Mainstream films with questionable morals?

The King of Moo

A Time to Kill (1996) bugged me both times I saw it when I was younger.


*****POTENTIAL SPOILERS BUT NOT SPOILERY ENOUGH TO BE PUT IN SPOILERTEXT AS THERE'S NOTHING REALLY SPECIFIC OR SUPRISING*****


While the crime the two white guys committed was horrific, the film basically seemed to suggest that the father was perfectly entitled to kill them both in public. Never sat well with me.

I can understand why people also read a objectivist message into The Incredibles, but I've come to think that wasn't intentional.

Any other examples of mainstream films whose apparent message bothered you?
.
Probably should have said "messages" in the thread title, not "morals" which is a bit more ambiguous.

johnny_ultimate

There's a few that have made me a bit unsettled.

Most recently, Source Code. The ending is supposed to be happy, but there's very creepy undertone.

Gyllenhall effectively adapts another persons identity to live happily ever after with Monaghan. In many ways you can't blame him . But at the same time it's a very weird ending altogether, in which the happy ending is all down to a lie. What happened to the poor fellow whose mind and potential love interest have been stolen?

The Breakfast Club. I know people will object to this, but having only watched it in the last few years it has some very questionable morals indeed.

One character falls for another only after she has undergone a generic makeover, and we're meant to be happy for them? For a film that attempts to preach the glorys of being different, that its ultimate moral is "conform for romantic success!"

rings false and is more than a little objectionable. Any makeover solves all (see: She's All That etc...) film film can be added here too.

He's Just Not That Into You / The Ugly Truth - in which assholes abandon all morals in order to pursue romance with other assholes. Awhh.

quickbeam

Shrek bugged me somewhat. I know the moral was meant to be that beauty is on the inside, but it came across to me more like only ugly people should be with ugly people. It would have been far more hearwarming if a gorgeous Fiona ended up with an ogre Shrek.

closifer

Pretty Woman is a pretty obvious choice here I think...dunno if I even need to explain!

The King of Moo

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

There's a few that have made me a bit unsettled.

Most recently, Source Code. The ending is supposed to be happy, but there's very creepy undertone.

Gyllenhall effectively adapts another persons identity to live happily ever after with Monaghan. In many ways you can't blame him . But at the same time it's a very weird ending altogether, in which the happy ending is all down to a lie. What happened to the poor fellow whose mind and potential love interest have been stolen?

Agree about that, it only occurred to me shortly after I saw it, and I definitely found it disturbing. I wonder if it was done intentionally or if it was a directorial oversight. I'm leaning towards the former.

quickbeam wrote: »

Shrek bugged me somewhat. I know the moral was meant to be that beauty is on the inside, but it came across to me more like only ugly people should be with ugly people. It would have been far more hearwarming if a gorgeous Fiona ended up with an ogre Shrek.

+1, I don't think Hollywood would ever take the risk of showing such a mixture happy together.

krudler

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

There's a few that have made me a bit unsettled.

Most recently, Source Code. The ending is supposed to be happy, but there's very creepy undertone.

Gyllenhall effectively adapts another persons identity to live happily ever after with Monaghan. In many ways you can't blame him . But at the same time it's a very weird ending altogether, in which the happy ending is all down to a lie. What happened to the poor fellow whose mind and potential love interest have been stolen?

plus

Gyllenhall has NO idea where the guy who he now inhabits lives, who his family is, where he works etc etc

also Shes All That, artistic girls with glasses (who are still fcuking hotties) shouldnt be in order to find the right guy for them.

I mean really, THIS is the "ugly girl" in that movie?!

clusk007

'Big' with Tom Hanks. Great movie but got me thinking - is the woman he dates a paedophile?

tony1kenobi

Star Wars?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I0VZj-85E5o

mike65

Sex and the City 11 2

Mark Kermode explains why.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uHeQeHstrsc

Ellian

Rules Of Engagement. Vile despicable piece of celluloid that basically seems to be saying that all Arabs are terrorists..

johnny_ultimate

Actually, that reminds me: Blood Diamond. Been a while since I saw it, but remember thinking it bordered on the racist.

The King of Moo

Ellian wrote: »

Rules Of Engagement. Vile despicable piece of celluloid that basically seems to be saying that all Arabs are terrorists..

You could say the same for True Lies as well, and probably a few other action films.

That brings to mind Rambo II and III as well, where Rambo went back and showed that America could and should have won the Vietnam War if they'd just tried harder :rolleyes:.

Particularly annoying as First Blood is a great film.

Nolanger

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

The Breakfast Club. I know people will object to this, but having only watched it in the last few years it has some very questionable morals indeed.

The way the two girls argue with the jock and rebel all through the movie and then pair up. The nerd is left on his own even though he was the harmless character. Well done girls!

Mickeroo

I think Twilight is rife with questionable messages for young ones, such as trying to paint a manipulative prick tease with a monster fetish as a symapthetic character. Then there's all the implications of her

becoming a vampire for the sake of "love"

. I hear there's some even more messed up stuff in the next one!!

Ridley

Clash of the Titans (2010) springs to mind. Rally your men to kill the rape victim and sell out by doing exactly what you said you weren't going to do. Messing around with the script at the last stage turned it into a film about being a tool instead of being in control of your own destiny.

Oh and King Solomon's Mines (1937).

Ridley wrote: »

Quite good film interrupted by a load of Paul Robeson songs even though he sings them all the same way. Allan Quatermain the hypocritical British hunter who has a thing against mining is 'tricked' from his job running hunting tours (cause he doesn't like hunting) to eventually help find Kathy O'Brien's missing father who went searching for King Solomon's Mines.

Apart from the addition of adding a female companion I read that it's fairly faithful to the book but I wouldn't know. When O'Brien mentions that she BS'd Quatermain into helping her:

"Yes I know. I've met the Irish before." Which should be adapted to fit any conversation, clearly. Later in the film, while Quatermain is BSing South African tribes, Kathy says he couldn't have done better if he were Irish himself.

Lovely man.

The King of Moo

Mickeroo wrote: »

I think Twilight is rife with questionable messages for young ones, such as trying to paint a manipulative prick tease with a monster fetish as a symapthetic character. Then there's all the implications of her

becoming a vampire for the sake of "love"

. I hear there's some even more messed up stuff in the next one!!

I've never seen how Bella could be considered attractive, either for men or as a role model for girls. She's dull as ditchwater, moany, and like you said, a complete prick tease!

mike65

Sure if we are going down the foreigners bad road - then there is any number you could name check Die Hard, Red Dawn, Rising Sun, Black Hawk Down, load of 80s action flicks.

Ellian

The King of Moo wrote: »

You could say the same for True Lies as well, and probably a few other action films.

That brings to mind Rambo II and III as well, where Rambo went back and showed that America could and should have won the Vietnam War if they'd just tried harder :rolleyes:.

Particularly annoying as First Blood is a great film.

I think the difference is the tone. True Lies and Rambo set out their stalls as escapist entertainment. I think Rules Of Engagement had delusions of being a serious piece of work.

The King of Moo

Ellian wrote: »

I think the difference is the tone. True Lies and Rambo set out their stalls as escapist entertainment. I think Rules Of Engagement had delusions of being a serious piece of work.

Good point, I haven't seen Rules of Engagement myself. Though sometimes escapist stuff can have a more insidious effect, as often they'll have a wider audience.
And there's always those unfortunate few who can't separate fantasy from fact

strandroad

I much dislike movies in which American forces go on a blowing up spree among foreign (to them) monuments. "GI Joe" springs to mind, but there's plenty more. You can almost see them thinking "oh this rusty stuff, we have better Venice in Las Vegas".

Also when CIA guys go shooting and chasing one another among civilians in say Berlin or Madrid (saw "Hanna" yesterday).

liah

Does Sucker Punch count as mainstream? Haven't exactly kept track of its success.

But the fact that it's meant to be a 'girl power' film,

yet even in her 1st and 2nd level fantasies - her very own imagination, which she uses to mentally escape from the reality that is her unconscious body being used for sex - she's a stripper kept against her will in one, and kitted out in hooker heels and miniskirts in the other,

is incredibly fecking questionable. I couldn't help but just feel disgusted the whole way through. Watching it was like watching some teenage sociopath's wet dream. Eurgh. Questionable is an understatement. :mad:

Mickeroo

mhge wrote: »

I much dislike movies in which American forces go on a blowing up spree among foreign (to them) monuments. "GI Joe" springs to mind, but there's plenty more. You can almost see them thinking "oh this rusty stuff, we have better Venice in Las Vegas".

Watch G.I Joe back to back with Team America...takes on a whole new light

The King of Moo

liah wrote: »

Does Sucker Punch count as mainstream? Haven't exactly kept track of its success.

But the fact that it's meant to be a 'girl power' film,

yet even in her 1st and 2nd level fantasies - her very own imagination, which she uses to mentally escape from the reality that is her unconscious body being used for sex - she's a stripper kept against her will in one, and kitted out in hooker heels and miniskirts in the other,

is incredibly fecking questionable. I couldn't help but just feel disgusted the whole way through. Watching it was like watching some teenage sociopath's wet dream. Eurgh. Questionable is an understatement. :mad:

Didn't watch it and now glad I didn't, seemed like style over substance, but mostly because "teenage sociopath's wet dream" is exactly the vibe I got just from the trailers.
It's as if one day the director found the drawings he did when he was 13 and bet himself he could convince a producer to finance a film based on them.

liah

The King of Moo wrote: »

It's as if one day the director found the drawings he did when he was 13 and bet himself he could convince a producer to finance a film based on them.

Pretty much what I said word for word after I saw it!

The worst part was watching people raving about how 'awesome' it was on facebook. Utterly tragic.

Revolution9

Grease - You gotta tart yourself up, act supremely confident in contrast to your usually reserved behaviour and start smoking cigarettes to make the guy want you!

Outkast_IRE

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

Actually, that reminds me: Blood Diamond. Been a while since I saw it, but remember thinking it bordered on the racist.

How so ? its not necessarily racist when your telling a truth based story ? what were they meant to do have white child soldiers running around in africa

strandroad

Mickeroo wrote: »

Watch G.I Joe back to back with Team America...takes on a whole new light

team America does it right

Outkast_IRE

mike65 wrote: »

Sure if we are going down the foreigners bad road - then there is any number you could name check Die Hard, Red Dawn, Rising Sun, Black Hawk Down, load of 80s action flicks.

Black hawk down is a very accurate retelling of a true story , its in bloddy moghadishu , and for the most part it did accurately portray what living in a semi-warzone , gang controlled kip of a country is like with normal people just trying to hide from the violence .

johnny_ultimate

Outkast_IRE wrote: »

How so ? its not necessarily racist when your telling a truth based story ? what were they meant to do have white child soldiers running around in africa

It's been a while since I saw it, but at the time I thought it's portrayal of race was very simplistic even if based on reality. When it turned to action film 101 at the end, I also felt uncomfortable about how it portrayed complex issues in a simplified manner.

As said, don't remember details, and I'm happy to be proven incorrect!

CiaranC

Should have been called "black man down"

HavingCrack

The King of Moo wrote: »

A Time to Kill (1996) bugged me both times I saw it when I was younger.

While the crime the two white guys committed was horrific, the film basically seemed to suggest that the father was perfectly entitled to kill them both in public. Never sat well with me.

The film actually has a very different slant than the book upon which it is based. The tone of the book is much more ambiguous about who is in the right from what I remember. It leant far more towards understanding the actions of the father than the blatent condoning of them the film suggested.

strandroad

HavingCrack wrote: »

The film actually has a very different slant than the book upon which it is based. The tone of the book is much more ambiguous about who is in the right from what I remember. It leant far more towards understanding the actions of the father than the blatent condoning of them the film suggested.

I haven't seem the film but yes this is how it was in the book. The father was described as a fairly tragic character and the plot was more about preventing further spread of violence.

Playboy

The King of Moo wrote: »

While the crime the two white guys committed was horrific, the film basically seemed to suggest that the father was perfectly entitled to kill them both in public. Never sat well with me.

I dont think it suggested that it condoned the actions of the father but more questioned our perception of justice. I think most people in the fathers position would have wanted to do what he did .. Is it right or wrong completley depends on your perception. Bascially we can understand and sympathise with what the father did but at the same time we cant let him get away with it because of the greater good. Its personal justice and over a justice which punishes but prevents vigilantism.

yammycat

Saving private Ryan, the guy who killed Hanks was the prisoner he saved

moral of the story is execute your captives, no mercy

yammycat

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

There's a few that have made me a bit unsettled.

Most recently, Source Code. The ending is supposed to be happy, but there's very creepy undertone.

Gyllenhall effectively adapts another persons identity to live happily ever after with Monaghan. In many ways you can't blame him . But at the same time it's a very weird ending altogether, in which the happy ending is all down to a lie. What happened to the poor fellow whose mind and potential love interest have been stolen?

The idea was a whole new alternate reality had been created, the person whose identity he assumed was killed on the train, he did him no disservice, also he'd only been on the train for a few minutes and walked off to get a coffee, I'm sure he would have spilled the beans promptly given he had nowhere to go

The King of Moo

Playboy wrote: »

I dont think it suggested that it condoned the actions of the father but more questioned our perception of justice. I think most people in the fathers position would have wanted to do what he did .. Is it right or wrong completley depends on your perception. Bascially we can understand and sympathise with what the father did but at the same time we cant let him get away with it because of the greater good. Its personal justice and over a justice which punishes but prevents vigilantism.

I'm sure it's more complex than I remember, I was pretty young when I saw it, though I still felt it was a bit too simplistic, what with the father being fairly sympathetic, and many of the white characters in the KKK!

Mickeroo

yammycat wrote: »

The idea was a whole new alternate reality had been created, the person whose identity he assumed was killed on the train, he did him no disservice, also he'd only been on the train for a few minutes and walked off to get a coffee, I'm sure he would have spilled the beans promptly given he had nowhere to go

Totally OT but what the hey....

Alternate reality or not the guy wasn't killed in the train at the end because Gyllenhall was actually inhabiting HIS body presumably dooming the poor guys soul to oblivion most likely. Gyllenhall was being called by the guys name sure, he would have had to go on and inhabit that guys life, take his job and act like he knew the guys family and that.

Phony Scott

'A Time To Kill' is reprehensibly mawkish. If someone close to me had been brutally raped and I decided to take matters into my own hands and kill the people responsible, I would definately expect to go to jail for a very long time for my actions. It is an open and shut case.

This film shoehorns racial drama into the story, because the inital argument it poses isn't strong enough to hold any water. Instead it tries to persude the audience, through toe curling sentimentality, that lynch-mobs and murder are justified. It's an awful film OP.

Overheal

Unthinkable, perhaps. The entire movie is basically moral dilemma.

yammycat

Mickeroo wrote: »

Totally OT but what the hey....

Alternate reality or not the guy wasn't killed in the train at the end because Gyllenhall was actually inhabiting HIS body presumably dooming the poor guys soul to oblivion most likely. Gyllenhall was being called by the guys name sure, he would have had to go on and inhabit that guys life, take his job and act like he knew the guys family and that.

The guy was killed in the train in the original universe, he was dead, the secondary universe in which everybody bar that guy could go on living was created by the project, granted he was unfortunate that it was his body that was taken over but he is none the worse off for it as he received the same fate as everybody in history up to that point upon death, being dead. As for assuming gyllenhall was going to attempt to live as the guy well thats just a big guess, maybe he went for a coffee with the girl and said hey you know what it appears it's a new me well because it is blah blah, he could never have pulled it off trying to live as the guy

take everything

Phony Scott wrote: »

'A Time To Kill' is reprehensibly mawkish. If someone close to me had been brutally raped and I decided to take matters into my own hands and kill the people responsible, I would definately expect to go to jail for a very long time for my actions. It is an open and shut case.

This film shoehorns racial drama into the story, because the inital argument it poses isn't strong enough to hold any water. Instead it tries to persude the audience, through toe curling sentimentality, that lynch-mobs and murder are justified. It's an awful film OP.

Good description.
It's a mess alright.
And Sandra Bullock and Matthew McConaughy only magnify all this.

Mellor

The King of Moo wrote: »

While the crime the two white guys committed was horrific, the film basically seemed to suggest that the father was perfectly entitled to kill them both in public. Never sat well with me.

Disagree. That really isn't the point of the movie. It's protraying the situation, not commenting one it. Carl Lee's (Sameul L Jackson) character gets "off", but that doesn't mean that it was justified. The jury go that way, as its they finally see that it was the same reaction that anyone could have. Doesn't make it right.
Also, the south has always been its own law. Which is reflected in the fact that ok by the people ok, but the state.

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

The Breakfast Club. I know people will object to this, but having only watched it in the last few years it has some very questionable morals indeed.

One character falls for another only after she has undergone a generic makeover, and we're meant to be happy for them? For a film that attempts to preach the glorys of being different, that its ultimate moral is "conform for romantic success!"

rings false and is more than a little objectionable. Any makeover solves all (see: She's All That etc...) film film can be added here too.

Is it right nope.
Is it realistic. Yup. How often have you only noticed somebody after they scrub up well. Or after not seeing them for a few years.

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

Actually, that reminds me: Blood Diamond. Been a while since I saw it, but remember thinking it bordered on the racist.

Again, pretty accurate


I think people are confusing morals with realism.
The isn't a very moralistic place, I don't see why fiilms should be. I'd have no problem if a film while telling the story of a good guy, so shows the grittier side. Some of the things that soilders in Iraq have done for example. It's a bigger joke if they cut them out to make america the heros imo

humanji

With regards the Breakfast Club (and admittedly, it's been years since I watched it), but isn't that girl not being herself, and that's the problem? She's withdrawn into herself because of her abusive parents. In the end she's shown that she can be who she wants and not shy away from things. And once she's able to start living the way she wants to, she gets noticed by the other guy.

That's the way I read into it. Each character starts off thinking they know who they are, but learn that they're not those people at all.

DrumSteve

43 posts in and no one has mentioned Transformers : Revenge of the Fallen.

Can be summed up just in the part

where they throw Obama's advisor from a plane.

The King of Moo

Mellor wrote: »

Disagree. That really isn't the point of the movie. It's protraying the situation, not commenting one it. Carl Lee's (Sameul L Jackson) character gets "off", but that doesn't mean that it was justified. The jury go that way, as its they finally see that it was the same reaction that anyone could have. Doesn't make it right.
Also, the south has always been its own law. Which is reflected in the fact that ok by the people ok, but the state.

I feel it was commenting on the situation though, with the little kid running out shouting "He got off!", everyone cheering and the strings rising on the soundtrack, it felt to me that the verdict was being portrayed as a success.
Obviously you and a lot of other people posting here were able to step back and look critically at the situation, but I don't think that's what the filmmakers were going for, I felt like the film was trying to manipulate viewers into supporting the father.
I've been reading about again online, cos in fairness it has been a few years since I've seen it. In France they added a question mark to the end of the title, as they felt it was too clearly supportive of the death penalty and vigilante justice :eek:

Mellor

The King of Moo wrote: »

I feel it was commenting on the situation though, with the little kid running out shouting "He got off!", everyone cheering and the strings rising on the soundtrack, it felt to me that the verdict was being portrayed as a success.
Obviously you and a lot of other people posting here were able to step back and look critically at the situation, but I don't think that's what the filmmakers were going for, I felt like the film was trying to manipulate viewers into supporting the father.
I've been reading about again online, cos in fairness it has been a few years since I've seen it. In France they added a question mark to the end of the title, as they felt it was too clearly supportive of the death penalty and vigilante justice :eek:

It's a movie, so they have to play up to the anti-hero element of Carl Lee, I'll accept that. But I just accepted it as A Time we would all kill rather than a times its ok to.
I also believe that the jurors had this opinion too, otherwise they jsut tossed law out the window.
I can't remember the exact wording of the defense, but weren't they basically saying that he was temporarily legally insane due to what happen, and thus couldn't be convicted.

Mickeroo

yammycat wrote: »

The guy was killed in the train in the original universe, he was dead, the secondary universe in which everybody bar that guy could go on living was created by the project, granted he was unfortunate that it was his body that was taken over but he is none the worse off for it as he received the same fate as everybody in history up to that point upon death, being dead. As for assuming gyllenhall was going to attempt to live as the guy well thats just a big guess, maybe he went for a coffee with the girl and said hey you know what it appears it's a new me well because it is blah blah, he could never have pulled it off trying to live as the guy

You reckon that universe wouldn't even be there if it wasn't for the source code, so for that universe to exist at all Gyllenhall had to inhabit the guys body and stop the bomb. Without this quantum even that reality would never have existed.

By Jove, I do believe he's got it.

Would still be a hell of a problem to assimilate into the guys life though or try and convince anyone he's not who all his IDs and DNA etc say he is.

Frank Black

I’d like to nominate Sahara.
The end of this film never sat right with me. Basically the evil guy Massadre is poisoned at the end of the film by the CIA presumably.
No extradition, no due process – just poison the guy.
Surely this isn’t the message a mainstream American film should be selling.

Mellor

black francis wrote: »

I’d like to nominate Sahara.
The end of this film never sat right with me. Basically the evil guy Massadre is poisoned at the end of the film by the CIA presumably.
No extradition, no due process – just poison the guy.
Surely this isn’t the message a mainstream American film should be selling.

You know what the CIA do right?

mikhail

Lots of good examples so far, but I'd like to mention Kung Fu Panda as a supreme example of the kind of American film which teaches that confidence to the point of narcissism, and a little desire, along with some vaguely inherited right of kings, trumps any amount of effort. Films like this tell kids that not only can they do anything they set their minds to, but that that's all they need to do. Indeed, people who work for years training to achieve their goals are contemptible, and will be bested by some fat, ignorant moron who is entitled by birth to win.

ziedth

Mellor wrote: »

I can't remember the exact wording of the defense, but weren't they basically saying that he was temporarily legally insane due to what happen, and thus couldn't be convicted.

No I don't think so, I took it as Kevin Spacey knocked down the insanity defense because he got Jackson to say that they deserved to die on the stand. the closing argument was his last ditch attempt to get the jury to change their minds remember Jackson said something to the effect of "what would the lawyer have to say to convince you if you were on the jury"

Great idea for a thread actually, my pick would be crash. It's been years since I saw it but from what I remember it seemed to just be a 90minute lead into getting the most non-racist character to preform the most racist act (shooting in the car) and at the same time change some of the other racist characters opinion for no major reason. Must watch it again actually because I prob missed something really obvious