I'll admit that the gory plotline of last night's big winner No Country For Old Men made the film not appeal to me — I'm a movie wuss at even the slightest hint of violence and bloodshed! However, despite the dark subject matter (which included the shooting of a dog), the set was monitored and detailed evaluations were given . . . no pups were hurt during the making of this film.
The American Humane Association (not to be confused with the animal protection organization, the Humane Society of the United States) has overseen movie sets since 1940 to make sure animal actors stay safe while portraying heroes, villains, companions, and comedians. Even in films (and commercials) where animals are shown in passing, this organization will be on set to monitor practices and offer ratings from unacceptable (where disregard for safety directly caused the injury or death of an animal) to outstanding. No Country for Old Men was awarded the "monitored: outstanding" designation meaning that AHA observed the filmmaking, screened the finished product, and cross-checked all animal action seen on screen, and offered it the end credit disclaimer of "No Animals Were Harmed."

Jovovich-Hawk
Yoox
Comme des Garcons
that scene in butterfly effect with the dog made me shutter. its not necessary, that cinematic violence. i don't support it with my movie tickets.
1I'm with wake. I don't care if it's fake, I feel like I may vomit anytime I see violence towards animals in movies.
2i feel like i may vomit anytime i see violence towards humans and animals, i dont think either are good. frankly i dont see the need for that much violence in movies, i go to movies to get away from such things.
3Post New Comment
Please share your opinion with our community, but make sure it is on topic and follows our Community Rules. We moderate comments and prohibit personal attacks, threats, spam, lewd images, or the promotion of your personal website.