D'Artagnan

QUOTE (Test4VitalSigns @ Mar 18 2008, 09:10 PM) QUOTE (Test4VitalSigns @ Mar 18 2008, 09:01 PM) and see my above post.....some people consider teenagers under 18 to still be children. These kids are supposed to be underaged kids in the movie. FACT. They weren't played by underaged actors but those who were are portraying underaged kids...Get it? Stop embarrassing yourself, please. Even the Wikipedia link you're trying to paraphrase with incomprehensible blabber indicates the strong anti-Fascist themes the movie has, as well as the other socio-political themes Sade's novel already contained.

QUOTE (Test4VitalSigns @ Mar 18 2008, 09:01 PM) QUOTE (D'Artagnan @ Mar 18 2008, 08:55 PM)Who are you kidding? The PLOT is about fascist rich f*cks abusing 18 teenaged boys and girls for their own pleasure. Just because they were not actually children does not dismiss the fact that they are portraying underaged kids . This movie is not for everybody but don't be spouting bullshit that this is no different than checking out some hot actress in a major mainstream movie. you are WAY off course there I would understand your arrogance if it was accompanied by valid statements. The plot involves middle aged studs and prostitutes, and elderly people too, each age section metaphoric to its respective symbolism. Why did you watch this movie, if you neither understood it, nor seem to have any remote knowledge about its book ?

QUOTE (Test4VitalSigns @ Mar 18 2008, 09:01 PM) QUOTE (D'Artagnan @ Mar 18 2008, 08:55 PM) In the same sense that Lord of the Rings is about watching how hot are Liv Tyler's lips. Not even that, because the movie does not contain children in the first place (though the book does). The movie does have extreme graphic content, not gratuitous though. Its maker took on the challenge of adapting Marquis De Sade's novel, 120 Days of Sodom, and that alone deserves to be applauded (artistically speaking). Who are you kidding? The PLOT is about fascist rich f*cks abusing 18 teenaged boys and girls for their own pleasure. Just because they were not actually children does not dismiss the fact that they are portraying underaged kids . This movie is not for everybody but don't be spouting bullshit that this is no different than checking out some hot actress in a major mainstream movie. you are WAY off course there Are "18 year old teenagers" "children" ? You, sir, are the anti-thesis of logic.

QUOTE (Test4VitalSigns @ Mar 18 2008, 08:52 PM) QUOTE (Jack Aubrey @ Mar 18 2008, 08:47 PM) QUOTE (D'Artagnan @ Mar 18 2008, 09:39 PM) ... is one very, very interesting movie. Has anyone here watched it ? I've heard that movie is about the sexual and physical abuse of children. Is that true? Yup. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sal%C3%B2_o_l...rnate_di_Sodoma Probably one of the most disturbing films ever made. Based on one of the infamous Marquis De Sade's works. Did you even read the link you posted ?

In the same sense that Lord of the Rings is about watching how hot are Liv Tyler's lips. Not even that, because the movie does not contain children in the first place (though the book does). The movie does have extreme graphic content, not gratuitous though. Its maker took on the challenge of adapting Marquis De Sade's novel, 120 Days of Sodom, and that alone deserves to be applauded (artistically speaking).

... is one very, very interesting movie. Has anyone here watched it ?

QUOTE (ReRushed @ Mar 18 2008, 08:27 PM) QUOTE (D'Artagnan @ Mar 18 2008, 09:16 PM) NEVER, and i mean NEVER have I come across an individual who said "You know, the movies were better than the book". Never say never! I think The Godfather and A Clockwork Orange are better movies than books! I am sure you know what I was talking about.

Saw A movie needs not to be expensive, deep, "philosophical", well acted, to be a good movie. A good movie, is well, a good movie. Saw is definitely my all time favourite movie. I salute most the posters here for mentioning a lot of down to earth movies, dubbing none of the pseudo intellectual borefests as their all time favourites.

QUOTE (JaredTehBassist @ Mar 17 2008, 11:41 PM) Bridge to Terabithia (Nothing like the book) Any of the Harry Potter Movies (Nothing like the books) Not to doubt the veracity and honesty of your opinion, but the phrase above has turned into a no brainer mantra that every "smart" individual is supposed to mindlessly repeat or else they would be considered the bane of society. Even if they did not read the book, they will insist that "the book is better" because it is a universal fact that the book is always better than the movie. NEVER, and i mean NEVER have I come across an individual who said "You know, the movies were better than the book".

I am not sad nor sorry because the person mentioned in the thread is going to die from cancer, not because I wish him (or anyone) death, but rather because I don't want to pretend like I am emotionally attached to him (or any of those dubbed "celebrities"). Thousands of people die because of our fuel and electricity consumption, our planet is dying by our own hands, and we do not care. My heart aches when I see a child in some underdeveloped country dying, but I could care less about an old rich man who lived his life to the fullest.

Picking on Christianity on the internet is as easy as smacking a baby. Not that I have ever smacked a baby, but, you get the idea.

Religion is dead, I do presume. I am not talking about about superficial displays of religiousness (ie: wearing a cross on your neck, going to mass, defending Jesus on the internet), but rather the very morality that made religions religious in the first place. Whenever a religion phases into consumerism and becomes popular, it loses its spirituality and soul, and becomes an industry. I see no point from such debates. I am impartial to movies like Jesus Camp, and so should everyone else (I am not imposing my point of view, just giving my two centimes).