Films that have a negative influence

[Fighter]

Honestly....IMO, I don't let films or music hold sway over me....it's entertainment, and it entertains me in a positive light, even if I don't care for the movie (The Hurt Locker) or music (gangsta rap)

Parents/Loved ones should be the influence, not entertainment.

It makes the day and evening a little easier to get through!

[wallendo]

Originally Posted by repete66211

+1 Bravo! While you're at it, maybe throw in Harry Potter and the Twilight craze. Adults who get into things intended for children and young adults creep me out a bit. Perhaps I'm a snob, but I have nothing but contempt for people who watch the reality shows like Dancing with the Stars, Survivor and anything with the words Kardashian or Housewives in it.

I am older and enjoy Harry Potter (although I don't obsess about it). They are fun and enjoyable movies. They are also movies I can watch with my daughter. Also, movies don't have to have ultraviolence (OK in moderation), byzantine plots, politics, nudity (OK in the proper situations), or massive explosions to be entertaining. Sometimes, I just want simple entertainment.

I am preparing to enjoy "The African Queen" on blu-ray and it has less sex and violence than Harry Potter, has a straight forward plot, no nudity, and only one explosion; but, is still one of the best movies ever made.

I don't like reality shows, there is rarely any reality in them, and it OK to be snobbish about that.

[repete66211]

Originally Posted by wallendo

I am older and enjoy Harry Potter (although I don't obsess about it). They are fun and enjoyable movies.

You're not the type of person I am referring to. I'm talking about my lonely 40-something cat lady coworkers who get giddy about Harry Potter and who see Twilight as a romance.

[AKORIS]

Originally Posted by 42041

I thought Burn After Reading was a strangely unpleasant film, where the Coens seem to really dislike the characters they created and want to inflict completely needless and cruel brutality upon people who really haven't done anything to merit it

agreed-- very odd movie (even by the Coen standards!)

[SpotOn]

Originally Posted by KrugStillo

Also, can we lay off the Michael Moore bashing. I'm not saying you have to agree with every word the man says but let's face facts all he really does is present news footage. Yeah it's a bit one sided but it's usually impossible to debate. I personally think Sicko and Capitalism: A Love Story are two of the most important films to be made in years and everyone should watch them. Oh, and if you haven't seen both of those movies you're opinion on them is not valid. I love how people bash the message in those movies but don't actually watch them (from beginning to end). I'd rather my kids watch that than any of the above mentioned type of movies.

+1

What I find so funny about the Michael Moore haters is that they go out of their way to let you know that they have not actually watched any of his films. Just look at An American Carol (or better yet, don't) to see what I mean.

When Farenheit 9/11 came out, virtually every detractor of the movie that I spoke to (and I spoke to alot of them) admitted that they had not seen the movie and felt they did not need to, saying it was all a bunch of tricky editing. I always marveled at how they could come to this conclusion without actually watching it.

[AKORIS]

Originally Posted by Glassroots

Gotta say Natural Born Killers. The movie was said to have been repeatedly watched by the shooters in the Colombine school shooting massacre in 1999.

that's the one that immediately came to mind-- I knew it had to have been already posted!!

[Jeremy1983]

I would say The Devil's Rejects, as it glorifies a family of homicidal sociopaths in such a way where you root for them throughout the film. I do enjoy it though

[KrugStillo]

Originally Posted by Jeremy1983

I would say The Devil's Rejects, as it glorifies a family of homicidal sociopaths in such a way where you root for them throughout the film. I do enjoy it though

I guess I have to agree although this is one of my favorite movies of all time. You just can't beat that ending. Awesome. However young children should not be allowed to watch it.

[kpkelley]

Originally Posted by Glassroots

Gotta say Natural Born Killers. The movie was said to have been repeatedly watched by the shooters in the Colombine school shooting massacre in 1999.

They were too young to understand the movie. Movies of this ilk, A Clockwork Orange is another example, are excellent and thought-provoking, but they are not intended for younger audiences. I would be much quicker to blame the parents than any movie.

[Sussudio]

Posts moderated and infractions handed out. A moderator had just reminded everyone to stay on topic. Please try and do so this time.

[SquidPuppet]

Pulp Fiction.

[jhiggy23]

Originally Posted by Fighter

Honestly....IMO, I don't let films or music hold sway over me....it's entertainment, and it entertains me in a positive light, even if I don't care for the movie (The Hurt Locker) or music (gangsta rap)

Parents/Loved ones should be the influence, not entertainment.

It makes the day and evening a little easier to get through!

Amen!

[Harden]

Gummo

[Gremal]

Fly Away Home...terrible to influence kids to fly light aircraft.







KIDDING!

[Hammie]

Bruno

[6AM]

Salo
Cannibal Holocaust
Island of Death
Nekromantik
Pink Flamingos

If you're offended by Kevin Smith movies or the Hostel movies AVOID these at all costs!

[clownface]

Originally Posted by repete66211

don't forget zeitgeist.

+1

[P@t_Mtl]

Originally Posted by 6AM

Salo
Cannibal Holocaust
Island of Death
Nekromantik
Pink Flamingos

If you're offended by Kevin Smith movies or the Hostel movies AVOID these at all costs!

Good advice

[KubrickFan]

Originally Posted by blu-bry

When you look at how many suspensful and great films Hitchcock made without showing gore, using foul language, or showing people having sex on screen it's obvious that the "R" rating could often be done without. I would like to see more studios try to make their films with a PG or PG-13 rating so that we can feel free to watch them with almost any audience and not have to worry about the bad affects a films language or sex might have.

So, while I'm not going to choose one film to answer this question, I would say that the gratuitous use of on screen sex, violence, foul language, etc. makes too many films have a negative influence. I don't buy that these things are necessary for the art, and with the increase in foul language and sex crimes that we see today I think they may influence society rather than reflect it.

I don't think it's right to say that because one director was able to not use bad language and sex (or wasn't allowed to, in those times) everybody should refrain from doing so. Some movies have sex in them, or a lot of violence (or both). That doesn't automatically make it gratuitous, or make it an influence. What it does is make it an easy target for anyone who wants a scapegoat. But since you already don't believe movies like that could resemble 'art', then it's no use arguing about it.
And I don't really get where this comes from anyway. Most blockbusters are already either PG-13, or are cut to get that rating.

Originally Posted by KrugStillo

I'm very surprised there hasn't been more a slam on the gangsters movies that glorify hip hop culture. Not that I don't like these movies but come on. Actually I love DePalma's Scarface but that movie has becomed one of the worst influences in the history of cinema. It seems as if a huge section of the wannabe gangster population has made Tony Montana a hero. I love the movie but I never saw that character as a hero. I also think it's pretty obvious that Brian DePalma didn't mean for him to be taken that way. I just hate what that movie has become, some kind of textbook for being a gangster.

I actually just think it's sad that those 'gangsters' see someone like Tony Montana, an arrogant, jealous, paranoid power-loving drug addict, as a hero, while he clearly isn't remotely close. But hey, he

[Show spoiler]dies all coked up and shooting everybody, so it must be cool

[blu-bry]

Originally Posted by KubrickFan

I don't think it's right to say that because one director was able to not use bad language and sex (or wasn't allowed to, in those times) everybody should refrain from doing so. Some movies have sex in them, or a lot of violence (or both). That doesn't automatically make it gratuitous, or make it an influence. What it does is make it an easy target for anyone who wants a scapegoat. But since you already don't believe movies like that could resemble 'art', then it's no use arguing about it.
And I don't really get where this comes from anyway. Most blockbusters are already either PG-13, or are cut to get that rating.

Respectfully, I think you have taken some of my statements to the furthest extreme. I mentioned Hitchcock only because he is one of my very favorite directors. Let me rephrase my first sentence: "When you look at how many great films many directors have made without showing gore, using foul language, or showing people having sex on screen it's obvious that the "R" rating could often be done without."

I also didn't say that "everybody should refrain from doing so" I said it could often be done without. And I do believe that movies containing such content can be art. I just said that these things aren't necessary for the art.

I think we all would agree that today's society is more vulgar and more sexually charged than it was in many previous decades when movie and music content was tamer. Also, I love having other couples and families over to view a film, but I am mortified when the language (or scenery) turns "blue".