Animal Abuse

Loved the film, but was disgusted by the horse tripping and it is the only thing I can think of after the fact. In this era of amazing CGI, it is not necessary to trip horses for your film. Right?


I didn't think anything of it until you enlightened me into doing some internet research.

I too am disgusted at this. While the movie is made internationally Magnolia (the american distributor - comcast, etc.) should take notice of movies that don't follow the same animal rights standards as american made movies.


Dang,, We haven't messed up our own country enough with this liberal 'Political Correctness' crap, now you want to shove it down the throats of people who fortunately aren't subject to our panty waist laws...

It's people like you that has turned this world to crap, where a person has to watch everything they say, do or feel else they offend someone else...

It's simple.. Thank god not every country has to put up with PETA laws.. As far as the horse is concerned (and I for one could care less) probably wasn't damaged (a trained horse is more valuable than most actors).. the tripping scene, was probably filmed for a lot less than what a convincing CGI shot would have cost.. (hiring a compitant CGI crew, outside of the states,, is actually more expensive for 1 or 2 scenes than in bulk) and you'd be more than likely be complaining about the low quality of the CGI.. I hope the Director was able to able to buy nice gas guzzling Jag with the money...

Because of people like you.. 'ILLEGAL ALIENS' now have to be referred to as undocumented immigrants.. What a laugh... They commited a crime to get here and they have no intention of filing immigration papers...

Women no matter what their own reputation can now claim any man, of any reputation said or did this or that.. And without being convicted, He's automatically quilty of Sexual Harrassment or even the more obscure Improper behavior...

People like you have no right making any comments about any movies, foreign or domestic...


There's nothing politically incorrect about abusing animals. The environment, plants, fellow man... we're all a part of the same ecosystem, and we should respect that.

Caveman is commenting on another subject. I actually agree with some of his 'politically correct on overboard' views, it just doesn't pertain to this thread.


Man some of you just make me laugh. You hear some broadcaster say something that resonates with you and without thinking you jump on their bandwagon without even thinking about what you are saying yourself.

I looooooove this one...

It's people like you that has turned this world to crap, where a person has to watch everything they say, do or feel else they offend someone else


The people who turned the world to crap are the ones with guns, bombs, tanks and missiles who kill each other all day or threaten to while people in their countries or other ones go starving to death and the child mortality rates are at insanely unacceptable levels because medicine that could easily save their lives can not get to them. WHILE the companies that not only make and design these weapons for these people but also dump poison in to our air and our water while telling us to lower our carbon footprint and worry about the planet getting a little warmer or hotter.

They(!) are the ones who screwed up the planet.

There is this thing called Freedom of Speech, and you are still welcome to say pretty much anything you want except under certain conditions like WORK because work is not public, its owned privately and they set the rules and want everyone to be comfortable, and work efficantly being unafraid of some bully or neanderthal attempting to humiliate or upset them, and that goes for other private instituions as well (like schools). BUT for the most part you can go on any street corner (or website) in most of the world and say anything about anything you want to say and there is no penalty for it at all (people may agree with you, but I suspect most people in your case will think you are an idiot). The LAWS that DO EXIST about not being able to SLANDER people have been there long before the poltical correctness concept came about and that is there as much to protect you from me saying something about you that isn't true or accusing you of something you did not do, as it is to protect whole groups of people from being attacked with lies (which in the past has lead mobs and lots of dead victims).

So, no.. people like TESTAMP did not screw up the world by agreeing to be more civilized to each other. Something like that doesn't have the power to screw up the world, it takes a lot more than that to screw up the world or civilization in general, and one of the first things that starts that to happen is poorly educated people or people at the least don't understand or think for themselves (or .. people who can't think for themselves for that matter) joining angry mobs of people and placing blame on whoever they are told to blame for their troubles usually by the people in positions of actual power who really ARE the ones who screwed up the planet or didn't you see that thing called World War 2?

I'm almost positive they made a film about it.

Or is this the best part...

I find it totally ironic that you just claimed the OP and Testamp too (I think) is one of the ones responsible for "turned the world to crap because people like him supposedly forced you watch what you say" and while you are doing that you are completely slandering him publicly by accusing him of this with no proof at all except flimsy circumstancial evidence which has been illegal for 100s of years and not only is it a pretty heavy accusation to make against someone yet you did it and it doesn't seem like anyone stopped you from doing it did they? So, by being able to say what you wanted about these two people even though what you said you could technically be sued for, no one actually stopped you from doing it did they, and so that pretty much blows away any argument you are trying to make (does no one else find that totally hilarious).

On and on and on, until you learn, son...

There is a difference between "political correctness" and attempting to be more civilized. Real political correctness is just attempting to ask people to be more sensitive to the rest of society, if we succeed in that we can build VERY STRONG societies that will last 1000s of happy and peaceful years. No one really has a problem with the basis of the concept behind the "politcally correct" ideas that have been introduced in to our society to make it more civilized (no one really has a problem with attempting to become more civilized and therefore create a better society). The problems appear when an extremist takes some aspect of it too far, the media turns it in to "news" and they make it seems as though politcally incorrect extreamism is out of control when its only ONE CASE. Also perhaps they are able to get a couple talking head interviews from some other people who had similar experiences (or paid actors or liars - joe the plummer) which are then twisted and exploited to try and make you MORE emotional about it all and NOW they got yourself on the opposite side of the spectrum who now believes that political correctness is being taken too far simply because they heard that "news" of it being taken too far and they play right in to it by becoming a part of the other side of the extremist spectrum (just like the whole "RED and BLUE" thing except over specific topics) and makes a total mockery of an attempt by some individuals to help influence the positive progress of a society.

Almost always when new ideas are introduced in to society the boundies of those ideas are tested, its only the natural progression of the way a society develops; so its nothing to get bent out of shape about, but here you are blaming someone on IMDB for ruining the world because they didn't like seeing an accident of a stunt gone wrong in the film we're discussing. You don't think that perhaps you might sound like a flake for doing that? Hyperbole on meth?

This might be my favorite part, this one..

"Thank god not every country has to put up with PETA laws."

I wasn't aware that PETA was in control of making laws all over the world, IN FACT I'm pretty sure that they are just a lobby group asking for the "Ethical Treatment of Animals" and that they have very little political power except mostly naked runway models asking people to try to eat less meat if not stopping all together but essentially hoping that in the end they convince people in general to place less of a demand on the meat industry in general. Here is the thing, inside of a group like that you will always get divisions that again have extremists that take things too far, and people like yourself who get really upset by it manipulated in to being upset by it when given incorrect information about the truth of the groups main message and instead made to focused on the extremist and incorrect sensationalized story that in reality has little to do with PETA (for example) but gets applied to them anyways.

The basic message behind their group gets drowned out in the noise of the sensationalist story and it must work because you seem to be very confused because not only do you think that PETA makes laws but the rest of the things you say in that paragraph also make very little sense, and it seems as though you believe that it was up to the director to either harm a horse or an actor and but went with harming the horse because the actor is simply far more important. The idea is to not become an extremist for either side and be used by one or the other to help further what that particular group of extremists is promoting and help them further their adjenda for them for free, because they managed to get you all worked up with a few news stories and convinced you that those few incidents and the people behind them are ruining the country, meanwhile.. the people who managed to persuade you in to beliving their propaganda are usually the ones connected to the people who are the real people ruining the world, and usually running it too.

What you fail to grasp is that there is no excuse at all to EVER to cause pain to another living thing for the amusement of anyone else, AND the majority of CIVILIZED SOCIETY will agree with that ONE SIMPLE STATEMENT even if they agree with the rest of what PETA has to say or not.

Where you get the idea that there was a debate with John Woo and the stuntmen along the lines of "The horse or the actor? I dunno! Its a good horse and we do have a lot of extra extras, and if someone dies on the set of this film it would certainly be a lot of free publicity, but I think people might feel bad about it, and might not want to ride any other horses without being paid more so, that settles it I guess." .. I have no idea. I don't know why you think that at all.

Apparently he has got the OP and #2 completely nailed for their crimes against our society like this one...

Because of people like you.. 'ILLEGAL ALIENS' now have to be referred to as undocumented immigrants.. What a laugh... They commited a crime to get here and they have no intention of filing immigration papers...

How do you know that they did that because they don't like to see animals hurt unnecessarily? And, who said that they have to be referred to as "undocumented immigrants" by who and when and under what conditions? Is it law? Do you not realize that its NOT a crime to say "Illegal Alien" but it IS AGAINST THE LAW to slander the OP and #2 by blaming them for things that not only have nothing to do with this thread but that they are also not responsible for, but ALSO by saying the things you are saying right now you are very nearly commiting libel and or slander (I'm not a lawyer so I'm not 100% which one applies here) which has been illegal for 100s of years and has nothing to do with politcal correctness. Again, it is a law that exists to ensure that people are not falsely accused, attacked or defamed as you are doing right now.


Women no matter what their own reputation can now claim any man, of any reputation said or did this or that.

Anyone can do that to anyone about anything. AGAIN, the only reason you are getting bent out of shape about this is because you've heard about some extreme cases that were blown out of proportion by extremists from the other camp. AND NOW you yourself have become an extremist but you are guilty of the exact thing you are ranting against. WHAT YOU DO NOT KNOW about the law and the legalites (could fill a warehouse obviously) in the case of women and rape or sexual harassment is that they MAY ACCUSE A MAN of abuse or rape, but.. if there is no physical evidence (DNA), no hospital and police report from almost immediately after the attack or witnesses to the attack, they can make all the claims that they want to make but it will never hold up in court... and not only will it not hold up in court.. but there is a very good chance it will never even get in to the court on the day of the trial.. it will be thrown out and never see the light of day. You don't hear about that sort of thing because its not sensational. YOU DO hear about celebrities types talking about how someone who is since dead abused them when they were young and were under the control of that person and had no way to prove or defend themselves against it at the time, and so they suffered through it until that person died or they were old enough to get away from the abuse.

THE ACTUAL NUMBERS AND CASES OF ABUSE AGAINST WOMEN AND CHILDERN WOULD STAGGER YOUR TINY MIND IF YOU KNEW THE TRUTH.. it only takes 1 person to abuse 100s of childern or women, talk to victims in therapy groups.. they are not in therapy for attention or because they imagined it and the fact is they will never get justice because they can NEVER PROVE THAT THEIR (eg) FATHER who may still be alive abused them.. and without proof it CAN NOT GO TO TRIAL. For every time you hear about one case of rape going to trial there are FAR MORE that never see the light of day.

Unlike yourself "Caveman", who seems to think he can place blame on the OP and #2 for ruining the world by blowning out of proportion how much and how often poltical correctness has been misused compared to all the people it has saved from abuse or being attacked just like you are attacking the two of them right now, and how inside the media cases of some vicious women have in the hope of gaining money or fame falsely attacked a man through accusations based on sex (which of course the media LOVES to blow our of proportion for people like yourself to latch on to and believe that its happening all the time when in fact the opposite is the truth) .. and you yourself are attacking these posters just like an extremist would do while complaining that they are responsible for these examples of "PC Amock" in our society simply because they didn't like the idea of seeing a real accident involving two horses being used in a film they were watching. AND, that has NOTHING to do with politcal correctness or anything you are blaming them for (while commiting an actually illegal act of libel and slander by doing so which have existed for 100s of years) or PETA for that matter; its simply that they are sensitive to the suffering of animals and do not want to see the animals truely getting hurt and in fact if you asked most of the CIVILIANS in "western" nations a vast majority of them also would prefer that it be edited out of the film.

The people who are likely the most responsible for ruining our planet, are the ones who can't feel any compassion or empathy for people suffering in pain, don't care about the pain they cause to others, find excuses for the pain they cause or the harm the who ever they support, committing actions on their behlaf for them that cause pain and suffering to any living thing. If you stop causing pain to animals, then its easy for us as a species to stop causing pain to other humans, there is a natural progression to treat all life with respect. When we are more powerful than a person or creature who's existance interferes with our interests (money or growth) and we deal with that living thing with compassion and understanding instead of using our strength against them, the whole of society benifits greatly; we all prosper when this becomes the norm instead of the exception. Cooperation is more important than competition. Using power to communicate ideas that result in cooperation instead of compatition should be the primary goal of all societies and in fact the real people ruining the world right now are the ones who are not following this simple concept.

Let me break it down a bit so your brain understands; competition creates things like war, distrust and hate. Cooperation results in things like trade, tourism, understanding and peace. Tell me the last time two democratic nations which held major trade agreements with each other went to war against each other. Doesn't happen, they prefer to make money off each other and live in happiness, not watch their childern die in a costly war that should not have even come to fruition.

Have you had childern by any chance? Would you might not? Here...

People like you have no right making any comments about any movies, foreign or domestic.

I mean its just completely unreal, really. You claim that the OP has no right making comments about ANY MOVIE. Except he does, he has a right to make a comment about anything he wants to even if it upsets you. PERHAPS THOUGH we should make a new politically correct law that prevents people from making statements that upset you?

Do you still not understand how amazingly stupid you look by complaining that its people like the OP who are ruining the entire world by restricting the right of people to make comments about things and make sure they don't hurt anyones feelings and generally can't say what they really think at all and this is all ruining the world; and then you finalize by stating that he doen't have the right to make a comment about any films in general?

You complain and accuse them that they are ruining the world by denying people their right to say things that may offend other people but since they said something that offended you suddenly you are all for it and if you could you would deny them their right to freedom of speech.

Please tell me this was a troll and I just fell for it, because this material is too good to be true; its almost a late Christmas present.

Thanks Caveman, you made my day.




You have medical problems buddy. Who the *beep* would get so upset about a forum reply and write such a mindblowingly idiotic reply? Jesus.


don't really thiunk I even saw that? can you give the time in the movie?


I liked your reply. Allthough the caveman won't learn, it is nice to see intelligent civlised people getting angry from time to time. At least I'm not the only one.

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? - Who watches the watchmen?


This is the false idol you worship;

Political Correctness: The Scourge of Our Times
Agustin Blazquez with the collaboration of Jaums Sutton
Monday, April 8, 2002
Does anyone know the origins of Political Correctness? Who originally developed it and what was its purpose?
I looked it up. It was developed at the Institute for Social Research in Frankfurt, Germany, which was founded in 1923 and came to be known as the "Frankfurt School." It was a group of thinkers who pulled together to find a solution to the biggest problem facing the implementers of communism in Russia.

The problem? Why wasn't communism spreading?

Their answer? Because Western Civilization was in its way.

What was the problem with Western Civilization? Its belief in the individual, that an individual could develop valid ideas. At the root of communism was the theory that all valid ideas come from the effect of the social group of the masses. The individual is nothing.

And they believed that the only way for communism to advance was to help (or force, if necessary) Western Civilization to destroy itself. How to do that? Undermine its foundations by chipping away at the rights of those annoying individuals.

One way to do that? Change their speech and thought patterns by spreading the idea that vocalizing your beliefs is disrespectful to others and must be avoided to make up for past inequities and injustices.

And call it something that sounds positive: "Political Correctness."

Inspired by the brand new communist technique, Mao, in the 1930s, wrote an article on the "correct" handling of contradictions among the people. "Sensitive training" – sound familiar? – and speech codes were born.

In 1935, after Hitler came to power, the Frankfurt School moved to New York City, where they continued their work by translating Marxism from economic to cultural terms using Sigmund Freud's psychological conditioning mechanisms to get Americans to buy into Political Correctness. In 1941, they moved to California to spread their wings.

But Political Correctness remains just what it was intended to be: a sophisticated and dangerous form of censorship and oppression, imposed upon the citizenry with the ultimate goal of manipulating, brainwashing and destroying our society.

PC Cuba

My first conscious exposure to Political Correctness was in 1959 – the first year of Castro's revolution in Cuba – while attending an indoctrination session at a neighborhood elementary school in Havana. There I learned for the first time of the claimed superiority of life in the Soviet Union vs. the U.S.

There I also learned that the word "compañero" (filtered version of the communist "comrade" – Fidel was denying his communist preferences) was the correct way to refer to the other members of the new Cuban society-in-the-making.

Mr., Mrs. and Miss were no longer acceptable, and their further use could reveal that you were not a Fidelista. Since repression and violations of human rights came roaring in right behind Castro's sweep down from the mountains in 1959, objection or rejection of Fidel Castro's revolution would (and still will) land you in a lot of trouble. You could easily lose your life in those summary executions at La Cabaña prison under the direction of Che Guevara.

But don't worry about Che. Che was later transformed and cleansed by the masters of Political Correctness. His likeness became a revered icon of the far left, with T-shirts and posters still adorning the campuses of America.

The same techniques were used to cleanse one of today's "heroes," Mumia Abu-Jamal (even if he was convicted, by overwhelming evidence, of killing a cop).

And under the pervasive guidance of Political Correctness that took hold from elementary school to university, from the media to the arts, from the country fields to factories and offices, Cubans learned to say what it was safe to say. Always in line with the overpowering state. Always following the dictums of the only political party left: the Communist Party.

The self-censorship resulting from Political Correctness easily trampled freedom of speech. Political Correctness has succeeded in Cuba by creating a uniform political discourse that has lasted for 43 years.

Political Correctness has given the state (Castro) complete control of speech. That is the main reason why the U.S. media cannot extract the truth of what Cubans really feel when they interview regular citizens and deceptively present their comments as valid to the American public.

The same was true in the former Soviet Union and the former satellite countries. The same continues in the remaining communist world.

It's nothing new. The U.S. media must know that, so why don't they openly report that fact instead of misleading the public? Perhaps that is the reason why the American people are so uneducated about the Cuban tragedy and acted regrettably during the Elian Gonzalez affair.

The PC U.S.

With profound dismay, I have seen how the scourge of Political Correctness has taken hold in the U.S. It is very well entrenched in our educational system, at scientific, religious and community levels, the media, the workplace and even our government.

It is changing the American society from within, and the citizens of this nation are increasingly censoring themselves and losing their freedom of speech out of fear of Political Correctness repression.

It is the nature of Western Civilization to be civilized – respectful of others and concerned with correcting injustices. We don't need Political Correctness to make us think we are not civilized on our own and must have our thoughts and words restricted.

In December 2001, in Kensington, Md., an annual firefighters Santa Claus festivity to light the Christmas tree was objected to by two families. The city council, in the name of Political Correctness, voted to ban Santa from the parade. Fortunately, due to citizen outcry, the decision was reversed in the end and many people protested by dressing up as Santa.

Logically and respectfully, how can one person's benign icon be objectionable to the point of banishment? Offer to add other people's icons. Make it a broader celebration. That's the Perfectly Correct American way.

The rulers of Political Correctness reach absurd levels when they refer to the betrayal of America by the spies Julius and Ethel Rosenberg – executed in 1953 – as "non-traditional patriotism"!

We see shameful situations created in our schools and universities in America that have fallen prey to Political Correctness. Some professors, students and publications are being attacked for expressing a point of view that differs from that imposed by a fanatical far left, under the guise of Political Correctness.

In schools and workplaces we see that "diversity" has degenerated into reverse discrimination, where often the less qualified are admitted and the incompetent cannot be fired. We have seen characters like Rev. Jesse Jackson shamelessly blackmailing and threatening to boycott entire corporations if they don't hire those selected by him or simply make "donations" to his organizations.

The Double Standard Emerges

Our Constitution requires the separation of church and state, which has always discouraged our public education system from teaching religion. However, in December 2001, while Christmas cards, symbols and decorations were being objected to for the first time in American public schools in Georgia, Maryland, Pennsylvania, Massachusetts, Minnesota and Oregon, in an elementary school in Texas, a girl was allowed to give to her classmates an overview and show a video about her Muslim religion.

And in January 2002, a public middle school in San Luis Obispo, Calif., had its students pretend to be warriors fighting for Islam. Another school near Oakland, Calif., also encouraged 125 seventh-grade students to dress up in Muslim robes for a three-week course on Islam.

This arbitrary double standard was applied in the name of Political Correctness following the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.

According to Ellen Sorokin's "No Founding Fathers?" published by the Washington Times on its front page on Jan. 28, 2002, even our Founding Fathers have fallen victim to the travesty. The article says of the New Jersey Department of Education's history standards,

"The latest revisions to the state standards have disappointed educators across the country, who said the board's exclusion of the Founding Fathers' names is 'Political Correctness to the nth degree.' "

Sorokin points out that "the standards specifically note that students should identify slavery, the Holocaust and modern Iraq as examples in which 'people have behaved in cruel and inhumane ways.' " Conveniently, communism is absent from that short list.

In another article by Sorokin, published by the Washington Times on March 10, "Report Blames Anti-Americanism on College Teachers," she presents two examples of upcoming courses for next spring and fall. They are " 'The Sexuality of Terrorism' at University of California at Hayward; and 'Terrorism and the Politics of Knowledge' at UCLA, a class that, according to its course description, examines 'America's record of imperialistic adventurism.' "

Recently, a historic photograph of the New York firefighters raising the American flag over the ruins of the World Trade Center was going to be made into a sculpture as a memorial.

But history's revisionists used Political Correctness to dictate that other minority faces replace some of the faces in the historical photograph! Fortunately, in the end that didn't fly either, due to the outcry of firefighters and the public.

The Goal of the PC Dictators

For people with the background and firsthand experience of living inside a totalitarian communist society, the tilt and goal of the dictators of Political Correctness in America are obvious.

The beneficiaries in the end will be the fanatic believers in the totalitarian state, who, in spite of the dismal failure of communism and the 100 million people exterminated pursuing that criminal system, have not given up.

Political and religious fanatics, as demonstrated by the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks and the subsequent war in Afghanistan, are extremely dangerous in today's world.

All citizens who cherish liberty must reject the scourge of Political Correctness. Freedom of speech must be preserved in America if we are to continue to be free.

Let's say it: Castro is not a 'president,' as the U.S. media's Political Correctness calls him. Castro has not been democratically elected to anything in Cuba. The correct word to define him is 'tyrant.' He is not just a 'leader,' as the U.S. media also calls him. He is more of a criminal Mafioso-type character.

Why criminal? Because he has caused the deaths of more than 100,000 Cubans. Thousands have died through his support of guerrillas in Central and South America. Thousands of blacks were killed by Castro's soldiers in Africa. Castro in the 1980s introduced the use of bacteriological weapons to kill blacks in Angola.

How many thousands have died in America as a result of his drug trafficking into the U.S.? How many thousands have died all over the world due to terrorists trained in Castro's Cuba?

Former Soviet colonel Ken Alibek, who defected to America, was once in charge of the Soviet Union's production of biological weapons. In Alibek's 1999 book, "Biohazard," he revealed that with the help of the Soviet Union, in the 1980s Cuba created laboratories to produce chemical and bacteriological weapons of mass destruction – just 90 miles from U.S. shores.

The information about Castro's involvement with bacteriological weapons also comes from various independent sources. We must not forget either that Cuba is on the U.S. State Department's list of terrorist nations.

Why Mafioso? Well, Castro is like an untouchable godfather, surrounded by bodyguards and thugs and a private army of about 40,000 soldiers for his personal protection (roughly the size of the entire army of Cuba prior to 1959).

He stole foreign and national properties in Cuba. He has become one of the richest men in the world, according to Forbes magazine. He has created a despotic and corrupt elite to exploit the Cuban people and keep himself in power. He has made the Cuban people hostages and slaves of his corrupt regime.

The U.S. media do not call Al Capone "the former leader" of the Italian Mafia. Why the double standard with Fidel and other far-left regimes? The answer can be traced to where the sympathies lie – with the elite dictating Political Correctness in America.

It's one thing is to be educated, considerate, polite and have good manners, and another to be forced to self-censor and say things that are totally incorrect in order to comply with the arbitrary dictums of a deceiving and fanatical far-left agenda.

Let's preserve our freedom and say NO to the scourge of Political Correctness
So basically your a communist hippy!!!


To Caveman:

That was an extremely intelligent and well-written reply. My first thought was that imdb (with it's hordes of semi-literate and punctuationally-challenged (yes I know "punctuationally" is not a word) people) may not be the best place to have a thoughtful discussion devoid of personal or off-the-f'ing-point attacks (such as pointing out you used "your" instead of "you're" in the last line of your post.)

But then I realized that I don't know where on the internet that you can have a rational discussion where both sides provide insight and logic to support their perspective on any subject. Here's why: if you post somewhere where people disagree with you, inevitably the majority of the responses will be antagonistic and have no intention of enlightening you, but merely tell you why you're wrong. Conversely, if you post somewhere that people agree with you, people will agree with you. What point is there in that? You won't learn anything that might change your opinion (even if only slightly) and you won't be presenting an alternate view to everyone else on the site that may change their opinion (also, if only slightly.)

By the way, I love speaking parenthetically (yes it is a word; look it up.)


Terrible Quality YouTube Videos Here:


You were obviously never taught what true Communism actually is. It's nothing against you personally, most people don't know what true Communism is and what it means to be Communist.
It's okay. The Powers that Be in this country would not have it any other way.


lol only poor and unsuccessful people want communism in western society. Especially people who dont want to work hard to get a good career.

People just want what others have without doing as much work.

How innovative would you be in life if you knew there really was no reason to be besides someone JUST saying "good job"

the basic problem of communism is life gets boring and there is no competition. Its a naive mindset, especially in modern times. It helps reinforce my believe that its just lazy, uneducated people that support it in the west. ESPECIALLY in america, where there are actually people who bitch about not being able to make ends meat (and having no kids or anything).

I am from canada and basically everything is 2-4x as much money, we make less money, AND we get taxed more. It's basically america hard version. So basically all canadians just laugh at americans when they act like life is unfair for them. I mean, they were bitching about gas prices like it was unfair and insane when they were paying 3.50 a gallon, meanwhile we were paying close to 6 dollars a gallon on less income, so its obvious how pathetic some americans are.



i actually feel bad for you
you wasted all that time and effort on a troll

at first i laughed, but now i just feel a little bit sick.


Was that an attempt at an intelligent reply???

looked more like moronic mumbling


I'm loathe to criticise a post that I agree with much of, but I can't let this stand:

"... there is no excuse at all to EVER to cause pain to another living thing for the amusement of anyone else, AND the majority of CIVILIZED SOCIETY will agree with that ..."

Factory farming causes pain to animals all the time and whilst that isn't for amusement, it is for pleasure. Getting into a rant about one injured horse when the people who made the film probably ate hundreds of animals while it was being made is faintly ridiculous.


Personally I dislike PETA, but you probably could have saved a whole team of horses in the time it took you to type out that anonymous post on an internet message board.


Well played :)


Suck it hippie.




i gotta say that basically every person online that bitches about animal abuse are always full of hot air and do nothing BUT bitch.

you guys are the ones shaking ur finger at everyone else, yet i guarentee you arent even vegan let alone someone who actually does ANYTHING for animals.

Just becuase you got ur cat at the pound does not mean you are an animal activist.

Usually people who are animal activists are people who do not understand the world and are trying to shove their own morality down other people's throats, regardless of culture, preference, CHOICE, etc.

I also gotta say that people who hate on other for "war" as if it was some kind of new problem showing up in humanity recently are the absolute WORST lol.

War is so much better than it used to be. You do realize that war used to be a bunch of people hacking at eachother with swords, then moving on to RAPE AND PILLAGE people like yourself. Its always people who have nothing going on in their life that always try to tell others how to live their life.

Get it through your head. Other countries have their own ways of doing things. Saying they should follow american standards just because you believe it to be morally right is so incredibly naive it makes me sick. If you have the money to pay for people to live the way you want, by all means tell them. Otherwhise ur just some moronic kid that doesnt realize that not everyone is as dumb and naive as you, and they need to live their lives even if you think its not the right way.


tl;dr. gtfo noob.


OOOHHH, caveman thinks he's a macho man because he thinks like a Rush Limbaugh clone!
Oooooh, your manly stance on political correctness makes me so HAAARRDD!!

Tough macho stud, you!
ONLY right wingers have big dicks - and liberals, as pointed out by big boy here, are little panty waist pussies.

The only way to be a man in this world, is to forever prove how tough you are!




Please present a intelligible argument.. All I see you spouting is grade school name calling.. What are you some 9 year old?? That would explain your infantile post..

Either that or your a Political Correctness hippy,, whose done too much LSD to present anything resembling intelligent.. If that is the case, I must appologize.. I refuse to make fun of the mentally handicaped...


Hey Caveman

I dont want to talk to you intelligently. i wanna call you the *beep* you are.

I dont care if i get banned for it.. that felt good



My point exactly...

none of you can generate an intelligent argument..

You just wanna whine and name call, like the emotoinal children you are...


*an intelligible argument...

There's a few more, but I'll let you find them yourself.


Once again the moromic masses speak up.. Not with an intelligent argument..
But with a vague implication an intelligent argument was made..
Yet too stupid to have located an argument they agree with and at least copy paste it themselves.. That is proof that the nay sayers are truely pathetic..


Good Movie though, innit? :-)

He's not the Messiah! He's a very naughty boy..


your username is "caveman"

dude, that's priceless, spot on.

kinda went off the rails with your argument but i sorta agree, if only on the animal aspect. animal abuse? i doubt tripping is not going to permanently cripple the horse, the stuntmen were probably hurt a lot worse than any animal on set.

The Dude Abides


Caveman, meet my ignore list.


i hope you die.. slow and painful


You again, with you infantile little posts..

Are you even old enough to be posting...

Obviously you have don't have enough brain cells to generate proper argument..
All your about is school yard name calling.. that wont get you very far in the real word.. From your posts, I think you need to prepare yourself for your future careers - repeat ' do you want fries with that' untiol you can get hired..



In the director's commentary for Conan The Barbarian, John Milius talks about the horses who trip and fall down a hill toward the end of the movie. He said that they used stunt horses who are specially trained to fall over, head over heels. According to him, the stuntmen riding them are far more likely to be hurt than the horses themselves, and that the horses actually seem to enjoy doing it.

So, assuming that that's true, there's nothing inherently wrong with having horses fall over in a movie. And I'm sure that John Woo was able to get those trained stunt horses for Red Cliff, what with his monstrous budget.

Were some of the horses actually hurt during the filming of that "mirror" scene, though? I haven't heard anything about that. In fact, I just did a Yahoo search and found information indicating that no horses were hurt in the filming of Red Cliff, and that John Woo ensured that all precautions were taken to keep the horses from being injured.

On the other hand, a stuntman was killed during filming of the final battle. Because of hot weather, hundreds of extras got heat stroke during filming. Instead of being upset about people being hurt or killed, though, you're upset that the horses APPEARED to be hurt (even though they were just fine).

If you're an animal rights activist, or at least feel very strongly about the welfare of animals, you should actually ENJOY the scenes with the falling horses. You can rewind that scene and replay it over and over again, laughing your butt off, because you know that the horses were having the time of their lives while the stuntmen riding them were scared out of their minds.


In support of what Danishjuggler is saying, I read an article a few years back about "stunt horses" who are specially trained to take front and side falls safely, and that these horses are used specifically for scenes in which horses tumble. I agree, short of that it is animal abuse, no question. I tend to think that in this case, given that it's John Woo and a movie with an enormous promotional budget, it is very likely that such precautions were taken. Think about it: This is the biggest-budgeted film in Asian cinema history. Why would the investors risk the bad publicity of abusing animals given their investment, knowing that this movie would be distributed in markets where that would be vilified?

I'm not saying that it absolutely didn't happen; I don't know. But I would be shocked to learn that, given what is now possible both in terms of technology and horse training, that such precautions weren't taken, all the more so given the visibility of this film. To the OP, I hope this helps allay your fears, which I certainly understand. As to the knuckle-dragging trolls here, you know it's best to ignore them, of course.


What, I don't get credit for mentioning that this was a trained stunt horse??

As far as the horse is concerned (and I for one could care less) probably wasn't damaged (a trained horse is more valuable than most actors).. the tripping scene, was probably filmed for a lot less than what a convincing CGI shot would have cost..
No, people ((Politically correctness freaks) aka communist hippies) with no legitiamate arguments just want to take juvenile potshots at my handle..
But then that is just what is taught in college, if you can't make a valid argument against your opponants point of view attack your opponant...

Lookup Political Correctness, it's history and use is well documented;

It was developed at the Institute for Social Research in Frankfurt, Germany, which was founded in 1923 and came to be known as the "Frankfurt School." It was a group of thinkers who pulled together to find a solution to the biggest problem facing the implementers of communism in Russia.

If it's politically correct it's gotta be wrong!!!!


Hong Kong in known for hurting animals in films. I mean Sammo Hung has sacrificed many innocent creatures for the sake of entertainment.


Look up people against animal cruelty: you'll see the biggest communist freak in the land: Rush Limbaugh.
He EVEN donates money to organizations dedicated to stopping animal cruelty!

And there you were, thinking he hated the world with the same childish ignorance, bitterness and spite as you obviously do...

You really ought to get yourself checked out. Such obvious extreme self hatred can only lead to self harm - unless you get yourself some help.


You know what else "they" teach in college? Spelling, grammar, punctuation, and citing your sources.

Cutting and pasting from Newsmax doesn't make you an authority, but it does make you a plagiarist.


Like I've said before...

When tree humping liberals, like you don't have a reasonable arguement.. They don't stop trying debating, and start attacking the person they're bating..

You claim your an atheist and more intelligent than I am, lacking a valid way to compare IQs.. I submit this..

In the view of such harmony in the cosmos which I, with my limited human mind, am able to recognise, there are yet people who say there is no God. But what makes me really angry is that they quote me for support for such views. (Albert Einstein)

Compared to him, you truely are a tree numping drooling idiot..


"In the view of such harmony in the cosmos which I, with my limited human mind, am able to recognise (sic), there are yet people who say there is no God. But what makes me really angry is that they quote me for support for such views. (Albert Einstein) "

Funny that you should use the words of a socialist to defend your point of view!


My views are very eclectic.. Because I don't 'think' any one group has all the right answers..
I take that back, followers of Ayn Rand's objectivism, most closely describe what I personally believe in... That the proper moral purpose of one's life is the pursuit of one's own happiness or rational self-interest; that the only social system consistent with this morality is full respect for 'individual' rights..

Unfortunately as I get older, it's proven to me that people on a whole are incapable of independant thought.. The massess are sheep.. Collage students are indoctrinated to believe a softer form of Communisum called Political Correctness... Collage Deans and Professors are always encouraging students to anonymously report anyone that says or does anything that makes them feel uncomfortable or just bad... Like one of my favorite T-shirts says - I'll try being nicer.. If you try being smarter.. I don't hide who I am, or what I think ..
It's like in the circus documentries they talk about the sideshow freaks.. How social do gooders complained about how the freaks were being exploited.. However the freaks themselves, put it this way.. They couldn't get normal jobs next to these social do gooders.. Kind of likt that show about the actress (she was in Total Recall) she's making her family life into a video circus for your intertainment.

Personally I believe 90% of the people out there are mouth breathers...

FYI- mouth-breather n. a stupid person; a moron, dolt, imbecile.


as a Randroid you might want to use rationale in your argumentation.
You can copy/paste another persons article that's all fine and dandy, but you haven't contributed anything yourself except showing us what a pathetic little racist you are. Please keep living in your own little world where everyone else is wrong because they aren't completly obsessed with themselves. And keep your argumentation like you've done here so everyone can see the small and narrowminded persons objectivism creates.

i do agree with the political correctness though let anti-social people like yourself spew all the hate they want so people quickly can identify them and
ignore them.

Now get back in the cave you troll


The hypocrisy of saying resorting to namecalling is childish and idiotic while resorting to namecalling yourself several times in this thread is hilarious. In the same post you said:
"When tree humping liberals, like you don't have a reasonable arguement.. They don't stop trying debating, and start attacking the person they're bating.. " - which is immediately contradictory.

As well as:
"Compared to him, you truely are a tree numping drooling idiot.."

If resorting to namecalling makes one an idiot, surely you must also be an idiot correct?


Get over it. Animals never trip? Or are you gonna come from the camp of 'how many times did they have to trip that poor horse'? I too am tired of the PC thinking in this country. If they were going to be held to our standards they could have filmed it here. Aside from the obvious (if it bothers you don't watch it) you are obviously clouded by something as mundane as horse tripping (this is TOO FUNNY. Gotta share this post) and missing the fact that when this actually happend there was horse tripping and, oh I don't know, killing. In the interest of Art they chose their own way to do this and it is NOT up to you or I to say otherwise. I say F the damn horses anyway, we need more glue


Hell yeah! I got things that I need to stick to other things. If we could make glue out of kittens, that's be better. But, we can't. Hopefully science will catch up.

Terrible Quality YouTube Videos Here:


Disregarding all the idiots with their "damn liberals!" and "dang.. I hate political correctness" commentary.. I'll try to stay on topic. Because matters of animal cruelty should not be confused with politics.. it's about common morality and should apply equally to the left-wing nuts, the right-wing nuts or even the dictator-nut.


I believe horses used for these kinds of stunts are highly trained animals that don't get harmed or stressed by falling. Mostly you can see them fall in a specific controlled fashion to avoid damage (they tend to "roll" to the side or front as they fall.. just like people do in some martial arts to avoid damage). They have been taught to do this on command and probably have done it thousands of times in training. This is combined with trick photography to make it look less controlled and/or a lot faster.

I noticed no signs of animal cruelty in this movie. And it did look a lot better with these live animals than it would have with a load of high budget CGI fakery.

More importantly.. I think we should worry less about the limited "might be" animal cruelty in movies and more about the lives of the animals we eat every day!


People care more for the animal than the human actor. I care about animals to a certain extent. You little whiney babies make me ashamed of even considering myself a liberal.


This has nothing to do with politics! You are stereotyping against your own political affiliation. Saying that only liberals care about animals is just ignorant. Animal-lovers are at all ends of the political spectrum. You should be ashamed.. but only of your own prejudice nature.


WOW...this entire thread is a troll convention.

you are all idiots for the simple fact you hate each other based on prejudiced propaganda, when did "liberal" and "conservative" become an insult?

man i just want to take a club to all the trolls of the world


Yeah idiot.. and you can start with yourself! Think about it. That comment is just about the most "off-topic" (and thereby you are a troll) and prejudiced comment on this board. It only proves that you have not read and/or understood any of the comments here. Especially not the comment you just replied to.. which is saying exactly that political affiliation do not matter in this context!


The horse-tripping "stunt" has always bugged me. Yes, horses have died from it. No, they don't "enjoy" plunging facefirst into the ground during a full gallop. No amount of training can make this either safe or enjoyable for a horse. Try it yourself sometime and see how much fun it is.

This isn't a matter of political correctness, which I despise. And I'm a Republican...we can care about animals, too.

As for whether the stunt is more dangerous for the horse or rider--the rider has a choice, the horse doesn't.


Sigh again with the animal abuse bullcrap. Dont watch asian movies if you "trip" over that so hard. Asians dont care much for that. Real life dogs getting kicked in the head, life chickens getting the head chopped off, horses falling down in very unpleasant ways. And all because it fits the story.
Why nobody ever complaining when an actor has to be caried of to the hospital because an actionscene failed ?
Cant make a decent omelet without breaking eggs.

Personally I love asian movies because the realism is alot more in your face then hollywoods rules. And im not talking about ropefu or one guy slaughtering hundreds and hudnreds of trained spearmen with a shortsword. im talking about those little details, like horses tripping or chopping of a chickens head for a voodoo ritual.

I wanna see one medieval battlefield in a movie where theres not one horse tripping because its disgusting ... Wow, that gonna be a believable battle ...

Any last words ?
Shut the *beep* up


I have a friend who is very conservative, voted for Bush, loves Dick Cheney, hates Obama, owns guns, loves Sarah Palin ... and won't eat most kinds of meat because of animal suffering.

So, it really doesn't have to do with politics.

There is no need to harm or injure horses. Clint Eastwood was a leader in setting higher standard for not mistreating animals, and he's hardly a liberal. He simply believes that it's wrong to mistreat an animal just to make a movie. You don't need to.

If you watch American films, which follow a code, you'll notice that horses fall sideways. This is natural and doesn't injure them. It's when the horses are tripped by wires and fall forward that they can be hurt. It's needless.

We report, you decide; but we decide what to report.


I was actually more concerned about that newborn colt.

As for the "stunt horses" mentioned above, I wouldn't count on the People's Republic of China using or having them.

Think cynical thoughts.


Are you people really this out of touch? It's common knowledge that John Woo has strict mental examinations performed on each horse and only uses the suicidal ones, that way it's not such a big deal.


im glad someone on this thread knows what they are talking about.