| T.R | Title | User | Personal
Name | Date | Lines |
|---|
| 804.1 | | AIAG::WEISSMAN | | Tue Apr 11 1995 16:19 | 7 |
| Try Videosmith, various locations in the Boston area - I'd suggest calling first
- they have a large selection but I don't know for sure that they have this one.
Blockbuster tends to shy away from anything controversial and as a matter of
policy won't stock anything with an NC-17 or X rating. They got caught with
their pants down, so to speak, a few years ago when it was discovered that they
had in stock UNRATED versions of various films - some clerk didn't realize that
these were effectively NC-17.
|
| 804.2 | Booooo for B.B. Video# | MAL009::RAGUCCI | | Tue Apr 11 1995 19:43 | 10 |
|
figginin' Blockbuster has crap! only new releases and they never buy
enough. Why? who knows.
THE last temptation of Christ is a good film, made through
the Directors eyes. What ever that clerk said, shows he's just a
clerk.
I hope you find it and enjoy!
|
| 804.3 | | WRKSYS::LASKY | | Wed Apr 12 1995 09:48 | 8 |
| I never did understand what the big deal was about this film. I
thought the film was very well done and is a fine film for anytime of
the year!! All of the objectional stuff (Christ's last temptation) is
about the last 10 minutes of the film.
Rent it and judge for yourself,
Bart
|
| 804.4 | | NETRIX::michaud | Kenny Rogers | Wed Apr 12 1995 11:11 | 11 |
| > Rent it and judge for yourself,
That was the problem when this film came out, most of those
who were protesting it never even saw the film.
I saw it when it first came out, and even though I dozed off
(had just flown East to West the same day) I saw most of it.
The parts they supposedly objected to (the Jesus character
having sex for example) was all part of a dream sequence
while the character was on the cross. Ie. it was the Devil's
last temptation of Jesus while he was on the cross about to die.
|
| 804.5 | | HELIX::MAIEWSKI | | Wed Apr 12 1995 12:03 | 10 |
| I had the same impression. It is actually shows J.C. in particular and the
religion in general in a very positive light.
As for the film itself, it's very well written, well directed, well filmed
and the actors are very believable. In addition to the story itself it gives
you a good look at every day life as it may have been in the middle east 2000
years ago.
**** out of 5,
George
|
| 804.6 | Burned any good books today? | 707VAX::ROGERW::MONAGHAN | My logic was not in error, however I was in error. | Wed Apr 12 1995 14:19 | 9 |
| re .0
"all the copies damaged or stolen" at BB.
Scary, huh? Almost sounds like book-burning.
Roger
|
| 804.7 | Video Search | SALEM::HINES | | Wed Apr 12 1995 15:46 | 1 |
| See note 5. It included sources of movies, videotapes etc.
|
| 804.8 | | WONDER::REILLY | Sean / Alpha Servers DTN:223-4375 | Wed Apr 12 1995 20:50 | 5 |
|
Also... Blockbuster seems to have enough "Life of Brian"'s that don't
get ruined. Makes "Last Temptation" seem tame, imo.
- Sean
|
| 804.9 | | IMTDEV::BRUNO | | Thu Apr 13 1995 12:28 | 8 |
|
These comments kind of remind me of all of the non-native
Americans on the TV news who couldn't understand why Native Americans
didn't like the football team name "Redskins". The simple fact of the
matter is that it's very difficult to understand the feelings when you
are not the one being insulted.
Greg
|
| 804.10 | did you reply to the wrong note? | NETRIX::michaud | Eddie Murphy | Thu Apr 13 1995 13:00 | 8 |
| > These comments kind of remind me of all of the non-native
> Americans on the TV news who couldn't understand why Native Americans
> didn't like the football team name "Redskins". The simple fact of the
> matter is that it's very difficult to understand the feelings when you
> are not the one being insulted.
Which kind of comments are you talking about? (there are several
in this string .....)
|
| 804.11 | | HELIX::MAIEWSKI | | Thu Apr 13 1995 14:36 | 13 |
| RE <<< Note 804.9 by IMTDEV::BRUNO >>>
> These comments kind of remind me of all of the non-native
> Americans on the TV news who couldn't understand why Native Americans
> didn't like the football team name "Redskins". The simple fact of the
> matter is that it's very difficult to understand the feelings when you
> are not the one being insulted.
But the point everyone is making is that the movie didn't insult anyone. It
showed J.C. and his religion in a very positive light. It was only rumored
to have been insulting.
George
|
| 804.12 | YOU may think it wasn't insulting, but... | IMTDEV::BRUNO | | Fri Apr 14 1995 11:05 | 11 |
| RE: <<< Note 804.11 by HELIX::MAIEWSKI >>>
>> But the point everyone is making is that the movie didn't insult anyone. It
>>showed J.C. and his religion in a very positive light. It was only rumored
>>to have been insulting.
I am aware of the point you were offering. My point is that it is
difficult to know whether or not something is insulting if you are not
the party on the receiving end of the insult.
Greg
|
| 804.13 | | NETRIX::michaud | God | Fri Apr 14 1995 11:17 | 6 |
| > I am aware of the point you were offering. My point is that it is
> difficult to know whether or not something is insulting if you are not
> the party on the receiving end of the insult.
And my point in .4 is that those who claimed to be "insulted"
never even saw the movie to make a fair judgement .....
|
| 804.14 | Art for the sake of art:::::::::::: | MAL009::RAGUCCI | | Mon Apr 17 1995 18:22 | 7 |
|
All the bad PR just gave the film more exposure than ever.
what happened to "Art for the sake of Art" the MGM logo.
Somebody somewhere will find something insulting or in bad taste.
Especially in films. Just change the channel.
|
| 804.15 | | RANGER::CERQUA | | Tue Apr 18 1995 13:54 | 11 |
| re .0:
I know you asked about rentals, but I saw a VHS copy (recently) for
sale at the Suncoast movie store at the Pheasant Lane Mall in Nashua,
NH (it was selling for around $20). Since Suncoast is a chain, I would
suspect that other stores in the chain would have it for sale or might
be able to order it.
I've seen it for rent on laserdisc in multiple stores...
- Paul
|
| 804.16 | Grassroots censorship ... | ZPOVC::GEOFFREY | | Fri Apr 28 1995 07:11 | 15 |
| re: the "ruined copies" notes
One of the tactics often used by "action groups" is to go down to the
local video store, rent the movies they find objectionable (with Tape
Guard, of course) and bring it back to the store the next day shredded.
They then claim that their VCR trashed it, and Tape Guard insurance
pays for it. These days, tape distributors rarely carry much backup
stock, so the video store never replaces the tape.
It reminds me of fourty years ago, when the same people would go to the
public library and rip out all of the magazine pictures and articles
that they thought were "filthy". It was hilarious to see old ladies
ripping up underwear ads in Redbook and Vogue ...
Geoff
|
| 804.17 | tell that Blockbust dupe Easter may be THE day to see it | APLVEW::DEBRIAE | | Fri Apr 28 1995 10:55 | 10 |
|
btw, the Siskel and Ebert daily calendar had a quote from Siskel on
the Easter 95 page that said (from memory): "People who haven't
seen the movie will find this statement to be offensive, out of
ignorance, but my top choice for a movie for Easter is "Last
Temptation," without doubt it is the best depiction of Christ I
have ever seen on film." -Siskel
|