1 of 37 people found the following review helpful
haven't seen it and don't want to - actually have seen it now,
This review is from: Four Lions - Special Edition [DVD] (DVD)
So we have come to a point where a "comedy" can be made about suicide bombers. Presumably Mel Brooks's "Producers" is now redundant as fact follows fiction.
I have not seen this film but this does not stop me having a valid opinion. I have never seen anyone raped, but I disapprove of that too.
You might say, well it is a well made film. No excuse, as Orwell once said, you might find the best built wall in the world, but if it surrounds a concentration camp, the wall should be torn down.
Who exactly is the audience for this? Victims of 7/7? Muslim Fascists? The BNP? Politically-correct twerps? BBC radio presenters like Richard Bacon?
Since I posted this, I have actually seen some of the film when it was on TV. It is a dire 'Carry On' style film without any of the wit or charm of the original 'Carry Ons'. It makes the likes of 'Sex Lives of the Potato Men' look like 'Citizen Kane'. Apart from the simply wrong proposition of presenting terrorist atrocities as comedic entertainment, it is a bad film.
Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 1-10 of 33 posts in this discussion
Initial post: 16 Apr 2012 22:44:42 BDT
What an ignorant "review". Yes, the fact that you have not seen it does actually stop you having a valid opinion. If you actually think that your rape analogy holds any water at all, you are even stupider than your review proves you to be, and that is saying something. You are a wonderful example of the self-righteous ignorance that has made a once great nation not so great at all. Scathing condemnation of something you know nothing about. Well done you.
In reply to an earlier post on 17 Apr 2012 07:26:04 BDT
In reply to an earlier post on 17 Apr 2012 08:43:30 BDT
Oh wow, you really are a bright spark, aren't you?? Let's savour the irony of that inane response for a moment. You post a review of a film you haven't seen, lambasting it with no knowledge of its contents or message, relying purely on your own sense of moral superiority to guide your denouncement. You cast the vilest aspersions you could think of on anyone who would actually watch it, and then when the validity of your blanket condemnation is questioned, you scream oppression and invoke the spectre of Nazi censorship. I guess we all have the right to be an ignorant hypocrite, but you're kind of taking advantage here. And by the way, Orwell would be spinning in his grave to hear you misuse his words to advocate censorship (that is what you're doing, right? If you don't like what's inside [or in your case, assume you don't like what's inside, given that you don't actually know], then it must be torn down. In other words, it should be banned, correct? And you accuse me of being a Nazi....)
In reply to an earlier post on 17 Apr 2012 09:01:50 BDT
In reply to an earlier post on 17 Apr 2012 09:13:50 BDT
You really like to go for the absurdly broad points to validate your small-mindedness, huh? To suggest there is no difference between condemning Hitler, rape and paedophilia, and passing judgment on a film or book you haven't seen or read is too stupid to debate (the fact that you claim to have now seen it is immaterial [and seems a bit odd considering the title of your review..]. You wrote and posted the review before you had, and that is the point I am making). I assume you passionately endorse the banning of the book Lolita - it deals with underage sex. No need to read any further, you know all you need to. Burn every copy in existence and if anyone questions you - THEY'RE NAZIS!!! But enough of this foolishness. I'm off to petition the government to outlaw the Harry Potter series. I've never read them but I hear they contain references to the Dark Arts, and that's all I need to know to start a crusade against them for the good of the world. Wish me luck!!
In reply to an earlier post on 17 Apr 2012 09:17:11 BDT
In reply to an earlier post on 17 Apr 2012 15:28:55 BDT
In reply to an earlier post on 17 Apr 2012 16:07:14 BDT
Or books that you assumed did even though you didn't read them or really know what they were about.
In reply to an earlier post on 17 Apr 2012 16:18:20 BDT
In reply to an earlier post on 17 Apr 2012 16:39:46 BDT
Worryingly, I did not say that Lolita encourages sex with children, merely that it approaches the subject. But in your rush to judgement you took the two statments to be synonymous. Your total willingess to accept someone else's interpretation, to the point that you would work to have something banned because they say that's how you should feel, is nothing short of tragic. Your re-quoting of Orwell further illustrates your failure to follow this conversation. It has nothing to do with whether a gvien item should be banned for the good of society. The issue is your passing judgement based on assumptions and what you have heard from others instead of making up your own mind based on direct knowledge. While some of us may be comfortable with doing this regularly, posting a review of something and giving it one star WHEN YOU DON'T KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT IT is not just ignorant, but thrusting your ignorance in the faces of others.