Well thats a very good point as well. But think about this. In a few years from now, this movie will be forgotten. This movie wont win any oscars, or any awards for that matter. And if I am not mistaken, this movie cost 35 million dollars to make, but made 38 million, so it is safe to say that the studio wont make a sequel. So seeing that this movie is forgettable, why make an uproar over it. I am sure that the people that have made this movie is being punished enough for the failure of this film. But the thing that has bothered me the most is all the misguided hatred toward the film. I mean you have one person that quoted "this movie makes people hate black people", I understand that this person was offended by this film, and rightfully so, but you cant spew venom at an entire race over that. Bringing Down the House offended me, and that movie didn't make me hate white people. As I have mentioned, the blame goes squarely on the shoulders of Jay Scherick, and David Ronn (the writers of the movie). Or you can blame Dennis Dugan for not taking some of the racial jokes out of the dialogue. He is the director and he has the power to do that. Personally I dont want to do that, I like Dennis Dugan (e.g. guest appearances on moonlighting, and directing big daddy). Or you can blame Columbia Pictures for not taking the racial jokes out of the dialogue (despite their disclaimer before the movie on the DVD, which by the way they put on a lot of their DVDs, not just National Security). There is a ton of blame to go around, and I am sure that there are a number of blamers who knows that, but choose to attack Martin Lawrence, or even worse african-americans. And one last thing. If Vic has such a problem with this movie, maybe he should watch "White Man's Burden", then maybe he wouldnt complain about how racist this movie is toward white people. I am black, and after watching that movie, I nearly hated black people (LOL).
P.S. I am very sorry that your girlfriend rented Glitter, to quote Steve Martin from Bringing Down the House "that money should have went to charity"...(LOL).
reply
share
Mappy2004
21 years ago
I agree with you 100% and I am pretty sure we are both arguing on the same side. This movie won't win any awards (Raspberry Award maybe) and it will eventually make its way to the $4 bin at Futureshop.
But, my point was; although this movie did offend me, I didn't take it out on Martin Lawrence or even worse, on black people. But that doesn't mean the next guy won't. Let's face it, there are people out there who are easily influenced by movies. I read somewhere that on the opening weekend of "Gone In Sixty Seconds", car theft in one state or province (can't remember which one) rose by 300%. Which goes to show you, there are a lot of morons out there who take movies too far.
So my message is to writers of these types of movies (movies that involve racism or stereotypes of any kind): Be careful of what message you are putting into your story, because even idiots can go see movies.
reply
share
bwsmith201
21 years ago
I didn't enjoy this movie very much- I didn't find it very funny, but I was not offended. I just thought it was stupid. If anything, the Martin Lawrence character seems to be making fun of black people who assume that all whites are racist, not the other way around, indicating that the writers know that not all white people are racist (though some are) and that some black people have the potential to be (which Lawrence's character is, at least at the beginning. The fact that society can joke around about this kind of stuff (to a certain extent, and I do not mean to say that racism is funny- it isn't) is somewhat healthy and shows that we have evolved, though the response to this movie on both sides seems to show that we still have a way to go.
Something can be tasteless (which I think this was) without being offensive, per se. It certainly can't be taken seriously, considering that in the real world Lawrence's character would go to jail after it was proven that he lied at the trial and sent a man away for six months without him having committed a crime. The other thing that I found rather annoying was the lieutenant- logically he would have known Zahn's character pretty well but basically abandons him when he's accused and takes the word of a total stranger over his own officer without any other evidence.
Anyroad, like most movies, you have to suspend reality (it just seems even more neccessary with this one!). The one thing this movie has accomplished is helping to foster discussion, which is always a good thing, IMHO.
Just thought I would contribute!
Take care!
---
'Nuff said
reply
share
MalikC71
21 years ago
Well, I just saw this movie this morning, and how can anybody not see this movie as anything but racist? I don't know who it's supposed to appeal to, though. As a black person, I thought it made a mockery out of racism and racial profiling. And if I were white, I would just be offended at the stupid things they say about white people. I found myself saying 'that's not funny' out loud to myself very often. The movie was very, very, very annoying. As much as I have a general aversion for police, I felt really sorry for Steve Zahn's character. I kept waiting for him to punch Earl out, which came far too late in the movie for my taste.
I think this movie's biggest problem is that it's not funny. I mean, Martin Lawrence is a funny person, so I laughed a few times. But the movie as a whole was not worth sitting through. His Earl character has to be one of the most annoying characters in movie history.
reply
share