review question...

Post by **seal_of_metatron** » 10 Dec 2007

has anyone on here read this?

http://www.capalert.com/capreports/silenthill.htm

yeah, it's a fundie site, but if something (especially a movie) interests me, i try to read everything about it i can. on most movies, i usually find that a well-written "it's the work of the devil!"-type review helps to balance out the nit-picking, rotten-tomato tards and the ass-kissers who make a living writing glowing reviews for movies they never see.

but anyway, here's the question: how is a child sleeping in her mother's lap considered "sexually immoral"? i read several of that site's reviews for other movies, and even the ones i didn't agree with, i at least understood their reasoning... but there is no other flaw in judgement like this anywhere else on the site... am i just missing something?

Post by **CursedxDoom** » 10 Dec 2007

seal_of_metatron wrote: am i just missing something?

Sharon is sleeping in between Rose's legs as the camera pans out, but I fail to see how this is sexually immoral. Maybe its because of Rose's legs being spread out, but I don't think there was anything sexual meant by that scene. IMO, they are perverts for thinking of a sexual relation between Rose and Sharon.

By the way, I found this review quite humorous. "Impossible change in scenery" had me on the floor.

Post by **Adrasteia** » 10 Dec 2007

This is retarded. No, you're not missing anything. Obviously Rose tried to wrap Sharon up in her limbs to protect her. If they both either passed out or fell asleep, they'll wake up the same way. Those people are tools.

Post by **LanceS133** » 10 Dec 2007

Yeah, that's definitely ridiculous. I usually catch "sexual" things like that

but I've never gave any thought like that about that scene. Some people just need something to bitch and piss about. They should just get a life or end their current one for that matter.

Post by **alessas angel** » 10 Dec 2007

the only person who would feel that way has pedophilic tendencies. Children often fall asleep with their heads on their parents. It is nothing new. If you have ever had a child curled up on the couch, with you watching tv you know what i mean.

Post by **seal_of_metatron** » 10 Dec 2007

LanceS133 wrote:I usually catch "sexual" things like that but I've never gave any thought like that about that scene.

me too, that's why it caught me so off-guard that they would say that... it does seem pretty pervy though... kinda seems like they're just picking on this movie in particular
and no, i've never read anything in the bible about "unholy change in scenery" either...

Post by **CursedxDoom** » 11 Dec 2007

seal_of_metatron wrote: i've never read anything in the bible about "unholy change in scenery" either...

Its "unholy" because its unnatural. Anything that happens without meaning, such as the otherworld shifts, is considered an offense to God. In other words, its considered deception. That seems to be the reviewer's point of view as a Christian.

Post by **seal_of_metatron** » 12 Dec 2007

[quote="CursedxNightmare"]Its "unholy" because its unnatural. Anything that happens without meaning, such as the otherworld shifts, is considered an offense to God. In other words, its considered deception. That seems to be the reviewer's point of view as a Christian.[/quote

good point, nightmare. i was just taking a stab at the guy; half the site is a unique type of movie review, but the other half just seems like a dude begging for donations so he can sit at home and watch movies....

Post by **D90** » 12 Dec 2007

Ha!

I guess it kind of stings when a fanatic and disturbed religious community is clearly based on your own.

God I hate overly religious people...

Post by **Phantom** » 12 Dec 2007

Wow. That was a pretty bizarre view of the film. Yeah, it was nasty all right, but I don't think it's going to corrupt anyone who isn't already fucked in the head anyway.

Post by **Heather** » 12 Dec 2007

Most of these websites that review films from a 'Christian' viewpoints are fucking ridiculous. It's frightening to me that such narrow-minded, backward thought patterns still exist in the world.

Post by **D90** » 13 Dec 2007

If that frightens you, never ever go to the Middle East, is all I can say.

Post by **phantomess** » 20 Dec 2007

"Child lying between her mother's legs against mother's crotch." Wow.
...Who in their right mind, besides perhaps a woman who likes children that way, would even think of this?

And 'reference to pedophilia'... meaning the janitor? Does this mean that any movie or show in which pedophilia is mentioned, yet shown in a negative light, is sexually immoral? Uh oh, that review must be immoral, then.

SMOKING?

"God is not here"??
Rose said this because she was speaking to the cult... who clearly did not have God on their side, at least not the God most of us think of. How can a churchie complain about that?

And of course 'impossible change in scenery'...

This review, or at least the list next to it, is ridiculous. And frankly gives religious folks a bad name.

Post by **crucifix** » 20 Dec 2007

glad to know i'm not the only one who laughed at the thing. the 'scoring' alone is hilarious. "demon attack - spewing acid"... haha. WANTON VIOLENCE!!!11 "assault with huge blade" is pretty good too.

and yeah, that pedophilia claim is idiotic. what the hell.

Post by **seal_of_metatron** » 21 Dec 2007

read some more on there... you'll notice a pattern; the less thought it takes, the more his "computer" likes it...

Post by **the man in the planet** » 18 Jan 2008

well thank god there was no "murder/suicide" noted. um...

Post by **JKristine35** » 17 May 2008

How ridiculous is that! I really hate people like that, as it's just more people who love to give Christianity a bad name. *sighs angrily*
I did find it funny to read the part about the niece dancing in her aunt's blood- as it shows that the backwards reviewer actually understood the concepts of the film better than most people. lol

But the absolute funniest review (by a user) I have ever read of Silent Hill was by a woman who posted on a Christian website that she took her twin daughters to see the movie because the little girl in the ads looked "cute". She was livid to discover that she had to explain to her little girls the nature of good and evil after sitting through the entire film with them. What a fucking tard!