Bullets 'n' Babes

bradavon wrote:You've regularly lambaste me for relying on trailers, reviews and others comments. In my book a films "title" of all things is as bad, if not worse a criteria to base a film on .

Well you can be a dumb ass like that, and line up to see Kiddie fucker 3, Baby buggerer 7 and Brown granny flaps get fisted.

Its all in a title in some cases. A film with "Rape" in the title says many things about the film makers, esspecially dumb asian films that make cash from such acts.

bradavon wrote:

Tigercage wrote:We must watch movies from the same source as you also get these early.

Is that a polite way of saying you're a thief too? . Before "you" read too much into that comment I download (on occasion) also

[/b]

I dont download i stream!!

You stream movies???

Thanks Knetan/Tom.

@ Romero: Regardless it does prove my point rather well: "it's okay for you to pick films on flimsy reasoning but not others" . So you've never seen "I spit on your grave" then? I haven't for the record but I suspect you have.

Becuase Repeman and I spit on your grave are soo similar, in content and titles. Not.

Coming from the man whose not even seen Rapeman

Some people seem to be forgetting that movies aren't related to reality.

A movie in which the terrorists win doesn't promote terrorism.
A movie in which rape is shown (or even glorified) doesn't suggest that it's a good thing to do in the real world.

A film is just a film.
I'd gladly watch Kiddie Fucker 3 and Rapeman any day.

It's hilarious how some people think they know what they're talking about when they don't really have a clue. Like Rapeman, people automatically assume it's full of misogynistic violence and rapes. In reality, it's just a combination of silly comedy and drama. The theme is politically incorrect, but the amount of graphic violence and sex wouldn't even justify a 15 rating in most countries.

tom2681 wrote:Some people seem to be forgetting that movies aren't related to reality.

A movie in which the terrorists win doesn't promote terrorism.
A movie in which rape is shown (or even glorified) doesn't suggest that it's a good thing to do in the real world.

A film is just a film.

I'm afraid the world is full of people who don't understand the difference between fiction and reality. It's especially scary when people become selective: kung fu fighting ok, rape no no, killing = innocent entertainment, drugs bad, beheading good fun...

Exactly.
Going by that logic, "Memories of Murder" (as a title) should be considered ten times worse than "Rapeman", as murder is at least ten times worse than rape. And yet it isn't.
Strange world we live in...

tom2681 wrote:as murder is at least ten times worse than rape.

I wouldn't go that far. Twice as bad maybe. Rape (and torture) are only one step away from murder in my book.

Sex and Fury is very misogynistic in places. The action is excellent though.

HungFist wrote:kung fu fighting ok, rape no no

Those are polar opposites though.

It's nigh on impossible to make rape look entertaining or more to the point "light". Martial arts films can easily be a PG rating, try making a PG rated rape scene.

I know I always find even the slightest hint of rape hard to watch. It's important to remember when you shoot someone it's quick but rape (and torture) are usually incredibly slow and they linger on the moment.

As to drugs. I'd put that down to people's simple fear of needles. I cringe, which is absurd when I don't in reality. People don't really have an issue with people smoking hash for example. It's the needle aspect that freaks people out.

I do agree that people have become desensitised to violence though. If you break down violence in many Hollywood films it's actually incredibly gruesome but we shrug it off like it's nothing. That is partly because it's rarely realistic.

How many times have we seen someone get shot/stabbed and they then somehow go on to beat the crap out of someone.

Romero thinks people should be executed for stealing a Twix.

I ignore him.

Lourdes wrote:Romero thinks people should be executed for stealing a Twix.

You're so right . Romero's harmless though.

Lourdes wrote:I ignore him.

More than me?

bradavon wrote:

HungFist wrote:kung fu fighting ok, rape no no

Those are polar opposites though.

It's nigh on impossible to make rape look entertaining or more to the point "light". Martial arts films can easily be a PG rating, try making a PG rated rape scene.

That's the whole problem with the ratings system. Jackie Chan movies are allowed to children. As a result kids learn that you can kick your friend in the face and he won't even have a broken nose. It's all just silly slapstick fun.

From this point of view rapes and realistic violence should actually be less harmful, although of course you can rate those PG as the those scenes would be too disturbing for young kids.

HungFist wrote:films like Requiem for a Dream and Saving Private Ryan (film quality aside) should be shown in schools to every 13 year old kid.

ASS to ASS!

HungFist wrote:As a result kids learn that you can kick your friend in the face and he won't even have a broken nose. It's all just silly slapstick fun.

I think the films do a fine job on their own doing that without the rating systems help . Being realistic in an action film would probably make it boring, to an extent.

HungFist wrote:But if you ask me, films like Requiem for a Dream and Saving Private Ryan (film quality aside) should be shown in schools to every 13 year old kid.

I've not seen Requiem for a Dream but I'd agree with you about Saving Private Ryan.

Well you tell the ladies you watched a film called RAPEMAN last night and see what they say. They will run for the fucking hills.

romerojpg wrote:Well you tell the ladies you watched a film called RAPEMAN last night and see what they say. They will run for the fucking hills.

Perhaps, but I refuse to use the mainstream audience's opinion as criteria to what movies I watch.

romerojpg wrote:Well you tell the ladies you watched a film called RAPEMAN last night and see what they say. They will run for the fucking hills.

WTF is that supposed to mean? What an utterly bizarre thing to say.

bradavon wrote:

romerojpg wrote:Well you tell the ladies you watched a film called RAPEMAN last night and see what they say. They will run for the fucking hills.

WTF is that supposed to mean? What an utterly bizarre thing to say.

Er it means exactly what I said

romerojpg wrote:

bradavon wrote:

romerojpg wrote:Well you tell the ladies you watched a film called RAPEMAN last night and see what they say. They will run for the fucking hills.

WTF is that supposed to mean? What an utterly bizarre thing to say.

Er it means exactly what I said

It means Romero only watches movies that ladies think are suitable for him

No it means I know actual real life ladies, obviously you dont.

When they ask me what I watched last night I tell them, if they asked you and you said Rapeman, well I think you will get some fugly looks. Unless you lie to them, which you would have to.

It's a bit of a bollocks argument that Romero, are you saying it's the title that's offensive not the content? so if i made a movie about a serial rapist and called it something inoffensive like Prey that would be ok?

Its not bollocks at all, you tell someone you saw a film called Rapeman and see what they say.

romerojpg wrote:No it means I know actual real life ladies, obviously you dont.

. Sorry Mr. Stud. God's gift to women! I never knew you cared about women's feelings so much. You modern man you

romerojpg wrote:When they ask me what I watched last night I tell them, if they asked you and you said Rapeman, well I think you will get some fugly looks.

I often get the same response if it's not a Well known/Mainstream film. It's not the film but the person who is at wrong here.

Likewise I've discussed Irréversible with my Mum. She would never watch violence (above action), rape, torture or any sort of distress but it doesn't mean she is incapable of having an adult conversation about such subjects.

romerojpg wrote:Its not bollocks at all, you tell someone you saw a film called Rapeman and see what they say.

That's gross generalisation if there ever was one. Not even I would generalises that much.

romerojpg wrote:Its not bollocks at all, you tell someone you saw a film called Rapeman and see what they say.

Why are you arsed about telling ladies what you have/haven't seen? i bet you've owned up to your lady friends that you've watched AVP 2 with no shame

romerojpg wrote:No it means I know actual real life ladies, obviously you dont.

lol, you're getting awfully defensive

romerojpg wrote: When they ask me what I watched last night I tell them, if they asked you and you said Rapeman, well I think you will get some fugly looks. Unless you lie to them, which you would have to.

Why should I tell them what I watched last night? If I ask a girl what she did yesterday she's not gonna answer "I was having leucorrhea" even if that's the truth.