| Author |
 Topic  |
|
MguyXXV 
"X marks the spot"
|
 Posted - 10/10/2006 : 09:14:49
|
Bummer: I voted for that one.
But dee roolz iz dee roolz.  |
 |
|
|
Whippersnapper. 
"A fourword thinking guy."
|
Posted - 10/11/2006 : 12:25:01
|
http://www.fwfr.com/display.asp?ID=7022
Randall's & TFB's reviews are wrong and must be DESTROYED  .
Steve Coogan doesnt play bride and groom - he plays bride and her brother.
But Benj'll who this of course, being a comedy kinda guy.  |
|
|
|
Downtown 
"Welcome back, Billy Buck"
|
|
|
thefoxboy 
"Four your eyes only."
|
Posted - 10/12/2006 : 21:43:25
|
quote:
Originally posted by Whippersnapper
http://www.fwfr.com/display.asp?ID=7022
Randall's & TFB's reviews are wrong and must be DESTROYED .
Steve Coogan doesnt play bride and groom - he plays bride and her brother.
But Benj'll who this of course, being a comedy kinda guy.
Fixed, Ta to benj for approving the edit. |
|
|
|
Salopian
"Four ever European"
|
Posted - 10/16/2006 : 02:44:19
|
| Ladan and Laleh underwent separation and died in 2003, so it isn't part of this film. |
|
|
|
Salopian
"Four ever European"
|
Posted - 10/16/2006 : 13:19:09
|
I feel very upset that this film has been hijacked like every other film with Gay in the title (in a way that, please note, does not happen with e.g. films about black people). This is a serious documentary which shows the severe hardship that people are going through (such as being denied any access to their children). If someone does a Google search for "gay muslims" and comes across that page, then they will very likely feel demeaned and even more isolated by some of the reviews.
Even if no other reviews get removed, all references to Middle Eastern countries etc. need to be deleted, as the film is wholly about Muslims in Britain.
|
|
|
|
Salopian
"Four ever European"
|
Posted - 10/16/2006 : 13:59:54
|
| The Schappell sisters are conjoined such that it could be described as "face to face", but they cannot see each other's faces so are not "seeing eye-to-eye" (other than figuratively, which would apply to numerous films). Also, they are not children. |
Edited by - Salopian on 10/16/2006 14:08:00 |
|
|
|
ChocolateLady
"500 Chocolate Delights"
|
Posted - 10/16/2006 : 14:03:09
|
quote:
Originally posted by Salopian
The Schappell sisters are conjoined such that it could be described as "face to face", but they cannot see each others faces so are not "seeing eye-to-eye" (other than figuratively, which would apply to numerous films). Also, they are not children.
Okay - I deleted that review. Sorry.
|
|
|
|
ChocolateLady
"500 Chocolate Delights"
|
Posted - 10/16/2006 : 14:08:29
|
quote:
Originally posted by Salopian
I feel very upset that this film has been hijacked like every other film with Gay in the title (in a way that, please note, does not happen with e.g. films about black people). This is a serious documentary which shows the severe hardship that people are going through (such as being denied any access to their children). If someone does a Google search for "gay muslims" and comes across that page, then they will very likely feel demeaned and even more isolated by some of the reviews.
Even if no other reviews get removed, all references to Middle Eastern countries etc. need to be deleted, as the film is wholly about Muslims in Britain.
I'm afraid I can't agree with this. Since when does a movie about severe hardships become exempt from us making jokes about it? Even documentaries about severe hardships have some very clever and funny reviews here.*
As for it being about Muslims in Britain - while that may make some of the reviews wrong, referring to places that have significance to Moslems should be allowed.
(* Of course, if you're worried about the site being bombed or hacked because of Muslems taking offence to our reviews, perhaps we should reconsider...?! Hm... Nope, I don't think so.)
|
|
|
|
Downtown
"Welcome back, Billy Buck"
|
Posted - 10/16/2006 : 14:17:02
|
quote:
Originally posted by ChocolateLady
quote:
Originally posted by Salopian
The Schappell sisters are conjoined such that it could be described as "face to face", but they cannot see each others faces so are not "seeing eye-to-eye" (other than figuratively, which would apply to numerous films). Also, they are not children.
Okay - I deleted that review. Sorry.
Well the review's already been deleted, but I should point out that they actually SHARE an eye (which is non-functional, but there nonetheless), so there's room for interpretation here. |
|
|
|
Salopian
"Four ever European"
|
Posted - 10/16/2006 : 14:21:51
|
quote:
Originally posted by Downtown
Well the review's already been deleted, but I should point out that they actually SHARE an eye (which is non-functional, but there nonetheless), so there's room for interpretation here.
I wondered about going into that, but the "seeing" countered it. If Choco resubmits it as e.g. "Sisters are eye-to-eye" (although technically that should not be hyphenated in predicative position anyway), I think that would be O.K. |
|
|
|
Salopian
"Four ever European"
|
Posted - 10/16/2006 : 14:26:50
|
quote:
Originally posted by ChocolateLady
I'm afraid I can't agree with this. Since when does a movie about severe hardships become exempt from us making jokes about it? Even documentaries about severe hardships have some very clever and funny reviews here.
I don't think it's O.K. to make jokes about just anything. And nor in fact does anyone here - what jokes are there about slavery or the holocaust?
quote:
As for it being about Muslims in Britain - while that may make some of the reviews wrong, referring to places that have significance to Moslems should be allowed.
No way. It belittles the fact that the film has actual content and is not just a title. I would take your point if there were specific references to e.g. Mecca, but the countries in question don't have general significance for Muslims and none of the people in the film seem to have any link with them. (It would be like saying that one could mention the Caribbean in a review for any film about black people, which would be ridiculous.) |
Edited by - Salopian on 10/16/2006 14:33:39 |
|
|
|
ChocolateLady
"500 Chocolate Delights"
|
Posted - 10/16/2006 : 15:05:43
|
quote:
Originally posted by Salopian
quote:
Originally posted by ChocolateLady
I'm afraid I can't agree with this. Since when does a movie about severe hardships become exempt from us making jokes about it? Even documentaries about severe hardships have some very clever and funny reviews here.
I don't think it's O.K. to make jokes about just anything. And nor in fact does anyone here - what jokes are there about slavery or the holocaust?
quote:
As for it being about Muslims in Britain - while that may make some of the reviews wrong, referring to places that have significance to Moslems should be allowed.
No way. It belittles the fact that the film has actual content and is not just a title. I would take your point if there were specific references to e.g. Mecca, but the countries in question don't have general significance for Muslims and none of the people in the film seem to have any link with them. (It would be like saying that one could mention the Caribbean in a review for any film about black people, which would be ridiculous.)
I think you're being a bit over sensitive here. I realize that the movie may actually be a good one, and I'm sure it covers sensitive material. Still, I'm not sure we can stop people from trying to be clever and alluding to certain connections between Islam and persons/places/things that are directly connected to that religion.
But for the sake of peace on this site, may I ask you if the following two reviews would be found offensive to you? If so, I will happily remove them from my pending list. They are:
"Maidens Mecca-ing out."
"Sorry, Islam forbids pork-ing!"
|
|
|
|
ChocolateLady
"500 Chocolate Delights"
|
Posted - 10/16/2006 : 15:06:56
|
quote:
Originally posted by Salopian
quote:
Originally posted by Downtown
Well the review's already been deleted, but I should point out that they actually SHARE an eye (which is non-functional, but there nonetheless), so there's room for interpretation here.
I wondered about going into that, but the "seeing" countered it. If Choco resubmits it as e.g. "Sisters are eye-to-eye" (although technically that should not be hyphenated in predicative position anyway), I think that would be O.K.
Can I resubmit it as: "Sisters: eye-to-eye"? Or perhaps: "Sisters share POV" (POV=Point of View)?
|
Edited by - ChocolateLady on 10/16/2006 15:08:12 |
|
|
|
w22dheartlivie
"Kitty Lover"
|
|
|
Topic |
|
Reviews that are wrong
