Casting the first stone

re: Casting the first stone

Apperantly not Learned — Wed, 24 Jun 2009 19:10:33 GMT

I have to question the animosity that's coming from this "comment" and to whom it's directed towards. Where in Mr. Michel's review do you see any mention of profiteering? Is it because he thought that a film suffers from bad writing, he deserves such harsh critisism? Or is there some sort of alterior reasoning?

It seems as though you haven't seen the movie, or actually read his review...there in lies your true ignorance.

re: Casting the first stone

Agreed — Wed, 24 Jun 2009 05:57:08 GMT

I agree completely with Learned Hand. I don't think they're trying to "cash in on the crisis." They're trying to spread the truth about how women are treated. It's the critics that see the film as entertainment. Brett Michel said it was poorly written. Maybe for an entertaining movie, yes. But if its script can shed some light on human rights, then by no means is it supposed to be entertainment.

re: Casting the first stone

Learned Hand — Wed, 24 Jun 2009 02:37:41 GMT

Cashing in on the crisis? Film makers finance and release and R-rated true story that is graphically violent, shot in Farsi with all but one unknown actor... because they (apparently) believe that women in countries that have in their penal code -- death by stoning as an appropriate form of punishment -- deserve better?? Yeah-- that sounds like a real money maker. The greedy bastards! Don't we all know that only critics, esp those like Brett Michel are the only altruistic people on the planet that are actually allowed to care about human rights, women's rights and that have the divine eye to judge other people's motives?? Sheesh.