From the guy's review:

Clearly, the agenda of the filmmakers here, including Cohen, is to get attention, and sell tickets, by being as outrageous and pornographic as they possibly can be. They also deliberately provoke other people, including virile heterosexual males and male Evangelical Christians, so that they, including Cohen, can show themselves to be superior and more "enlightened" than the people they are trying to provoke

First, we get that you're including Cohen. You don't have to keep repeating it. Second, I haven't seen Brüno yet, but is there a reason the nutjob reviewing it feels the need to include "virile"? Does that strike anyone else as a bit revealing regarding this guy's mindset?

Murphyr: First, we get that you're including Cohen.

Cohen probably set up the Cohen protest for the Cohen publicity for Cohen's movie.

/Cohen

Meh, if you are dumb enough to pay money to see that crap, no legislation can help you.

As soon as you see "A pro-family group" in an article, you know it's going to go downhill from there. Most of them actually aren't, they're more specifically pro-"their definition of a family" group.

"It's a pretty vile movie. The word I would use is perverse," said Ted Baehr, publisher of Movieguide, which reviews movies, videos and television shows from a biblical perspective.

Has this guy ever read the Bible? From what I have read, just about any movie is going to be tame in comparison.

"It's a little much," Phan said. "I wasn't offended; it was just a little too much. No other movie has taken it that far."

This guy has, apparently, been living in a monestary for all of his life and is thus totally oblivious to the entire history of movie making.

A pro-family group...

Oh you're pro family? That's awesome! Maybe you can help me with some family celebration etiquette.

See my cousin Ron is married to a man named Gerard who's West Indian and has these huuuuuuge family parties for every event. Well they just adopted a Guatemalan baby, and I'm not sure how my aunts- lovely ladies but as white bread New Englanders they're a bit gastronomically unevolved- are going to deal with the curried goat and chicken roti at the Christening, or how Gerald's family will deal with the green bean and jello casseroles.

How would you, as a "pro-family" group advise?

Should we all just get take out chinese?

spqr_ca:

"It's a little much," Phan said. "I wasn't offended; it was just a little too much. No other movie has taken it that far."

This guy has, apparently, been living in a monestary for all of his life and is thus totally oblivious to the entire history of movie making.

While hyperbolic, this statement is pretty true with respect to widely distributed, mainstream films. Take a few small black boxes out of Bruno and it is Pink Flamingos. Heck, it has an even more shocking "moving orifice" than PF that wasn't even blocked out.

I thought it was hysterical, but it is waaaay out there.

Abagadro: While hyperbolic, this statement is pretty true with respect to widely distributed, mainstream films.

I doubt that. It's gotten a lot of press, true, but press is substantially easier today than it used to be. Consider films like Secretary, it's not unusual and the rating is intended to reflect that.

what_now: Gerard

what_now: Gerald

As a pro family advocate I think you should work on deciding what this guy's name is.

Consider films like Secretary

Bruno is WAY more raunchy than Secretary.

Pro-family groups shouldn't take their children to r-rated movies nor should they decide for the anti-family groups.

Memo to people who don't like him: The only way you're getting rid of him is if everyone ignores him. So do your part, ignore him, change the channel when he comes on tv, adblock his ads, whatever you have to do. But protesting in the news only gives him more attention.

\always wondered, does he get tired of doing EVERYTHING in character while he's promoting a movie? I mean, he's not really a gay fashion plate, he's not really a Kazak weirdo, he's not Ali G, how do you separate that in your mind??

7of7: what_now: Gerard

what_now: Gerald

As a pro family advocate I think you should work on deciding what this guy's name is.

Steve. His name is Steve the Metaphor.

Abagadro: Bruno is WAY more raunchy than Secretary.

Have you seen Caligula? The guy is a nancy who went to see a film that didn't hide what it was about, stop defending him.

I'm not defending him. Just pointing out that it isn't all that outrageous of a statement. I agree you should know what you are going to see, act accordingly, and don't biatch if you see something you don't like.

And Caligula is rated-X porn, so it doesn't really fall into the category of "widely distributed, mainstream movies".

spqr_ca: As soon as you see "A pro-family group" in an article, you know it's going to go downhill from there. Most of them actually aren't, they're more specifically pro-"their definition of a family" group.

I think it's important to say that a family should be defined as the union of a man and a woman, with the optional addition of heterosexual children. We can't go around redefining words.

Abagadro: And Caligula is rated-X porn,

It was unrated, actually, and stars Malcolm McDowell, John Gielgud, Peter O'Toole and Helen Mirren and though it was later disowned, it was written by Gore Vidal. I've never seen it, but it did have a theatrical release, so it's not like it's some no-name porno.

The Fourth Karamazov: I think it's important to say that a family should be defined as the union of a man and a woman, with the optional addition of heterosexual children. We can't go around redefining words.

Oh no, it's a little farther than that with most of these groups, you forgot to specify the religion of choice that is also a core component of the definition of "family" for them.

Not a Texas group, subby.

From Movieguide's website (new window):

Offices: Movieguide®'s offices are located in Camarillo, Calif. just north of Los Angeles and in Atlanta, Georgia.

Big fat headline fail.

Abagadro: And Caligula is rated-X porn, so it doesn't really fall into the category of "widely distributed, mainstream movies".

Actually, it does. It even got reviewed by Ebert, well panned more specifically. Nevertheless, it was released to regular cinema.

Strangely enough, Wikipedia (new window) actually has a list of such movies.

Murphyr: Abagadro: And Caligula is rated-X porn,

It was unrated, actually, and stars Malcolm McDowell, John Gielgud, Peter O'Toole and Helen Mirren and though it was later disowned, it was written by Gore Vidal. I've never seen it, but it did have a theatrical release, so it's not like it's some no-name porno.


The story of that movie is pretty hilarious. Bob Guccione (i.e. Penthouse owner) basically hoodwinked a bunch of top actors into making it and then filmed all the hardcore porno parts using a different director in post-production (although even the original stuff was indeed pretty out there, just not flat our hardcore porn). It was X to the extent it couldn't get an R until 70 minutes were trimmed out of it. Both versions had a pretty limited release.

spqr_ca: Nevertheless, it was released to regular cinema.

Not widely distributed. This is kind of a pointless semantics argument, but Caligula (nor any of those other films) were released on 2800 screens like Bruno is. I just saw it tonight in a theater that refused to show Brokeback Mountain for hell's sake.

Abagadro:

but Caligula (nor any of those other films) were released on 2800 screens like Bruno is

Not sure that they could have, it's a different world now. Also, had Borat been a flop, I doubt Bruno would have screened like that.

I just saw it tonight in a theater that refused to show Brokeback Mountain for hell's sake.

Now that is truly bizarre...

"It's a little much," Phan said. "I wasn't offended; it was just a little too much. No other movie has taken it that far."

Hypocrite much? He wasn't offended by the movie, yet he doesn't want others to make up their own minds about whether they are offended by it?

Abagadro: spqr_ca: Nevertheless, it was released to regular cinema.

Not widely distributed. This is kind of a pointless semantics argument, but Caligula (nor any of those other films) were released on 2800 screens like Bruno is. I just saw it tonight in a theater that refused to show Brokeback Mountain for hell's sake.

Well, yeah, I guess if the line is "as widely distributed as Bruno" then most of those films don't make the cut (I remember Shortbus being pretty widely distributed, but then I live in a city, so it's possible that my perception's off). Still, that list is only of "mainstream" films that had unsimulated sex. Include movies that have simulated sex or actually consider violence (I'm actually going to have to go and look at movieguide's reviews of some random violent movie to see if he's anywhere near as offended) and I'm sure we could get a few more that approach Bruno, but, as I said, I haven't seen it yet, so I don't know.

I saw Bruno last night in Texas.

About 8 people got up and walked out at the same time and the 'older' couple sitting in front of us confused the shiat out of me. The guy covered his wife's eyes for almost the entire movie. Why are these people there? Why? So they can complain about it like this. Don't go see the farking movie if you don't like the subject matter. Plain and simple.

And the movie was fantastic. I loved watching it in a theater where 70% of the people in there are the butt of the joke on the screen and don't even realize it.

DD0: Why are these people there?

Yeah, I have to wonder what advertisement they saw that made them think, "Hey, yeah I'd like to pay $10 each to see that! Looks awesome!"

Murphyr: I haven't seen it yet, so I don't know.

Having seen the documentary This Film Is Not Yet Rated about the rating process, I'm actually shocked that this thing managed to make it out of the ratings board with an R.

Free publicity again!!! Faaaaaabulous



nice to see your Cambridge education is paying off, good job once again, Mr. Cohen

Wow, religious people trying to sanitise something so that their surroundings adhere their own personal small-world views. This is definitely a first.

I saw it on Friday and thought the movie was over the top and uncomfortably funny. The theater was packed and I didn't see anyone get up and leave. Of course, if they wanted to, they could. They're adults and didn't need other adults what they can and can't spend money.

Di Atribe: Not a Texas group, subby.

From Movieguide's website (new window):

Offices: Movieguide®'s offices are located in Camarillo, Calif. just north of Los Angeles and in Atlanta, Georgia.

Big fat headline fail.

Correct, neither Movieguide nor the Christian Film & Television Commission appear to have an office in the Metroplex, you know that most of Johnson and Ellis counties are infested with people that don't see a problem with banning this movie.

Yeah, because these holier than thou protest things are always detrimental to whatever the source of self-righteous outrage is. Good luck with that.

/will be seeing Bruno tomorrow
//in Texas

Murphyr: Abagadro: spqr_ca: Nevertheless, it was released to regular cinema.

Not widely distributed. This is kind of a pointless semantics argument, but Caligula (nor any of those other films) were released on 2800 screens like Bruno is. I just saw it tonight in a theater that refused to show Brokeback Mountain for hell's sake.

Well, yeah, I guess if the line is "as widely distributed as Bruno" then most of those films don't make the cut (I remember Shortbus being pretty widely distributed, but then I live in a city, so it's possible that my perception's off). Still, that list is only of "mainstream" films that had unsimulated sex. Include movies that have simulated sex or actually consider violence (I'm actually going to have to go and look at movieguide's reviews of some random violent movie to see if he's anywhere near as offended) and I'm sure we could get a few more that approach Bruno, but, as I said, I haven't seen it yet, so I don't know.

This thing was definitely raunchier than Shortbus. Shortbus didn't have a meatspin, although it did have autofellatio...

Salo was way raunchier, obviously, but I don't know if it had wide release exactly...

UNC_Samurai: Correct, neither Movieguide nor the Christian Film & Television Commission appear to have an office in the Metroplex, you know that most of Johnson and Ellis counties are infested with people that don't see a problem with banning this movie.

While that may be true, the headline called out the group as being out of Texas, which it is not. And it's not like Texas is home to the only people getting outraged over this. In fact, the article cited 3 Texas cities that reported zero complaints. The only thing this article has to do with Texas is that it's an article from the Fort Worth Star-Telegram.

I still have to wonder why anyone who might be offended by this would see an ad for this movie and think it'd be something they'd enjoy. All of the pictures, print ads, TV ads, everything just screams, "I am a dude acting like a gay guy who is going around being offensive."

Offensive and loaded with inappropriate sexual content? The more, the merrier. I'm all for that kind of stuff, but the previews I've seen make it look likes it's completely full of all the wrong kind of suck.

Think I'll pass.

spqr_ca: Strangely enough, Wikipedia (new window) actually has a list of such movies.

strangely enough? Strangely? It's strange something has a list on wiki? I thought it was strange when it didn't ;)

bobbette: Salo was way raunchier, obviously, but I don't know if it had wide release exactly...

It didn't. Hell Salo was banned in a bunch of places.

Came for Father Ted. Leaving happy....

/Careful now.
//Down with this sort of thing.

Dr. Rosenrosen: Came for Father Ted

So you're Catholic? ;)

FTFA: The film includes frontal nudity of men and woman - all too graphic for viewers Elmer Phan, 20, and Hien Nguyen, 20, both of North Richland Hills.

Have they never seen themselves naked? And if you want to see Kelly LaBrock's pubes, just rent The Woman In Red. Its PG-13.

Somacandra: Have they never seen themselves naked? And if you want to see Kelly LaBrock's pubes, just rent The Woman In Red. Its PG-13.

I like the man's name, Elmer Phan, almost certainly Vietnamese by the last name. I'd hate to think his parents named him after the first American whose name they knew. Imagine being named after Elmer Fudd. Though he does display Elmer's trademark smarts.

snuff3r: Wow, religious people trying to sanitise something so that their surroundings adhere their own personal small-world views. This is definitely a first.

But unfortunately not the last.

Not going to see it, just not my kind of humor.

But he is a funny guy when he is being himself.

I wonder how many adult bookstores, and adult theaters are in that same town?

It's a movie. Chrissakes. You'd think from the sound of some people that Sacha Baron Cohen personally comes and sodomizes you at the theater.

Cagey B: It's a movie. Chrissakes. You'd think from the sound of some people that Sacha Baron Cohen personally comes and sodomizes you at the theater.

He doesn't?
Screw that, I'm gonna go see Transformers then.

Someone needs to go into the propane business and marry someone named Peggy.

I saw the movie last night, and there were quite a few people who walked out. It's funny, especially if you understand German, but mostly the movie is just offensive.

But ban it? That's the kind of publicity that Cohen wants. What a bunch of idiots.

TommyymmoT: Cagey B: It's a movie. Chrissakes. You'd think from the sound of some people that Sacha Baron Cohen personally comes and sodomizes you at the theater.

He doesn't?
Screw that, I'm gonna go see Transformers then.

Hate to burst your, ahem, bubble there - but if you go and see Transformers, Megan Fox isn't showing up with a decepticon-shaped strap-on to sodomize you either..

Murphyr: From the guy's review:

Clearly, the agenda of the filmmakers here, including Cohen, is to get attention, and sell tickets, by being as outrageous and pornographic as they possibly can be. They also deliberately provoke other people, including virile heterosexual males and male Evangelical Christians, so that they, including Cohen, can show themselves to be superior and more "enlightened" than the people they are trying to provoke

First, we get that you're including Cohen. You don't have to keep repeating it. Second, I haven't seen Brüno yet, but is there a reason the nutjob reviewing it feels the need to include "virile"? Does that strike anyone else as a bit revealing regarding this guy's mindset?

He feels the need to distinguish the virile heterosexual males from the male Evangelical Christians. I'd bet that Ted Haggard's wife wishes she had done the same.