"Focus On The Family"'s review of the SP movie

Jul 1, 1999, 10:43 PM ET37 posts by 19 posters
37 posts
furplay

Deliberately swiped from their website. Fuck 'em with a wooden dildo if they don't like it.

South Park: Bigger, Longer & Uncut

                          MPAA Rating: R
                          Distributor: Paramount/Warner Bros.
                          Director/Actors: Directed by South Park
creator Trey Parker. Written by Parker and
                          cocreator Matt Stone. Assorted voices by
Parker and Stone. Isaac Hayes provides
                          the voice of Chef.
                          Reviewed By: Steven Isaac
                          WEB EDITOR'S NOTE: The foul content of South
Park far exceeds even what most secular
                          critics would deem appropriate. Offensive
subjects are raised with alarming frequency.
                          Naturally, Plugged In must address these
serious lapses in social responsibility. Parental
                          caution is urged even in the reading of this
review. If you are a teenager or a younger child,
                          please let your parents read this review
before you proceed.
                          Premise: Third-graders Stan, Kyle, Cartman and
Kenny sneak in to see an R-rated
                          movie starring a Canadian comedy duo. At that
film they are "introduced" to every
                          possible swear word in the English language.
And a few not in the English
                          language. Mimicking what they hear, they swear
at each other, at their parents and
                          at their teachers. Of course their mothers
become outraged by this abusive
                          language and form a protest group called
M.A.C. (Mothers Against Canadians).
                          The result is a ground swell of outrage
against Canada for generating "filthy"
                          entertainment. One thing leads to another and
the U.S. and Canada go to war. The
                          comedy duo responsible is scheduled for public
electrocution. Meanwhile,
                          Saddam Hussein (a cut-out photograph is used
instead of typical South
                          Park-style animation) has died and gone to
hell. He and Satan strike up a heated,
                          at times sickeningly intimate homosexual
relationship. Kenny also goes to hell
                          after he is brutally killed. He discovers a
plot hatched by Satan and Saddam to take
                          over the world after the U.S. military
executes the two Canadians.

Positive Elements: None.

                          Spiritual Content: Satan is referred to as God
and profane insults are thrown at
                          God. A third-grade boy referred to as "Mole"
rails against God in numerous
                          hate-filled diatribes. All incidents are too
vile to describe. Every insult imaginable
                          is tossed skyward, intertwined with the most
vulgar obscenities. When Kenny flies
                          up to heaven he is greeted at the gates by
realistically drawn nude "angels."
                          During his first "ascent" (before he is
rejected and sent down to hell), he sees a
                          sign that indicates that heaven's total
population amounts to just over 1,500
                          people. In the end, Satan--who is portrayed as
a deeply sensitive and
                          misunderstood loner--"wins" and restores peace
and tranquility to the earth.
                          Sexual Content: A realistic-looking
penis-shaped sex toy is shown twice. It is not
                          animated. Saddam begs Satan to let him use it.
A giant pink mound which refers
                          to itself as a clitoris instructs one of the
boys how to end the war and "win the girl."
                          In fact, a recurring theme in the film is a
frantic search for the "clitoris"--the
                          discovery of which promises the "only sure way
to make a woman fall in love." The
                          boys watch pornographic movies on the
Internet. South Park vomits up a
                          bottomless cesspool of sexual innuendo and insults.
                          Violent Content: Kenny's blood-splattered
death is gory beyond description. The
                          war fought between the U.S. and Canada
features explosions, decapitations and
                          many brutal depictions of violence and death.
In this film, the animation does little
                          to minimize the impact.
                          Crude or Profane Language: Literally hundreds
of f-words and s-words ravage
                          the dialogue. The f-word is used repeatedly to
describe explicit sexual acts such
                          as sodomy, bestiality, incest and other forms
of abuse. Friends, parents, teachers
                          and God are all addressed with such vulgar
insults as "f---ing b--ch." Very few
                          words are spoken in this film that are not
accompanied by a profanity of some type.
                          Homosexual Content: "Big Gay Al" makes an
appearance as emcee for a U.S.O.
                          function. He sings a song that celebrates
being gay. The gist of the lyrics is that the
                          only thing Al has to be happy about in life is
his "gayness." Satan and Saddam's
                          trysts have already been mentioned.
                          Other Negative Elements: Where to begin? One
thing worth noting here is the
                          abundance of racial slurs and insults. Jews
and blacks are singled out.
                          Summary: Matt Stone and Trey Parker set out to
intentionally make this South
                          Park movie the vilest film ever. They
deliberately selected the most offensive
                          jokes, story lines and images they could find.
Three times the MPAA slapped them
                          with an NC-17 rating before granting an R
following minor edits. The MPAA should
                          have stuck to its guns and insisted on the
NC-17. Stone boastfully told
                          Entertainment Weekly, "We're spending tons of
Paramount's money to do a big
                          middle finger to the MPAA. We're trying to
offend the MPAA. This film is really
                          nothing more than getting our own satisfaction
in knowing that the MPAA has to sit
                          and watch this." That said, Stone and Parker
(along with the entertainment
                          companies that backed them: Paramount,
Time/Warner and Comedy Central)
                          should be shamed for producing such a vulgar
product. But that shame falls
                          doubly on the head and every single person who
pays money to wallow in it.
Starlafurplay

furplay wrote:

They'd probably enjoy that far too much for it to be considered punishment. ;-)

~Starla "Your world is an ashtray We burn and coil like cigarrettes. The more you cry your ashes turn to MUD."

This is an accurate review. Anyone who takes a child to this movie should be arrested for corruption of minors!

D.G. PorterDave Webb

That Dave Webb dude is a dork. He sucks! HEY GANG! LET'S ALL FIND SOME MINORS AND CORRUPT 'EM!! Um, wait, uhhh, all the kids here are already corrupted. Oops. Hey, the other day I was a-walkin' by our local "residency motel" (read: place for the homeless to hang out all but one day a month), and there's this old truck parked in the driveway. Inside the cab is a guy with two 10-year olds. One of the boys is beating on the other. The other is shouting, "Cut it out, you f*cking *ssh*le!" And the older dude is laffing. I live in a cool part of town! I went to see the Beavis movie. One couple brought their little daughter with them. She's gonna grow up to be really cool! Then as we were leaving, and I was a-sittin' still waiting for the crowd to ease up, two 14-year old boys passed by me. One said to the other, "Move it, f*ckhead!" My 'hood is so cool, it RULES!

That D.G. Porter dude is wacked. I think I'll kick his ass for looking at little girls like that.

DaveD.G. Porter

Interestingly enough, Socrates was sentenced to death, in part, for 'corrupting the youth of Athens'. How far have we come in a few thousand years?

-----------------------------------------------------------------
                           [email]
          (Hammer nail here--> <-- for a new monitor.)
Seinfeld FAQ http://www.geocities.com/Hollywood/Set/7217/faq.html
-----------------------------------------------------------------
*NOTE*  I am not responsible for equipment damage due to reeeealy
dumb children with no parental supervision, and access to a hammer.
furplayDave Webb

TRRRRRRROOOOOLLLLLLLLLL!!!!!!!!!

Lone Wolffurplay

On 3 Jul 1999 01:04:03 -0500, furplay wrote:

Don't feed him.

----- Lone Wolf To patronize and annoy.

"I'm gonna go play some D & D... in memorium." "That's touching, man." - Froehike and Langely, The X-Files

Bite me, Lone Wolf. And stop sneaking up on those other dogs from behind. Arf arf!

DaveLone Wolf

Hey, you still got that pledge going?

----------------------------------------------------------------
                           [email]
          (Hammer nail here--> <-- for a new monitor.)
Seinfeld FAQ http://www.geocities.com/Hollywood/Set/7217/faq.html
-----------------------------------------------------------------
*NOTE*  I am not responsible for equipment damage due to reeeealy
dumb children with no parental supervision, and access to a hammer.

Most of us who are South Park fans would agree with you that this movie is *not* for children. That's why it's rated R.

I love people who say things like "most of us". Who the fuck gave them the right to speak for anybody but themselves?

In this case, I think it is coming from a selfish, post-adolescent that doesn't want people who may be younger, therefore not as good as him to enjoy a great movie.

is

Bob Trieger was outraged, and replied:

I've seen numerous people who post on here (allegedly South Park fans) say "Great movie! Not for kids!" Sorry if you are offended. You don't need to be part of my little clique if you wish not to be.

I'm not sure why you're offended, unless perhaps you aren't old enough to get into the movie. Who knows, doesn't matter. I'm 28 years old. The movie is *not* for children. By "children" I mean those not old enough to understand the irony inherent in a movie which says a lot of controversial things, which COULD be interpreted in the wrong way (ie...that it's okay to use black people as human shields...) If a parent wishes to take a child to this movie, there's no problem. He or she just had better be prepared to explain a lot of things afterwards. Obviously you missed the point of the movie...which was that parents need to take responsibility in their children's lives and be involved in what goes into their heads.

I'm 35 and I took my 12 year old nephew to see it with me and I think we both loved it!

And I'm looking forward to seeing it again because I apparently missed Mr. Hankey's cameo appearance.

<<This is an accurate review. Anyone who takes a child to this movie should be arrested for corruption of minors!>>

Only problem is, that's not a crime. Even if it was, who would judge "corruption"? If it was me, I would never judge anything as corruption, because I believe in absolute freedom of speech until it infringes on someone else's rights. If it was the MPAA, today's g-rated movies would be tomorrow's triple x-rated movies. In conclusion, corruption of children is an opinion, and as such, cannot be a crime.

Long live the Bill Of Rights!

"Education is the ultimate weapon and the master key." -Daniel M. Gordon, IQ 123

Remove munist to reply.

If you check the federal child abuse criminal code you will find that showing a pornographic image to a child under the age of consent IS against the law. If the scene with Saddam jerking off with a "fake" erect penis in bed (it looked real to me) was not pornographic, I don't know what is. Showing this to a seven-year-old is against the law; they just are not enforcing it (yet), that's all. You are a sick son-of-a-bitch, if you think corrupting little children is not a crime. I'd love to smack some sense into your sorry ass, dude.

furplayDave Webb

Prepare to recieve a good swift smack across the coconut with a clue bat for being such a repressive dick.

Bite me, furplay. (Do you actually play with your "fur" while your down there? Ew.)

Jarret CooperDave Webb

Don't forget, this is the fucking genius with "three college degrees" who's far more intelligent than any of you, who just used "your" instead of "you're". Thanks for keeping it real for everyone, Dave.

Dave Webb wrote in message news:[email]... > Bite me, furplay. (Do you actually play with your "fur" while your down > there? Ew.)

In article , "Jarret Cooper" writes:

Err, what the hell are you talking about?

DaveDave Webb

So who's the guilty party here, Dave? The guys who made the movie and attached a *big fat* warning that minors shouldn't see it? OF COURSE NOT.

Or maybe it's the folks who brought underaged children in to see the movie? GETTING CLOSER.

Or perhaps it's the theater owners who let underaged children in without insuring they had supervision or proper ID? BINGO.

You're so full of rage, and yet you have no idea where to direct it. That's how shooting sprees begin. Please be careful.

-----------------------------------------------------------------
                          [email]
          (Hammer nail here--> <-- for a new monitor.)
Seinfeld FAQ http://www.geocities.com/Hollywood/Set/7217/faq.html
-----------------------------------------------------------------
*NOTE*  I am not responsible for equipment damage due to reeeealy
dumb children with no parental supervision, and access to a hammer.

this pisses me off so much, look at the last sentence-

what about the guy who wrote all this? he obviously went and saw the movie too! okay so maybe he didn't PAY cause he's a "film critic" but its the same damn thing!

tiryaMarleyfff

Marleyfff said... [bunch of "moral majority" ranting snipped]

Put my head in for quadruple shaming, then, 'cause I'm going back to see it again tonight!!

Personally, I would have loved to have been a fly on the wall and watched this guy while he watched the movie. That would have been nearly as funny. I wonder how many shades of red he colored, or if he had to cover his eyes. ::snort::

Tirya

I actually do give him credit for actually watching the film, and not lambasting it randomly with no clue. He's allowed his opinion of the film, and readers of the magazine most likely share his viewpoint.

Jason Travis said...

Absolutely, so do I! ::grin:: (Hi, Jason!) I just would have liked to have watch him watch it. ;)

Tirya

DaveJason Travis

I agree. Actually, if you look at what he wrote, nearly all of it is absolutely true. But consider two people reading the review at the same time, one is an ultra-conservative fundamentalist and the other is, oh, a typical subscriber to alt.tv.southpark. You can well imagine the different reactions. This mostly factual review will still do its intended job because of who is *expected* to read it.

-----------------------------------------------------------------
                           [email]
          (Hammer nail here--> <-- for a new monitor.)
Seinfeld FAQ http://www.geocities.com/Hollywood/Set/7217/faq.html
-----------------------------------------------------------------
*NOTE*  I am not responsible for equipment damage due to reeeealy
dumb children with no parental supervision, and access to a hammer.
Eric PerlinDave

Dave wrote...

Dave, I noticed that lately you've been adding that disclaimer to your signature, whereas previously you just had the "hammer nail here" message _without_ the disclaimer. Was there actually an incident in which a kid hammered a nail into a computer monitor after reading your signature????

DaveEric Perlin

Thanks for asking. (Super!)

I did receive some nasty e-mails last year from a flamer in another newsgroup talking trash about how his kid nailed his 21" monitor and how he demanded restitution. I wasn't sure how serious he was, but he did send me about 20 harrassing e-mails over a two-week period, and he used the same local South Florida ISP as me, so I didn't see a reason to fool around with such a potentially dangerous situation. So I simply forwarded each of his e-mails to my attorney (who I shared several laughs with) and I attached the disclaimer to my .SIG, more as a slam against him than anything else, because by that time everyone in that newsgroup was aware of what was going on.

The bottom line is I continue to post in that group, and Mr. Flamer disappeared several months ago without leaving a trace.

BTW, if you're interested, I could forward you a few of the choicer e-mails. In retrospect, they're kinda funny. :)

-----------------------------------------------------------------
                          [email]
          (Hammer nail here--> <-- for a new monitor.)
Seinfeld FAQ http://www.geocities.com/Hollywood/Set/7217/faq.html
-----------------------------------------------------------------
*NOTE*  I am not responsible for equipment damage due to reeeealy
dumb children with no parental supervision, and access to a hammer.
Jarret CooperDave

Dave wrote in message news:[email]...

Post them! It's no further off topic than all the post-film Christian trolling that's been in this group lately...

j c

CovenantDave

Dave wrote in message ...

Post a couple up here Dave !!!!

(Sounds excellent !!)

Sweeeeeeeet.....

Covenant. A Man Putting Down The Hammer And Nail In His Hands

Calling some Focus on the Family hack a bona fide 'film critic' is really pushing it. Focus on the Family is nothing more than an ultra-rightist special interest group. It should come as no surprise to anyone that they wouldn't like the film...but then again, their philosophy is and always has been that all filmed entertainment should be perfectly suitable for children. Of course they are going to take dead aim at the film...

Mark

"Quis custodiet ispos custodes?" -- Juvenal
IJfanfurplay

Focus on the family are just a bunch of hate filled fasist. Fuck em!

Eric PerlinIJfan

IJfan wrote...

Boy, talk about stating the obvious...

<<Focus on the family are just a bunch of hate filled fasist. Fuck em!>>

I think you mean fascist communist... uh.... Nazis.

Long live the Bill Of Rights!

"Education is the ultimate weapon and the master key." -Daniel M. Gordon, IQ 123

Remove munist to reply.

LJ MoonDaniel Gordon

UM.......Fascism is completely, let me reiterate, completely different from Communism. And Mr. 123IQ, Nazis were not communist either, read a little Engles for Marx.

LJ, IQ 139

"Daniel M. Gordon" wrote:

<<UM.......Fascism is completely, let me reiterate, completely different from Communism>>

I know that. It's an expression saying how these "family values, prayer in schools", if they got their way would cause as much censorship as fascists, communists, and Nazis put together.

Long live the Bill Of Rights!

"Education is the ultimate weapon and the master key." -Daniel M. Gordon, IQ 123

Remove munist to reply.

Not a member of Friends Under Christ's Kingdom (F.U.C.K)

Ben AllenLJ Moon

Um, that's the joke. Dickweed.

Ben Allen, [email]