Comments

Sign in or register to comment.

• Previous
• Next

• 1. At 4:10pm on 02 Jun 2009, Philm_E_stein wrote:

  er, the Jonas Brothers....
  
  "NEXT!" (Roger de Bris, The Producers)

  Complain about this comment

• 2. At 4:17pm on 02 Jun 2009, gee_1977 wrote:

  Films of this ilk are far more dangerous than any so called 'video nasty' of the 80's in that they promote banality and averageness.
  
  To say 'well it's fine if you are 14' is a massive cop-out and really does condescend the young teen market.
  
  There's no reason why children of that age should have to accept the mundane, and it is entirely the reason why mediocrity breeds mediocrity, as evidenced by the 'music' scene today.
  
  It's not snobbery - it's common-sense!

  Complain about this comment

• 3. At 4:42pm on 02 Jun 2009, defeis wrote:

  I really dont get why this should be available to UK viewers only.Everything else is available for everybody.
  :(

  Complain about this comment

• 4. At 4:49pm on 02 Jun 2009, stopsayingapsolutely wrote:

  (reposted in the proper thread)
  
  Dear Mark,
  
  Hearing you talk about the Jonas Brothers 'sexualised' stage show today reminded me of the South Park episode 'The Ring' in which Kenny and his new girlfriend are encouraged by the Jonas Brothers to wear purity rings, which is secretly a marketing tactic by Disney to sell sex to young girls. Its portrayal of Mickey Mouse as a foul-mouthed, greedy, and physically violent company president is hilarious and its send up of the Jonas Brothers as 'clean cut' pop stars is razor sharp.

  Complain about this comment

• 5. At 5:42pm on 02 Jun 2009, mattjbrixton wrote:

  I also posted about the South Park episode in the previous post's comments. It really is very good. Worth 21 minutes of your life Mark.

  Complain about this comment

• 6. At 10:41pm on 02 Jun 2009, savvifilm wrote:

  Why are you posting this on your blog mark? why? why? why?
  
  Just why? Who gives a crap about a crappy little tween band that will probably disappear in a few years.
  
  This is not a film. This is stupid. Review proper films. Even the crap ones. Not joke films like this.
  
  

  Complain about this comment

• 7. At 00:08am on 03 Jun 2009, Soulpainter wrote:

  "Not available in your area" .... probably a good thing ...

  Complain about this comment

• 8. At 01:57am on 03 Jun 2009, antimode wrote:

  You would have to drag me to hell before I would go and see this. Too bad this is not in No-D (like this blog entry as viewed from my region).

  Complain about this comment

• 9. At 04:14am on 03 Jun 2009, Duncan Cookson wrote:

  Here's a clip from the official South Park website. There are a few other clips if you go to 'The Ring' episode page but beware 'The Boss is Here' clip contains profanity although it's also the satirical heart of the episode...
  http://www.southparkstudios.com/clips/221274

  Complain about this comment

• 10. At 11:16pm on 03 Jun 2009, krn wrote:

  How very open minded of you Mark...
  Now don't hold it against me, as i quote from an extremely underrated and intelligently executed program;
  "Disney is just selling sex to your children and raking in the millions'
  Ill leave it at that.

  Complain about this comment

• 11. At 11:20pm on 03 Jun 2009, krn wrote:

  By the way, i liked that in this podcast i received (as i couldn't be around to hear it live) you mentioned the film Saw.
  Like the film or not i cannot remember another time when it was mentioned, and i personally enjoyed the first one.
  I can even see some good in the hordes of abysmal sequels being released (and in production) that followed, it has been a while since a great film degraded into a boring slasher series and continued to spawn films until all that is left is a huge steaming pile of terrible slasher flicks. Isn't that some kind of a tradition in the endless reams of slasher sequels to certain films. It's like the good old days...

  Complain about this comment

• 12. At 11:37pm on 03 Jun 2009, hanshotfirst1138 wrote:

  I periodically hear Simon Mayo reading out letters and responses on your FIVE LIVE segment. How does one contact you, Mr. Kermode?

  Complain about this comment

• 13. At 01:22am on 05 Jun 2009, ThomasJDurrant wrote:

  (Off the subject of the video)
  
  Dear Mark,
  
  I saw this video and thought of you: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sn54LKu7W-4
  
  Much Love,
  
  Tom

  Complain about this comment

• 14. At 10:04am on 05 Jun 2009, kinell_paul wrote:

  I know everyone quotes from Bill Hicks, but here this is apposite. Obviously he is talking about music, but the same is true of movies.
  (I have edited the quote for those of a more sensitive nature):
  "When did mediocrity and banality become a good image for your children? I want my children to listen to people who ******* ROCKED! I don't care if they died in puddles of their own vomit! I want someone who plays from his ******* HEART!"
  
  Just because you are a teenager doesn't mean you deserve the banality of films (and TV shows) like this.
  First the High School Musical films, now this. Whydja do it Mr Kermode?

  Complain about this comment

• 15. At 9:53pm on 05 Jun 2009, gee_1977 wrote:

  Agree 100 % kinell paul. As I mentioned, not being challenged in any way by art leads to a meandering,soul-less generation. The proof is out there - do acts such as The Killers or The Jonas Brothers inspire you? No. They are background music at best, yet these are the guys making the money and influencing future generations.
  
  I am now officially old.

  Complain about this comment

• 16. At 4:36pm on 06 Jun 2009, MarieTherese11 wrote:

  On the subject of mixed metaphors, has anyone heard the JBs' cover of Busted's "That's what I go to school for"? All the appeal of the original came from its giving voice-(in a very British tongue-in-cheek manner) to a teenage boy's transgressive but harmless fantasies about his 30-year-old teacher. But instead of the narrator loving "a member of the staff", the sanitised JB version has him in love with "a girl from senior class". I guess that the metaphor-tastic foam guns are the only means they have to express any kind of real teenage sexual angst. Which is kind of the whole point of teen pop in the first place, right?

  Complain about this comment

• Previous
• Next

View these comments in RSS