Thanks for the anti-Christian bigotry.
#Villian's weapon is a rosary with an obvious cross; whereby he regularly chokes people.
#Jane (M.Robbie)-implies to the villian that he is a victim of a priest paedophile bc he received his rosary (weapon) from him as a 9 yr old child.
It's nothing new in fiction. Calm the *beep* down. Even Disney did it with Hunchback of Notre Dame.
What's missing in movies is same as in society: a good sense of work ethic and living up to ideals.
Memmber when christian folks didn't have to hide from us savage intolerant atheists.. with our agenda and propaganda campaign.. ahhh Member?
Go F** yourself you overly insensitive git.
¿¿¿¿¿¿¿¿¿¿¿¿¿¿¿¿¿¿¿
Perception Is Reality
???????????????????
You seem like a very hateful person.
Please don't call someone a _____tard.
[deleted]
...implies to the villian that he is a victim of a priest paedophile bc he received his rosary (weapon) from him as a 9 yr old child.
Most of the dialogue in this film was crap.
Where was your honour?
I had none.
So Tarzan avenging his mum because she was killed in a pointless right of manhood wasn't honourable?
The villain was a total let down.
When he said to Jane, I need you to scream and she refused was the perfect opportunity for a make her scream, cut her finger off or something. Instead they constantly had Jane try and one up him - to make the story modern or something - which is where the paedophile joke came from. Jane was smarter then him, geddit? Coz she made fun of him being an abused child - that makes her smart.
The dialogue in this flick was just very poorly written.
Mmm, I don't think David Yates directs may poorly-written films. And this isn't one. Great movie.
share[deleted]
Lol, did you count the beads? The cross is the obvious symbol.
No, unfortunately it's nothing new... But so unprofessional - esp the Jane comment- implying an inappropriate relation. like bringing in modern day prejudices into a different era - a real turn off. You'd think Jane should've struck a better balance between being a dignified lady and courageous
And the movie itself, disappointing. Had so much potential.
The inaccuracy ("unprofessional") lies in using modern day prejudices in a different era/century and having a famous character such as Tarzan's Jane make that comment. Entirely different if it was not a movie remake of a well known character while adding your own political or/and anti-religious agenda.
share[deleted]
Whoa, what a badass this guy is
shareThat's nothing new with Catholics. There, I said it. That's the "religion" that is offended by this movie, and wishes it had the power it once held over governments. Remember when all stores in America followed that Blue Law? Remember when all the priest or "faithful" could just say, "kill the heritics for criticizing our infalible Pope?" Or when anyone translating the Bible into the language of the people could be tortured or beheaded in the name of God? No one expects a Spanish Inquisition! Remember when no one knew about the thousands of aborted babies of nuns impregnated by their men of the cloth?
Here's this complaint about the villian using a rosary to strangle with, but I've never heard or read any complaints about the mafia, who have committed murders while wearing a crucifix.
I agree that Samuel L. Jackson's character and this Jane acted like they were time traveler from the present.
BE WARNED ALSO :
Inglourious Bastards is full of anti - Nazi bigotry.!!!!! And is historically inaccurate.
Geez.
It's not bigotry to acknowledge that hundreds of thousands of young people have been hurt by predators that churches and other powerful institutions systematically protect. People wouldn't feel the need to speak on it if churches didn't use their legal muscle and bribes to make sure priests never see the inside of a jail cell. Christians love to martyr themselves, but who cares about the victims...most of whom were young Christians, right?
shareIt's not bigotry to acknowledge that hundreds of thousands of young people have been hurt by predators that churches and other powerful institutions systematically protect. People wouldn't feel the need to speak on it if churches didn't use their legal muscle and bribes to make sure priests never see the inside of a jail cell. Christians love to martyr themselves, but who cares about the victims...most of whom were young Christians, right?
Seriously? Most people criticize Islam way more than Christianity. Christianity is mostly just annoying in modern times, sure, they're responsible for a LOT of terrible things, and anyone who identify as Christian are supporting those terrible things. But Islam on the other hand is down right dangerous, while most Christians will try to make pathetic excuses for the crimes against humanity they're supporting, many Muslims will proudly admit to it. Everyone in the world know Mohammed was a pedophile, everyone know that Muslims suppress women, we know they stone people to death, blow *beep* up and are at constant war with each other, we know they execute people in YouTube videos, keep slaves, marry off their children to pedophiles and the list goes on, and every single person who identify as Muslim are accepting and condoning those things, just as Christians are condoning child molesters and burning people on the stake and a long list of other horrible things. Truth is, religion is evil, and if people wanna associate with and condone such evil that is their choice, but not a a single one of them are or will ever be immune to criticism.
share[deleted]
Who said I consider Islam to be less evil than Christianity? ALL religions are equally evil in my opinion. Christians don't have a negative view of themselves because they control history books and despite what you might think about the media...they have control of the media and media content including most popular films. Being offended because a character is portrayed as a victim of a rapist is not the right thing to be offended by. Be offended that people are out there being raped. Be offended by that.
Similar to how many Christians think "their side" is incapable of backwards cruelty, in the middle east they have their own versions of conservative "news" media outlets and it's interesting how they view themselves. I saw on their news a few years ago, someone committed a suicide bombing attack and a famous muslim cleric blamed it on porn. That's right, they discovered porn and mainstream pop music on that suicide bomber's computer files so it was definitely porn's fault and western television's influence's fault that his brain went crazy. And of course the majority of the population there are gonna take that as fact.
Does that sound quite similar to what our news outlets does whenever horrible violence and cruelty happen? College football star rapes girl, definitely the fault of sexy music videos and the girl drinking. Police officer beats someone to death, probably rap music's fault.
Have you ever read any of Burrough's stories? He's most definitely anti-Christian. His heroes, if they have any religious beliefs, tend towards Deism. He is consistently critical and contemptuous of organized religion. He consistently portrays priests of any religion as either corrupt, venal and exploitative or as superstitious and gullible. To portray Christianity in a positive light would be a betrayal of the source material. So what exactly is the problem here?
shareThey seem to think that not liking religion is a new thing, they seem to have forgotten that the dark ages happened, pretty sure a lot of people were a bit anti-religion back when they were burning everything from books to people and torturing your friends for fun, must not have caused any animosity at all, I'm sure everyone loved religion back then. Couldn't just have been fear that they'd get brutally murdered or anything. If they'd every read a book other than the Bible they'd know that anti-Christianity in historical literature is pretty common, I know of at least one book from the 17th centuries that talks about priest messing around with kids, and I'm not even that into old litrature so there are probably a lot more, it's not a new thing. And isn't it an essential part of Jane's character that she isn't superstitious anyway?
shareBoy-oh-boy, loving to blame religion for everything. Mate! If every institution was to blame for corrupt behaviours of individuals, what about governments, Darwinists, environmentalists, atheists etc. No offenders there! It is all still happening in the home- huh eliminate religion that will solve your problems! Corruption is down because we have secular society! Hmmm
Shout down all religious speech and and call that freedom. And you need a book to tell me I'm allowed to have an opinion- I call it common sense and freedom of speech.
Wow, I'm displeased that Christianity was portrayed in an offensive manner, but hey if they had Jane had offended others based on race or their sexuality- sue them!
And try offending others of other religious or political persuasions - see what reaction you get then.
Why doesn't God strike down David Yates
share