Disturbing Christian film reviews

[LabelKing]

You should bring this site up at one of those San Francisco "events". I think misguided outrage would ensue.

 

[rach2jlc]

Originally Posted by iammatt

Why is this such a problem? They are reviewing films for other like minded individuals, from what I can tell. Unless we are on a mission to root out all stupidity, I can't find myself caring about this. I mean, it is weird, but so are lots of people.
Don't CARE, Matt? You're telling me you'd let your loved ones watch a film that has "implied intercourse by cohabitation" in it??? Anyway, you're right and I think (hope) the point of the thread has simply been to poke a little fun. Nevertheless, I guess if we can sit around here and ramble on about the stupid **** we ramble on about... they should be allowed to do it, too. ...'cause that's AMERICA!

 

[itsstillmatt]

Originally Posted by Augusto86

Isn't the whole beauty of the internet that we get to discover and laugh at the small-minded idiocy of everyone else?

Yes, please post some more in my NY Times thread.

Originally Posted by LabelKing

You should bring this site up at one of those San Francisco "events". I think misguided outrage would ensue.

I am barely allowed to open my mouth anymore. My wife keeps jabbing her heel into my toe when I try to talk.

Originally Posted by rach2jlc

Don't CARE, Matt? You're telling me you'd let your loved ones watch a film that has "implied intercourse by cohabitation" in it???

Anyway, you're right and I think (hope) the point of the thread has simply been to poke a little fun. Nevertheless, I guess if we can sit around here and ramble on about the stupid **** we ramble on about... they should be allowed to do it, too. ...'cause that's AMERICA!

I get the feeling that the most some of these people get is "implied intercourse," which might be why they are so wacky.

 

[Augusto86]

Originally Posted by iammatt

Yes, please post some more in my NY Times thread.

I get the feeling that the most some of these people get is "implied intercourse," which might be why they are so wacky.

I don't need the tubes to tell me that the Times board skews left. That's why I read the Times editorials - to confirm my callow, ignorant, communist worldview and smug sense of self-superiority.

Duh.

Anyway, I called out the Times on the Rangel thing over in that thread so it's hands across the aisle anyhow.

Also, I think these people get plenty of intercourse, ironically - I mean, this is Sarah Palin's crowd and it's clear she's laid plenty of Alaskan Pipeline.

 

[itsstillmatt]

Originally Posted by Augusto86

I don't need the tubes to tell me that the Times board skews left. That's why I read the Times editorials - to confirm my callow, ignorant, communist worldview and smug sense of self-superiority.

Duh.

Anyway, I called out the Times on the Rangel thing over in that thread so it's hands across the aisle anyhow.

Also, I think these people get plenty of intercourse, ironically - I mean, this is Sarah Palin's crowd and it's clear she's laid plenty of Alaskan Pipeline.
I was pretty impressed by that Rangel call out. I must admit.

 

[Augusto86]

Originally Posted by iammatt

I was pretty impressed by that Rangel call out. I must admit.
Is this what bipartisanship feels like? It's so warm and fuzzy!

 

[clarity]

I love this commonly used phrase.

"most foul of the foul words"

 

[LabelKing]

Originally Posted by clarity

I love this commonly used phrase. "most foul of the foul words"
I do believe "evolution" to be quite foul.

 

[clarity]

Star Wars Episode 1 got a negative mark because a Tusken Raider murdered one of the pod racers with his sniper rifle.

 

[LabelKing]

Here is one of the linked sites, called Modest Apparel. http://www.modestapparelusa.com/ I think it is the Christian Modest Mouse.

 

[rach2jlc]

^Thanks for posting the link, LK. The models on that site are some real lookers, too! I like the "t-shirt dress," personally. It has a bit of flair mixed with that Evangelical... I don't know what.

Hey, can I make this my new avatar???? (j/k)

 

[Augusto86]

Originally Posted by LabelKing

Here is one of the linked sites, called Modest Apparel.

http://www.modestapparelusa.com/

I think it is the Christian Modest Mouse.

I present - the Comfort Bra:

Not to be outdone, however, the lower half o'sinful flesh gets

THE CULOTTE SLIP:

Who knew getting a C in Ozark High Home Ec. was a ticket to the bleeding edge of e-commerce!!?

 

[FidelCashflow]

I had a great timer perusing this website for another take on some of my most and least favourite movies. Some of my favourite comments from their reviews include: -Adult tantrums (Brokeback Mountain) -claiming the use of race to identify criminals to be offensive (Bowling for Columbine) -talk of evolution (Lord of War) -death by exploding barbecue grill with son's body part landing in mom/s plate (Final Destination 2) -rude gaze (No Country for Old Men) -two abbreviations of "Christmas" without "Christ" (American Psycho) I'm dissapointed that the reviewer could make it through a screening of "8MM" to provide a detailed review, it would have been a mile long. That said, I don't know why the OP is getting almost indignant about this. There's really not alot you can let a little kid watch nowadays on TV. This may be useful for people with small kids. I'm guessing the MPAA uses a similar system where they run down a list of every offensive thing in a movie before deciding on a rating, these guys just apply more of a religious spin to it and disclose how they got to their conclusion. It's still more useful than 90% of the other crappy blogs on the internet where people tell you about what they think of movies.

 

[Stazy]

Wanna know why Fight Club is a bad movie? Here is why:

masturbation encouraged as acceptable

 

[itsstillmatt]

They loved this one.