Movie Morals that Annoy You

[thegoodgirl]

Mikal said:

Haven't yet seen it but based on the description...maybe Spike is anti-BET or anti-African American centric shows?

I watched the movie some years ago and was kind of confused about the message at the time not to mention I was more than a little distracted by the tap-dancing guy's face (or the ugliness thereof) but thinking about it now, I think Spike was trying to send a message about blaxploitation and the hand black people have in it all in order to make a buck (i.e. on BET they show videos of black women in skimpy clothing, dancing suggestively, etc)

[foxfair]

I resented everything about Erin Brockovich. Not everyone who does something marginally interesting should have a fucking movie made about them. And the way the character was shaped was especially annoying. OF COURSE she knows all these people's vital information by heart, 'cause man, she's one of the people, man, and that hurts (pounds chest) in here, man. And of course that's going to impress at a deposition, because what's a deposition for if not to dazzle lawyers and arbitrators with names and numbers off the top of your head?

Nothing but: word to say to this post.

Also, Schmoosie - The Shape of Things is a Neil LaBute script - you didn't expect anything other than misanthropy, did you? Anyway, I often think this play was designed to be amoral - i.e. you decide at the end what the moral is, as an audience member. LaBute has never been interested in moralizing or 'teaching lessons'. Imo.

[duskwolf]

I got another one!

How to Lose a Guy in 10 Days.

All right. I'm not saying that this is the first movie to do such a thing, but it sort of amplifies a point that countless movies have made before it. And that is: no matter what kind of shit you put your significant other through, because the movie gods have decided that you are a pretty couple, you WILL get together in the end.

Aside from that, Matthew deserves better than Kate. Just sayin'. [/fangirl squee]

[beniciosgal]

I realize that this probably is a reflection of the way people would actually behave, but I HATE how in movies where Bad Things happen (wars, natural disasters), it's not just okay but heroic and romantic to betray people, put your life and a lot of other people's in danger, and generally made the Bad Situation much worse in order to save your loyal friend/hot woman/cute kid.

[Deleted]

I'm sure this has been mentioned in other places, but in horror/slash movies? The girls that have sex are the ones that get it first and get it the worst. The "good girl" usually is the one that gets away alive at the end.

[Shalamar]

It's okay to have sex with a drunk, doesn't-know-what-she's-doing girl if she's hot and you're a geeky loser. You'll become a MAN that way! (Oh, and she'll totally enjoy the sex, too, which will make it doubly-okay.)

-- Sixteen Candles

[maayan]

Gone With the Wind owns this thread. Everything about this movie is just wrong wrong wrong.

[Deleted]

The Matrix: If you're a freedom fighter (particularly a cool freedom fighter in a neat leather combo) it is perfectly acceptable to blow away masses of innocent people, police officers or security guards, and cause incalcuable damage to property and loss of life; after all, your enemy can be any one of them, so why take the chance?

(Fairs fair, I've just described every action movie under the sun here, and I did like The Matrix, it's just the trite 'get-out-of-jail-free' way of cutting through the ethical dilemma that gets my goat; see also Buffy the Vampire Slayer's 'vampires are soulless, so it's okay to kill them' moral.)

[foxfair]

The Matrix: If you're a freedom fighter (particularly a cool freedom fighter in a neat leather combo) it is perfectly acceptable to blow away masses of innocent people, police officers or security guards, and cause incalcuable damage to property and loss of life;

Wait. Wait. So it's NOT okay?!

*baffled*

But Keanu looked so awesome in his black leather!!!1!

[Deleted]

DoctorNemesis said:

The Matrix: If you're a freedom fighter (particularly a cool freedom fighter in a neat leather combo) it is perfectly acceptable to blow away masses of innocent people, police officers or security guards, and cause incalcuable damage to property and loss of life; after all, your enemy can be any one of them, so why take the chance?

Heh, this reminds me of an odd obsession of mine, and this isn't totally on-topic, sorry. During an action sequence, when, say, 1 car is chasing another and they crash through store windows and other cars... I always grimly think, "Someone's going to have to deal with this mess!" I realize that the wanton destruction in scenes like this is supposed to add to the excitement, but some prissy part of me always wonders who the hell is going to fix the mess later. They're going to have to deal with insurance companies, hire rentals, close the store for a couple days... But, hey, as long as the hero catches the bad guy.

I caught a glimpse of something on t.v. (no idea what it was) but it had one of those completely implausible scenes where a character crashes through the floor -- and continues crashing through the several floors below that, and you get glimpses of the apartment dwellers looking flummoxed as they see a howling person hurtling through their ceiling, then floor. This does not amuse me. First of all, it's physically impossible. Secondly -- Hey! This is someone's home and they're going to have to repair the damage!

(Honest, I have a sense of humor... There's just something about scenes like this that make me think, "But what happens after? Who's going to come back and fix that?")