better? If so, just pretend it’s that then.

  • Muzz (Thu Jun 18 09, 5:43PM):

    But then it wouldn’t be freedom of speech now would it. (incidentally the Inquisition(s) would like a word with your inaliable human right)


    But please, forgive my desire to stick to proper definitions and structure. How droll of me.

    If MaryAnn had titled the discussion “What films tweaked your personal moral ickiness button but not that of anyone else you know?” would you feel better? If so, just pretend it’s that then.

    Well, it’s not my feelings at issue here. But yes, that would have been better wording. I’m not interested in pretense, though. I’m a realist, and a literalist. I have respect for words as methods of communication with properly defined boundaries. Such that we don’t say “I am offended by this” when we really mean “I think this is icky” — two different words, two different definitions. If MaryAnn wanted a discussion about “personal moral ickiness” I would assume she’d have picked those exact words for their spot-on specificity.

    But god, semantics can get so boring so quickly. And now we’re just posting for the last word. So, instead, I’ll defer. I actually don’t even remember what my original contention was… something about wasting time, I think?

    Aw, fuck it. Let’s get naked and drink margaritas.

    For participation’s sake: The movie I dislike the most is M. Night Shyamalan’s The Happening. Holy shit that is a turd and a half. I can’t even enjoy The Sixth Sense anymore. That’s retro-active suckiness; a rare gift among filmmakers.

  • Blank Frank

    Newbs: A similar things happened with my girlfriend and The Village–after the weak twist planted smack in the middle of the film, and increasingly asinine “scares” to cover for the death of tension, she can no longer watch Sixth Sense and Unbreakable because it was such a rip.

    Me, I haven’t seen either of those, and probably never will, because I’d be too busy thinking “Geez, this is the guy who pulled the worst twist in recent film history” to enjoy the movie as it is.

    What irritated me the most is that it could’ve been a pretty decent movie; if they’d moved both the homily and twist to the very end, possibly cutting between them, it would end with the audience realizing the grand conceit. Wasted potential is worse than flat-out suckitude.

  • Victor Plenty

    If you are willing to add Signs to the rogues’ gallery of retroactive suckitude, I think we may have found something we can agree on.

  • PS: The bit about your fat face was a joke. I’m sure you have a lovely face.

    I’m sure you have one, too.

    I’d say more but others on this thread have said enough on this topic that it has officially entered dead horse territory.

  • Kenny

    Alright.. Somebody asked why I was offended by Armageddon. There was a reply which included some of the points I would have made to expand on my original, somewhat brief and angst ridden announcement… but I’ll expand a little.

    I find Armageddon deeply, deeply offensive because of a number of reasons. Let’s list.

    1. A meteorite destroys Paris. A massive “Hey you redneck morons! The Frenchies get fucking vapourised in my movie! Come watch and cheer, because you know, you’re American and you HATE the French!!”

    2. NASA, and every other figure in authority, including the “smartest man in the world” are portrayed as cowardly morons… whereas Willis and his knuckle-dragging team of stereotypes are only the only ones with the balls to save the day. It’s no wonder George W Bush liked it… because like many idiots (the target audience), he hates everybody smarter than himself.

    3. The Russian space program,.. long running and proud though it is, is portrayed by some kind of orbiting hobo. “Hey! Look at how ugly and unwashed those Russians are! Not like our clean cut heroic types!! Come see my movie! Russians are stupid!”


    5. The EXTREMELY long list of things that just COULDN’T happen. I’m not talking about science fiction couldn’t happen… I’m talking about the rule of writing that states, quite simply, that you keep everything that supports your plot as realistic as possible to allow the viewer to suspend their disbelief and become involved in the story. There was no need for fire to rage on the asteroid. There was no need for the sun to rise in India and America at the same time. There was no need for the asteroid to growl and roar at them. There was no need for space dementia!!!

    I have never felt so insulted by a movie as I did watching Armageddon. The manipulative cheesy as fuck ending made me want to vomit.

  • Victor Plenty

    Excellent! Thank you, Kenny. Yet another thing we can agree on, looks like.

    (I greatly preferred the other space=debris catastrophe movie from around the same time. Deep Impact was still flawed, yet it was vastly more plausible in nearly every conceivable detail, especially on the scientific side of things.)

  • Victor Plenty (Sun Jun 21 09, 5:39AM):

    If you are willing to add Signs to the rogues’ gallery of retroactive suckitude, I think we may have found something we can agree on.

    Yes, we do indeed agree. I’m sure a lot of folks are on this bandwagon. I read an article today about M. Night, over at CHUD, and Nick said he is afraid to watch Unbreakable ever again because it can’t possibly be as good as we all thought it was. I know I loved it.

    Also, RE: Armaggedon… I think we all know why the space buggy had guns: Because that is awesome.

  • Kenny

    Unbreakable was as awesome as we all thought it was. I thought it was better than the 6th sense and I had very high hopes for Signs… but it was obscenely bad.

    God gave the little boy asthma so he’d not die when the aliens gassed him? Didn’t he like the aliens? Surely he created them too?
    Why couldn’t Mel just admit he was an atheist and get on with it? I was irritated by the fact that the alien invasion was apparently taken by Mel’s character as the test of his faith required to get him back into the God bothering…

    As for Armageddon.. Ugh. I like science fiction based explosions and so on. I’m almost certainly going to see the second transformers purely on the basis that it’s got big robots in it (as I indicated in the other thread, I’d see ANYTHING with giant robots in it), but the gun on the space buggy annoyed me. There was clearly no reason for it to be there other than to give Steve Buscemi something to be dangerous with when he got space bloody dementia. Sorry.. but that was really appalling writing.

Pin It on Pinterest

Share This