list http://www.spout.com/ Recent community activity around The Life of Brian on Spout Copyright 2005-9 Spout, LLC Spout RSS http://www.spout.com/images/SpoutLogoRSS.jpg http://www.spout.com/ 136 30 http://www.spout.com/films/The_Life_of_Brian/64234/default.aspx Title: The Life of Brian
Year: 1979
Director: Terry Jones
Plot: On a midnight clear 2,000 years ago, three wise men enter a manger where a babe is wrapped in swaddling clothes. It is an infant called Brian...and the three wise men are in the wrong manger. For the rest of his life, Brian (Graham Chapman) finds himself regarded as something of a messiah -- yet he's always in the shadow of this other guy from Galilee. Brian is witness to the Sermon of the Mount, but his seat is in such a bad location that he can't hear any of it ("Blessed are the cheesemakers?"). Ultimately, he is brought before Pontius Pilate and sentenced to crucifixion, which takes place at that crowded, nonexclusive execution site a few blocks shy of Calvary. Rather than utter the Last Six Words, Brian leads his fellow crucifixees in a spirited rendition of a British music-hall cheer-up song "Always Look on the Bright Side of Life." The whole Monty Python gang (Chapman, John Cleese, Michael Palin, Eric Idle, and Terry Gilliam) are on hand in multiple roles, playing such sacred characters as Stan Called Loretta, Biggus Dickus, Deadly Dirk, Casts the First Stone, and Intensely Dull Youth; also showing up are Goon Show veteran Spike Milligan and a Liverpool musician named George Harrison. ~ Hal Erickson, All Movie Guide
Times Tagged: 33
Number of Lists: 43
Number of blog posts: 4
Number of discussion threads: 3
SpoutRating: 4
]]>Tue, 12 May 2009 04:00:18 GMTThe Life of Brian1979Terry JonesOn a midnight clear 2,000 years ago, three wise men enter a manger where a babe is wrapped in swaddling clothes. It is an infant called Brian...and the three wise men are in the wrong manger. For the rest of his life, Brian (<a href="/players/P____84701/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Graham Chapman</a>) finds himself regarded as something of a messiah -- yet he's always in the shadow of this other guy from Galilee. Brian is witness to the Sermon of the Mount, but his seat is in such a bad location that he can't hear any of it ("Blessed are the cheesemakers?"). Ultimately, he is brought before Pontius Pilate and sentenced to crucifixion, which takes place at that crowded, nonexclusive execution site a few blocks shy of Calvary. Rather than utter the Last Six Words, Brian leads his fellow crucifixees in a spirited rendition of a British music-hall cheer-up song "Always Look on the Bright Side of Life." The whole <a href="/players/P____50219/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Monty Python</a> gang (Chapman, <a href="/players/P____85223/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>John Cleese</a>, <a href="/players/P___105433/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Michael Palin</a>, <a href="/players/P____95365/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Eric Idle</a>, and <a href="/players/P____91577/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Terry Gilliam</a>) are on hand in multiple roles, playing such sacred characters as Stan Called Loretta, Biggus Dickus, Deadly Dirk, Casts the First Stone, and Intensely Dull Youth; also showing up are <i>Goon Show</i> veteran <a href="/players/P____49345/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Spike Milligan</a> and a Liverpool musician named <a href="/players/P____93559/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>George Harrison</a>. ~ Hal Erickson, All Movie Guide33Tag Target (>10)43434http://www.spout.com/ProductImages/u51734i1tbn.jpghttp://www.spout.com/films/The_Life_of_Brian/64234/default.aspxFilm http://www.spout.com/groups/Filmgaming/Re_A_new_pack_of_RESERVOIR_DOGS_1992/563/33054/1/ShowPost.aspx Post By: indieabby88
Post To: Filmgaming
Post Date: 7/24/2008 6:53:38 PM
Body: I was listening to an interview on NPR this afternoon with Eric Idle, and later, while in the shower (where all the best ideas come from, no?) I had an odd but interesting epiphany. So, here it is: Monty Python's Reservoir Dogs: (1972) Directed by Terry Gilliam Just think: shoestring budget, fake blood spurting ridiculously in every scene, especially in the scene where Blonde slashes that cop (think "Salad Days")...Plus with Gilliam at the helm, you know it's gonna be dark, funny and seriously trippy. Not to mention the possibility of having Michael Palin get shot by Graham Chapman or Terry Jones in old lady drag. The cast: Graham Chapman ... Mr. White (actually, this could be interchangable with John Cleese, they have the same kind of acting style) Michael Palin ... Mr. Orange (I think he'd have a great "I'm shot!" reaction) John Cleese ... Mr. Blonde (again, interchangable with Graham Chapman. Either one would be good for pretty much the same reasons)Terry Jones ... Nice Guy Eddie (He even bares a very very slight resemblence to Chris Penn)Eric Idle ... Mr. Pink (Idle's the perfect smartass, definitely the Steve Buscemi of the group)Spike Milligan (The Goon Show, "Life of Brian") ... Joe Cabot Charles McKeown ("Life of Brian," "Brazil"--acted and co-wrote) ... Mr. BrownTerry Gilliam ... Mr. Blue (after all, it's only appropriate that the director play this role)Neil Innes ... Young Cop (gets ear cut off) (Innes is the classic Python extra. In addition to composing most of the original songs in the show and in the movies, he's done some good bit parts--i.e. the squire who gets squashed by the Trojan Rabbit in "Monty Python and the Holy Grail." Michael Palin ... K-Billy DJ (Perhaps Blonde slices and dices to "Urban Spaceman" or "Death Cab For Cutie" by the Bonzo Dog Band?)
]]>Thu, 24 Jul 2008 22:53:38 GMTindieabby88Filmgaming7/24/2008 6:53:38 PMI was listening to an interview on NPR this afternoon with Eric Idle, and later, while in the shower (where all the best ideas come from, no?) I had an odd but interesting epiphany. So, here it is: Monty Python's Reservoir Dogs: (1972) Directed by Terry Gilliam Just think: shoestring budget, fake blood spurting ridiculously in every scene, especially in the scene where Blonde slashes that cop (think "Salad Days")...Plus with Gilliam at the helm, you know it's gonna be dark, funny and seriously trippy. Not to mention the possibility of having Michael Palin get shot by Graham Chapman or Terry Jones in old lady drag. The cast: Graham Chapman ... Mr. White (actually, this could be interchangable with John Cleese, they have the same kind of acting style) Michael Palin ... Mr. Orange (I think he'd have a great "I'm shot!" reaction) John Cleese ... Mr. Blonde (again, interchangable with Graham Chapman. Either one would be good for pretty much the same reasons)Terry Jones ... Nice Guy Eddie (He even bares a very very slight resemblence to Chris Penn)Eric Idle ... Mr. Pink (Idle's the perfect smartass, definitely the Steve Buscemi of the group)Spike Milligan (The Goon Show, "Life of Brian") ... Joe Cabot Charles McKeown ("Life of Brian," "Brazil"--acted and co-wrote) ... Mr. BrownTerry Gilliam ... Mr. Blue (after all, it's only appropriate that the director play this role)Neil Innes ... Young Cop (gets ear cut off) (Innes is the classic Python extra. In addition to composing most of the original songs in the show and in the movies, he's done some good bit parts--i.e. the squire who gets squashed by the Trojan Rabbit in "Monty Python and the Holy Grail." Michael Palin ... K-Billy DJ (Perhaps Blonde slices and dices to "Urban Spaceman" or "Death Cab For Cutie" by the Bonzo Dog Band?) http://www.spout.com/blogs/smooth_j/archive/2008/7/18/32718.aspx Post By: Smooth_J
Post To: Smooth_J Blog
Post Date: 7/18/2008 11:50:10 AM
Body: I approached this film because of my recent interest in surrealist cinema, and it especially drew my attention because Bunuel was one of the founders of the genre. However, the film was not the abstract meditation on religion that I expected--instead, it is more like a 101 minute essay on the nature of religion and herecy, and yet somehow manages to remain entertaining. The majority of the film consists of either discussion or encounters through time displaying the various events in Christian herecy's history. Not knowing much about the history of herecy (like most other people, which was acknowledged by Bunuel and his co-writer Jean-Claude Carriere), the film was more like a history lesson for me at many of these parts, somewhat distracting from the more important details and satire of film. Even so, the more comprehensible events are so well-developed and staged that one can remain hooked on the film even through the seemingly meaningless religious jabberings; I do not say that as an insult to the film, more as an observation of my own religious incompetence. There are, however, several key points of Bunuel's vision that I could pick out. One that seemed quite prominent was his insistence that religious people's ideas constantly change with the winds, and no matter how set they are on them one minute, a mere change in tone can shift them in a complete opposite direction. He comments on the hippocracy and contradictions of the Catholic religion in several scenes: A priest and a police-man debate the nature of the Holy Eucharist, and whether Christ is contained inside of the Eucharist or if he just is the Eucharist, no questions asked. The priest firmly debates the latter. Two wanderers come and add to the discussion ("What happens to Christ after you swallow him?") and are shooed away. Suddenly the priest changes his mind, having a revelation about the nature of the Eucharist (in contradiction to the official Catholic belief)--and a van comes to take him away to a mental asylum. This scene is pure tongue-in-cheek Bunuel, poking fun at several aspects of the Catholic church in one perfectly staged scene. Another scene that displays Bunuels firm belief in religious contradictions is a hilarious duel between two nobles who contradict each other's views on fanaticism. One minute they're having a slap-stick duel, discussing and making argumentative points at intervals--and then when the two wanderers make a point about the topic and the camera strays from the duel, the two nobles are seen shaking hands, brushing off each other's coats, and walking away laughing. The wanderers are somewhat confused--but as they encounter more and more on their pilgrimage through space and time ("The Milky Way") to St. James' final resting place (The Milky Way is also known as "St. James' Way") to scam the other travelers, they learn to observe the events and continue rather than dwell on them in the least. Even in the film's final chapter, where a miracle happens and they do not get arrested, they just shrug at each other and continue on--they are merely the narrators, not making judgements either way, and only provoking the discussion of the film as a whole. There are literally thousands of occurences in this film that can be nitpicked into their smallest form to try and conceive what Bunuel's purpose was in making the film (some have tried to get the film banned, but his closest friends asked him how much the Vatican paid him to make the film), but I have come to a conclusion and attempted to sum it up in a single statement: Religion is a mysterious and strange thing, and people have been trying to put it into perspective since the beginning of time. Some turn to fanaticism and depraved ways of worship, and others will discuss it endlessly and never come to a conclusion. Most people will accept it and carry on with their lives, disregarding the miracles that have the potential to happen every day. No one can really explain it, and what Bunuel was trying to do was give a simple explanation through episodic encounters about the history of Christian deviance, herecy. This is where the surrealist aspect comes in. There are the surreal continuity errors, where one person appears in another place and then another based on the shot, most prominently in an encounter with a personified death (dressed in what looks like 70s and 80s glam-rock attire). More often than not, when the films dives into more bizarre or abstract occurences, it is more due to Bunuel's style of direction than the actual events, with exception of a select few brilliant images (he seems to have a penchant for great imagery--see Un Chien Andalou). These include a nun being nailed to a cross, a priest directly addressing the camera about the Virgin Mary, and the Lord walking down an abandoned country road with a midget next to him releasing doves. They are hilariously strange. I suppose it's a coincidence that I watched this film just a couple of nights after I rewatched the absolutely hysterical Life of Brian, which also tries to provide rhyme or reason to the Christian faith through broad British humor. Both films succeed immensely on their respective levels, though I have to say I enjoyed Life of Brian a little bit more. As for me, I cannot provide any insights on either topic at the moment; it seems as though Bunuels words are all the more relevent after watching these films: "Thank God I'm an atheist."
]]>Fri, 18 Jul 2008 15:50:10 GMTSmooth_JSmooth_J Blog7/18/2008 11:50:10 AMI approached this film because of my recent interest in surrealist cinema, and it especially drew my attention because Bunuel was one of the founders of the genre. However, the film was not the abstract meditation on religion that I expected--instead, it is more like a 101 minute essay on the nature of religion and herecy, and yet somehow manages to remain entertaining. The majority of the film consists of either discussion or encounters through time displaying the various events in Christian herecy's history. Not knowing much about the history of herecy (like most other people, which was acknowledged by Bunuel and his co-writer Jean-Claude Carriere), the film was more like a history lesson for me at many of these parts, somewhat distracting from the more important details and satire of film. Even so, the more comprehensible events are so well-developed and staged that one can remain hooked on the film even through the seemingly meaningless religious jabberings; I do not say that as an insult to the film, more as an observation of my own religious incompetence. There are, however, several key points of Bunuel's vision that I could pick out. One that seemed quite prominent was his insistence that religious people's ideas constantly change with the winds, and no matter how set they are on them one minute, a mere change in tone can shift them in a complete opposite direction. He comments on the hippocracy and contradictions of the Catholic religion in several scenes: A priest and a police-man debate the nature of the Holy Eucharist, and whether Christ is contained inside of the Eucharist or if he just is the Eucharist, no questions asked. The priest firmly debates the latter. Two wanderers come and add to the discussion ("What happens to Christ after you swallow him?") and are shooed away. Suddenly the priest changes his mind, having a revelation about the nature of the Eucharist (in contradiction to the official Catholic belief)--and a van comes to take him away to a mental asylum. This scene is pure tongue-in-cheek Bunuel, poking fun at several aspects of the Catholic church in one perfectly staged scene. Another scene that displays Bunuels firm belief in religious contradictions is a hilarious duel between two nobles who contradict each other's views on fanaticism. One minute they're having a slap-stick duel, discussing and making argumentative points at intervals--and then when the two wanderers make a point about the topic and the camera strays from the duel, the two nobles are seen shaking hands, brushing off each other's coats, and walking away laughing. The wanderers are somewhat confused--but as they encounter more and more on their pilgrimage through space and time ("The Milky Way") to St. James' final resting place (The Milky Way is also known as "St. James' Way") to scam the other travelers, they learn to observe the events and continue rather than dwell on them in the least. Even in the film's final chapter, where a miracle happens and they do not get arrested, they just shrug at each other and continue on--they are merely the narrators, not making judgements either way, and only provoking the discussion of the film as a whole. There are literally thousands of occurences in this film that can be nitpicked into their smallest form to try and conceive what Bunuel's purpose was in making the film (some have tried to get the film banned, but his closest friends asked him how much the Vatican paid him to make the film), but I have come to a conclusion and attempted to sum it up in a single statement: Religion is a mysterious and strange thing, and people have been trying to put it into perspective since the beginning of time. Some turn to fanaticism and depraved ways of worship, and others will discuss it endlessly and never come to a conclusion. Most people will accept it and carry on with their lives, disregarding the miracles that have the potential to happen every day. No one can really explain it, and what Bunuel was trying to do was give a simple explanation through episodic encounters about the history of Christian deviance, herecy. This is where the surrealist aspect comes in. There are the surreal continuity errors, where one person appears in another place and then another based on the shot, most prominently in an encounter with a personified death (dressed in what looks like 70s and 80s glam-rock attire). More often than not, when the films dives into more bizarre or abstract occurences, it is more due to Bunuel's style of direction than the actual events, with exception of a select few brilliant images (he seems to have a penchant for great imagery--see Un Chien Andalou). These include a nun being nailed to a cross, a priest directly addressing the camera about the Virgin Mary, and the Lord walking down an abandoned country road with a midget next to him releasing doves. They are hilariously strange. I suppose it's a coincidence that I watched this film just a couple of nights after I rewatched the absolutely hysterical Life of Brian, which also tries to provide rhyme or reason to the Christian faith through broad British humor. Both films succeed immensely on their respective levels, though I have to say I enjoyed Life of Brian a little bit more. As for me, I cannot provide any insights on either topic at the moment; it seems as though Bunuels words are all the more relevent after watching these films: "Thank God I'm an atheist." http://www.spout.com/groups/It_s_a_Wonderful_Night_for_Oscar/Re_AFI_s_100_Funniest_Comedy_and_the_Oscars_a/46/32709/1/ShowPost.aspx Post By: pippin06
Post To: It's a Wonderful Night for Oscar!
Post Date: 7/18/2008 8:19:50 AM
Body: Oh yes, you're certainly right. I forgot about the American part. Though, there's lots of examples of when they bent those rules to include some films with American filmmakers or simply produced by American studios (such as Lawrence of Arabia). But I guess Monty Python doesn't qualify, even with bendy rules - which is good. Though Terry Gilliam is an American, and he was a co-director....but that's probably too bendy. I actually like Annie Hall. It makes me laugh more than any other Woody Allen film that I've seen, anyway. But I would look at that film being more of a comedy drama. As I would the Graduate (I didn't laugh at that film either!). So it seems the AFI didn't restrict their list exclusively to straight comedies. I think I want to be come a member, just to see how these films get chosen. [/quote] I guess there's just quite a mix on the list of movies for people with different senses of humor. [/quote] And that's what begs the topical questions. How do you rank films that have so many styles of sense of humor and say one is better than the other one? And I'm not just talking about the AFI. I'm talking about any list. Where does a ranking institution even begin, knowing that humor is so opinion-based, so varied by individual? I mean, lots of people clearly like Some Like It Hot, but it obviously does not have universal appeal on the comedy front. So, I'll start a poll, a la the Top 5 concept (stolen from the Top 5 group - thanks). What are the five funniest films you've ever seen, and explain why you chose them. I think this'll be an interesting experiment. Don't look at any lists. Just pick the five that strike your funny bone the most and tell us about them. I'll tally anything that gets the most votes. This will only work with participation. I'm going to think about mine for a bit, though I'm positive a Monty Python movie will make the cut (it'll be tough to choose between Holy Grail and the Life of Brian, but I'm thinking I might favor the former, just because I quote it all the time).
]]>Fri, 18 Jul 2008 12:19:50 GMTpippin06It's a Wonderful Night for Oscar!7/18/2008 8:19:50 AMOh yes, you're certainly right. I forgot about the American part. Though, there's lots of examples of when they bent those rules to include some films with American filmmakers or simply produced by American studios (such as Lawrence of Arabia). But I guess Monty Python doesn't qualify, even with bendy rules - which is good. Though Terry Gilliam is an American, and he was a co-director....but that's probably too bendy. I actually like Annie Hall. It makes me laugh more than any other Woody Allen film that I've seen, anyway. But I would look at that film being more of a comedy drama. As I would the Graduate (I didn't laugh at that film either!). So it seems the AFI didn't restrict their list exclusively to straight comedies. I think I want to be come a member, just to see how these films get chosen. [/quote] I guess there's just quite a mix on the list of movies for people with different senses of humor. [/quote] And that's what begs the topical questions. How do you rank films that have so many styles of sense of humor and say one is better than the other one? And I'm not just talking about the AFI. I'm talking about any list. Where does a ranking institution even begin, knowing that humor is so opinion-based, so varied by individual? I mean, lots of people clearly like Some Like It Hot, but it obviously does not have universal appeal on the comedy front. So, I'll start a poll, a la the Top 5 concept (stolen from the Top 5 group - thanks). What are the five funniest films you've ever seen, and explain why you chose them. I think this'll be an interesting experiment. Don't look at any lists. Just pick the five that strike your funny bone the most and tell us about them. I'll tally anything that gets the most votes. This will only work with participation. I'm going to think about mine for a bit, though I'm positive a Monty Python movie will make the cut (it'll be tough to choose between Holy Grail and the Life of Brian, but I'm thinking I might favor the former, just because I quote it all the time). http://www.spout.com/groups/Filmgaming/Re_TOP_5_MOVIES_TO_TEACH_AN_ALIEN_ABOUT_EARTH/563/31761/1/ShowPost.aspx Post By: indieabby88
Post To: Filmgaming
Post Date: 6/26/2008 10:06:25 PM
Body: Well, I figure if an alien shows up on earth, they're going to want to converse with people. And in order to communicate with people these days, you're going to need to know movie quotes, especially if you're talking to somebody in the 18-to-35-year-old demographic. So, here goes: quotable movies you need to be familiar with to function in modern society: 1. Monty Python and the Holy Grail...Although they might like "Life of Brian" better. 2. Blazing Saddles-Get some classic Mel Brooks in there. 3. Fight Club-Do I really need to explain this one? 4. Knocked Up-Considering Judd Apatow is everywhere these days, and this is the movie that's been getting the most references of late. Also explains a lot about American culture: we're oversexed and enjoy jokes about pot and bodily functions. 5. It's a Wonderful Life-Shows the classic American "can-do" spirit the way only Capra can, it's watched by millions of people every Christmas and (at least in my family) it's just one of those movies you "have to know."
]]>Fri, 27 Jun 2008 02:06:25 GMTindieabby88Filmgaming6/26/2008 10:06:25 PMWell, I figure if an alien shows up on earth, they're going to want to converse with people. And in order to communicate with people these days, you're going to need to know movie quotes, especially if you're talking to somebody in the 18-to-35-year-old demographic. So, here goes: quotable movies you need to be familiar with to function in modern society: 1. Monty Python and the Holy Grail...Although they might like "Life of Brian" better. 2. Blazing Saddles-Get some classic Mel Brooks in there. 3. Fight Club-Do I really need to explain this one? 4. Knocked Up-Considering Judd Apatow is everywhere these days, and this is the movie that's been getting the most references of late. Also explains a lot about American culture: we're oversexed and enjoy jokes about pot and bodily functions. 5. It's a Wonderful Life-Shows the classic American "can-do" spirit the way only Capra can, it's watched by millions of people every Christmas and (at least in my family) it's just one of those movies you "have to know." http://www.spout.com/blogs/spoutblog/archive/2008/6/19/31428.aspx Post By: SpoutBlog
Post To: SpoutBlog on spout.com
Post Date: 6/19/2008 3:00:57 PM
Body: This week we have two big-time offenders: Mike Myers’ The Love Guru, which has brought concern from Hindus, because the comedy seems to be making fun of the Hindu religion; and Ron Howard’s Angels & Demons, the “sequel” to The Da Vinci Code, adapted from Dan Brown’s bestseller. Earlier this week, the Vatican banned the latter production from all Catholic churches in Rome. The following statement from Father Marco Fibbi, spokesman for the diocese of Rome, was a favorite quote from the story: “Usually we read the script but in this case it wasn’t necessary. Just the name Dan Brown was enough.” Of course, these days, religious organizations taking offense to a movie seems so commonplace that news like this is hardly even considered bad buzz. Neither The Love Guru nor Angels & Demons will be too aversely affected by the protests or boycotts. Both films will merely be added to the following list of major offenders (in alphabetical order so as not to offend anyone who thinks one is more offensive than another), as almost a genre cataloging than an inventory of condemned. Brokeback Mountain - Because of its promotion of “the homosexual lifestyle,” many right-wing Christian groups protested Ang Lee’s film. Most famously, it was pulled last-minute from a multiplex owned by Mormon businessman and Utah Jazz owner Larry H. Miller, though his motivation was not necessarily claimed to be religion-based. Despite there being hundreds of gay films throughout the years, because of its popularity, this one was the worst offender. The Da Vinci Code - I already mentioned this above and in a recent post on movies that overcame bad buzz, so I’ll make it short: banned, boycotted and protested throughout the world due to its blasphemous (and fictional) allegations that Jesus and Mary Magdalene had a child together. The Devils - Many of the following films were banned in Italy, but with Ken Russell’s blasphemous adaptation of Aldous Huxley’s “The Devils of Loudon,” there was also threat that stars Oliver Reed and Vanessa Redgrave would be arrested if they entered the country. The most offensive scene, labeled “the rape of Christ,” depicted a mock exorcism involving fully nude nuns masturbating with a large crucifix. The scene was removed prior to the film’s release, but there were plenty of other controversial sequences that led to protest. A very low-quality DVD of the film was released a few years ago with the “rape of Christ” scene put back in. Dogma - I understand how comedy can be seen as offensive, especially in the case of stereotypical caricatures like the one in The Love Guru. But Kevin Smith’s religious satire is so silly and all over the place that I can’t imagine that viewers would take its contents seriously. Yet enough protests required the film to be disowned by Miramax/Disney and then eventually be released (courtesy of Lionsgate) with a disclaimer stating that it is merely “a work of comedic fantasy.” Hail Mary - Jean-Luc Godard’s modern retelling of the Nativity was criticized by none other than Pope John Paul II, himself. He was quoted as saying that it “deeply wounds the religious sentiments of believers.” But even better was the response from another man who took offense to the film and decided to throw a shaving cream pie in Godard’s face at the 1985 Cannes Film Festival. Also this is probably one of the rare circumstances in which the filmmaker is the one trying to prevent Italian distribution and is actually unable to do so. The Last Temptation of Christ - Like Dogma, Martin Scorsese’s film came with a disclaimer that noted it is not based on the gospels and is a work of fiction. But like the case against The Da Vinci Code, the idea or depiction of Jesus and Mary Magdalene getting it on is never forgivable. Life of Brian - I can’t believe that anyone actually took offense to the joke about the three wise men initially approaching the wrong stable, but apparently that was one of the many blasphemous scenes in this Monty Python satire of the life of Jesus. Also: how could anyone be upset about the crucifix scene? Eric Idle’s song is just too catchy to mind its offensiveness. The Message (aka Mohammad, Messenger of God) - Much of the protests against this epic movie, about the founding of Islam, came mostly because of pre-release assumptions. For instance, some groups thought Anthony Quinn was starring as Mohammad (or Muhammad), a problem both because the prophet is not permitted to be represented in human form in any medium and because Quinn is Mexican-American, not Arab (as noted yesterday, all it takes is facial hair to change that). Other preproduction rumors were that Peter O’Toole and Charlton Heston were up for the part of Mohammad. Of course, the prophet is never seen, and Quinn merely portrays his uncle, Hamza. Unfortunate, nobody told certain extremists, even when the film came out, and apparently many cinemas received phone calls with death threats. Also, a tragic hostage situation in Washington D.C. began the day The Message opened, leading to the death of a police officer and the non-fatal shooting of future-mayor Marion Barry. One of the demands of the hostage-takers was for The Message not be released. The Passion of the Christ - A rare modern film about Jesus that didn’t seem to offend any Christians. Actually, of course it offended some groups, but their protests were clearly overshadowed by the protests from Jewish groups, who took offense to the movie’s apparent placing of blame for Jesus’ death on the Jews. Considering Mel Gibson’s later controversy involving his drunken, anti-semitic outbursts, the offense definitely seems to have more merit than initially recognized. Priest - Five years before Miramax/Disney was forced to disown Dogma because of Catholic protestors, the Weinsteins distributed this “blatantly anti-Catholic” film about a homosexual priest. Of course, it was mainly criticized by people who hadn’t seen it, such as New York Cardinal John J. O’Connor, who likened the film to graffiti found on bathroom walls. Rosemary’s Baby - There’s now a whole slew (I guess a whole subgenre) of horror films dealing with the occult, Satanism and the Antichrist, but this was the hit that pretty much started it all. And because of the parallels between Rosemary and the Virgin Mary, it’s possibly the most offensive to Catholics. Even the media used it against its director, Roman Polanski, when his wife, Sharon Tate, was murdered a year after its release; prior to revelation that Tate and the rest were killed by the Manson “family,” reporters speculated that it was the result of the Polanskis’ alleged satanism and some even claimed the tragedy was deserved. September Dawn - Until last year, Jon Voight’ most offensive movie was probably Karate Dog, but in 2007 he starred in this alleged anti-Mormon propaganda (called such before the Church of Latter-Day Saints viewed it, of course), which portrays an historical incident in which a Mormon militia massacred a wagon train of emigrants. The greatest offense is apparently the claim that Mormon leader Brigham Young (played by Terrence Stamp) was directly involved. Another criticism was that Hollywood made the film to somehow affect Mitt Romney’s campaign for President. Submission - Theo van Gogh’s ten-minute film criticizes the treatment of women in Islam and was apparently offensive enough that it led to the filmmaker’s assassination at the hands of a Dutch Muslim ma The Triumph of the Will - While Leni Reifenstahl’s propaganda film is well-regarded and highly respected today by film critics, scholars and historians, many Jewish groups see its celebration as being “morally insensitive.” Viridiana - Luis Bunuel made plenty of movies that mocked the Church, but this 1961 Palme D’or-winner was perhaps the most publicly protested by the Vatican and Spanish dictator Francisco Franco, who had it banned in Spain until after his death. Bunuel’s excellent plea of ignorance: “I didn’t deliberately set out to be blasphemous, but then Pope John XXIII is a better judge of such things than I am.” Originally posted on:SpoutBlog
]]>Thu, 19 Jun 2008 19:00:57 GMTSpoutBlogSpoutBlog on spout.com6/19/2008 3:00:57 PMThis week we have two big-time offenders: Mike Myers’ The Love Guru, which has brought concern from Hindus, because the comedy seems to be making fun of the Hindu religion; and Ron Howard’s Angels & Demons, the “sequel” to The Da Vinci Code, adapted from Dan Brown’s bestseller. Earlier this week, the Vatican banned the latter production from all Catholic churches in Rome. The following statement from Father Marco Fibbi, spokesman for the diocese of Rome, was a favorite quote from the story: “Usually we read the script but in this case it wasn’t necessary. Just the name Dan Brown was enough.” Of course, these days, religious organizations taking offense to a movie seems so commonplace that news like this is hardly even considered bad buzz. Neither The Love Guru nor Angels & Demons will be too aversely affected by the protests or boycotts. Both films will merely be added to the following list of major offenders (in alphabetical order so as not to offend anyone who thinks one is more offensive than another), as almost a genre cataloging than an inventory of condemned. Brokeback Mountain - Because of its promotion of “the homosexual lifestyle,” many right-wing Christian groups protested Ang Lee’s film. Most famously, it was pulled last-minute from a multiplex owned by Mormon businessman and Utah Jazz owner Larry H. Miller, though his motivation was not necessarily claimed to be religion-based. Despite there being hundreds of gay films throughout the years, because of its popularity, this one was the worst offender. The Da Vinci Code - I already mentioned this above and in a recent post on movies that overcame bad buzz, so I’ll make it short: banned, boycotted and protested throughout the world due to its blasphemous (and fictional) allegations that Jesus and Mary Magdalene had a child together. The Devils - Many of the following films were banned in Italy, but with Ken Russell’s blasphemous adaptation of Aldous Huxley’s “The Devils of Loudon,” there was also threat that stars Oliver Reed and Vanessa Redgrave would be arrested if they entered the country. The most offensive scene, labeled “the rape of Christ,” depicted a mock exorcism involving fully nude nuns masturbating with a large crucifix. The scene was removed prior to the film’s release, but there were plenty of other controversial sequences that led to protest. A very low-quality DVD of the film was released a few years ago with the “rape of Christ” scene put back in. Dogma - I understand how comedy can be seen as offensive, especially in the case of stereotypical caricatures like the one in The Love Guru. But Kevin Smith’s religious satire is so silly and all over the place that I can’t imagine that viewers would take its contents seriously. Yet enough protests required the film to be disowned by Miramax/Disney and then eventually be released (courtesy of Lionsgate) with a disclaimer stating that it is merely “a work of comedic fantasy.” Hail Mary - Jean-Luc Godard’s modern retelling of the Nativity was criticized by none other than Pope John Paul II, himself. He was quoted as saying that it “deeply wounds the religious sentiments of believers.” But even better was the response from another man who took offense to the film and decided to throw a shaving cream pie in Godard’s face at the 1985 Cannes Film Festival. Also this is probably one of the rare circumstances in which the filmmaker is the one trying to prevent Italian distribution and is actually unable to do so. The Last Temptation of Christ - Like Dogma, Martin Scorsese’s film came with a disclaimer that noted it is not based on the gospels and is a work of fiction. But like the case against The Da Vinci Code, the idea or depiction of Jesus and Mary Magdalene getting it on is never forgivable. Life of Brian - I can’t believe that anyone actually took offense to the joke about the three wise men initially approaching the wrong stable, but apparently that was one of the many blasphemous scenes in this Monty Python satire of the life of Jesus. Also: how could anyone be upset about the crucifix scene? Eric Idle’s song is just too catchy to mind its offensiveness. The Message (aka Mohammad, Messenger of God) - Much of the protests against this epic movie, about the founding of Islam, came mostly because of pre-release assumptions. For instance, some groups thought Anthony Quinn was starring as Mohammad (or Muhammad), a problem both because the prophet is not permitted to be represented in human form in any medium and because Quinn is Mexican-American, not Arab (as noted yesterday, all it takes is facial hair to change that). Other preproduction rumors were that Peter O’Toole and Charlton Heston were up for the part of Mohammad. Of course, the prophet is never seen, and Quinn merely portrays his uncle, Hamza. Unfortunate, nobody told certain extremists, even when the film came out, and apparently many cinemas received phone calls with death threats. Also, a tragic hostage situation in Washington D.C. began the day The Message opened, leading to the death of a police officer and the non-fatal shooting of future-mayor Marion Barry. One of the demands of the hostage-takers was for The Message not be released. The Passion of the Christ - A rare modern film about Jesus that didn’t seem to offend any Christians. Actually, of course it offended some groups, but their protests were clearly overshadowed by the protests from Jewish groups, who took offense to the movie’s apparent placing of blame for Jesus’ death on the Jews. Considering Mel Gibson’s later controversy involving his drunken, anti-semitic outbursts, the offense definitely seems to have more merit than initially recognized. Priest - Five years before Miramax/Disney was forced to disown Dogma because of Catholic protestors, the Weinsteins distributed this “blatantly anti-Catholic” film about a homosexual priest. Of course, it was mainly criticized by people who hadn’t seen it, such as New York Cardinal John J. O’Connor, who likened the film to graffiti found on bathroom walls. Rosemary’s Baby - There’s now a whole slew (I guess a whole subgenre) of horror films dealing with the occult, Satanism and the Antichrist, but this was the hit that pretty much started it all. And because of the parallels between Rosemary and the Virgin Mary, it’s possibly the most offensive to Catholics. Even the media used it against its director, Roman Polanski, when his wife, Sharon Tate, was murdered a year after its release; prior to revelation that Tate and the rest were killed by the Manson “family,” reporters speculated that it was the result of the Polanskis’ alleged satanism and some even claimed the tragedy was deserved. September Dawn - Until last year, Jon Voight’ most offensive movie was probably Karate Dog, but in 2007 he starred in this alleged anti-Mormon propaganda (called such before the Church of Latter-Day Saints viewed it, of course), which portrays an historical incident in which a Mormon militia massacred a wagon train of emigrants. The greatest offense is apparently the claim that Mormon leader Brigham Young (played by Terrence Stamp) was directly involved. Another criticism was that Hollywood made the film to somehow affect Mitt Romney’s campaign for President. Submission - Theo van Gogh’s ten-minute film criticizes the treatment of women in Islam and was apparently offensive enough that it led to the filmmaker’s assassination at the hands of a Dutch Muslim ma The Triumph of the Will - While Leni Reifenstahl’s propaganda film is well-regarded and highly respected today by film critics, scholars and historians, many Jewish groups see its celebration as being “morally insensitive.” Viridiana - Luis Bunuel made plenty of movies that mocked the Church, but this 1961 Palme D’or-winner was perhaps the most publicly protested by the Vatican and Spanish dictator Francisco Franco, who had it banned in Spain until after his death. Bunuel’s excellent plea of ignorance: “I didn’t deliberately set out to be blasphemous, but then Pope John XXIII is a better judge of such things than I am.” Originally posted on:SpoutBlog http://www.spout.com/blogs/bigjefflebowski/archive/2008/3/1/25761.aspx Post By: BigJeffLebowski
Post To: BigJeffLebowski Blog
Post Date: 3/1/2008 3:26:51 PM
Body: "If you haven't seen it, please do."-Richard Dawkins, parenthetically discussing Monty Python's The Meaning of Life in his book The God Delusion. If Monty Python's The Meaning of Life is remembered less fondly than their earlier classics Monty Python and the Holy Grail and The Life of Brian, this is not to say that the film has fewer laughs or that the point of Monty Python's satire has in any way been blunted. Granted, the humor is arguably the Pythons' most vulgar and can at times come across as crude. But watching The Meaning of Life a quarter of a century after its release, what remains shocking is not the wealth of projectile vomit, naked breasts, or children singing about sperm; what continues to alienate and to offend is the film's surprisingly direct attack on what it considers a terribly misguided society. And the worst offender? Christian ideology and rhetoric.The Pythons -- Graham Chapman, John Cleese, Terry Gilliam, Eric Idle, Terry Jones, and Michael Palin -- were always practitioners of silly sophistication, and their combination of the intellectual and the low brow is one of the many factors that has assured them a wide and varied audience. Few performers have the confidence, the skill, and the intelligence to pull off this Trojan Horse; Steve Martin's signature arrow-through-the-head belied a deeply philosophical bent, and few would find in Take the Money and Run evidence of the mature filmmaker Woody Allen would become over the next decade. But it can be argued that no one has been more innovative, more inspired, and more inspiring than Monty Python.It is in The Meaning of Life, their last film, that the Pythons most fully indulge their dual passions for both silliness and sophistication. It has been argued that by this late point in their career, the Pythons' well was running dry; of this I remain unconvinced. To its credit, The Meaning of Life is the most technically proficient of the Monty Python films, and though its momentum does wane due to its episodic nature, revisiting the sketch format of "Monty Python's Flying Circus" allows the film to throw a few punches it may have pulled were it constrained to a plot.Also to the film's credit, even without a single unified narrative running through it, The Meaning of Life is no less thematically coherent than Holy Grail or The Life of Brian. Lurking beneath the anarchic surface is an unexpectedly intelligent and barbed attack on consumerism, religion, and other modern social maladies that ultimately clutter, confuse, and complicate our lives. What materializes through the grotesquerie is a strong call for logic and science; I believe that this subtly didactic tone and blatant disdain for abuses of commerce and faith (which could be misread as elitism) is the main reason The Meaning of Life is so often overlooked in the Python oeuvre.Granted, this film doesn't mark the first time the Pythons have levelled some blows at organized religion, but it may be the first time they have allowed a whiff of malice to creep in. It would not be entirely erroneous to reason that if an anti-Christian sensibility were solely to blame for The Meaning of Life's somewhat besmirched reputation, then the near-universally praised The Life of Brian should have similar detractors. While there are those who consider The Life of Brian a deeply insensitive and offensive work, they are considerably fewer and represent a much smaller, much more specific demographic. Why is this?Whether consciously or unconsciously, the Pythons seem to have been using The Life of Brian as a test to see just how much they could get away with. It is clearly their most crafted film, a necessity given its subject matter. But while The Life of Brian may represent the culmination of a lot of the Pythons' subtextual themes and deals far more overtly with the Christian mythology, it does so in a largely joking, nudging way. If one were so inclined, he or she could easily watch and enjoy The Life of Brian without subscribing to (or even acknowledging) its critical, subversive ideology. Perhaps this is the key to great satire, to be able to hide your teeth in a smile. Regardless, it would be far more difficult for a devout theist to enjoy The Meaning of Life, which frequently seems dissatisfied merely pointing out the faulty logic of pious rhetoric, preferring instead to (literally) sing and dance around the point. There is no context to soften the blow as there is in The Life of Brian; you can almost hear the Pythons laughing at their audience even as they laugh with them, insisting, "You think this is nonsense? You should see yourselves!"To this end, what many find offensive I find refreshing. I respect an artist who can make big ideas palatable for the general public. While many young people may not know of Russell's teapot, they may have instead heard of The Flying Spaghetti Monster or The Invisible Pink Unicorn. What these two symbols of modern day Atheism/Skepticism have in common with Monty Python is a belief that the manifestations of religious fundamentalism are so ludicrous, so fantastical, and so willfully offensive to logic that they can only be responded to with nonsense of equal measure; anyone who ignores reason will not be swayed by it, no matter how sound.An unfortunate reality is that disciples will not always take the right lessons from their masters. Just as the church often perverts the religion it sets out to uphold, so too have subsequent filmmakers and comedians taken the Pythons' willingness to push the boundaries of taste but have ignored or left behind their intelligence and sense of purpose. The Pythons are a bright bunch and are undoubtedly reluctant fathers to the gross-out school of comedic one-upmanship which has flourished in their wake. And so before you criticize The Meaning of Life for excess, for vulgarity, and for abuse of power with deleterious intent, consider first that its targets are guilty of the same (and to a much greater degree). At least Monty Python have taken the time and the care to look behind the curtain before it is hung.
]]>Sat, 01 Mar 2008 20:26:51 GMTBigJeffLebowskiBigJeffLebowski Blog3/1/2008 3:26:51 PM&quot;If you haven&#39;t seen it, please do.&quot;-Richard Dawkins, parenthetically discussing Monty Python&#39;s The Meaning of Life in his book The God Delusion. If Monty Python&#39;s The Meaning of Life is remembered less fondly than their earlier classics Monty Python and the Holy Grail and The Life of Brian, this is not to say that the film has fewer laughs or that the point of Monty Python&#39;s satire has in any way been blunted. Granted, the humor is arguably the Pythons&#39; most vulgar and can at times come across as crude. But watching The Meaning of Life a quarter of a century after its release, what remains shocking is not the wealth of projectile vomit, naked breasts, or children singing about sperm; what continues to alienate and to offend is the film&#39;s surprisingly direct attack on what it considers a terribly misguided society. And the worst offender? Christian ideology and rhetoric.The Pythons -- Graham Chapman, John Cleese, Terry Gilliam, Eric Idle, Terry Jones, and Michael Palin -- were always practitioners of silly sophistication, and their combination of the intellectual and the low brow is one of the many factors that has assured them a wide and varied audience. Few performers have the confidence, the skill, and the intelligence to pull off this Trojan Horse; Steve Martin&#39;s signature arrow-through-the-head belied a deeply philosophical bent, and few would find in Take the Money and Run evidence of the mature filmmaker Woody Allen would become over the next decade. But it can be argued that no one has been more innovative, more inspired, and more inspiring than Monty Python.It is in The Meaning of Life, their last film, that the Pythons most fully indulge their dual passions for both silliness and sophistication. It has been argued that by this late point in their career, the Pythons&#39; well was running dry; of this I remain unconvinced. To its credit, The Meaning of Life is the most technically proficient of the Monty Python films, and though its momentum does wane due to its episodic nature, revisiting the sketch format of &quot;Monty Python&#39;s Flying Circus&quot; allows the film to throw a few punches it may have pulled were it constrained to a plot.Also to the film&#39;s credit, even without a single unified narrative running through it, The Meaning of Life is no less thematically coherent than Holy Grail or The Life of Brian. Lurking beneath the anarchic surface is an unexpectedly intelligent and barbed attack on consumerism, religion, and other modern social maladies that ultimately clutter, confuse, and complicate our lives. What materializes through the grotesquerie is a strong call for logic and science; I believe that this subtly didactic tone and blatant disdain for abuses of commerce and faith (which could be misread as elitism) is the main reason The Meaning of Life is so often overlooked in the Python oeuvre.Granted, this film doesn&#39;t mark the first time the Pythons have levelled some blows at organized religion, but it may be the first time they have allowed a whiff of malice to creep in. It would not be entirely erroneous to reason that if an anti-Christian sensibility were solely to blame for The Meaning of Life&#39;s somewhat besmirched reputation, then the near-universally praised The Life of Brian should have similar detractors. While there are those who consider The Life of Brian a deeply insensitive and offensive work, they are considerably fewer and represent a much smaller, much more specific demographic. Why is this?Whether consciously or unconsciously, the Pythons seem to have been using The Life of Brian as a test to see just how much they could get away with. It is clearly their most crafted film, a necessity given its subject matter. But while The Life of Brian may represent the culmination of a lot of the Pythons&#39; subtextual themes and deals far more overtly with the Christian mythology, it does so in a largely joking, nudging way. If one were so inclined, he or she could easily watch and enjoy The Life of Brian without subscribing to (or even acknowledging) its critical, subversive ideology. Perhaps this is the key to great satire, to be able to hide your teeth in a smile. Regardless, it would be far more difficult for a devout theist to enjoy The Meaning of Life, which frequently seems dissatisfied merely pointing out the faulty logic of pious rhetoric, preferring instead to (literally) sing and dance around the point. There is no context to soften the blow as there is in The Life of Brian; you can almost hear the Pythons laughing at their audience even as they laugh with them, insisting, &quot;You think this is nonsense? You should see yourselves!&quot;To this end, what many find offensive I find refreshing. I respect an artist who can make big ideas palatable for the general public. While many young people may not know of Russell&#39;s teapot, they may have instead heard of The Flying Spaghetti Monster or The Invisible Pink Unicorn. What these two symbols of modern day Atheism/Skepticism have in common with Monty Python is a belief that the manifestations of religious fundamentalism are so ludicrous, so fantastical, and so willfully offensive to logic that they can only be responded to with nonsense of equal measure; anyone who ignores reason will not be swayed by it, no matter how sound.An unfortunate reality is that disciples will not always take the right lessons from their masters. Just as the church often perverts the religion it sets out to uphold, so too have subsequent filmmakers and comedians taken the Pythons&#39; willingness to push the boundaries of taste but have ignored or left behind their intelligence and sense of purpose. The Pythons are a bright bunch and are undoubtedly reluctant fathers to the gross-out school of comedic one-upmanship which has flourished in their wake. And so before you criticize The Meaning of Life for excess, for vulgarity, and for abuse of power with deleterious intent, consider first that its targets are guilty of the same (and to a much greater degree). At least Monty Python have taken the time and the care to look behind the curtain before it is hung. http://www.spout.com/blogs/mikeperry/archive/2006/2/28/236.aspx Post By: MikePerry
Post To: MikePerry Blog
Post Date: 2/28/2006 10:17:00 AM
Body: anyone?
]]>Tue, 28 Feb 2006 15:17:00 GMTMikePerryMikePerry Blog2/28/2006 10:17:00 AManyone? http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/comedy/MemberTagFilms.aspxcomedy
Number of films tagged: 1084

Number of people who tagged: 253

Number of times used: 1338

]]>Mon, 30 Nov 2009 02:12:13 GMT10842531338Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/religion/MemberTagFilms.aspxreligion
Number of films tagged: 1123

Number of people who tagged: 67

Number of times used: 176

]]>Thu, 03 Dec 2009 03:31:00 GMT112367176Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/personal-classic/MemberTagFilms.aspxpersonal-classic
Number of films tagged: 180

Number of people who tagged: 64

Number of times used: 274

]]>Thu, 09 Jul 2009 11:21:00 GMT18064274Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/identity/MemberTagFilms.aspxidentity
Number of films tagged: 595

Number of people who tagged: 53

Number of times used: 91

]]>Wed, 04 Nov 2009 21:43:41 GMT5955391Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/life/MemberTagFilms.aspxlife
Number of films tagged: 1082

Number of people who tagged: 52

Number of times used: 224

]]>Wed, 02 Dec 2009 23:13:43 GMT108252224Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/innocence/MemberTagFilms.aspxinnocence
Number of films tagged: 451

Number of people who tagged: 21

Number of times used: 36

]]>Fri, 22 May 2009 13:15:00 GMT4512136Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/christianity/MemberTagFilms.aspxchristianity
Number of films tagged: 1504

Number of people who tagged: 20

Number of times used: 52

]]>Tue, 22 Sep 2009 08:30:57 GMT15042052Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/mistakenidentity/MemberTagFilms.aspxmistakenidentity
Number of films tagged: 683

Number of people who tagged: 20

Number of times used: 35

]]>Wed, 24 Jun 2009 13:02:45 GMT6832035Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/criterion/MemberTagFilms.aspxcriterion
Number of films tagged: 396

Number of people who tagged: 17

Number of times used: 407

]]>Wed, 02 Sep 2009 02:08:23 GMT39617407Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/roman/MemberTagFilms.aspxroman
Number of films tagged: 124

Number of people who tagged: 16

Number of times used: 18

]]>Mon, 04 May 2009 13:03:58 GMT1241618Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/crucifixion/MemberTagFilms.aspxcrucifixion
Number of films tagged: 71

Number of people who tagged: 9

Number of times used: 9

]]>Thu, 08 Jan 2009 18:28:20 GMT7199Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/execution/MemberTagFilms.aspxexecution
Number of films tagged: 560

Number of people who tagged: 8

Number of times used: 28

]]>Thu, 05 Nov 2009 16:40:05 GMT560828Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/biblical/MemberTagFilms.aspxbiblical
Number of films tagged: 7

Number of people who tagged: 7

Number of times used: 7

]]>Fri, 27 Nov 2009 18:10:02 GMT777Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/leader/MemberTagFilms.aspxleader
Number of films tagged: 798

Number of people who tagged: 7

Number of times used: 10

]]>Thu, 09 Jul 2009 13:13:22 GMT798710Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/laugh-out-loud-funny/MemberTagFilms.aspxlaugh-out-loud-funny
Number of films tagged: 15

Number of people who tagged: 6

Number of times used: 20

]]>Wed, 30 Jan 2008 13:55:16 GMT15620Tag