Hugo
Posted: Mon Dec 05, 2011 4:43 amI took my son to see Hugo tonight. We saw it in 3-D. Very nice movie, but it contained no swearing, no nudity, no controversial subject matter. What were they thinking?
jimmydanger wrote:I took my son to see Hugo tonight. We saw it in 3-D. Very nice movie, but it contained no swearing, no nudity, no controversial subject matter. What were they thinking?. Laurel and Hardy films contained no swearing,, no nudity, no controversial subject matter either. What were THEY thinking? Imagine how much more popular they could have been if they had said lines like:
"Here's aother God-damned fuc*in mess you've gotten me into."
"Hey Ollie, see that bi*ch across the street? Why don't we go and rape her Ollie?"
"I never thought of that Stanley. That's a pretty smart thought."
" Yeah Ollie, I'll hold her down for you. It won't be a minute. We can rape her in a jiffy!"
One of the reasons I can hardly stand most films made today is precisely what your post is about. Add to the swearing, violence, controversy is a bunch of over-done special effects and you get a movie that has zero redeeming qualities. The films made back in the day were made mainly for ONE reason, to entertain.
