The newest character to the Ice Age group, an insane weasel named Buck.This movie pissed me off.
No, I haven't suddenly turned into a movie critic, nor am I planning a whole series of movie reviews, nor am I likely to take up any reviews of Hollywood or movie stars or even famous people. (Go back into my archives and see how many times I blogged about Michael Jackson, for example.) (OK, I did talk about Kim Kardashian once, but I can explain that.)
The simple reason I tackle Ice Age: Dawn of the Dinosaurs is because the movie made me angry.
First of all, I paid money to take my family and see the movie. That makes me surly and a bit curmudgeonly, but that doesn't make me angry. I found the movie's storytelling to be laborious and dull. That makes me bored, wondering when the movie will end, but it doesn't make me angry. I found the characterization shallow, the exposition blatant, and the premise unbelievable. That makes me dislike the movie but it doesn't make me angry.
No, what made me angry about the movie is the insidious anti-family message buried within an animated film aimed directly at children.
Of course, this isn't the only movie that's ever chiseled away at family values. Hollywood has no end of such films. The anti-family messages in this movie are hidden and completely destructive of family values. Parents and children could go to this movie and never realize the movie-makers had hidden their anti-family agenda within it. Except the agenda wasn't clever or particularly well hidden.
I should give you a spoiler alert but since I recommend that you avoid this movie, I could care less if I ruin anything for you. Seriously, don't watch this film. Don't take your children. This movie is offensive to parents. This movie is offensive to families.
Offense 1 - Selfish Obsession
In the first Ice Age movie, the character Scrat is funny and provides a cute side story to the main story. In the current movie, the writers seem to have forgotten what made Scrat funny in the first place. Scrat chases after his beloved acorn, only to have it stolen by a female version of Scrat - Scratte. The two fight over the acorn throughout the movie (losing any comedy in the process). Scrat and Scratte finally end up together, the acorn long forgotten. They share a happy time with each other until the end of the movie. In a final scene, Scratte stereotypes a witchy wife who makes Scrat move the couch around their new home. Scrat hates the work, sees the acorn out of the window and, of course, obsesses about it again. He and Scratte fight over the acorn again, Scrat dumps his "wife" for the acorn, succeeds in escaping with it, only to lose the acorn and his love.
Moral: In a relationship, it's all right to be selfish and think only of your own needs above those of your partner. As long as what you do makes you happy, no one else matters. Not even your wife.
Offense 2 - Stupid Males
The two woolly mammoths, Ellie and Manny, are going to have a baby together. When the group goes to rescue Sid the sloth, Ellie is the first to jump into danger, showing how strong the woman can be, then bogs down the entire group when the baby arrives at an inopportune time. Manny becomes the stereotypical man who lacks any common sense or ability and must be directed by the woman or by Diego in order to show any sort of brains. Ellie is saved by Diego who can't seem to quite help out and needs the strong woman to finally get rid of the evil predator dinosaurs.
Moral: Without women, men are useless. This, of course, has been a main theme of Hollywood for years. Will Hollywood stop with this "role reversal" when men become completely emasculated and women dominate? Probably not, since Hollywood thrives on maintaining sex and class warfare as its bread and butter.
Offense 3 - Gay Is OK
Hollywood has taken up the homosexual meme and now feels it is time to promote homosexuality at all levels of film. Ice Age is replete with homosexual innuendo, dumbed down to teach children that it's OK to be gay. There are several overt homosexual jokes. One involves Diego and Manny in close quarters with a reference to sexual excitement.
Same sex marriage and other gay activist issues are addressed. For example, Sid the sloth is written as the compassionate homosexual or transvestite, a man who wants to be a good mother.
Sid finds himself lonely because Ellie and Manny are married and going to have a baby. What does Sid do? Does he go find a mate for himself? No, according to the movie, he's too ugly. So he finds three eggs that apparently don't belong to anyone and steals them for his own children. He wants to be their mommy. The eggs hatch into dinosaurs and Sid spends a day as an incompetent parent. The natural mom of the babies comes looking for her children and carries them and Sid off to The Land of the Lost, The Land the Time Forgot, or The Journey to the Center of the Earth. Take your pick. Eventually, the natural mother comes to accept Sid as mother to the children as well. Sid tells the mother dinosaur at the end of the movie to take care of "our" kids. Mannie then praises Sid for being a good parent.
Morals: As long as we laugh at implied homosexuality, we can allow our children to accept it and be taught how to express homosexual desires. Two moms is OK. Men can become moms. Stealing children makes them your own. Sid finally accepts that the natural mom is a parent as well. All you have to do to be a good parent is love your children - all failures in parenting will be forgiven because love is enough.
Offense 4 - Testosterone Males Are Evil
The big, bad dinosaur who terrorizes the whole dinosaur kingdom is just an overgrown, testosterone-laden male.
Moral: Any self-expression of male strength is always dangerous to the community.
Offense 5 - Family Can Be Any Group
The first Ice Age movie showed three unlikely heroes come together to form their own "herd." The idea could apply to any close-knit group which comes together to create a stronger whole. Ice Age 3 takes this idea and turns it from group or community, to family.
Moral: Any collection of people who agree to be family, is family. Blood ties are irrelevant. Species is irrelevant. Sexual preference is irrelevant. Legal boundaries are irrelevant. Sanity is irrelevant. Through love, any group can be a family.
To say that these messages are prevalent in Hollywood entertainment is an understatement. To place them so blatantly in a kid's film can only mean one thing. Hollywood producers want these messages inculcated into the minds of our children: marriage is not necessary, homosexual sex is normal, sex holds no taboos and children need to be a party in the discussion, men are incompetent, women are superior, family is merely a social construct unrelated by blood relation, gender is merely a social construct, anyone can be a mommy, love is the only thing a parent needs to succeed.
Write Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp and let them know that you don't appreciate anti-family messages in their family films.
Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp
10201 West Pico Boulevard,
Los Angeles, California 90035
Mail: P.O. Box 900,
Beverly Hills, California 90213
Phone: 310-277-2211
Fax: 310-203-1558
Posts
23 comments:
Thank you for that outstanding review. I see this sort of stuff in so many of the movies out there that I have become sickened at the very thought of going to see a movie! I have to read lots of reviews before going to any movie so as to avoid my intelligence being insulted by showing up at a movie I know nothing about. That has happened a few times because I trusted previews and friends - never again.
Gone for a week and the first blog I read is yours...and it is excellent. Thanks for the heads up. I see all of the things that you have mentioned in so many so-called children's shows. It is no surprise to me that the Manny character is emasculated. His voice is that of Ray Romano, star of the TV sitcom "Everybody Loves Raymond." I refused to watch that show after fuming through a couple of episodes. Never have I seen such an emasculated, hen-pecked, mama's boy.
I just spent a week with my son at the IU basketball camp. It was all boys being coached by men, and it was not some feminist interpretation of chest-thumping. It was good, solid male formation of character and physicality. I was proud to see it...AS WAS MY WIFE! Yes, that's right, my wife recognized the value of rearing our son to be a man, just as we both desire to rear our daughter as a true woman of God. Thanks for the heads up on the movie. Happy to miss this one.
Sounds like your typical Hollywierd film. Al the modern day clichés are present. For me, Offense #2 is the worst. I cannot tell you how sick and tired I am of seeing, stupid, childish and helpless males portrayed as the norm. You see it daily in commercials. Men are portrayed as oafish child-like things that would either starve to death or wallow in their own filth, if it weren’t for some smart strong woman to rescue them by having the smarts to buy and use product X.
Clifton B: Yeah, it was a typical Hollywood film. I'm just angry that it was aimed right at the children. Emasculating men is so commonplace, people don't even notice it anymore. I am used to seeing gays portrayed in just about every film Hollywood produces these days, but Ice Age got a bit preachy and had one too many sexual jokes to make it family fare.
My newphew thought it was cute. To be honest I fell asleep.
Aren't men useless without women? Just Kidding!!!
I agree it so hard to find a movie that you feel comfortable taking children to. They go up too fast nowadays. What's wrong with keeping your innocence?
off comment but..FL Tea party drama
The Port St.Lucie tea party was held at a community event called "Freedom Fest" which is held at the St Lucie fairgrounds. The Tea Party was held at section 2 of the fairgrounds. The City Council placed a huge sign in front of the section in an admitted attempt to hide the Tea Party. Next week the City Council is having a meeting and the Tea Party folks are planning to invade it.
I suggest calling the mayor and city council and telling them what you think the Mayor's/city council's phone # (407) 871 5159 and their website www.cityofpsl.com Let's pass this to every conservative tea party supporting site we can!!!!
Thanks for the review. I, too, am sick and tired of Hollywood painting men to be weak and brainless. I've raised my sons to be strong, work hard, and lead. I've raised my daughters to respect men and honor them for those qualities. My husband is a great example and a wonderful father and husband. We will not be supporting Ice Age III or any other man-bashing film.
Sexual jokes don't belong in G-rated movies, regardless.
My husband took our 4 year old and 9 year old. I asked them what the movie was like and they weren't too enthusiastic and said it was just okay. I wonder if they picked up on the anti family/pro gay agenda in the movie. I will show this article to my husband and see what he thinks about what you have written. My guess is he will.
It makes me very sad that you think the idea that "Through love, any group can be a family" is a BAD, negative influence on children. I can't think of anything more wonderful for a child to understand than love is what makes a family a family.
Anon: Children grow up in today's world without knowing what a family is. Moms and dads are missing. Media tells kids that it's ok to have two mommies or two daddies. Couples get married and divorced as if they were buying a new car. Parents neglect their children. Adults teach children that adults are more important and that selfish desires and lusts far outweigh taking care of children.
These aren't families based on love, as the movie so thoughtfully points out. The families in the movie are based on ideals of "me first" and "who cares about the children anyway."
What a mockery of the true strength of family.
Sir, you are seriously deluded. I understand your opinion but just as you took offense through this film, I took offense through your review. The big bad gays in Hollywood aren't out to hurt your children. Believe it or not, all gay people want is rights for themselves. We have no interest in recruiting or messing with the minds of young children. Personally, I think a child should grow up as he or she pleases, and that includes being allowed an open mind.
However, seeing as many adults and teenagers don't pick up on this sort of crock you're spewing in films, I doubt it's embedding itself in a kid's mind and warping their sexual preference which likely isn't anywhere close to blooming. Furthermore, I entirely resent the notion that someone can become gay through choice or film. Research and logic has shown that this is not the case, but people like yourself turn a blind eye to anything remotely aggressive. Sometimes being the bigger man, as you so clearly want to be, is accepting that you're wrong.
Overall, I'd like you to consider the idea that if you're so worried about your kids being swamped by the idea of equality, then don't take them to see any movie, G rated or not. In fact, don't let them go outside, because the world around you is changing, sir. And it's time you changed with it.
miyawaki:
Obviously, my remarks were addressed to the decent people who read my blog who may, unwittingly, wish to take their children to see such a poor excuse for a movie. These remarks were not directed at you and, frankly, I'm surprised you read my post, or enough of it, and bothered to make a comment.
I do have a few questions for you, however. Since you consider me deluded, why do you take the time to try and change my views? If what I believe is merely a delusion, then your comments simply could make no sense to me or ease me out of my delusions.
Since you did indeed attempt to educate me about what you call my delusion, then I can only assume that you don't think I am, in reality, deluded, but consider me to be rational, yet wrong because I don't believe you or your views.
Another question: If movies, or any media for that matter, do not affect children and their attitudes, then why Hollywood producers try so hard to include their morally bankrupt ideals into movies such as Ice Age 3? They were pitifully and blatantly obvious as I noted above.
Why do companies spend billions in advertising funds if they have no affect on consumers? Why do gay activists such as Tim Gill spend millions of dollars in advertising to get pro-homosexual people in public office? Why does a teacher's union spend union money to promote homosexual lifestyles in schools?
Research and logic has indeed shown that movies have an affect on our minds, quite the opposite of your claims. Advertising does indeed sway consumers. Tim Gill's money does sway voters. Children do get indoctrinated into the moral abyss of destructive lifestyles.
By contrast, I choose to educate myself and others to recognize such media indoctrination in order for each to make a studied choice to exclude such blather from their lives and the lives of their children.
I'm amused by your opinion that children should grow up as he/she pleases. I would expect such an opinion from a liberal and seemingly homosexual viewpoint as yours. Your statement indicates a complete lack of understanding of the role of parents, the role of culture, the role of established institutions such as marriage and families, or the role that morality should play in our lives. Yes, once children are adults, they are free to choose their own paths. However, parents have no obligation to teach children to make poor choices of their lives.
My morality differs from yours and so we disagree. For example, I do not hold your particular ideal of "equality" that has no other moral base attached other than a vague concept of opression. Instead, I value the foundational principles of the United States which includes the concept of a moral base as a necessary and integral part for a democracy to function. Your version of equality contains no moral absolutes, except the imperative to spew invectives at others who do not absolutely agree with you, your views, and how you choose to live your life.
Yes indeed, the world is changing, yet I fail to recognize any need to follow it into the morass of social deconstruction that you so highly favor. Apparently, a good number of people in the US hold this same view. Perhaps the majority of Americans are deluded as well since conservatism is, once again, the largest ideology in America according to the latest Gallup polls.
In the meantime, I'll continue to spread the word and, no doubt, continue to offend you.
In response to the first part of your comment, I've been reading countless articles, blog entries and the like written by people who hold conservative viewpoints in an attempt to decipher why they think I am less than human. So far I have not come up with a single decent answer.
Furthermore, I'd like to apologize if my first comment sounded hostile. I don't feel hostility towards you; it's just that I am at an age where I am changing many things about myself, including the way I choose to word things. 'Deluded' was the wrong thing to say, and the reason I used it was because I was rushed to have dinner with my family so I didn't think twice.
I believe the reason we find social ideology in movies is because we look for it. Just from observation, it seems that many people with your set of viewpoints thinks the media is out to get you in some way or another. Maybe it's because I'm young and naive but I rarely come away from a film with that kind of impression.
I do think a child has the right to have a mind that is not a carbon copy of what their parents think. The only way for a child to decide what is right for them is to know their options and by sheltering a child you only make the world around them more shocking when they fully enter it. Furthermore, teaching hate is hardly a good family value, and yes, professor, many of the things you say come across as hateful.
I understand the role of parents better than you think because I had great ones who allowed me to experience life rather than trying to shield my eyes from viewpoints different than theirs. As a result, I'm a well adjusted young woman who was fully equipped for the things I came across once I left home. You may disagree, and if you do I will assume this is because I am, indeed, a lesbian. I can assure you that this has nothing at all to do with my upbringing; it's just the way I am.
I didn't say that we aren't affected by things we see. Hell, I just watched a dance routine on a regular Fox show that left a fairly lasting impression on me. I'm just saying that children won't pick up on everything you do. When I was growing up most of the villains in movies were women, but I just took at as part of the movie. It had no effect on the way I viewed women around me. When I was a kid I took things in stride and can't begin to count all the things I missed and now recognize later in life. Don't you think that the older you are the greater your disconnect with the young mind becomes? You can't possibly know what a child is thinking.
No moral absolutes? What about the words written by our forefathers that all men are created equal? What about living together and accepting our differences instead of needlessly punishing each other for them? I can accept you viewing me as disgusting or amoral. However, I do not feel that you, whose life differs from mine in every way, should have the right to vote on what I can and cannot do as a tax paying citizen of this country. I have gone through life living the "typical" life; I never broke the law, I got good grades in school, I got into a university which I am paying for with no loans because my parents taught me well. And yet, I am considered a second class citizen because I happen to be in love with a woman. Your God and your beliefs have no right to dictate my life, and I say that with as much respect as I can muster, sir.
I can accept your need to fight back in these times of change but I cannot sympathize. And furthermore, as a professor, you should probably learn to trim the hate off your language when you're talking to people who think differently than you.
miyawaki:
Your last comment contains numerous fallacies, accusations, and contradictions. These are all indicative of the kinds of things conservatives have come to expect from liberal defenders of homosexual behavior. This is why we cannot have "conversations" that hold any meaning whatsoever, because your ideology exempts any discourse that doesn't completely agree with you. Since this is precisely what you accuse conservatives of doing, there is no common ground from which understanding can arise.
So these observations won't be baseless, let me point out what I mean.
"I've been reading countless articles, blog entries and the like written by people who hold conservative viewpoints in an attempt to decipher why they think I am less than human."
This is a broad generalization based on a fallacy fed by gay activists who are trying to convince an unwilling population to not only accept homosexuality as normative, but to adopt the same viewpoints as homosexuals. Since we live in a free country (for awhile longer at least) the expectation to embrace homosexuality is completely unreasonable to ask of every person in the country, especially those who consider homosexual sex to be morally wrong.
The other fallacy of this statement is the concept that because some people don't agree with homosexual sex, that those people think homosexuals are somehow less than human. I don't happen be included in that category. I don't deny anyone their humanity, despite what you may think. Since there is at least one conservative who breaks your stereotype, you cannot draw the broad conclusion.
"I believe the reason we find social ideology in movies is because we look for it."
This is a bunch of liberal crap that, unfortunately, is taught at the university level. The idea is that text only has meaning in its interpretation. If this were true, then communication would be impossible because any author's meaning would never reveal itself in the text.
To think that movie makers don't lace their products with meaning is naive at best. After all, what was Al Gore trying to do with his movie "An Inconvenient Truth?" What was Michael Moore trying to say with "Fahrenheit 911?" These are blatant examples, but of course movies implant ideologies into the text of their movies.
I am not personally threatened by such ideologies, contrary to your implication. If I find something that I do not agree with, such as the ideologies expressed in Ice Age, then I feel betrayed that the particular movie maker felt the need to try and preach his particular brand to the rest of the world in the guise of a kids' movie.
If I go to watch something like Bruno, I expect that Cohen will be outrageous in his stereotypes and I will, of course, take exception to his message.
"Maybe it's because I'm young and naive but I rarely come away from a film with that kind of impression."
Not to put a fine point on it, but you have grown up inundated with today's media. So yes, this is entirely possible.
"I do think a child has the right to have a mind that is not a carbon copy of what their parents think."
You mistakenly think that good parenting is imposition. Children require guidance and training to become adults who can make good choices in life. Of course children will never be carbon copies of their parents. If children did not require adult guidance, the social structure of family would never have been required among humans.
"By sheltering a child you only make the world around them more shocking when they fully enter it."
This is simply a guess at how I raise children. My children are taught right from wrong, not sheltered from the world. They are quite aware, now as adults, that they must stand on their own and have chosen to follow the moral path. That is their choice, guided in their childhood by loving and concerned parents. By the time they became adults, there is nothing left that shocks them.
"Don't you think that the older you are the greater your disconnect with the young mind becomes? You can't possibly know what a child is thinking."
No. I don't believe that for a moment. That is ludicrous to think that I can't understand how a child thinks because of some disconnect.
"What about the words written by our forefathers that all men are created equal?"
Quoting this has interesting implications for what you say later:
"Your God and your beliefs have no right to dictate my life, and I say that with as much respect as I can muster, sir."
First of all, I sincerely doubt you believe those words from the Declaration of Independence since they imply that it is God who granted those rights in the first place. By calling that Being "your God," you demonstrate that you do not accept the basic premise of this important statement. What follows the statement in the Declaration is even more telling: "they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights."
Here is the huge contradiction in your logic. Either you accept that our inalienable rights come from God or you deny the power of Jefferson's statement. You cannot have it both ways.
You also fell into the fallacy that so many before you have done in my case, which is to assume that my arguments are based on religion. I talk about morality and first principles, but have never talked about God in any of my posts. Yes, I have condemned those who attack religion, because religion is specifically protected under the first amendment. You stereotyped me and assumed that I was speaking for "my God." Please refrain from assuming things about me that have no bearing on this discussion. If you, yourself feel condemned by God, that is your problem.
"I do not feel that you, whose life differs from mine in every way, should have the right to vote on what I can and cannot do as a tax paying citizen of this country."
I must be blunt here. This is a stupid statement. Are you really saying that because I don't believe what you do and because I choose to live my life differently than you do, that I have no right to vote?
Can you understand the import of that statement? Can you understand how utter fascist that statement is? Can you get an inkling of what your ideology leads you to believe if you can say this?
Even I, the Great Deluded One, would never consider disfranchising you from voting because you thought or lived differently than I.
And you have the temerity to call me hateful?
"And yet, I am considered a second class citizen because I happen to be in love with a woman."
Personally, I could care less that you engage in homosexual behavior. That doesn't affect my life in the least (except of course that you intrude your beliefs into these comments and require at least my attention for a short while).
I would like to know how you've been considered a second class citizen?
Are you required to sit at the back of the bus? Do you have to eat in a separate room at restaurants? Does your employer even care that you engage in homosexual behavior? Are you unemployed because you happen to be in love with a woman? Does someone keep you out of the voting booth? Are you barred from educational institutions? Were you dragged out into the streets by a lynch mob? Did they burn a big cross on your front lawn? Have you been arrested just for walking down the street? Do you get singled out by police because you look different from others? Have you been convicted in court simply because you were different?
I doubt anything like these has happened to you unless you also happen to be black.
What has always been the case with gay activism, is the belief not in equality, but in special privilege. Gay activists don't fight for equal rights but to be considered as a protected class with different rights than everyone else in the country.
And that is at the crux of your complaint. You don't wish to be treated equally, under the same rules that the rest of us fall under. You wish for special treatment. You want everyone to accept and embrace your homosexuality. You don't want to see or hear any contrary views. You want validation that everyone accepts you for "who you are" despite strong beliefs against what you do.
If you don't think gays have ever been violently attacked, denied employment, denied housing or anything of the such, then your research is stunted. I have friends who have been brutally attacked by mobs for being open about their sexuality. Last year, a 15 year old was killed by a kid his age for the exact same reason. A friend got fired from his job because his boss deemed him a 'pedophile'. My state didn't have a law protecting against it at the time. Yes, I have plenty of first hand experiences regarding this kind of thing. I don't equate our struggle to the ones of African Americans, certainly. The change in era results in theirs being more brutal. But sir, have you ever heard of an African American being ostracized by their entire family and forced into some kind of church reform for their skin color? I certainly haven't.
I didn't say you shouldn't have the right to vote. Sir, that is insane. I am the last person to think anyone should be denied the right to do anything, especially vote. I meant that you should not be able to vote on my rights or anyone elses, meaning I was referring to proposition 8 on the ballot being absurd. I think that to leap to such a conclusion is a bit stupid on your part.
I bring up God because he seems to be the greatest reference for those who are socially conservative. As an agnostic, I am hoping that the country can remain as secular as it claims it should. Otherwise I seemingly have no place here.
And yes, I think that for that reason the religion of others shouldn't dictate what I can and cannot do, such as marry my girlfriend. And before you bring up redefining marriage, I'd like you to consider that marriage has been redefined since Henry VIII created his own church just to get a divorce.
Since when is wanting the same civil benefits as everyone else considered 'special treatment'?
"But sir, have you ever heard of an African American being ostracized by their entire family and forced into some kind of church reform for their skin color? I certainly haven't."
Thousands of black slaves were ripped from their families, forced into ships, died in passage, forced into servitude and made to adopt Christianity with no recourse.
Your understanding of the problems blacks have encountered in their fight for civil rights is sadly lacking. I'll let it slide and chalk it up to a general lack of understanding of US history. To compare gay activism with civil rights is offensive to blacks. They're quite fed up with the whole deal gay activists have been trying to shove down everyone's throats. Why do you think they formed the swing vote in support of California's Prop 8?
"I meant that you should not be able to vote on my rights or anyone elses, meaning I was referring to proposition 8 on the ballot being absurd."
What's the difference between this and your earlier statement? Either I have a right to vote or not. Either laws can be legislated or they can't. I don't agree with laws that take away my rights to keep and bear arms (protected by the US Constitution, by the way), but I don't deny the people the right to make such laws if they want to.
This shows another lack of understanding of the American political system and doesn't convince me that you didn't mean what you said in the first place, that you think I shouldn't be able to vote.
The question remains, is marriage a civil right or a fundamental right? Or is it something else, as I claim, a social institution on which the foundation of family is built. Personally, I'd appreciate it if gay activists would stop attacking the institution of marriage. You're absolutely right, Henry VIII, as a monarch who wielded nearly absolute power, did indeed change the institution. Are you suggesting that gay activists should wield that same power and change what does not belong to them?
As I noted earlier, acceptance of homosexual behavior is not a fundamental nor a civil right. Stop trying to push judges and legislation to force your beliefs on me. Forcing American people to accept your biased ideology based on sexual preference is every bit as offensive and intrusive as you believe religion is.
I found this comment on another site and added my own take on the statement. The comment comes from Boies, the attorney trying to neuter marriage at a federal level:
"It is time, indeed past time, that our Constitution fulfill its promise of equal protection and due process for all citizens..."
What he and other same sex marriage advocates fail to realize, is that by creating a protected class of citizens with no other legal basis than sexual preference, they weaken the concept of equal protection and create special protection under the law. These types of legal arguments made by the same sex marriage advocates will ultimately neuter the constitutional amendment they used to argue their case in the first place.
I'm not a fan of showing a "heroic' character being a hunting meat-eater. This meat-eater theme also pops up in the movie later. The overall "family" plot is ok but not overly interesting. If were not for Scrat and the very funny Buck this would have been a better straight to DVD. Scrat and Buck you saved the day.
and I thought I was the only one who saw this crap in this and many many other movies, commericals, and TV shows.
Stupid men, overly intelligent, masculine, yet sexy, yet strong, yet weak women, unruly kids, 50% of society being gay, you name it.
you really want to get pissed watch Wall-E
Too much gay junk in this movie. I just watched with my kids, very fewer laughs than usual. I'm tired of Hollywood trying to push their sins towards our way. Even some Disney, and Nic's shows disgusts me.
Post a Comment
I welcome the sharing of opinions, even those opposed to mine. However, I reserve the right to delete any commentary as I see fit. Do not assume that I agree with or endorse any comments just because I allow them to remain.