Not-at-all biased article

[jmc]

Definitely agreed....

Personally, I see the site as harmless, and even entertaining.  And it probably is a service to people who have the same values as the people who do the site, and after all, that's who it's made for, not us.

[Gerry]

John wrote:
>
> The review site that Ebert probably recommended is;
>
> http://www.screenit.com
>
>  Which offers detailed listings of all objectionable content
> in a movie without making any value judgements.

The ironic thing about sites like these is that teens use them to identify which movies they want to see.  Let's go sneak into this movie, because screenit.com says it features full frontal nudity and lots of gore.  So rather than protecting children, in many cases these sites (yes that CAP one too) contribute to their "delinquency."

[jmc]

It's cheaper than the BARE FACTS VIDEO GUIDE!

[Squishy]

Flangepart: You're the only one making this a "Left vs. Right" debate. There are Christians who are Liberals--believe it or not--and Liberals who are Christians. Christ himself was pretty damn liberal (and I'm sure he wasn't the first innocent man to wind up on Death Row).

My point was this: phony Christians use fear of anything different to control people. Others do that, too, but we weren't discussing them. My mistake was taking a swipe at Dum-Dum-Dubya, but he's the idiot in power right now, and he's milking the "control-through-fear" concept for all it's worth.

Hell, there's even Liberals in the GOP!!  *gasp* Oh well, this is what happens when one looks to Bruce Tinsley and Rush Limbaugh for guidance. :)

Foywonder: Um...no, I don't think I need/have to. Ebert regularly gives "thumbs up" to total buttplugs; just wait and watch, or go look it up yourself. He's been doing it for years. Don't tell me to shut up, fool. You can't back it up. :P

[Chadzilla]

Thumbs Up for....Speed 2!

There's my vote.

[frannie]

reson #592 why organized religion is singlehandedly the worst invention in the history of man.

[Foywonder]

I do watch and I honestly think he's lost his mind at times, but just because he liked a terrible movie, that means he was on the take? If you're going to make an accusation like that, try backing it up with actual facts. Otherwise, you're almost as bad as that site.

[jmc]

There are also conservatives, Christians, and even Christian conservatives who don't resemble any of your descriptions of same....besides, this is nothing compared to the paranoia fostered by the government about the "angry white males," militias, gun owners, and anybody who was in the least bit critical of the government during the early to mid 90s.  


Eh, back to the bad movies!  I doubt Ebert is really on the take--there have been more than a few bad but wildly popular movies over the years that he has panned, and some of the films he's championed have been less than successful--he's a big champion of DARK CITY for example, which has a big cult following.   I think were he a clown merely in it for the bucks he probably wouldn't bother to do some of the stuff he does [every year he hosts a seminar where the audience members pick a film that they go through frame by frame--he seems to really want to give people a love of the movies, I just disagree with him quite a bit when it comes to genre stuff.]

[Squishy]

Indeed, jmc, there was no reason whatsoever to worry about the Montana Militia, the Atlanta Bomber, the Unabomber, the KKK, lunatics who shot doctors and blew up clinics, the Wacko of Waco, or Timmy McVeigh. Harmless, one and all. Some were just doing what they did "in the name of God."

However, "the paranoia fostered by the government about...anybody who was in the least bit critical of the government" has gone through the roof. Just ask Dick Cheney (but have a lawyer present).

Again, I feel compelled to point out--AGAIN--that my description was not a blanket condemnation of all Christians or all conservatives, nor at any time did I claim it to be. I would list the names of the phony psuedoChristians to whom it does apply, but there are so very, very many...

Foy: I cannot provide actual receipts showing Ebert accepted money for his recurring habit of giving glowing reviews to total turdchunks. I have no absolute medical proof that Dan Quayle lacks a brain stem, either--but I will continue to post to that effect. My comment about Ebert was merely a joke--something anyone with a brain stem would've picked up on, FROM THE START.

Damn, irony IS dead.

[John]

>The ironic thing about sites like these is that teens use them to identify which
>movies they want to see.

 I use it to see if any of my favorite actresses have finally done a nude scene in their latest movie. :)

[J.R.]

>Indeed, jmc, there was no reason whatsoever to worry about the Montana Militia, the Atlanta Bomber, the Unabomber, the KKK, lunatics who shot doctors and blew up clinics, the Wacko of Waco, or Timmy McVeigh. Harmless, one and all.

>my description was not a blanket condemnation of all Christians or all conservatives

But apparently you're okay with blanket condemnations of lunatics and wackos,eh Squishy?!! Not everyone who bombs children and...uh...builds a stockpile of weapons  in order to obtain sovereinty or...um....hate people based on skin color are....wackos...okay, irony IS dead.

[Foywonder]

Dude, take a sedative. Seriously.

[Flangepart]

Alright, maby i roused some folks with my first line.Fair enough.
....You said i was the only one makeing this a "Left vs. right" thing. Well...thats how it seems to me. By that, i mean that its shorthand for the types of opinions and beliefs that esch group tends to be identified by. I had to define it by what i'm most familure with. That is my experiance.
.... Jesus was a Liberal? Well...depends from what side of the word you mean it. If you mean that he wanted us to treat others as we want to be treated, Well and good. The problim is in how we define words these days.I don't see Jesus as someone who would be "Acceptable" to either side of the spectrum, as his teaching were not what many groups think they are. Thats my take on it, and its what i have to go on.
....A mistake at takeing a swipe at "Dum-dum-dubya"? Not if its what you think. I state my thoughts, and what ever the resaults, well there it is. Same as you. As for "Looking to Bruce Tinsley and R. Limbaugh" for guidence,...please. Its entertainment, and of a type i can live with, but i still have to make my choices for my self. Lets leave it at this. I'd not respect you if you tried to B.S. me. I may disagree with you, but at least i know where you stand. And i hope you feel the same way. I have a low tolerance for bulls**t.
....As for phony "Christians", see last line above. I think most of the problim stems from who people think he was, and what they think he taught. There is more complexity there then anywhere else in the world, i think. And after years of study, i see more every day. Suffice to say, I take his teachings very seriously. I'm not perfect, just human. I got a long way to go. I have nothing to loose by keeping up the struggle aginst my dark side.
....Well, thats enough about all this. Hash it out as you choose, i'm done with it.
....P.S. "HAIL FREEDONIA!"(Runs off singing Hooray for Capt. Spalding)

[Babydoll]

 Being a Christian myself, I never listen to Ebert because he puts down all the good movies that I like.   I quit watching him and he got annoying too.  

I watch the movies before letting my children see it.  Right now my child is starting repeating what she hears and I had to stop letting her watch Shrek ( which she loved).  

What is a website going to tell that I all ready know?

[Hamburger Pimp]

So, I went to the site and checked a few reviews....  Appartently "punk music in startup background" and "punk dress" are by their very nature sinful. Not to mention "encouraging sadness." (see the Fight Club review).  Also, Bob's shooting by the cops doesn't qualify as murder, apparently.  I guess as a sinner he must have deserved being shot in the back of the head while running away.  I also enjoyed the popup you get every time you go to a new page.  Its like televangelism on the internet.  For a good time read either the Dogma or South Park reviews.  I also enjoyed how they missed the whole Ghost Dog-as-Buddha sub plot of "Ghost Dog," which was sort of the point of the movie.  If they had noticed it, I bet it would have scored even lower for trying to encourage "false gods".  Sorry, but I'm not wasting anymore time with these people, except maybe for a laugh occasionally.