Nicole Kidman, evil.

[Epoetker]

I'd say this is rather beyond the pale.

NICOLE Kidman is in for a rocky week if the US supermarket tabloid The National Enquirer is to be believed.

Her latest movie, Birth - made after the soon-to-open Stepford Wives - see the Australian Oscar winner Kidman play a young widow who falls in love with a 10-year-old boy she believes is the reincarnation of her dead husband.

But executives from New Line Cinema, the production company, are reportedly considering pulling the $US50 million ($72 million) flick because of scenes showing Kidman bathing naked with the young lad.

Sources told the Enquirer that the film had undergone a string of creative battles and rewrites.

Now executives have told the film's executive producers that the two scenes - showing Kidman and the boy stripping off and kissing in the bath - are "borderline disgusting" to watch.

It is, according to the public relations company charged with promoting the film, "a publicity nightmare".

Birth, co-starring the legendary Lauren Bacall, is directed by Jonathan Glazer, better known for his work in music videos than feature films.

He has directed clips for British super bands Massive Attack and Radiohead, his first feature film being the gangster caper Sexy Beast in 2000, starring Ben Kingsley and Ray Winstone.

And the National Enquirer is actually...reliable when it comes to these.

[Harlequin Solit]

Sounds like an interesting script, but maybe it should have been kept to a book... Some things don't translate well onto the screen, especially with such delicate subject matter.

[Ben Franklin]

I saw a Japanese drama a few years back, "Majou no jouken", (Terms [?] of a Witch).. the female high school teacher and her student fell in love, and... Whew...!!! Everybody came down on them HARD...!!! I guess people prefer to judge those whom they don't know (principles)...!!!

[DivineOb]

I see...

But movies about brutal murder and torture are considered family fun

[Ben Franklin]

I see...

But movies about brutal murder and torture are considered family fun

Only in America...!

[robert65]

I see...

But movies about brutal murder and torture are considered family fun

Sadly true DO.

[Twilly Spree]

I'm seeing Stepford Wives this weekend! Weeee!

[elysian]

I see...

But movies about brutal murder and torture are considered family fun

My mother would actually turn the channel if she saw us watching programming with even the slightest sexual innuendo (hugging or kissing or even a mention-the show "Three's Company" drove her absolutely insane) but she never even commented on the '80's slasher flicks we watched. Texas Chainsaw Massacre, Friday the 13th and Nightmare on Elm Street were OK, as well as the Lethal Weapon and Terminator movies but heaven forbid us from watching John Ritter as Jack on "Three's Company" pretend to be gay and wear a woman's bathrobe, etc. Benny Hill in her opinion wasn't funny, he was filthy and vile, but Freddy Krueger was OK because he was "make believe."

Of course that doesn't make a movie about pedophilia right or make it quality entertainment by any means - but there is certainly a double standard. Americans can be oddly prudish about sex, but when it comes to violence and graphic gore we have no shame.

[The Laughing Man]

I see...

But movies about brutal murder and torture are considered family fun

Is this another none-too-veiled reference to "the Passion," DO?

[Minnesota]

.

Sacred cow alert! ............... Sacred cow alert!

Is this another none-too-veiled reference to "the Passion," DO?

[The Laughing Man]

.

Sacred cow alert! ............... Sacred cow alert!

Idiot alert! .................. Idiot alert!



Alright, I was saving this for DO, but since you decided to be Mr. Buttinski...

Since when did anyone say that "the Passion" was "family fun?" Not only has no one said the movie is suitable for the whole family, but no one has called it "fun." So both of you can take your little self-righteous depreciation of both the movie and Christians and shovel it.

[DivineOb]

Idiot alert! .................. Idiot alert!



Alright, I was saving this for DO, but since you decided to be Mr. Buttinski...

Since when did anyone say that "the Passion" was "family fun?" Not only has no one said the movie is suitable for the whole family, but no one has called it "fun." So both of you can take your little self-righteous depreciation of both the movie and Christians and shovel it.

I see... so a movie makes as much money as that one does without parents taking their children.

And, given the track record parents have with thinking that it's ok to read the book which provided the source material for the movie (ripping fetuses from pregnant mothers, mass rape etc.), it would hardly be surprising to see significant numbers of children being taken to that movie. And, of course, anyone who has seen the movie will have anecdotal evidence of children being taken.

http://abcnews.go.com/sections/GMA/E..._040219-1.html

Jerry Johnston, a pastor of the First Family Church in Kansas City, Kan., has been vocal about encouraging children to see the film and his church has arranged youth screenings for middle and high school students. Pastors will be present at the screenings to speak to children about what they have seen.

"I think this movie is a wonderful teaching tool for children," Johnston said. Young people need to be "spiritually arrested" by the life of Christ, and the violence in the movie is purposeful violence that will help children gain faith and feel more secure, he said.

http://www.personal.psu.edu/faculty/g/l/glm7/m172.htm

My family and I just saw what I consider the most magnificent motion picture ever made. All of the positives that have put out on this masterpiece do not come close to doing justice to it. It is a religious experience of the highest order, and your faith will be strengthened for watching it. There is nothing, I repeat, nothing to criticize in this movie, a treasure that will rekindle a lost faith on the part of many, and kindle a spark of the faith in the faithless.

I await your apology

[The Creep]

This movie is child pornography. I must admit I had a certain reverence for Kidman. Yet I had always felt that She was not quite right. Listen folks! Pedophile chic is a big thing these days. But many people are utterly ignorant regarding the murder of souls that passes itself off as sexual love between a adult (creep and slime and horror as he may be) and a child. Anybody who thinks that the sexual approach towards children is healthy is a imbecile.

[Minnesota]

This movie is child pornography.

Ah, nothing like a little dose of prejudice to put one's mind into gutter mode.

[The Laughing Man]

I see... so a movie makes as much money as that one does without parents taking their children.

First of all, this is a logical fallacy. That some parents took their children is true, though the reason "the Passion" made so much money was due to other factors which were far more significant. For instance, it drew a wide range of people (whereas many other movies do not depending on their genre, stars, etc.) and it drew repeat business.

Second, when you are using the term "children," what ages are you refering to? 15- and 16-year-olds? Sure. 13- and 14-year-olds? Perhaps some. 11- and 12-year-olds? Not as likely. Under 10? Seriously doubtful (although some thoughtless parents do bring young children to any movie in lieu of getting a babysitter).

And, given the track record parents have with thinking that it's ok to read the book which provided the source material for the movie (ripping fetuses from pregnant mothers, mass rape etc.),

You've obviously never heard of children's Bibles. As I have said before, DO, I agree that not everything in the Bible is appropriate for all ages of children. Of course, the same could be said of the news. So what? Does that make the Bible a "bad thing?" OMIGOSH! The Bible contains material unsuitable for young children! How horrible! Time to burn them all!

it would hardly be surprising to see significant numbers of children being taken to that movie.

Well, until you can provide hard data to back up that assertion... Well, even lacking that, it's obvious you believe it, so why bother?

And, of course, anyone who has seen the movie will have anecdotal evidence of children being taken.

Anecdotal evidence doesn't back up your case. First of all, it simply cannot be confirmed. Second, it does not provide "the whole story," as it were. How old were these children? Were they mature (mentally and emotionally) enough to handle the film? Did they go with their parents' permission? Were they there only because their thoughtless parents didn't leave them with a babysitter?

http://abcnews.go.com/sections/GMA/E..._040219-1.html

Notice, DO: "screenings for middle and high school students." (Emphasis mine.) I also highly doubt that these students went without parental permission.

http://www.personal.psu.edu/faculty/g/l/glm7/m172.htm

Wow. That's weak! There's absolutely no indication of who this man is refering to with the word "family," nor their ages. I saw "the Passion" with my family, too, but I didn't bring my 2-year-old or my infant daughter.

You know, I think I'll email that guy and ask him about it.

I await your apology

Well, you'll be waiting a while, then, since I have nothing to apologize for.