Hall Pass

Posted on February 25, 2011 at 3:26 pm

Things have changed since the Farrelly Brothers smashed through boundaries and brought a new level of outrageous raunchiness to the screen with the box office smashes “Dumb and Dumber” and “There’s Something About Mary.” First, they inspired others like Judd Apatow and Jason Segal to go even further, so they are no longer at the top of the list for shock value. And second, they got older.

So their new movie does not try for anything as outrageous as the unforgettable hair gel or zipper scenes (though there is a return to a graphic intestinal distress moment). And instead of focusing on the excruciating humiliations of dating (“There’s Something About Mary”) or honeymoons (the remake of “The Heartbreak Kid”), they have moved on to the challenges of married life, or what Zorba the Greek called “Wife, children, house, everything. The full catastrophe.”

Rick (Owen Wilson) and his best friend Fred (“SNL’s” Jason Sudeikis) have jobs, wives, and mortgages in the suburbs of Providence. Rick, a realtor, and his wife Maggie (Jenna Fischer of “The Office”) have three children. Fred, an insurance agent, and his wife Grace (Christina Applegate) have none.

“All our wives’ dreams come true and ours don’t,” says Fred. For the men, it feels like it is all about sex. For the women, it feels more like romance. But everyone misses that feeling of being special.

The wives, frustrated and publicly humiliated by some very bad behavior by the men, give them a “hall pass,” a week off from marriage, with no restrictions. This is based on the recommendation of a friend (Joy Behar), who assures them it is “better than a slow boat to resentment.” Maggie takes her children to visit her family on Cape Cod, and Grace soon joins her, leaving the men behind to try to live out their fantasies of bedding babes non-stop like their friend Coakley (Richard Jenkins).

It turns out that they are more interested in eating themselves into a stupor at chain restaurants. And that, well, there’s no diplomatic way to say it. They just aren’t cool any more.

The more they try to be, the dorkier they become. Rick does not get a positive reaction to the pick-up lines he downloaded from the internet. When a very pretty Australian barrista tells Fred that the song she is listening to is from Snow Patrol, he thinks she is referring to the kiddie movie with Cuba Gooding, Jr. — “Snow Dogs.” When Rick tries to visit a massage parlor, it does not have a happy ending.

Meanwhile, on Cape Cod, Grace and Maggie have become friendly with a couple of nice guys who do think they are special.

The Farrelly brothers are going for situational rather than shock humor here, hitting singles rather than trying to bat one out of the park. That means there is less excruciating humiliation, but it also means less over-the-top, I-can’t-believe-what-I’m-seeing moments. The result is oddly toned down and sit-com-ish. It’s even more oddly and disturbingly misogynistic, a throwback to early 1960’s comedies like “How to Murder Your Wife” and “Boys’ Night Out” in its portrayal of perpetually childish men constantly chastened and terrified by scary mommies with daunting sexual demands. This is particularly disappointing for film-makers whose great strength has been their capable and good-hearted female characters. Like Fred and Rick, the Farrelly brothers here are off their game.

Parents should know that this movie has extremely raunchy and explicit humor including comic and very graphic male nudity, alcohol, strong language, and adultery.

Related Tags:



71 Replies to “Hall Pass”

  1. There is absolutely nothing appealing about this type of garbage for me. I have grown so tired of these “males acting poorly” films that continue to feature the disgusting double standard of male frontal nudity only. These film makers have done “Dumb and Dumber” and now have done the “Dumbest.” I can only hope this does poorly at the box office. What a disgrace !

  2. Nice review, Nell. I thought HALL PASS was deplorable on basically every level. I disliked the two lead characters so much it literally became difficult to sit there after a while. The only positive: Nicky Whelan, who basically played one of the only characters with any sense. She really lit up the screen, and I’d never heard of her before.

  3. I agree with Tim, the double standard regarding nudity is disgusting. And what’s amazing is that feminists still claim that movies exploit female nudity when that hasn’t been the case for a long time. Hollywood’s obsessive worship of the phallus shows yet again that the “Gay (Male) Mafia” is still running things and getting more demented by the day.

  4. If the hot tub scene had even one woman with close up full frontal like these men for even a brief moment, it would have been slapped with an NC-17. If you think about it, this is the true discrimination against women. Men are allowed to show it off and women aren’t. I also wonder if the huge porn industry doesn’t have something to do with it as well because if they show that detail in an R movie, its just another way to drive down adult movie profits. After all, the labia is considered Porn in almost any setting while the male is comedy. Also men aren’t as uncomfortable with male nudity as women are with the detailed female nudity. Comedy is finally drawing in more women viewers so why should they mess that up by making them uncomfortable. After this one, though, the MPAA is gong to have a hard time giving an NC-17 to future films even with female graphic nudity if used in comedy. BTW, the movie was mediocre at best.

  5. Does it really matter ? Yes, it does. It is about putting an end to this distasteful double standard and gaining equality for males. Enough is enough !

  6. Guys — we have covered this issue thoroughly in the past and everyone’s positions are on the record. There is no reason to pursue it further on this site as there are many other places that focus on the issue. I love to have comments on the site, but will not permit further discussion of this topic. Please honor our rules.

  7. I will most certainly honor your request Nell. I have appreciated your understanding and tolerance of my initial comments and thus will keep it at that and not become involved in a debate.. Thanks for always allowing me to express my opinion.
    Maybe at some time, as part of your site, you might post a section for issues of discussion in relation to films where debate could take place.

  8. “It is about putting an end to this distasteful double standard and gaining equality for males. Enough is enough !”
    Puh-leeze Tim1974. You do know that only one woman has ever won an Oscar for Best Director in the last 80 years. Or that Hollywood regularly tosses aside actresses when they get to 40 while letting male actors age into their 40s, 50s, and 60s and pair them off with actresses young enough to be their daughters!
    I also suggest you guys visit Melissa Silverstein’s blog Women and Hollywood at Indie Wire, which regulary chronicles the prejudice women face in Hollywood.

  9. Tim1974 should read this article about how Hollywood puts a male nudity “warning” in its ratings, but no female nudity warning:
    Here’s a telling passage from the article:
    “So if male nudity (at least in the past) got a pass, why do so many of us think the opposite? It’s a pat answer, but not untrue: sexism. Female nudity is everywhere in society – whether it’s magazine ads or girly mags or slasher flicks. Think of how many times you’ve seen a naked woman in a film as compared to a man; that’s because straight men are turned on by the sight, and women aren’t turned off. Homophobic Hollywood doesn’t think the same is true of the opposite, so naked men are a rarity.
    And when they appear, their bared bodies are seen by some as, well, predatory. (Playboy? Good, clean fun. Playgirl? Dirty.) A naked man is clearly up to something no good.”
    It’s not really about “equality.” It’s about homophobia.

  10. Allison, it is a shame that realistic comments and reality threaten your opinion. Equality isn’t just for females when it benefits you, but should be for both genders. You need to take your blinders off and actually see what is going around you. I could site example after example that proves my point but do not want to turn this into a debate as Nell doesn’t want that here. However, I will not allow someone like you to call me a name without a response. if you want to debate this issue, you can tell me when and where and I would be more than willing to do so with you.

  11. Allison, there is a “male nudity” warning because male genitalia are routinely shown in R-rated films, but female genitals are strictly verboten. “Female nudity” is breasts, above the waist skin, not genitals. It is taboo to show a woman’s genitals. Ironic isn’t it considering that Judd Arpatow claims that Americans have a hang-up about seeing body parts (his excuse for showing dicks in all of his movies), yet the vagina remains off limits, to Arpatow and the rest of Hollywood.
    Even a woman’s naked rear end is rarely shown even in R-rated movies. I can remember when bare breasts were shown in PG and PG-13 movies. Now, bare breasts equal an automatic R rating, whereas it won’t be long before male genitalia will be shown in PG-13 movies. All because male nudity is allegedly “comical.” Interesting isn’t it that men who expose themselves in real life to women and children are criminals and sex offenders, yet this criminal act is played up, supposedly for laughs, not only in movies but incessantly in prime time TV shows and commercials. Ha, ha, ha. Let’s show women spread eagle in close-up for laughs. Ha, ha, ha.

  12. Allison, Tim, and Dave, again, everyone’s position is on the record and no one is going to persuade anyone else, so I ask you to drop this discussion. What does and does not constitute “equality” in the display of body parts and why there is a disparity (if there is one) is a far more complex set of questions than can be effectively debated via comment box.

  13. There is definitely a double standard here. It seems it’s deemed ok to show the male genitalia in explicit detail, but not ok to show the female equivalent. This has never made sense to me. Women that `say things like `they show breasts so why not the male organ` don`t make sense. You cannot compare breasts to a penis, they are totally different levels of nudity. And if that’s the thinking; I wonder if I were to make a movie that showed no breast, but explicit close up shots of the vagina, shaven with the labia clearly showing, as well as close up explicit shots of a penis in a 14A movie, like Hall Pass was rated, would it be allowed. I think not! – There is an unfair double standard with male & female nudity and unfortunately it’s been this way for some time.
    I personally don`t need to see nudity in movies. The storyline is by far the most important factor for me. However, if they are going to show nudity, it should at least be consistent and unbias.
    I don’t think women and men will ever see eye to eye on this one. It’s due to how our brains are wired up. Men think logically most of the time, while women use emotion to reason with thought. And emotionally, I can understand; in a woman’s mind, they have been showing the female body, exploiting it for so long. So women want some payback. Whereas, to me I just think things should be fair, as much is possible in life. I mean, just because there was slavery to blacks in the 19th Century, I don`t think there should be slavery of White people now, to make up for it. I also don`t think, just because women didn`t get to vote and were treated second to men, that now men shouldn`t get to vote and shoudl be treated second. I guess I`m a person that believes two wrongs don`t make a right. If something was wrong in the past, lets look at what was wrong about it and correct it, otherwise we`ll never get anyway in life.
    On a final thought, I may be wrong but I think women get jealous when they see female nudity in movies, as 99% of the time, it`s of a young woman with a near perfect body. I guess women don`t like their guys looking at this, and if they were seeing a woman`s vagina in clear detail it would anger them further. However, it`s fine for women and very young teens to see a guy`s penis in explicit detail.
    I see the same analogy with strip clubs. In strip clubs designed for men (female stripers) there are strict rules of no touching, especially in those intimate areas. Whereas (from what I`ve seen on the Internet and heard from friends), women get far more intimate with Male strippers and even perform oral stimulation on the strippers. I can imagine if there were clubs like that where men were orally stimulated female strippers there would be uproar, but it`s ok for women to do it.
    Anyone, that`s just my honest thoughts about this subject, although there are a lot of things unfair in life, so there`s quite a bit of work to do.

  14. Nell,
    I am a military man,  married, a doctor with 3 girls.  I fight for this country as I have fought for equality.  Read Brandon’s post as he has insight into the way alot of men feel.  Be careful about comfining this to a select few.  Women should demand equality for all for the future of this country as most of us do.  I sat in the theater and saw young girls laughing at the movie and giggling at the hot tub scene.  There was no shock in their eyes, no parents (what a shock) and the Theaters let them in.  Is this good?  Your title is movie mom so direct your ratings to parents.  Otherwise what makes you any better then yahoo.  Be critical of the movie, don’t adopt what Hollywood tells you.  Tell the truth from a parents viewpoint.  I don’ t see that in your ratings.  That is why I tend to go to kidsinmind.com to really find out about the details of a movie before taking my kids.  You are my second reference.  It is important for the success of future generations that we put a stop to the decline happening right before our eyes.  People like you have alot of sway in public opinion.  Maybe you are ok with movies like this, Bruno , Observe and report, watchman, etc.  However, you will continue to see posts like this and be forced to delete posts like this until this stops.  Why don’t you begin with honesty.  Maybe instead of saying “some graphic nudity,” you  tell the truth and warn movie goers that there is a prolonged scene of about 1 minute of graphic male (or female) frontal nudity.   In fact maybe a closeup of any genitalia in any setting is better confined to nc-17 and you should say the rating is not appropriate.  I sure don’t want my daughters seeing this crap but unfortunately I can’t control everything they see or do.  Plus, I wonder what it is doing to the boys in this country.  Will They will grow up feeling the way women apparently do now?

  15. Dave said it exactly right:
    “Even a woman’s naked rear end is rarely shown even in R-rated movies. I can remember when bare breasts were shown in PG and PG-13 movies. Now, bare breasts equal an automatic R rating, whereas it won’t be long before male genitalia will be shown in PG-13 movies. All because male nudity is allegedly “comical.” Interesting isn’t it that men who expose themselves in real life to women and children are criminals and sex offenders, yet this criminal act is played up, supposedly for laughs, not only in movies but incessantly in prime time TV shows and commercials. Ha, ha, ha. Let’s show women spread eagle in close-up for laughs. Ha, ha, ha.”
    I will not be seeing this movie for sure and will no longer watch any Farrely brothers movies. The double standard is gross.

  16. Thanks, Doctor, for your comment. I am one of three girls, too, and always love families like ours. Your girls are lucky to have you looking out for them. Too many do not have that kind of care. As you see, I gave this movie a bad review and said it was appropriate for adult audiences only. So that is two reasons my review could never be considered to be recommending the film for teenagers, and my rating makes this clear to parents. And “graphic nudity” does mean explicit shots of nude bodies. I agree with you that these images should be NC-17 and encourage you to write to the MPAA to tell them so.
    If you want more detail, kids in mind or, even better, screenit.com is a good resource for you. But of course I welcome you here any time and hope you will continue to comment on the films you see.

  17. I’m sixty-eight years old and drag my husband to ‘chick flicks’ when ever I can. This movie is pron in a comedy cover. I was behind my hand most of the time. I’m a retired NP who has performed more exams than the average but this was not what I paid to see. I was shocked. And yes there were kids in the theater. ‘X’ is X and NOT R. This movie is definitely not for kids. Well not for old folks either for that matter. I’ll do better research for the next ‘chick flick’ comedy next time.

  18. Thanks, Mickey — I hope next time you will check out my review as I try to warn people about this kind of material to avoid unpleasant surprises.

  19. Nell, I don’t want to repeat anything anyone has said nor do I want to repeat anything that is already on record about the above topic, so I’ll try to say what has not been said. I know you’re probably tired of all the responses, but I hope you hear me out at least. Firstly, I heard the close up graphic shots of genitals weren’t real, but CGI (computer generated) which might explain why the movie has “some graphic nudity.” That’s why people can’t believe the word “some” but if the genitals aren’t real, the MPAA usually doesn’t make mention of graphic nudity, or at least they place the word “some” in the description. This movie is by the same brothers who created “The Heartbreak Kid” where a woman’s genitals were shown in close up, and included a pierced clitoris. Turns out, that was also CGI. “Graphic nudity” wasn’t part of the description for that movie.
    Real or fake, I do agree with others when they say there is a double standard in Hollywood. Even female movie critics are agreeing with that. Take for example, an article written by a female movie critic (Manohla Dargis) regarding this film for the New York Times (found here: http://movies.nytimes.com/2011/02/25/movies/25hall.html?ref=movies). At the end of the article, she writes:
    “By contrast the biggest bellyaching laugh pivots on a scene in which Rick has to be rescued (like a girl!) from a hot tub by two very differently endowed naked men. The sight of Rick recoiling from a stranger’s monumental penis encapsulates in one raucously comic, shocking, concise image many of the male anxieties that ripple through this movie and in the larger world.
    Yet how much more potentially subversive that moment might have been if Rick had instead stared, really stared, at that other font of male anxiety, that which can scarcely be mentioned much less seen in American movies (except for gross-out effect, as in ‘The Heartbreak Kid’), that true chamber of secrets: a vulva.”
    Amazing! A female movie critic actually admitting how the vulva is hardly ever shown in American movies.
    The other point I want to make is not long ago, women became absolutely livid at the MPAA for giving an NC-17 rating for the movie “Blue Valentine.” The rating was given because one scene involves a man performing oral sex on a woman. The complaint women had was that several movies show women performing oral sex on men and those movies always get away with an R rating. Why should the other way around be rated more harshly? Women called that sexist and a double standard. I, and other men, agreed with that being a double standard, and applaud the women who stood up to this nonsense, and applaud the movie makers for appealing the rating down to an R, as it should have been from the beginning.
    But just as that was a double standard, there is a double standard in what Hollywood is showing and not showing. I own the DVD of the movie “Harold and Kumar 2” where during the bottomless pool party, women were shown wearing no bikini bottoms. If you watch it with audio commentary on, the film makers discussed that most of the women who showed up to audition for that scene were completely shaved down below, and the film makers felt unsure how much they can show. They forced the girls to wear what are called “merkins” (or fake pubic hair patches) because they felt if the girls showed “too much labia” (those were their exact words on the DVD commentary) the MPAA might give the movie an NC-17 rating. I’m not exactly sure what “too much labia” even means – maybe an inch is too much but half an inch is ok? I don’t know, but I found that statement quite ridiculous. In the movie, they did in fact show some girls completely shaved, but quickly and somewhat from a distance. Still, the film makers said they were shocked – absolutely shocked – they were able to secure an R rating with shaved female pubic regions.
    Think about that scenario, then think about the male genitals shown in up close, graphic detail. In the movie “Bruno”, male genitals were shown up close, and completely shaved for an extended period of time. Apparently, Hollywood thinks that shaved female genitals might be NC-17, but have no hesitation showing close up completely shaved male genitals.
    Nell, there is a double standard here. To us men, this is our “Blue Valentine/NC-17” moment. We stood by women and applauded them when they complained about the sex act double standard in “Blue Valentine” (I only wished women had done this sooner, with “The Cooler” movie). We should receive the same type of support here.
    Hollywood is fast becoming a sinking ship. Men no longer have much incentive to go to movie theaters and watch movies anymore. Ticket sales (especially for movies like this one) have slumped in the last couple years as men are finding other outlets – like Playboy – which show female genitals, while Hollywood continues to live in the past and become out of touch with modern society.
    Nell, I thank you for giving me a chance to share my views here since I understand you are probably tired of reading responses regarding this topic. But I felt like I had important things to say that haven’t yet been said. Thank you again.

  20. I can see you all feel very strongly about this issue, but again I ask you to feel strongly about it somewhere else. We have covered it in detail and no one is engaging in anything more than repetition at this point. I do not consider this to be a simple matter of equality and object to attempts to characterize it that way. I find this intense and wildly over-simplified fixation on the subject neither illuminating nor helpful. So please, enough, stop.

  21. Very good post Dave, I fully agree.
    Not quite sure why Neil doesn’t like this post. It’s not offensive or out of tone in any way. It’s just stating what is simply true. There should never be a censoreship of the truth or a valid opinion.

  22. Dave,
    I started off reading your post and thinking I supported your stance, but that quickly changed. As a woman, I too think Blue Valentine was unfairly given an NC17 rating but for much different reasons that you. For me, yes, Hollywood has become a sinking ship but not because they refuse to show female genitals up close, instead it is because they chose to gratuitously show females naked any chance they get, regardless of its purpose or lack there of to the film’s theme and plot. Need I remind you that female breasts are shown in pretty much every film these days, which are private and lacking in men…therefore, to show a private area on a man filmmakers have only 1 option. The reason I support Blue Valentine is because the sex scenes had a pivotal purpose to the film and displayed aspects of the relationship that were necessary to the film’s development…they did not just show Michelle naked for the sake of showing her naked. Objectifying women in films has gone too far, we are so numb to it that there are people like you fighting for more female nudity. I have not seen Hall Pass so I do not know if the male scene serves a purpose or not but this does not change my disgust with your post. The fact that you reduce a man’s viewing experience to how much female nudity is in a film and state that “Men no longer have much incentive to go to movie theaters and watch movies anymore. Ticket sales (especially for movies like this one) have slumped in the last couple years as men are finding other outlets – like Playboy – which show female genitals” is pathetic and probably very insulting to real filmmakers who do not make films so you can get your thrills but instead make them as displays of art and creativity. I hope this sheds a bit of insight into what women deal with and feel when they go to movies and time and time again sit through loads of naked women, displayed for no reason what so ever. This only adds to the objectification of women and helps keep women behind men in this world, since they seen as only good for one thing in the eyes of people like you….being naked. Dave, if you would grow up and stop using movies as peeps shows maybe you will one day see a real life naked woman.

  23. Please pardon the spelling errors, I wrote in a hurry as I was pretty worked up after reading your post.

  24. Dave’s comments are completely accurate and I certainly agree with them. Cat, I believe you need to see or read about more films to realize how filmmakers have continually exploited the male body as opposed to females. Nell doesn’t want it discussed here, but if you have a chat room, etc. where you can go, I would enjoy discussing this topic in more detail with you there.

  25. It sounds like some of you are mad because the movie reiterated the stereotypes about the male parts regarding ethnicity. You guys probably don’t want your women to run to the “”man. Suck it up the smart laugh because they know its not true. The ignorant complain about stuff that isn’t relevant. Geez if You are that mad go watch a girl on girl porno. I think some of you are taking it too seriously. There are always stereotypes this time it just looks like the white man got dissed for once, in theaters its kinda late…everyone else catches hell so why not the white man. Grow some dicks peeps!!!!

  26. Who exactly is getting exploited in these movies? It is my understanding that the actors exposing themselves to the camera are compensated for their time. I am guess that this event was scripted and the people that were naked on screen knew that they would be in a movie. I agree that there is an issue with theaters allowing underaged individuals to enter R rated movies, but I think people need to ease up on the civil rights issues for this movie. I walked out of Hall Pass laughing with my friends, not demanding the number of my local representative to complain. Simply put: if the movie offended you or just did not make you laugh, it was not for you. It does not mean that the entire movie making industry needs to change.

  27. Alan, I completely disagree with you. When there is a double standard or injustice in society, sports, business, movies , etc., which affects male or female, it needs to be addressed. These are suppose to be the times of “equality.” If you choose to sit back, accept what happens to you, and do nothing, that is your right. However, that is not for me.

  28. Tim, please, no more on this issue. Your views are clearly stated and I see no benefit from further discussion. Your hyper-focus on this issue undermines your stated concern about equality. To the extent that “it needs to be addressed,” please do so elsewhere.

  29. My last comment on this issue was deleted. I was under the impression that a site named Movie Mom would be concerned about traditional values and oppose the decadence and degradation coming out of Hollywood. Turns out this is just another feminist site, with typical feminist intolerance and censoring. What a shame. . .

  30. Dave, while I disagreed with your earlier comment, it was deleted for violating this site’s rules against insults and homophobia. So perhaps you should reconsider accusing someone else of intolerance.
    The rules of engagement for comments on this site are posted here: http://blog.beliefnet.com/moviemom/2008/03/bad-manners-and-the-rules-of-e.html The traditional values I support include kindness, respect, and courtesy. If you think you can abide by them, your comments are welcome.
    I agree with your earlier comment that too much of today’s entertainment relies on low humor, but there is no basis for your ascribing blame to feminists and homosexuals. It’s just what sells.

  31. Hello Nell,

    First I would like to say everyones views have not been considered regarding nudity in movies, no media outlet is set up for a political vocal representation by those who enjoy female nudity, and that includes the female reproductive genitalia, let’s not make this about breasts vs male genitalia, the only thing accepted in the media is the bashing of those who enjoy this by calling them perverts, rapists, pigs, and so on.

    But I think you’re correct, let’s not make this about nudity, because we both know it’s not really about nudity, it’s about religion and politics controlling the masses through generally accepted moral codes, something that has been in practice for about 5000 years, it was a stone age means of governing the peasants and is still in place today, problem is we don’t live in the stone age anymore, we live in a digital age, and the removal of this stone age forum of government is long over do, and with the peasant class gaining intelligence at an unprecedented rate religion has made a political move to call itself spiritual instead, this is because religion has such a negative stigmata to it that it had to find a way to make religion seem more attractive, but it is the same thing, it teaches us we need spiritual values for happiness.

    This is obviously not true, we know how to be happy without religion, and a spiritual experience is a private thing and does not need to be shared with others, religion is the only thing that wants to push itself on others, usually by means of threating others with the promise of eternal damnation, once again this is a cheap forum of governing the people, all religion needs to do is intimidate people into acting as it desires, how cheap is that, they don’t even need to spend any money enforcing this rule on it’s victims because the victims will enforce it upon themselves.

    And what kind of nonsense are we talking about, well, if God created everything, God had full control of the way things would work out, so why did God give people a sex drive and than tell people it was a sin, that would make God a sadistic person, God also tells us gluttony is a sin, why is food and sex a sin to God, I’m personally surprised breathing air is not a sin as well, all of the other things people do naturally seem to be sins.

    I have …also spent years studying the bible backwards and forwards, now days I would say I was brainwashed by religion, but let’s just suppose I did believe in God, I would rather God send me to hell than spend and eternity in his glories loving presence, the reason is because if hell does exist and good and loving people go there for a stupid simple thing like not believing in his son, than to me he is no God at all, and he is most certainly not good, and it would not be an eternity in heaven with God knowing all the people I knew and loved were now burning in an eternal pit of fire, no, instead It would be an eternity in hell with God, how could I even enjoy heaven knowing about the suffering of my fellow humans burning in hell because they did not bend to God’s threats of hell fire.

    If this is who God is, don’t spend time praying for me, because it would be praying for me to receive help from a bully who threatens my fellow humans with the prospects of eternal torture.

    This is why I want no part of God, I will not save my own skin to spend time with a butcher.

    And that includes the great offense God takes to my natural desire to reproduce.

    However, let us take a quote from Epicurus.

    “Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then He is not omnipotent. Is He able, but not willing? Then He is malevolent. Is He both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is He neither able nor willing? Then why call Him God?”

    If we look at this logically, it says God it either
    1 Not rel “I personally believe this as science has brought 99.9% of all humanities enlightenment/truth, not religion, religion has instead persecuted those who told us the truth through out history, I don’t need to go on about this, everyone knows how religion becomes enraged every time another lie is exposed and religion is once again proven false.
    2 God is ineffective.
    3 God is cruel and hateful.

    So knowing this lets instead turn to the truth, science, in nature the male species has several duties to perform, one is to reproduce, so if it is not wrong for nature, why is it wrong for humans, and if it’s not wrong for humans than why does the movie industry only accept true full frontal male nudity and not true full frontal female nudity, who is this phobia of true “meaning no merkins” full frontal female nudity, I thought homophobia was wrong according to the movie industry, yet it keeps up with homophobia regarding full frontal female nudity.

    Now don’t get me wrong Nell, I’m not against Full frontal male nudity, although I have been labeled that by angry people who don’t want me to speak my mind, and where did they get this proof, they made it up, so I guess you can call it slander.

    Truth is I have friends who are Bi and Gay/Lesbian, and they respect and treat me well, and I see no reason they are not acceptable, sorry if I offend anyone but I see no reason Gay/Lesbians can not get married, it is stupid they have to fight for this right to be together and happy, it is also very stupid that the movie industry tries to say penis good, vulva bad, that is truly homophobia Nell, perhaps the movie industry should stop this practice, in the end people will use reason to figure out they were lied to and the industry will look like lies and propaganda, just like when they tried to convince everyone about how bad marijuana was, and now we know it was all propaganda.

    Also before I go I would also like to address the issue that actors make more than actress, that appears to be true if you believe the statistics, but let’s look at this a bit closer shall we, an actress makes an unparalleled amount more than a ditch digger, most doctors, teachers, do you think it is right we pay our teachers so little compared to an actress, scientist, this is less of a gender issue and more of a economic distribution issue, very little money is set aside for public infrastructure while massive amounts of money are set aside for corporate infrastructure, just like how the republicans just did away with national public radio, just two save 2 million dollars a year, that is nothing, we saved nothing and did away with an outlet of the peoples voice all at the same time wall street is making record profits, and if were both honest here we can both safely say that this is being done for strictly political reasons that don’t even come close to having the peoples best interests at heart.

    And last let me say that the point made that the movie industry will no longer hire women after their sex appeal fades, seems to be true, I have done no research on the issue, but every poster you see almost is selling the movie with a young woman(women) on the movie poster, we really don’t ever see an older woman on a poster, and I have no idea why, I find the female gender to be attractive at all stages, and I can tell you I love my grandmother, and I would not fire her for being old, once again we can see the industry tries to be morally good, but the truth is they are not, if anyone truly has no right to try and tell us what is right and what is wrong it is the media, well at least until they clean up their act, and let’s face it, they have a very very long way to go before that happens, perhaps they should start with apologizing to the people for being so immoral to start with.

    Best regards Nell, I hope this challenges the way you see this movement.

    Noel FightTheMPAA

    LOL, actually when I came up with the movement I thought Fight The MPAA was a good name, now I would call it Change The MPAA, but the method is the same, keep sharing the truth and changing the world for the better one day at a time, who knows, if we start looking for the truth rather than propaganda perhaps we really do have a star trek future after all.

    I think we do. =)

  32. I want to start out by making it clear that I’m sick of almost any nudity being in films anymore!

    I will say that even though I’m a heterosexual female, that if I HAVE TO see nudity in a film, I’d rather it be female nudity. As long as it’s tastefully done.

    I do not under any circumstances want to see male genitalia in movies! I have no desire to see any man’s genitals other than my husbands. Twice in the last couple of years now my husband and I have gone to see a film in a theater that we were shocked by seeing unexpected male genitalia. I’m going to have to start looking up the reasons why films are rated the way that they are before we go see them. I will avoid any future movies that have exposed male genitalia.

    It’s awkward for most of us women to have to sit there during those scenes. And most men hate those scenes as well.

    Kate Winslet’s nude scene in Titanic was tasteful and romantic, I can appreciate it for it’s beauty. The male genitals in Hall Pass were disgusting, and completely unwanted.

    Again, I wish they would do away with most nudity in films, so I’m not complaining about what I’m about to say. But I can’t recall having ever seen a scene of full-frontal female nudity in a film in a theater. The only time I’ve ever seen full-frontal female nudity in a movie as been on HBO. I would think that most people would be more open to full-frontal female nudity, seeing as all your really seeing is hair, not genitals.

    1. Thank you, Kimberly. I found there was much more offensive material in the film than the (CGI) depictions of male nudity, but I agree with your point that female nudity is often portrayed as classically beautiful and tasteful while made nudity is almost always used for shock and comic value. Another reason why claims that this is an equality issue are off base.

  33. Kimberly, it is so nice to finally see a female who cares about what has been happening to males in reference to nudity in films. The filmmakers have lost a portion of their paying customers because of their continual double standard. I disagree a bit with your opinion in that I am ok with male frontal nudity as long as they would also show female frontal nudity too. Equality, to me and most non emasculated heterosexual males, has absolutely nothing to do with whether it is in a comedy or in a serious situation. I find it very refreshing to see a female, like yourself, give an opinion that doesn’t include a reason(excuse) for why it is ok for male genitals to be seen because it is in a comedy. Howewer, they never mention the fact that many shows like “Sex in the City” and “The Reader,” just to mention a couple, included male genitals only in a non comedy. KImberly, there are numerous films which display only graphic male nudity. I would suggest checking back at Nell’s website before seeing a film as well as maybe trying “www.kids-in-mind.com” or “www.screenit.com.” Using all three websites should fully inform you of what is included in the film.

  34. Nell, having looked over previous comments, I noticed “the chosen one” used an expression “grow some d…s peeps.” Are these type of things now being allowed here or was it an oversight to be censored ? If it is now being allowed, then I would assume in the future I would be able to use the expression “it is time to start seeing some p…y in films.” To be honest, I couldn’t really use it for it is not something I would do but there may be others who would. I apologize for wasting your time on this but I am curious as to what may or may not be acceptable at this point.

    1. Tim, it is not censorship to insist on certain standards of courtesy and discourse on this site. I am more willing to let first-time posters have a chance to express a view but will not permit any disrespect directed at another commenter (chosen one’s comment was general) or sexist, racist, or homophobic comments. In other cases, where a particular subject has been thoroughly covered without any indication of additional benefit in pursuing it, I will not permit it. The expression you ask about would not be appropriate for this site.

  35. I honestly don’t see why people get so bent out of shape about male and female equality in Hollywood. Hollywood is synonymous with exploitation. It has been that way since the film industry has grown into what it is. If Hollywood whoredom bothers you so bad… Then don’t watch movies.. its a simple thing. If companies can move to China for reasons of profits, then why can’t the film industry do whatever they want to maximize income, because over all, if the people have no interest, then media will not make money. If it make money, then obviously the people want it. Which consequently means that preaching to the masses about the problems in Hollywood are by far futile. On a side note. My own biased opinion on the whole female/male nudity on the big screen would boil down to watch what you want, and not watch what you don’t. I don’t see a problem with tons of females being nude in movies. Nor do any of the level headed women I speak to. Where as most everybody I know finds that staring at some guys dangle is quite repulsive. Women have a natural and beautiful femininity. Where as us males are born to be inferior in areas of physical beauty. All women I know agree. So its not surprising that there are hundreds more women nude on screen than males. But if staring at dangles is good for you, then hey, by all means support what you like. After all, those of us who live in America don’t have media censorship like those living in other countries. If you think that what America needs is media censorship, then you may find happiness in moving to China. They’ll love you. Peacceee

  36. After reading through this thread last night, and seeing this movie today, I pretty much agree with Kimberly.

    The nude male scene offended me a lot less than I expected as a man, but it was really weird and out of place in this mostly light-hearted girlie flick. I must also say that I don’t want to see and close-ups of nude women’s crotches either, as some suggest ‘to make it even’. Let’s not make Theaters soft-porn houses if for no other reason than because kids ARE sneaking in.

    I’m not against nudity in general, it can be very powerful and no one feels exploited if done right. The most appropriate scene I can remember was in the John Adams mini-series. His (twenty something?)daughter had cancer and they showed her breast right before it was removed by crude 18th century techniques. The contrast between her youth, bravery, beauty and the horrible maiming job she was about to receive created a very moving scene. Even though the nudity was somewhat lengthy, I could watch that with my mother. I would never even TELL her about Hall Pass.

  37. I really don’t like seeing nudity in movies/ on television, just because most of the time it is an unneeded interruption in the storyline and whoever is being portrayed is most likely shown in an unfair light. I count nudity as breasts, male and female genetalia, and butts. I see many things unfair about nudity in the media. Brief list of some points:

    1.) Male nudity is mostly for laughs, nothing else.
    2.) Female nudity is usually objectifying the female body in a sexual way
    3.) Female nudity is, by far, much more common than male nudity
    4.) The labia, female genetalia that’s actually between the legs, whatever you want to call it, is next to never shown
    5.) When male nudity is included, it is most likely just a male butt, while the penis is avoided.

    The thing is, while breasts are not actually part of the reproductive system while penises are, (in my opinion) if they are shown, it’s still nudity, yes to the same degree. Would you walk around your house/ street shirtless if you were a guy? How about a girl? This is far more often done by guys than girls. Because breasts are considered as indecent as penises and vaginas (in the US, at least) in everyday life/interaction with other people. There’s no problem with showing a butt, because everyone has that. There’s no problem with showing breasts, because it’s natural. A penis, on the other hand? Of COURSE that’s not natural! (<<sarcasm) But, if a penis is shown, it's disgusting and should never be considered sexy, unlike breasts. If a penis is shown it's usually for comic relief. And then we come to female genetalia. No, not the mons, but the labia. Where is that? Are the breasts, the "sexy" and "easy-on-the-eyes" part of the female body, the only part that the media will show? I, personally, think the labia is never shown because of another point, of how when a woman is nude in the media, it is almost always in a sexy light. Therefore, because female genetalia is generally not regarded as sexy in society, it is generally kept out of movies and television. Even the mons is, most of the time, concealed by a ridiculous bush of hair.And then there is, of course, that female nudity (which, in my opinion, does include breast and ass) is far more rampant than male nudity (penis and ass, because in my opinion, a bare male chest is not nudity). So, even the quantity of male nudity versus female nudity is unequal.

    All of the above views are in the context of the society that I live in, that of the US. In other countries, people view the US as insane for glorifying breasts and being so uppity about nudity in general.

    What I would love is for nudity in the media to be equal, and to not be thrust in my face everytime I want to see a rated-R movie or a popular adult show. Because, honestly, both men and women are getting the short end of the stick here. Women's bodies being primarily viewed as sexual objects, versus part of a person. Men's bodies being viewed as humorous and disgusting, instead of as part of a person. And when I say I want nudity-equality, ideally it does not mean male and female bodies are equally glorified as sex toys or are considered gross and indecent and giggle-worthy. I would just love if nudity was just…nudity. The end. It's a person streaking down the block, or a couple making love, or a bunch of guys and girls getting drunk and doing stupid activities, perhaps in the nude. But, I would love if that's it. If it's just a part of life, not overemphasis on the sexyness of ladies and just breasts, not even the female body, and if men were not viewed as disgusting perverted animals if they're nude. Because I'm sick of it. Guys should be able to believe they are sexy, not disgusting and laughable nude. Girls should not be inclined to believe they are only worth as much as how sexy they look (mainstream sexy, at that) with special emphasis on breasts. It is not fair to anyone, how (sexualized) female nudity is considered normal in the media, excluding "unsexy" parts of the female body, while any type of male nudity is considered "WHOA WHAT IS THAT?!" or, even better, "Heheheh that's hilarious." Why is it very rarely "Sexy man…" Besides the fact that almost all female nudity is of attractive, young females, versus male nudity. I wouldn't know too much about the males who are nude (rare occurence to begin with, actual male nudity, not just his chest and legs) but, from what I've heard, read, and seen, it would appear that nude males are often in any type of shape, with any level of attractiveness, at any age. And this would make sense; afterall, a naked female body should always be sexually attractive, while a naked male body is for laughing at or gasping in horror. (Not to say that older females or "unnattractive" females or men cannot be sexy or attractive, this is in regards to the mainstream views of beauty and sex appeal)

    I'm not saying any of these occurences are true for every single instance of nudity in the media, but they are for the majority.

    I believe there are problems with nudity in general in the US. For instance, in light of how breasts are treated in US society, they are the same level of nudity as the penis. Yes, breasts are shown far more often than the penis in the media, but the way people act about it "Whoa, her BOOBS were there!" is the same degree as with the penis, not only in the media but in daily life. In my opinion, breast-feeding mothers should not get a second glance, unless it's a "awwww that baby is too cute!" or "she's a good mommy." or whatever glance. I don't think breast-feeding should get a "gross" glance, or "is she shameless?" glances. Personally, I don't think the human body should be regarded as disgusting to begin with. I mean, I think that the body is holy as much as you believe it to be. But I think people should be able to cover as much as they want. If you wanna go out with your genitals hanging out, go ahead. But I think it should be a person's choice. I don't think it should be "MY CHILDREN WILL BE PERVERTED!!" Because whatever the person has, half the population has. It's nothing special, and if a person doesn't want to treat it as special and cover up, they shouldn't have to. Especially in regard to breasts, I think people should be allowed to let them hang free. I WANT the right to walk around shirtless in the summer! In Europe, I think they have the right idea with their beaches! In many places in Africa, breasts are a "whatever" thing, and they should be! They're beautiful, and they're not part of the reproductive system, so I don't see why they are classified as such in regards to nudity. And I am so sick of seeing "perfect breasts" in the media! These are the breasts of the general population! http://www.007b.com/breast_gallery.php

    So why is nothing like most of these shown in the media?!

    And another thing- p*rn and sexuality. A guy wants to look at naked women? Natural, a guy being a guy, it's normal and instinctive. A girl, especially a young girl, wants to look at naked men? What the f— is she smoking? She must be a w**re, she's a weirdo, she's dirty. A guy looks at p*rn and his dad finds out? A lot of the time it's, "Oh, he's just being a boy." A girl does this and her parents find out? "We didn't raise you to do this!! What's wrong with you?!" As stated before: Playboy? Okay. Playgirl? Dirty and wrong. It's considered far more normal for a guy to mastu**ate than a girl, and it's more socially acceptable. A girl goes with many different guys? Sl**, dirty. A boy does the same? Player, "the man," masculine. It's insulting to both men and women. That all men are supposedly hor*y freaks while girls have no sex drive. That women have no feelings of lust or that they should overcome them far more easily than men. That men are all cheaters and promiscuous by nature.

    Then there are endless excuses: men are built to "spread the seed," that women are meant to raise children, that men have a massive sex drive by nature because they have more testosterone. Not fair to men or women to be judged by their private affairs, by how many sexual partners they have. Not fair to men that they are not viewed as caregivers. That custody of a child is normally given to the mother if there are problems with the parents. That women are not sexual creatures, that sexual pleasure is only for men. That men are viewed as cheaters by women, and many are not given fair judgements.

    I believe that the way nudity is approached in the media is a reflection of how it, sexuality, and gender roles are viewed in society (in the US). The whole thing is extremely immature, and hurtful in so many ways, both to men and women. I do not think that nudity and sexuality should be treated as a world for heterosexual men (because it kind of is), because it is unfair to everyone. To men and women, for reasons stated above, and for children, being raised to think in this frame of mind. To begin with, I think the reason there's a problem with this all is because nudity and sexuality are viewed as unspeakable topics and even unnatural on many different levels; I think the problem is, people know it's not. And then that's where issues arise. Issues like "WHY IS THIS (nudity/sexual activity) IN HERE (film/ tv series)?!" Nudity and sexuality IS a part of life, and it IS for both genders. So, why is it treated unequally for the two, and why is it being treated as something outlandish? My guess is it's a combination of rich, powerful heterosexual men being at the top of society, traditional gender roles (macho-machote men and homely women), and the way sexuality and nudity has been approached in more recent centuries, especially with the Church (covering the penises, breasts and outer female genitalia of works of art, treating sexual desires as sinful and disgusting). Because, whether or not people want to admit it, the Church had a hell of a lot of influence over the developement of the modern world, as it pretty much controlled all of Europe for a ridiculous amount of time, including the Age of Exploration, which affected the rest of the world.

    Sorry if it's very rantish, (if anyone actually reads it) I've just been very angry about this topic for some time now, and my thoughts are kind of disorganized because I've had so many on this topic. I just hate the injustice being dished out to both the ladies and the guys of the US, and I hate the hand that the media plays in it. I'm sure there are problems with this in other countries too, I'm not saying it's only in the US, but I wouldn't know about those. I do however know there are may societies where nudity and sexuality are not regarded as unnatural and wrong, and I believe if we just take that step, just viewing it as okay and as nudity not always being linked to sex for women and laughs and disgust for men, other things will follow suit. I really hate society sometimes. POV of a 15-year-old lady.

  38. By the way, I’ve never seen Hall Pass. I was reading the comments, however, and saw an excellent opportunity to rant about things I see as issues; I got carried away and excited, hahah sorry.

  39. “Equality isn’t just for females when it benefits you, but should be for both genders.”

    Whoever posted this is brilliant. The truth is, women are NOT seeking equality. Feminists will continue take advantage of the situation.

    For example:

    – how many scholarships are “male only” scholarships, specifically, white males? Now how many are there dedicated for females? I knew guys with 3.8 gpa who did not receive a scholarship, but (in the same year/degree) women got scholarships with a 2.2 gpa. Fair?

    – In my college entrance, dedicated slots were “reserved” for females. Is it because they can’t compete with everyone else? Why is it needed?

    – Why is it funny, particularly for women, when a man gets raped or a woman tries to cut him off with a knife? Yet, when a woman gets raped, even during a fictional movie, it’s not funny.

    I could go on and on and on…

    Lastly, the movie was terrible and was beneath Owen Wilson’s acting ability.

    1. Well, Meez, I agree with your last statement. The rest of your comment shows a lack of knowledge of history and context — and women.

  40. We rented this movie last night on the advice of friends,we both found it disgusting and disturbing.Neither of us could believe what we were seeing.

  41. I can’t believe no one sees the obvious and WORST about the Penis scene!
    The obvious RACIST stereotype they are trying to push with the white guy and his apparently tiny penis and testicles (obviously made to look tiny)as compared to the black man with his much larger penis… oh ha ha… WHY? really? WHY?
    I can see no reason other than to be racist and try to put down the white guys

    1. Mike, they are making fun of that stereotype, not perpetuating it. But it is such a lame movie I can see why that would not be clear to you.

  42. My hubby and I watched this movie at home and enjoyed it. We expected crude humor based on the premise of the movie and the fact that its a Farrelly bros. movie. Reading the comments on this thread was much more entertaining…can’t believe people try to read so much into a Farrelly bros. movie about sex outside of marriage…jeez people, come on! Definitely NOT a kid’s movie (they wouldn’t be interested in the old, married folks premise anyway).

  43. I have only looked at one scene of this movie by someone’s direction, the scene with the frontal penis comparisons. I do not like that movies today cannot be made without the f’s, gd’s, sh’t, on and on and on as if this type of language is okay. I’m no prude, I use some of this language myself at times, but not in church, not in front of my kids, women, parents, public, etc. But todays movies seem to be bent on being x-rated to get the dollar. I draw the line on pubic nudity to be only in x-rated films. This is an obvious display of how much hollywood has infiltrated our government’s social/liberal agenda, aka, anything goes from redefinition of marriage to redistribution of wealth. When it is common for one of my kids to pick up a movie that has a black man’s penis exposed for 45 seconds in an “R” rated movie then it is time for protest in the strongest measure via letters to our congressmen, the FCC, and any other governmental agencies that allow this to be made. In addition, isn’t it ironic that black people become enraged when a negative stereotype is placed on them, but are estatic when something like having a bigger penis is placed on them. I just wonder what would have been said if the penis size in this movie had been reversed. Now that would have lit up the liberal media.


    1. Rodeohog, I appreciate your comments but find your references to the government and media distracting, unfair, inaccurate, and unnecessarily inflammatory. I think we both agree that while this kind of material may not be what we care for (note my review and bad grade), we support the freedoms that permit people to produce it. The only agenda behind a movie like this one is to make money. Fortunately, most people agreed with you and me and it did not find much of an audience or many critics (in liberal or conservative or any other media outlets) who endorsed it. When the largest and most powerful media company in the world is News Corp/Fox, there is really no basis for the tired old claims about “liberal media.” And your speculation about the genital humor is also without basis. There is no evidence that there was any ecstasy about the stereotypes that were joked about in this film. And no one likes negative stereotypes about their group, from the tea party to the Wall Street types.

  44. I am fairly liberal when it comes to nudity in movies, however, the penis scene in this movie was totally unnecessary and made, what could have been a decent movie and something that could appeal to a large segment of the market, trashy, low class and definitely inappropriate for the rating it got. How many parents would have taken their kids to see this if they knew in advance about this scene. I was actually enjoying the movie until this scene came up and then I was totally disgusted by it. Very poor judgement on someone’s part.

  45. I guess the Ferrelly brothers have run out of ideas so they show shots of men’s penises for shock value? The Jacuzzi scene showing two men’s penis made no sense. The whole theatre went silent. I think we were all embarrassed. Oh well, The Ferrelly are a sick joke!

  46. Hall Pass is way too inappropriate for an “R” rating and such graphic nudity is disrespectful toward men. The full frontal male nudity had absolutely no place in the story line. Furthermore, why is it okay to show explicit male nudity in R-rated movies but never okay to show explicit female nudity? Would it be humorous to show an explicit view of a woman’s vagina? Yeah, that’s what I thought. Rediculous double standards. Obviously the rating-review board is comprised of females.

  47. I can’t believe what I’m reading. There are hundreds if not thousands of female nudity in films compared to male nudity. I am NOT comfortable with seeing it, and indeed have to endure it. It’s totally not fair. I don’t mind seeing male nudity, and in fact think that there should be more to balance all the female nudity.

    It’s not the nudity that bothers me, it’s that women are put on the screen like pieces of meat for the male viewers. Women who say they like it are brainwashed, in my opinon, or just stupid. Make it fair….show male nudity too.

  48. Tim, for reasons already explained, I am not accepting any comments from you concerning anatomical matters. Your views have been thoroughly explained and I see no evidence of any prospect of meaningful further discussion.

  49. First, Nell, ozkwmygs is a spam bot… you might want to remove that comment from October 2.

    Second, it’s interesting to me how your review seemingly became a fixation by others on a single topic (for the most part). I mention this not as an attack against the commentators or yourself, but merely a point of interest. If I may, I’d like to discuss the rating in a more broad sense, largely because I think many in the American population have forgotten a few things (which are beared out in the comments themselves and in what I’ve seen in theatres and movies for some time).

    1) If you are taking your child to a rated R movie (or letting them watch it), it is your DUTY as a parent to watch it WITHOUT the child first
    2) R rated movies are generally NOT for children (thus the rating and rating description)
    3) The MPAA is the movie industry’s way of ‘self regulation’ to prevent federal regulation of movie ratings
    4) I’ve seen older PG movies that have more offensive material (as a whole)

    Honestly, nudity like the ones in this movie aren’t ‘offensive’ to me or my wife… I can understand because the guys came out of the locker room to save him, so it’s not completely out of place in the scene (although I know others think otherwise). Yes, some guys do get naked in the locker room at gyms. I think making the movie this scene, as it seems some have and as happens, is a bit juvenile and prudish. Again, I mean this not as an attack, merely as a point of interest and fact. When you are in the locker room at the gym with your sons and someone is naked (male), do people say, “Oh! My son is now perverted by this image?” I do not.

    I’ve lived all over the world and the culture here has a HUGE problem with seeing genitals compared to most of the world, which I mostly blame on the Puritan influence, which clearly had a huge impact on our culture. Overseas, it’s generally violence that they censor, not nudity (sex is something else entirely). I think people need to learn to be comfortable with their own bodies and not violence — we are beautiful, violence, death, war, destruction, and torture is not. Honestly, the guy’s phallus was crooked, so it’s not like anyone should have felt ‘inferior’ or terribly squeamish (maybe even laugh at him for it, but that is honestly mean). People should be more incensed by SAW and how successful that franchise is than this. Having said that, again, this is rated R….

    The problem is that people seem to think that it is appropriate to take children to rated R movies (several comments on this movie actually made reference to ‘what if there were kids in the theatre’ type scenarios). When we were at the Dark Knight movie, there were kids there… and that movie was NOT kid friendly and they actually started crying. I have children and I can tell you that I would have walked out of that theatre with them before the first scene was over had I been those parents… that movie was disgusting, repulsive, and NOT kid friendly (a great way to ruin the Batman name/franchise). For me, the Dark Knight reminded me of watching the bodies of soldiers being drug through Somalia, desecrated, and made me sick because I remember so vividly the violence that occurred there, so perhaps I’m more sensitive to that than others (particularly since I’ve seen what war does), but I doubt that even without such experiences I could see fit to take children (little children) to that movie, Tombstone, SAW, or other such violent movies.

    Now, to a topic that is also a bit talked about here (and mentioned in number 4 on my list). Ratings…. I remember the good old days when ratings made sense (I’m being sarcastic). Casper – PG. Wow… not sure how that happened (if you haven’t seen it in awhile, watch it)! Seriously. The girl in the movie cusses, the woman in the movie cusses, the man in the movie cusses… they say words that I don’t think should have made that movie PG. They call NAMES that I don’t think should have made that movie PG. I was honestly shocked! I didn’t know that I had to preview PG movies before showing them to my kids… but that’s what passed for PG in 1995. I say this because I think the MPAA has gotten a little better in more accurately rating movies in recent years. I don’t think young kids need to hear several people call a female the word for female dogs. It’s one thing to say a cuss word, but it’s something else entirely to CALL someone something like that in a very derogatory manner. Having lived and worked, etc, around the military I can tell you swearing and cussing doesn’t bother me much when used appropriately (I know, some would say it’s never appropriate, but if you’ve ever been through bootcamp in the USMC, you’d know that they can make the word ‘cupcake’ a cussword… you give the words the power and meaning they have), but I don’t think name calling on THAT scale should be in a PG movie (not that I mean that any should be in a PG movie, but certainly not that kind). And I wish Casper were my only example….

    Having seen Casper, I wonder why movies like Despicable Me and Megamind (both fantastic kids movies that adults can enjoy) managed to be PG… they aren’t even in the same playing field. I think what we really need to complain about is how the MPAA clearly has no standards that create any semblance of consistency.

    Anyway, so having wasted all of that space (and lost 99% of the readers), the movie had some stupid parts, funny parts, and some boring parts. The whole ‘fake chow’ thing was stupid. The guy getting caught by the cops in his car was funny (the reaction of the cops was hilarious). I won’t even get into the boring stuff.

    Nell, I’m not sure I would have said ‘pornographic’, but I do think that you could have made it a little more clear that there was prolonged male nudity that ‘may be offensive to some’. Perhaps the movie has unfairly become about a single, relatively short scene…. I just wish that the courts hadn’t sided with the movie industry against that one guy in CA who would edit movies for people who came in to remove offensive scenes. Perhaps that would have resolved this for some people (personally, the hot tube scene was funny, but not because of the nudity, more because he fell asleep, missing the ‘girl’, and then had to be saved by two naked guys in an awkward way… not laugh out loud funny, but it did bring a smile to my face). Not much of the movie made me laugh out loud, though, to be honest.

  50. Movie mom needs to loosen up. It’s not a movie preteens. Hilarious, underrated comedy. This is the time of gag/gross-out humor you better get used to. It. Is. Funny

    1. I’m always glad to hear from someone who sees more in a movie than I do, Smitty, and your comment will be helpful to those who are looking for guidance. I enjoy raunchy humor but did not find this movie funny, even for adults, for the reasons I explained. Just a suggestion, though — it’s generally more persuasive to refrain from insults as they distract people from the points you are trying to make. You don’t want people to focus on whether you are worth listening to; you want them to focus on what you are saying, right?

  51. This comedy is pretty sophomoric, at best, and definitely not one of Owen Wilson’s better roles. By all means, if you really want to see this, only spend the rental price as I wouldn’t waste the cash buying it on DVD or Blue-Ray… Just my opinion. 😉

    I just finished watching this movie with my Fiance and now I wish I had read some reviews on it beforehand. It’s amazing this piece of trash is classed as a Comedy. We were both marginally entertained right up to the hot tub scene–TOTALLY UNNECESSARY! Yes, she and I both got the stereotypical joke (race/size of male anatomy), but this could have been conveyed by means other than graphically showing and comparing (up close) male genitalia, especially the length of time in which the genitalia was shown. Funny, I don’t recall EVER seeing an R-rated movie that compares Labia and Clitoris sizes among females or the different female races–of course not, it simply wouldn’t be tolerated no matter what the context …PERIOD! Even as a man, I wouldn’t find an R-rated movie that compares the Vulva’s exterior parts (in any context) to be acceptable…AT ALL! And I doubt I’d find it humorous either. With that said, I’m still in shock that this received an R-rating which I can’t help but ask the following reasonable question…

    If it’s not okay to show a females Labia Majora/Minora, etc. (with any detail or length of time) in an R-rated movie then why is it okay to graphically show a males penis in full gratuitous detail and in great lengths of time? Where is the logic in this?

    I’m a very easygoing person with an incredible sense of humor, and I try to keep an open mind about such issues, moreover, I’m not a person who is uncomfortable with seeing male nudity, but it seems as of late (at least to my Fiance and I) that the graphic and gratuitous “In Your Face” display of the male penis is in just about every R-rated movie and cable TV show.

    Now, I completely agree that Hollywood has exploited women on this issue for decades as well as the fact that female nudity it is far more prominent, but I have to respectfully disagree on the severity of the exploitation. The context and display of female nudity in normal mainstream (R-rated) movies doesn’t even come close to the level of detail and exploitation as the male’s reproductive anatomy has lately (i.e. graphic rape, visible masturbation, full erection/semi-erection, graphic mutilation, degrading humiliation, and last but not least, up close and drawn out gratuitous display of the penis–real or not) . Sorry, but I feel anyone saying anything to the contrary is conveniently overlooking these simple facts! There is no ambiguity here.

    Believe me, I know there are much more important things in life than issues such as this, but to take what I would class as a perverted fetish (regardless of the accepted mythos/joke) and incorporate that joke in a lewd and graphically pornographic way to be shown in R-rated venue is (in my opinion) completely crossing the line of acceptability.

    With that said, I have to respectfully disagree with the above posts about this being an “equality” issue; rather, I believe it is as a shock and profit driven agenda as well as an attempt to push the currently accepted social/societal limits on what is viewed as obscene and offensive (outside of porn). It really saddens me to see the path our society is heading. While this may be an over-exaggeration, history shows us that this type of disregard for holding anything sacred and the consistent elimination of morals and values have led to the fall of many great civilizations. I pray that one day both sexes and all races can eventually find common ground, more importantly, that we learn tolerance and accept the values and beliefs of everyone (i.e. race, sex, and religious beliefs).

    I would like to apologize to the owner of this blog, this was the first place I could find to express my sever distaste for this movie. I have never been more taken back at what was shown/implied, especially the R-rating this film received–shame on me for not researching the movie further. I only hope it helps others who aren’t interested in seeing this type of garbage avoid this movie all together!

    1. I appreciate your comment, Jon, especially your clarity with respect to the false “equality” issue and the context and proportionality of your remarks. Thank you — and I feel your pain!

  52. Hopefully, not too late to make a comment.

    First of all, the issue is not nudity, rather it’s GENITAL nudity. So for those proclaiming that women are more exploited than men in the movies, their claim is false. Nipples are nipples regardless of gender; and the ratio of topless males to females is exponential!

    Getting back to the true issue, male genitals is becoming a common occurence on the big sreen while female genitals are virtually unheard of. Personally, I don’t recall ever seeing female genitals in the movies. Furthermore, any excuse why it’s ok to show male genitalia but not ok to show the female counterpart is nothing but lame! If it’s good for the goose…

    Now, don’t EVEN get me started on urination, more specifically urinal scenes (which seems to be in almost every movie). Other than to degrade men, I’m not sure why such scenes are necessary. It would make as much sense to show a woman changing her tampon! Include female urinating scenes in the movies and watch the feminists go ballistic. Better yet, let’s see women standing at urinals. Yes, many women can actually use them too! Heck, the feminists might even approve of such scenes as it would demonstrate that women are on par with men concerning such ability…

Comments are closed.

THE MOVIE MOM® is a registered trademark of Nell Minow. Use of the mark without express consent from Nell Minow constitutes trademark infringement and unfair competition in violation of federal and state laws. All material © Nell Minow 1995-2024, all rights reserved, and no use or republication is permitted without explicit permission. This site hosts Nell Minow’s Movie Mom® archive, with material that originally appeared on Yahoo! Movies, Beliefnet, and other sources. Much of her new material can be found at Rogerebert.com, Huffington Post, and WheretoWatch. Her books include The Movie Mom’s Guide to Family Movies and 101 Must-See Movie Moments, and she can be heard each week on radio stations across the country.

Website Designed by Max LaZebnik