http://www.drudgereport.com/flash6.htm
Drudge has the details
A Seattle AM Radio station is organizing a boycott of the goods produced by those companies that are sponsoring this film. i.e. Those places of business that have had any part in the making or advertisment of this film.
shareI am beguiled to see this miniseries just because of all the noise people are making about it, even though no one has seen it yet.
CBS says they deal with these issues "in a responsible and truthful manner". I think that's what some people are afraid of!
Well, if you even had an inkling of the subject matter you would know how stupid you sound.
shareI've run accross you a few times now. You are always insulting people...not to mention writing comments on films you haven't seen. If that is not the case, then learn something about the movies you watch or about movies in general before you go spraying diharrea out your mouth and all over this site.
For all those people who want to see something this guy wrote and had no clue about (because he didn't actually see the movie):
-SanDiego's review on Elephant-
"Manipulative film made while wearing blinders.
Manipulative, one-sided and not always truthful documentary on high school shootings in America. Meant to find an audience from the bottom-of-the-barrel blame-everybody-but-poor-victim-me I-see-the-glass-completely-empty group will certainly find its audience as did Michael Moore's film. As any viewer of the Jerry Springer show can tell you, you can find enough people to buy just about anything, and there is a small percentage that actually prefer looking at the world through gloom-colored glasses.
Though it worked for Moore, such an unoriginal film probably won't bring much interest outside of France. Sad-sackers tend to have short attention spans and the topic has pretty much played itself out. It would have been more interesting to compare the level of violence around the world to bring things into proper perspective. It would have been nice to find out what it would be like to go to school in third-world countries, in war-torn countries, in dictator-run countries, and the dangers posed to students there and the amount of deaths that occur each year.
The skill in these types of films, as is criticized with Moore's documentaries, is that the film-makers pick-and-choose the facts and wear blinders. I am reminded of a running gag on Late Night with Conan O'Brien where he shows a close-up of a picture and only after the camera pulls back completely can we see that the surrounding landscape puts everything into a completely different perspective. Such is the work of documentary film-makers who shelter us from scenes just beyond the camera that might shed sunlight onto a gloomy close-up. Unfortunately, they never pull back the camera. At least with Moore's films, his facts are so doctored, his techniques so tasteless, years from now we'll have fun laughing at his films in the same way we have fun laughing at Ed Wood. The biggest problem with ELEPHANT is not it's point of view, it is just too watered-down to really make any point at all.
Time will tell if Hollywood still shares a taste in this type of film. As far me, I have much more faith in life. There are wonderful things happening in the same schools and cities documented in ELEPHANT and pity those that choose not to recognize them or make documentaries about them. Even without documentation, for the majority of us, we are happy to be apart of it and experience it first hand. "
Now, convince me that you wrote this after watching the actual film, "Elephant".
Did you even see one Michael Moore's films?
Do you know the names of any Michael Moore films?
Do you know anything at all???
Let me guess... no, no and no.
Thanks a lot.
[deleted]