Talk:Last Ounce of Courage

	Film portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Film. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the guidelines.FilmWikipedia:WikiProject FilmTemplate:WikiProject Filmfilm
Stub	This article has been rated as Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
	This article is supported by the American cinema task force.
	This article needs an image (preferably free) related to the subject, such as a picture of the set or a film poster. Please ensure that non-free content guidelines are properly observed.

ACLU v. Florissant

Clearly the directory of this film didn't do his research. Then again, what do yo expect from the same studio that produced Atlas Shrugged: Part 1 and Obama 2016? The film seems to take advantage of events such as the case the ACLU had against the city of Florissant, Missouri back in 1998 for putting up a Christmas display on public property, which didn't settle too well with a local non-Christian resident.[1]

Secondly, does anyone seem to notice that this film takes a lot of cues from the activities of Anti-war activist Cindy Sheehan, whose son also died in combat like the movies protagonist, and then tries to politicize his legacy through some sort of spectacle that would dishonor their legacy? It's sort of the polar opposite of political viewpoints but the same results.

Add to this this film's low tactical maneuvers to lure audiences to see it including a spam emails and text messages[2] and "approval by Chuck Norris". As if anything not approved by him will threaten my masculinity. (I'd like to see him "approve" of reading Pride and Prejudice by Jane Austin, or is that not manly enough.)--Bushido Hacks (talk) 06:02, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative Title: The War on Christmas The Movie

I can't believe I didn't notice this earlier! Bill O'Reilly is in it.--Bushido Hacks (talk) 06:08, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please no reversion without talk

The Reception section of the page is getting reverted in violation of NPOV. Folks that don't like the film feel its relevant to include information of negative reviews, but irrelevant to note positive reviews. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.87.0.98 (talk) 00:47, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reception

The guideline involving citation of audience members is the opinion of a few wiki editors, and not especially valid. Wikipedia guidelines are not the word of God. Basically, it says that while the subjective opinion of a single film critic is a reliable source, the reaction of thousands upon thousands of viewers of the film is unreliable and invalid. That is absurd on its face. In this case, the website in question is Rotten Tomatoes, who may pick and choose the film reviewers commentary they decide, thus creating POV to the article. So, either the negative commentary of the "Tomatoes" reviewers must go, or the audience reactions must stay. Either the observations of Rotten Tomatoes is relevant here, or it isn't. 64.222.94.115 (talk) 07:42, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]