I loved it. It was the only animated musical where the songs were something I would want to hear again. M’kay?
“Blame Canada” didn’t win. Damn. Damn damn damn damn damn.
I’ll join the chorus trumpeting the praises of the South Park movie (out of their asses, no doubt…), and say that it was a hilarious bit of satire. I agree with Otto’s interpretation- that it was directed towards parents, and not the government, but who cares, it’s all a bunch of tree-hugging hippie crap, anyway… What really did it for me, though, were the details. For example, in the scene where the good citizens of South Park are getting prepared to fight the Canadian hordes, there’s one shot of all our favorite characters marching down the street in uniform. One of these marching figures towards the back happens to be none other than Jesus himself, taking a break from his community access show to enlist in the army. Priceless!
Heck is where you go when you don’t believe in Gosh.
It seems that the only reason people cite for not considering the South Park movie “art”, is that it’s vulgar. I don’t see how that even matters. Regardless of the subject matter and crudeness, the movie was made with far more care and creativity than many of the films that people readily label as “art films” these days. The musical numbers alone were worth the price of admission. My personal favorite was the montage take-off on “les miserables”. Brilliant.
I saw it the day it opened in theatres. As soon as “uncle f*cker” started I started laughing outloud, and I hardly stopped during the rest (except for some of the Saddam/Satan stuff which, I have to admit, made me squirm in my seat!).
Having not seen the movie or read ALL the posts in here, here’s something to consider:
It’s not art or trash, it’s entertainment.
Must it be about art or crap?
Entertainment doesn’t mean it’s artful, yet it can be. It doesn’t mean that it’s trash, although it can be. The most important thing that comes to my mind is that it’s for people to enjoy and take that into consideration.
I don’t view Ally McBeal as art or trash, it’s a show that I enjoy seeing. Same goes for a multitude of movies and TV shows…
Fix this sentence:
It doesn’t mean that it’s trash, although it can be.
to:
It doesn’t mean that it’s trash, although it can be entertaining.
Does that make sense?
DAMN…forgot one important thing here, I don’t have cable and have only seen snipets of South Park, the show…I think it’s juvenile from what I have I have seen. But, I enjoyed watching Ren and Stimpy when I had cable.
So again, it’s not really about art or trash, it’s what people find entertaining. In the world we live in, goofy and stupid stuff can help take us away from our own problems even if it couldn’t be considered art 
I think it’s somewhere in between, but a lot closer to art than trash.
Hell, maybe it IS art. After all, Bill Gates gets shot in the head. What more could you ask for?
A committee is a lifeform with six or more legs and no brain.
Mr. Socko says < “hiya Cactus Jack” >
I haven’t seen the movie but I heard it’s kinda groovie.
Happy to not be a virgin!
techChick68–you could start a whole new debate attempting to draw a line between art and entertainment. Interesting point, but I’m sticking with art. It seems to me that if entertainment (ie. diversion or escapism) had been the only goal of the film, they could have stopped with fart jokes and gross-outs. Enough people are entertained by that alone to sell movie tickets. But the movie is carefully layered with comedy and satire, and carried off with such brilliance that I’m happy to include it in my own definition of art (whatever that is). My 2 cents.
Although all the points about “SP:BLU” being a social satire and the like, you’re forgetting that Matt Stone and Trey Parker have publicly said they wrote the thing specifically to piss of the MPAA! (And it worked, too!) Here’s a quote from E! Online:
I think that says it all.
Originally Brian was really gritting his teeth about the song, but in time he evidently got over it, even skating to it at a show. Personally, I would love to see someone else skate to it at a show Brian is also skating in.
Esprix
There was also a ratings controversy about the title. Matt & Trey were originally going to release the film under the title South Park: All Hell Breaks Loose.
Now, in addition to its G/PG/PG-13/R/NC-17 ratings system for movies, the MPAA also has a separate ratings system for movie trailers (i.e. ads for the film). The trailer rating system is simpler: Either the trailer is approved for “all audiences”, in which case it may accompany any film; or it is approved for “restricted audiences”, in which case it may only accompany films rated R or NC-17. There is no “semi-restricted” rating for trailers that allows them to be viewed with, say, PG or higher rated movies but not G rated movies.
The MPAA decided that the South Park movies’s original subtitle, “All Hell Breaks Loose”, was inappropriate for viewing by an audience that included little kiddies. Because of the word “hell” in the title, they only approved the movie’s trailer for restricted audiences. This would have meant Paramount couldn’t advertise its new South Park film on any screen playing a PG or PG-13 rated movie.* Thus, Matt & Trey had to make a new subtitle for the movie – and in prehaps their greatest success in throwing something back in the MPAA’s face, they came up with “Bigger, Longer, and Uncut,” which has far more vulgar connotations than “hell” ever would!
*) It also meant Paramount couldn’t advertise its new South Park film on any screen playing a G rated movie. However, since the G rating is now associated exclusively with kiddie fare, it’s doubtful that they would want to advertise South Park right before a G flick.
Keep in mind, too, that Parker and Stone have been very adamant that South Park is most assuredly not intended for anyone under 17 without supervision - hence wanting the R and not the deadly NC-17, meaning younger viewers are allowed in with adults, instead of not at all. Basically, some kids could handle it, but it is up to the parents to decide what is appropriate and what is not. The show reflects the same intention by being a cable show, late-night, and very clearly labelled “M” for Mature.
Any parent who let their kid see this movie without them gets what they deserve, IMHO. A for us adults, I laughed my honkin’ head off.
Esprix
Thanks for the back story, Esprix and Tracer. I would add though, that the creators of a work of art/entertainment/trash (whatever) are often the least reliable sources about its real value. I’m sure that Stone and Parker play up the intentional vulgarity of their movie because that is what people expect from them. If they say their movie is trash, is it? If Britney Spears says her music is art, is it?
Regardless of their statements of intent regarding the movie, the finished product they put into theaters was immensely entertaining, clever, and (in some ways) inspired. Perhaps this was in spite of their wishes, but it doesn’t change my opinion.
Take it easy.
What is the big deal with Britney Spears anyway? I’ve heard all sorts of junk levelled at her, up to and including the claim that she is the absolute worst possible role model for girls. The one time I saw Ms. Spears performing, I happened to catch it on the Disney Channel (it was a recent performance, not her old Mickey Mouse Club stuff) – she basically came across like a high school cheerleader. Is there something sinister about this young woman that I don’t know?
Tracer, I have nothing against Britney Spears. Of course, I’ve never heard her sing either.
In fact, I wouldn’t mind being with Britney on a slow boat to China.
Ahh, getting back at the MPAA - true sign of mature and sophisticated directors!
If South Park is satire so is my third grade drawing of my english teacher brandishing big buckteeth and pooping on an apple.
Yet to be reconciled with the reality of the dark for a moment, I go on wandering from dream to dream.
You’re just jealous because you didn’t kill Kenny first.
Well, art is subjective…
I bought it as slapstick, as irreverence, and as satire. Plus, it was f**kin’ funny!
Esprix
Don’t make me take this to the Pit, gentlemen.
I’m not the least bit surprised that you enjoyed the movie, Esprix, but tracer has me stumped!
- It’s a damn musical.
- It features small boys acting like adults.
- MMMmmmmmm. . .Cartoon homosexuality
- All those annoying songs and dances
- “Advanced” satire revealed through potty humor and excessive profanity.
- Worn thin plot devices and pop culture references
- Cheesy music accompanied by tired lyrical masturbation and stiffly animated gallivanting.
There’s nothing wrong with adoring a good musical, tracer - I have plenty of friends who like musicals.
I remember when I saw the flick in one of the local drafthouses - the grins on the faces of the herd corralled in front of the screen reminded me of that look little Bobby gave me in second grade right after he farted and peed his pants simultaneously during recess when little Sarah in the pink dress walked by.
It’s good to see some of us never lose the magic of youth!!!
Yet to be reconciled with the reality of the dark for a moment, I go on wandering from dream to dream.