Angelina Jolie Sex Scenes in 'Wanted' Too Wild for Brad Pitt's Taste?

heey iam 17 years old and i want too meet girls inn kuwait ...this is my e-mail..plz add me
malkh_alqram@hotmail.com

I have seen the movie.. what sex scene is everyone going off on? Plus they are actors, actors act.
Plus Brad knew what he was getting into he wanted a sexy girl, and wanted a LOT of children... they are not perfect together, but they like it that way.

erfrefwerf

3 September 2008

Watchdog rules against Angelina posters
Posters for a film starring Angelina Jolie and James McAvoy could be seen to condone violence and are not suitable to be viewed by children, the advertising standards watchdog has ruled.
Watchdog rules against Angelina posters

pa.press.net
Posters for a film starring Angelina Jolie and James McAvoy could be seen to condone violence and are not suitable to be viewed by children, the advertising standards watchdog has ruled.
Seventeen people lodged complaints about the posters for the film Wanted, on the grounds that they glorified and glamorised gun crime, the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) said.
Of those complainants, seven also objected on the grounds that the posters were unsuitable to be seen by children.
Seven of the complainants further objected to the posters as offensive at a time of increasing public concern about gun crime but their complaint was not upheld by the ASA.
The first poster showed Angelina in profile crouched with her elbow resting on her knee and holding a gun pointed upwards. In the background, James held a gun in each hand, pointing towards the reader.
The second poster showed images of Angelina lying across the bonnet of a car on her back and holding a gun and firing a gun. The poster was headlined "6 weeks ago I was just like you... and then I met her... and my world was changed forever".
The ASA noted that Universal Pictures (UK) Ltd said the advertisements were no longer appearing and that they had no plans for their future use.
The film was based on a comic book of the same name and the style of the poster reflected the film's roots, the company said.

Come on..That is Bs..LIke Wanted is the only movie out there that has violence in it!
I have seen Matrix Movie..that wasn't Banned in England..
I can name a few more MOvies that has Graphic content...Oh well..all they are going to do is make people curious and want to see the movie..Which mean more sales..LOL!!

nany wrote:

THE 'WANTED' IS ACTION AND VIOLENT PHIM. BECAUSE IT'S GANGSTERS MOVIE.. WHAT YOU EXPECT ANGIE ? ACT LIKE A '"NUN" OR MOTHER THERRESA? SHUT UP

Shut up yourself, go back to school and learn how to spell. What is a 'phim?, I presume you mean film. What the hell does not making violent action gangster movies have to do with suddenly becoming a 'nun' or the mother Teresa?

This ban on the film is in relation to the
increase in gang violence that is happpening in England right now, as well as elsewhere. Young children shooting and stabbing one another up over something so trivial as a perceived nasty look.

Angelina Jolie is a 'goodwill' ambassador for the United Nations as well as an actress. How that role relates to her seeming obsession with gun movies is baffling as well as extremely irresponsible, considering the fact that she must have visited some of the most violent places in the world and must be coming into contact with people who have either been shot FOR REAL whose families would have been shot and killed FOR REAL,child soldiers forced to carry guns FOR REAL. Do you really think that it is appropriate and in line with the aim of the U.N. in regards to child protection outlined in the 2002 resolution 'A world fit for Children', that states the following:

‘Encourage measures to protect children from violent or harmful web sites, computer programmes and games that negatively influence the psychological development of children, taking into account the responsibilities of the family, parents, legal guardians and caregivers’. I personally think that it is a breech of that resolution and her U.N. role, and wonder why it has not been challenged until now.

In regards to the 'empowerment of women' on a global scale (which is what the UN claims to set out to achieve), do you think a computer generated image of a violent gun toting figure invented by a man reflects the the majority of women in REALITY? Is this a healthy way to influence women toward that goal? I don't think so.

How she conducts her private life is her business, i'm not judging her private life as are most I couldn't care less, but unfortunately it is often lived out in public which makes her actions accountable in relaion to her political role. She makes a lot of money unlike the majority of women in he world, which she might give to 'charity' on her quest to perhaps portray herself as The Mother Teresa but, to acquire it in the first place by acting out her action/gun fantasies often glamorising and sexualising violence and weapons sends contradictory messages that I can't understand, so how are kids supposed to get their heads around it? Perhaps you can explain?

NIC wrote:

Come on..That is Bs..LIke Wanted is the only movie out there that has violence in it!
I have seen Matrix Movie..that wasn't Banned in England..
I can name a few more MOvies that has Graphic content...Oh well..all they are going to do is make people curious and want to see movie..Which mean more sales..LOL!!

Why is it then that these so called 'celebrity entertainers' are claiming to do 'charity' work and preaching to everybody about 'saving the world' why does that involve the promotion of action guns movies?

I'm glad you can name more movies maybe more will be criticised as people reexamine them, I feel that too many people are becoming anaesthetised to reality as a result of 'celebrity' magazine fantasy rubbish.

I think Ange is being a hypocrite for acting in violent movies. She is after all a goodwill ambassador. She must make up her mind what she wants to be or she is suffering from a slit personality. She loves fighting, she goes to boxing matches, let's her children play with toy guns and now her posters have just been banned in the UK for glamorising the use of weapons. She is going to give the UN an even worse name than it already has. She is certainly full of contradictions, hopefully people are waking up to realise that. What she says and what she does is not the same thing.

Sharon, smart people know the different between movie making and make-believe and real life.

Unclench, Sharon....please unclench!!!

Gunmad wrote:

Angelina Jolie is a 'goodwill' ambassador for the United Nations as well as an actress. How that role relates to her seeming obsession with gun movies is baffling as well as extremely irresponsible, considering the fact that she must have visited some of the most violent places in the world and must be coming into contact with people who have either been shot FOR REAL whose families would have been shot and killed FOR REAL,child soldiers forced to carry guns FOR REAL. Do you really think that it is appropriate and in line with the aim of the U.N. in regards to child protection outlined in the 2002 resolution 'A world fit for Children', that states the following:
‘Encourage measures to protect children from violent or harmful web sites, computer programmes and games that negatively influence the psychological development of children, taking into account the responsibilities of the family, parents, legal guardians and caregivers’. I personally think that it is a breech of that resolution and her U.N. role, and wonder why it has not been challenged until now.
In regards to the 'empowerment of women' on a global scale (which is what the UN claims to set out to achieve), do you think a computer generated image of a violent gun toting figure invented by a man reflects the the majority of women in REALITY? Is this a healthy way to influence women toward that goal? I don't think so.
How she conducts her private life is her business, i'm not judging her private life as are most I couldn't care less, but unfortunately it is often lived out in public which makes her actions accountable in relaion to her political role. She makes a lot of money unlike the majority of women in he world, which she might give to 'charity' on her quest to perhaps portray herself as The Mother Teresa but, to acquire it in the first place by acting out her action/gun fantasies often glamorising and sexualising violence and weapons sends contradictory messages that I can't understand, so how are kids supposed to get their heads around it? Perhaps you can explain?

Since she hasn't had any backlash on a personal level, I think she's doing okay and people are able to determine that she's an ACTRESS.

Removing the poster was against the MOVIE and none of it's actors.

Denni wrote:

<quoted text>
Since she hasn't had any backlash on a personal level, I think she's doing okay and people are able to determine that she's an ACTRESS.
Removing the poster was against the MOVIE and none of it's actors.

She had the bad judgement to make the movie and pose for the ads so what does that say about HER POLITICAL ROLE as a 'goodwill' ambassador? What does it say about the UN which has a Department for Disarmament Affairs which claims to to promote 'peace and security through disarmament'? Why is there a
sculpture "Non-Violence" by Karl Fredrik Reutersward of a gun barrel tied in a knot outside the UN headquarters?

Though she is not entirely to blame her image is being promoted and therefore on a personal level is culpable for her compliance, especially if she claims to be doing a job of promoting 'goodwill'. How does that correlate to the characters she chooses to play in her movies? Either she represents the non violence stance that the UN claims to adopt or she doesn't. If she doesn't perhaps she should rethink her 'goodwill'role, does she really think those films portray a message of peace and are suitable viewing for child soldiers or even adults who are victims of REAL gun crime? If you have any true concern about reducing global violence you have to start asking serious questions and get peoples heads out of 'celebrity' magazines which concentrates on the inane, are often filled with lies, and actually often undermine the bodies and lives of the 'celebrities' portrayed in them.

Denni wrote:

Sharon, smart people know the different between movie making and make-believe and real life.
Unclench, Sharon....please unclench!!!

Unfortunately some people seem only capable of living their lives in the make believe. Take it from me I know best.

Gunmad wrote:

<quoted text> She had the bad judgement to make the movie and pose for the ads so what does that say about HER POLITICAL ROLE as a 'goodwill' ambassador?

Nothing because no one gives a sh*t that a few people raised a stink about a movie poster. None of this stuff has hurt her on a major scale.

No, she made a movie that was a hit at the box office and she posed for the movie poster, just like any other actor would have. This is not the first time a movie poster showed a gun and I doubt it will be the last.

The movie was a basically a comic-book action farce. Gimme a break.

She doesn't have a POLITICAL ROLE as a Goodwill Ambassador. Her job as Goodwill Ambassador is to utilize her CELEBRITY!

Gunmad wrote:

What does it say about the UN which has a Department for Disarmament Affairs which claims to to promote 'peace and security through disarmament'?

Dude, it's a comic book movie and it wasn't even that great!

It says nothing because no one is raising a stink on an international level. You're talking about a few bozos who wanted to take down a poster. None of this even made the People Magazine or the New York times because no one cares. Her reputation is the same and remains in tact like before. I just did a search to see if this story made a blip on the radar and guess what? It didn't.

Only a whopping 17 people complained. I hardly call that any threat to her reputation as a goodwill ambassador and the REASON why they complained in Britain is because of the violence that's going there now, from what the article says.

Good for them!

17 freakin people and you make it sound like the nation is stirring up against her. A bit of exaggeration don't you think?

Gunmad wrote:

Why is there asculpture "Non-Violence" by Karl Fredrik Reutersward of a gun barrel tied in a knot outside the UN headquarters?

Who cares? When she starts toting a gun and actually murdering people in the streets for real, then you might have a point. Goodwill Ambassadors shouldn't be killing people...but that's not what she's doing.

She acted in a hokey movie...a movie that's not even to be taken seriously.

Gunmad wrote:

Though she is not entirely to blame her image is being promoted and therefore on a personal level is culpable for her compliance, especially if she claims to be doing a job of promoting 'goodwill'.

Only in your eyes and the 17 other people who complained. The other millions of people have better things to do.

Gunmad wrote:

How does that correlate to the characters she chooses to play in her movies?

It shouldn't correlate to anything. She's an actress...remember, it's all make-believe!

Gunmad wrote:

Either she represents the non violence stance that the UN claims to adopt or she doesn't.

None of this has anything to do with her job as an actress.

i want to have sex with jolie

sex wrote:

i want to have sex with jolie

I hope your shooter is big enough.

or tattooed.

Chick Flick wrote:

or tattooed.

OUCH!!!!LOL

OMG and here I am worried because they are saying that the electric may not read the meters and may estimate what we owe. Let me get this straight.
We suffered for days without power but may be charged as if we had AC and lights, refrigerator, washer and dryer running 24/7?

When do we get to see a post baby photo of Jolie where she isn't in a tent dress?