Añade un argumento en tu idiomaVideocassette tape rental store owners fight against a religious fanatic group for the right to keep their controversial film on the shelves for sale.Videocassette tape rental store owners fight against a religious fanatic group for the right to keep their controversial film on the shelves for sale.Videocassette tape rental store owners fight against a religious fanatic group for the right to keep their controversial film on the shelves for sale.
- Premios
- 2 premios en total
Stacie Shakarian
- Peggy
- (as Stacie Lee Adkins)
Conrad Bachmann
- Rudy
- (as Conrad Bachman)
Barbara Allyne Bennet
- Edna
- (as Barbara Allyne Bennett)
Daphnee Duplaix
- Tina
- (as Daphne Duplaix)
Argumento
¿Sabías que...?
- CuriosidadesFilm debut of Chloë Grace Moretz.
- ConexionesReferences La última tentación de Cristo (1988)
Reseña destacada
Based on real events, yes. Based on the actual facts of those real events, no.
This movie, according to the principals, was the darling of the film festival circuit for almost three weeks. The term "film festival," again according to the principals, is any event in which four or more people watch a movie.
The movie takes the odd stance of championing freedom of speech and suppression of speech -- both under the guise of the First Amendment. Apparently, if you are "in the right," you should be able to say whatever you want, but if you are "in the wrong," anything you say is oppressive and illegal. In this movie, one group is definitely pegged as being "in the right."
Personally, I like the rules in America that say nobody has to shut up. Everybody gets to speak their mind. Even those with ugly, revolting points of view get to say what they want. That's America.
People are allowed to say "Don't shop at XXXXX. They do things we don't like. Go ask Wal-Mart, Sony, Disney, Burger King, etc. All of them have had campaigns against them.
And people are allowed to sell anything legal despite protests. Again, go ask Wal-Mart, Sony, Disney, etc.
And no crime has been committed by these protests even if one party feels "forced" to withdraw a product. They can still sell it. It's their choice.
Disney is a perfect example. They have top movies and cartoons that will never be seen again because of protests over 50 years ago. It's their choice. No law is being broken because of the protests.
In America, people are allowed to say, Don't shop at XXX, their commercials are xxx. People are allowed to say, Don't shop at XXX, they made fun of xxx. People are allowed to say, Don't shop at XXX, they sell a T-shirt with a slogan that offends us.
The oil companies, Big Tobacco, automakers, chain stores, restaurants, Wall Street -- all have endured fanatical protests of a much higher and more strident nature. Are they victims also?
The actual facts would have made an accurate, but boring, portrayal of the down-and-dirty dealings of activists versus business. Accurate and boring, yes, but quite a bit better than horribly slanted and boring.
The saving grace of this movie, unlike other doggie doo, is that you won't run across it unless you actively search for it. It has never risen to "discount bin" status.
This movie, according to the principals, was the darling of the film festival circuit for almost three weeks. The term "film festival," again according to the principals, is any event in which four or more people watch a movie.
The movie takes the odd stance of championing freedom of speech and suppression of speech -- both under the guise of the First Amendment. Apparently, if you are "in the right," you should be able to say whatever you want, but if you are "in the wrong," anything you say is oppressive and illegal. In this movie, one group is definitely pegged as being "in the right."
Personally, I like the rules in America that say nobody has to shut up. Everybody gets to speak their mind. Even those with ugly, revolting points of view get to say what they want. That's America.
People are allowed to say "Don't shop at XXXXX. They do things we don't like. Go ask Wal-Mart, Sony, Disney, Burger King, etc. All of them have had campaigns against them.
And people are allowed to sell anything legal despite protests. Again, go ask Wal-Mart, Sony, Disney, etc.
And no crime has been committed by these protests even if one party feels "forced" to withdraw a product. They can still sell it. It's their choice.
Disney is a perfect example. They have top movies and cartoons that will never be seen again because of protests over 50 years ago. It's their choice. No law is being broken because of the protests.
In America, people are allowed to say, Don't shop at XXX, their commercials are xxx. People are allowed to say, Don't shop at XXX, they made fun of xxx. People are allowed to say, Don't shop at XXX, they sell a T-shirt with a slogan that offends us.
The oil companies, Big Tobacco, automakers, chain stores, restaurants, Wall Street -- all have endured fanatical protests of a much higher and more strident nature. Are they victims also?
The actual facts would have made an accurate, but boring, portrayal of the down-and-dirty dealings of activists versus business. Accurate and boring, yes, but quite a bit better than horribly slanted and boring.
The saving grace of this movie, unlike other doggie doo, is that you won't run across it unless you actively search for it. It has never risen to "discount bin" status.
- steve-974-698135
- 21 oct 2011
- Enlace permanente
Selecciones populares
Inicia sesión para calificar y añadir a tu lista para recibir recomendaciones personalizadas
Detalles
- Duración1 hora 46 minutos
- Color
Contribuir a esta página
Sugerir un cambio o añadir el contenido que falta
Principal laguna de datos
By what name was Heart of the Beholder (2005) officially released in Canada in English?
Responde