Ain't It Cool News: The best in movie, TV, DVD, and comic book news.

Moriarty Reviews Mel Gibson's Holy Hand Grenade, THE PASSION OF THE CHRIST!!

FIRST! by Karl Childers	Feb 25th, 2004 09:51:34 AM
Sinner.
The Passion of My Testicles by darthferris	Feb 25th, 2004 09:58:09 AM

Wow by Rapmaster C	Feb 25th, 2004 10:00:18 AM
Wasn't expecting a negative reveiw, based on all the hype this film received. Good for Mori, since you gave your honest opinion instead of being a sheep and just following everyone else. Good job!
brilliant review moriarty by blckmgk13	Feb 25th, 2004 10:00:51 AM
finally someone has the balls to say that this project just isn't all the shit it makes itself seem to be.
My invisible man in the sky is better than your invisible man in by IndustryKiller	Feb 25th, 2004 10:04:50 AM
That's what I predict this talkback turns into. Chill out people, you don't know the truth and you never fucking will. So there.
Two well written reviews in a day! by devanjedi	Feb 25th, 2004 10:05:58 AM
AICN is back- now its time for a scoop that makes Hollywood wet their pants.
Jesus has a beer and CHEETS on Satan by ZeusXerxes	Feb 25th, 2004 10:06:56 AM
I can't say a whole lot until I see it. I'm a newbie in Christianity and have yet to read a lot of the Bible. My hope is that Gibson's work gives insight into those writings. It's all interpretation for the most part...most religions in their practices hold the scripture in different ways. I expect Gibson's movie is just another interpretation, but should hold the main premise in check.
I think you are missing the point by Dark_Poet	Feb 25th, 2004 10:07:15 AM
The point of this movie is not to be an all around interpritation of events both biblical and historical. It is from the bible and this man's faith. I my self am no christian and consider myself Gnostic/Pagan. I have a very differnt out look on Jesus Christ. In the Gnostic text there are many who believe Jesus was aginst being a martyr. That being said, it is unfair to bash this movie because it doesnt take into account all other faiths. It is his art. I commend him for taking a chance with this story
If jews say The Passion is anti-semitic then does that mean by THE DUDERINO	Feb 25th, 2004 10:08:14 AM
Most movies that are made in Hollywood are anti-white? Hollywood is controlled by jews. Most Hollywood movies have British and German villains. Blacks are overrepresented on TV. They're either seen as the "victim" or superior to Whites. Blacks are NEVER portrayed negatviely, whereas whites are always the villains. Clearly this is anti-white racism at the hands of Hollywood jews.
you've got to be kidding... by Damer1	Feb 25th, 2004 10:10:32 AM
"I don
"For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are pe by bizarromark	Feb 25th, 2004 10:12:32 AM
...Just sayin'
Eloquently conveyed opinions Moriarty ... by Silver_Joo	Feb 25th, 2004 10:16:16 AM
I am not religious but this film looks very interesting from a visual point of view. I don't know, I still feel that if that is all it has I would feel tainted watching it. Jesus was a real figure and did suffer, regardless of your faith or not. I like The Last Temptation of Christ immensely, I suspect it has more to say than this. Gibson is not good enough to tackle this type of material controversially and give it depth. I suppose everybody knew that anyway though.
Braveheart and Jesus in the same sentence???? by Dolmes	Feb 25th, 2004 10:23:02 AM
William Wallace was a tosser. End of March when us UK peeps get a peek at 'The Christ'
duderino by boohallsmalls	Feb 25th, 2004 10:23:11 AM
go rent a sam jackson movie, any sam jackson movie and tell me white people are always the villians in hollywood and blacks never are. also as far as TV is concerned, like 99% of the actors on tv sitcoms and drama's are white. get over yourself.
You know what this movie needs? by Boris the Blade	Feb 25th, 2004 10:26:43 AM
Some Jerusalem zombies....
!!! Spoiler Warning !!! by 0101010	Feb 25th, 2004 10:27:07 AM
Jesus dies at the end, but comes back to life! Sort of like a reverse "Sixth Sense".
It's Official - Moriarty has gone Hollywood! by DirkBelig	Feb 25th, 2004 10:27:26 AM
Since this project was announced, the battle lines have been drawn up with the fiercest comments coming from the side of those most commited to marginalizing Christians as little more than glaze-eyed, slack-jawed Jesus-freak yokels. Hey, if people don't study kaballah or Scientology, what do they know, right? ---- I've enjoyed Moriarty's reviews in the past, especially his take-downs for Spielberg's last couple of loafs, but all through this review, I felt the vibe of someone who is now working amongst some rather dedicated anti-Christians (and NO! this is not code-language for "Jews" - most Hollyweird types are atheists to better support their self-image of being God themselves) and needing to go along to get along, the same way there don't seem to be many Republicans in the business, if ya follow. ---- Remember what Yoda said to Luke when he asked what was in the tree? "Only what you take with you.", was the reply and I think it kinda follows here. Many of the complaints about the movie have been along the lines of "Mel didn't do what I would've done, ergo, he is teh suck!" and Mori does it as well, though with the weight of his nascent film career hanging in the balance as well. ---- Overall, a lame review specifically tailored to cater to the God-hating rabble. Thumbs down.
Don't agree with Mori this time by Nordling	Feb 25th, 2004 10:29:44 AM
I think it's a great film, extremely violent though, but very cathartic and powerful. I'll have to see it again to see the changes from December, but I still love the film.
Fantastic review by DavidCamp	Feb 25th, 2004 10:33:38 AM
As much as I enjoy Harry's fanboy ravings when he writes, this review had everything. Good work. I look forward to seeing the film to form my own opinion.
Another great review by noslack6	Feb 25th, 2004 10:39:41 AM
I really believe that Moriarity is the brains behind this operation. I really wish that he'd go "mainstream" and start doing this professionally. I still want to see this movie. Not because I'm a religious nut, but because it sounds interesting. Its sounded interesting from the beginning. On a somewhat off topic subject, I would also like to see a movie about Muhammad and the early years of Islam. Given the times in which we live, I think it would be interesting to explore one of the driving forces in the world. It would also get us out of our nation's Christian-centric exploration of religion. Plus, it is an epic story. Lots of battles, intrique, betrayal etc.
Time for someone to post... by gopher	Feb 25th, 2004 10:41:41 AM
...they wanted Hulk Hogan as the baddie in this film. "Crucify him, brother!" Just getting it out of the way.
If I were Jesus... by Grammaton Cleric	Feb 25th, 2004 10:46:02 AM
I'd pull myself off that cross and fuck my hand holes....before they scabbed over of course, I'm not a freak.
Sounds like Moriarty reviewed the movie that wasn't made... by Batutta	Feb 25th, 2004 10:48:42 AM
...not the one that was, and I hate when critics do that shit.
Liberal Asshole Drew McWeeny doesn't like it... Shocker. by theyak	Feb 25th, 2004 10:51:40 AM
Uh, wait, no it isn't. Go figure that the one real thing you mention about the movie as being bad is the anti-semitic thing. Not the visual aspect, not the acting, not the writing, not the content, aside from the "scourging"... and let me ask you this, we've seen whipping recently in everything from Glory to Carnivale, how was Mel to make his different? Hmmmm... But I wouldn't expect a liberal asshole to think for himself, I expect him to pick up on the liberal asshole theme for not liking something and run with it. Ok, fine, you didn't like the movie... for POLITICAL reasons... That's your right I guess. So this'll make 4 or is it 5 accounts that are deleted... Thank MEL for free email accounts I suppose. Pedestrian filmmaker indeed. I remember reading you shoot your jizz over Signs and Braveheart, etc. You suck, sir. You suck balls.
Jesus was Batman by reni	Feb 25th, 2004 10:59:47 AM
Drew I agree with most of what you wrote. I actually liked it's single mindedness. It's a pity there wasn't any shading because it's a beautiful film, and there are moments that have stayed with me since we saw it in December. Oh, don't mind the Black Grape Subject title, my nana was a Catholic....
Before Moriarty gets too much credit for his opinions... by invaderzim365	Feb 25th, 2004 11:03:27 AM
Before Moriarty gets too much credit for his "expertise," remember what he said about Attack of the Clones: "I think it
Crazy Christians piss off Hollywood Demigods by Sheik Yerbouti	Feb 25th, 2004 11:03:40 AM
Reading review after review all over the internet, and after having viewed the film, I do realize that whoever made the Yoda comment "only what you take with you" is extremely astute. This film seems to be bothering a lot of film lovers because they don't understand it, they don't know the source material and feel upset that the movie does not cater to their ignorance. And by ignorance, I do not mean anything negative, simply that they are Biblically ignorant. And so because of this their criticism seems to revolve around how the story "should" have been told, what it should have included, but it seems to me that what Gibson has done is created art, if you know the context you will see more. Okay fine, so people don't get it, who cares. Except that people like Moriarty are usually so thrilled to have a film reference all their geek pleasures, and if others don't get it, than that makes the geeks that much the happier because they have something that they can lord over others. I understand this, nya nya na nyaa nyaa. Well it seems the tables have turned in this sense, the "crazy christians" seem to have a film that they can embrace, and not some TBN produced "christplotation" but something that is honest to goodness art and I think the fact that not only is it visually stunning, but the fact that many in Hollywood do not get it while "damn evangelicals" do, just make them that much more incensed.
How does "softening" Pilate make the film anti-semitic? by Spike Fett	Feb 25th, 2004 11:07:21 AM
Please explain. Fact: The Sanhedrin and church elders did not have the power to execute prisoners - they had to bring Christ to Pilate and this is what they did. Pilate did give the order to execute Jesus - this is in the gospels - and he didn't do so reluctantly so much as he just didn't give a shit. The fact remains that it was the temple elite who felt threatened by Jesus, paid Judas to give Him up, arrested Him, and turned Him over to Pilate to have Him crucified. Who killed Jesus? Well, first God planned it. Then Judas betrayed Him, soldiers arrested Him, the temple elders tried Him in a kangaroo court, Pilate condemned Him, the bloodthirsty mob cheered, Roman guards nailed Him to the cross, and just about everyone mocked Him until His death, including the two robbers who were being crucified at the same time! Finally, He died to absolve the world, including all of us living today, of our sins. People who charge that the gospels put forth that "the Jews" killed Jesus are guilty of the same simplification and over-generalization that they accuse Christians of making. Is it possible to criticize the church while still being true to the faith? This is what Jesus did, and this is the story that the gospels and Gibson's film tell. Much like Martin Lawrence's character in BOOMERANG, who accused the game of billiards as being racist, people who read anti-semitism into the bible are seeing things that simply are not there. Have people interpreted the gospels wrongly in order to justify anti-semitism? Yes. These same people could interpret episode #3756 of Sesame Street to justify anti-semitism if they wanted. Does that make episode #3756 of Sesame Street anti-semitic simply because a Godless bigot interpreted it that way? Is billiards really racist because the white ball knocks the black ball into a hole in the "ground"? Get a grip Drew - you're smarter than this.
By the way... by Grammaton Cleric	Feb 25th, 2004 11:09:15 AM
That Chappelle Show skit where Prince plays basketball is one of the funniest things I've ever seen. "Have some more pancakes, bitch."....also, the term christsploitation is pretty funny.
The Passion by dampen666	Feb 25th, 2004 11:09:50 AM
I'm not standing up for the film, for I haven't seen it, but based on the reactions I've been reading (and let's face it, you can't look right or left without seeing an article on the Passion somewhere) I find some of Moriarty's points a bit off putting. First off, I believe that this film is based on The Passion, and most of that is contained within Mark's Gospel, if I remember rightly. Basically, this film is a visual depiction of the 12 stages of the cross. Visual descriptions of this hang on the walls of every Catholic Church the world over. I think Moriarty's comments on the way Pilate is portrayed seem a little off balance. Sure, the Gospels weren't perhaps the whole truth - I'm not disputing that, but to say that Gospels weren't written with an agenda is something else. The Gospels were written to turn people from the Jewish religion to the new Christian religion(to put it in brioad strokes). The portrait of Pilate may not be truthful, but Moriarty has to realise that the people the Gospels are trying to paint out as villains, were not the Romans, and were not those people who follwed the Jewish faith, but the High Priests and the Pharisees, the very people who stood as the authority on the religious teachings. If Gibson has based his film on 'The Passion' as stated in the Gospels then I can't see there being any other villain within the piece? Is it anti-semitic - no I don't think so. It's not a condemnation of a race of people, but I can see how people are worried that it may change people's opinions on a religion. THAT'S WHAT THE GOSPELS WERE WRITTEN FOR! To convert people from the traditional Jewish faith. This is the same story used within the New Testament, that proved so powerful, because it allowed the business of the Christian Church to prosper. The film, I expect, will attack the Jewish Priests, but does it attack the Jewish people? I find it hard to believe that it will. I was raised a Catholic, although I do not class myself as a Catholic or any other denomination, but I am familiar (and by no means an expert) with the story of the Passion. As for Pilate not making narrative sense, I'm sorry? The version of Pilate in the Gospels makes TOTAL narrative sense. Here is a guy, a Roman, the very race of people who were the oppresors of the Jewish people. Someone to be hated. And the Pharisees were meant to be the protectors of the people. What the Passion does is turn that relationship on it's head. The Pharisees refuse to acknowledge that Jesus is who he says he is and here's Pilate, a guy who shouldn't care one way or another (and doesn't) but even he senses that Jesus has done no wrong, but he daren't face the wrath of the crowd because it will give him more trouble. What this shows is that even Pilate, one of the most hated figures of his time, showed more compassion towards Jesus than the priests did - therefore adding a sympathy factor for the Romans and even more hatred directed at the Priests. The priests stand for the Jewish faith - the Gospels were written to convert people from that faith. If Gibson's based it on the Gospels, then that's the story he's going to tell. The Bible isn't politically correct, it's motivated, political propaganda. I'm not saying that Gibson's right or wrong, or that the New Testament's right or wrong in presenting a realistic, honest depiction of what happened 2000 years ago - but people really should have seen what was coming. Look at the source material!
So is the resurrection in it? by rev_skarekroe	Feb 25th, 2004 11:10:05 AM
Because without that it's just a movie about a guy getting brutally executed. Mori's right - the context is very important, at least insofar as non-Christians who might view the movie go. sk
"self-satisfied persecution complex" by pandamaster83	Feb 25th, 2004 11:11:06 AM
Well of course he was going to suffer... Don't tell me you didn't know this was going to be a film about unjust suffering before you saw it... I mean how else would it work? That can't be any sort of valid reason for disappointent, can it? It's "The Passion of the Christ" not "Jesus: Bring it OOOANN!!!"
He's right, though by Kimberleigh	Feb 25th, 2004 11:14:04 AM
My husband and I, who have very religious (protestant) beliefs (but in different ways--I'm hyper liberal, he's a conservative), pre-viewed the film on Saturday night, and thought it was absolutely horrid. Granted, I have long believed that Mel Gibson has a Jesus complex, but I did npt expect this of him. I am a firm advocate for not letting facts get in the way of the truth. Obviously Gibson is too, which would be fine if he weren't claiming to have done vast amounts of research and being sure everything in it is true...well, this movie is neither historically nor scripturally accurate. If it weren't for all the controversy and the "you're either with us or against us" bush-ist comments made by Gibson, the movie would not be doing anything. It would be viewed as an inaccurate piece of trash. But Kudos to Newmarket. They did it again. They are the true genius in this story.
Here's why I admire the film, and will see it in just 90 more mi by Techtite	Feb 25th, 2004 11:18:27 AM
Here's the deal, kids. How many frivolous, jovial views of Mohammad have you seen? Buddha...? No? Here's the deal: when it comes to comical or insulting views of Jesus, there are many, almost all thanks to Hollywood. Entertainment Weekly's online site made a reference to the "12 most memorable" performances as Jesus in film, and at least half are insulting crap. "Will Farrell in 'Superstar'" is one of the most "memorable" Jesus performances of our time?!? Come on. This movie will make one thing quite clear: the man was brutally slaughtered.
argh, you morons by Kimberleigh	Feb 25th, 2004 11:20:42 AM
Yes, it is supposed to be brutal, but you see little of the love from Jesus. You see only brutality from the Romans. The major complaint here is that Mel Gibson COMPLETELY missed the point of the story. Jesus is resurrected at the end, and it is shown for about 5 seconds. Yes, Gibson was unrestrained and blah blah blah blah...He lost the spiritual truth in the story. He really, really did.
It's official: Moriarity gave it a big thumbs down which means i by Commando Cody	Feb 25th, 2004 11:23:54 AM
...Because that's what it is. Having gone to the late show last night it was simply a MASTERPIECE. Bold, visionary, gut wrenching, masterfully directed and stunningly acted and filmed. Some of the most gorgeous photography I can recall in memory. It's a movie that after it's done you can barely breathe. You always hear the word "art" tossed around in relation to things, but NEVER was it more warranted than here. This movie was 5 star from start to finish. Without question had the PASSION been released at the end of the year, Gibson would be taking home his second director's Golden Boy instead of Peter Jackson this Sunday night and THE PASSION would probably be taking the big prize too -- because to deny that it's without question THE most powerful and THE most emotional and THE best movie of the last 365 days would be ridiculous. Mori, it's bad enough that I only sometimes agree with you and think that often your ego is out of control, but this time you're even MORE full of shit than the sorry assed and completely clueless opinions you voice during your dweebish Jedi Councils. Actually, I'll give Mori one bit of credit. At least he TRIED to blur and bury his politics and talentless hack opinion with repeatedly droning and boring paragraphs that make utterly no sense (riiiiiight...the MONTY PYTHON film is a better, more accurate picture of the backdrop the story of Christ plays out against). The top of the shit heap is the NY DAILY NEWS and Jami Bernard's shrewish review which simply oozes her so-called professional journalistic mentality which is translated as "I have a political and religious agenda of my own, I intend to use a major U.S. newspaper as MY personal pulpit to bring down this film, and FUCK YOU if you get in my way or disagree with me, you Jesus freaks!" So it's ok, Drew -- so far you've written the SECOND biggest pile of manure about the movie.
duecherino by bigsdl	Feb 25th, 2004 11:26:14 AM
sweet post ya racist moron.
This talkback needs more Hulk Hoganisms by Creflo A. Dollar	Feb 25th, 2004 11:27:57 AM
Hulk should have been cast as Christ: "Father, why have you forsaken me, Brother?"
"No matter what you believe about Jesus,"..... by Truman_Burbank	Feb 25th, 2004 11:35:49 AM
.... "he was definitely martyred." Really? I don't remember that chapter in history class, and I went to fucking Catholic school. It's never been proved that Jesus was martyred, and I for one don't even believe he ever existed. So you can take that assumption away from the viewer. Everything written about Jesus was written over 70 years after he died, and the life expectancy was what, 40, 50 back then? He was a folk tale. A myth. That's all. And the fact that even Mori just believes hands down that he was real shows exactly to what extent the world has been duped by assumption. There's no proof. None. So despite all this bullshit hoopla about Jews and Magdalene, one thing remains true... nobody fucked with the Jesus.
Passion by JOEEARTH	Feb 25th, 2004 11:36:10 AM
This movie is not about blaming the jews for killing Christ nor is it about the teachings of Jesus...too many critics and stars are trying to say that the violence etc...that are shown is subverting the "basic tenet of Christianity" which they claim is "love thy brother"...This is not the basic tenet of Christianity...the point that Gibson is trying to make is that the basis of all Christian belief is that Jesus Christ suffered and died on the cross to remove original sin from humanity...in so doing human souls were allowed to be cleansed and return to the glory of heaven and God...it is the sacrifice that was made that makes the teachings of Christ resonate...God became mortal in the form of Jesus because he so loved the world that he was willing to sacrifice himself in the form of Jesus to save mankind. In order to show humanity its own brutality he was made to suffer in a brutal and horrible fashion...Jesus being run over my an ox cart at the age of 33 teaches us nothing...it was the brutal death that makes people understand the meaning of suffering...to portray it in any other way is a lie...crucifixion was a horrible reality made even worse for Jesus due to the nailing, scourging, crown of thorns and piercing...others were simply tied up and left to suffocate under their own body weight...it is the fact that Jesus, even though he knew his fate, and could have prevented it any time as he was challenged to do took that suffering on himself and showed us even in death what we should bewcome.."father forgive them for they know not what they do"...that is Gibson's message and it could be no less as a devout catholic...whether you believe in Jesus as the son of God..or just as a historical figure his suffering and the way he handled it are why Christianity is still a religion today...and for people who often decry fakery in movies and say effects have made things less real at the cinema I am suprised by the reaction to the extreme violence...do you want the camera to turn away and not capture the reality of crucifixion?
Hmmm by WizardX	Feb 25th, 2004 11:36:35 AM
You know, those of you saying that Mortiarty should only talk about what was in the movie, what was he supposed to write about? The quality and execution of the beating scenes? It's a movie about a man getting tortured to death over the course of two hours. If he can't try to talk context, neither can you. Have fun. ..... That having been said, I think the fundamental problem here is one of interpretation. There are, boiled down, two schools of thought on Jesus' importance. One is that his significance is as being a great teacher and guide. When he said that you can only get to heaven through him, he meant by following his example. Anyone who behaves as he preached and acted will receive his reward. ..... But, the other interpretation is that the crucifixion was everything. Worship Jesus, and his sacrifice automatically cleanses you. This standpoint, taken to an extreme, essentially renders the rest of his life meaningless. It doesn't matter what he did in life, just that he was God's son, and by dying for us we're all saved - no matter what he did to get himself killed. And that, sadly, appears to be the point of view of The Passion. ..... Mel all but admitted this in the Diane Sawyer interview when he said it was these 12 hours that spoke most to him in the Christ story. He feels that Jesus' death was more important than his life. This is a most distressing point of view to those of us who believe Jesus should be revered as a teacher, not as a whipping-boy. This movie appears to be little more than a guilt trip. "Look how much suffering Jesus went through for your sins, so worship him you ungrateful bastard." That's a point of view I just can't get behind.
CONTROVERSY by HIPPO	Feb 25th, 2004 11:43:39 AM
Just imagine if it wasn't for the controversy would anyone be watching it?
Stylishly empty gore movie that insults an entire ethnic group-- by watashiwadare	Feb 25th, 2004 11:46:18 AM
but it's not from miramax so it may not get the fanclub
I really think Mori needs to see this film again, and write down by The Tao of Joe	Feb 25th, 2004 11:48:35 AM
I take Moriarty's reviews of unfinished films with a grain of salt. Both he and Harry lavished praise on the unfinished abortion to cinema known as The Grinch, when Ron Howard flew them in. I know for a fact, Drew would have ripped it apart. On top of that, he has left his opinion three months of time to collect dust inside his brain (I never write a review for a movie I saw over a week ago, its just unethical), and marinate with the influential juices of the media as well as the people in the entertainment industry that he works with. For better and worse, this is Gibson's Citizen Kane. He made the movie he wanted to make, and it looks like it could forever damage his career as an entertainer. I am going to see this movie tonite, and was going to see it on the first day reguardless of how much attention the media lavished on it. The comparison of Gibson to Paul W S Anderson was totally a low blow too by the way. I imagine that if anderson made a movie about jesus christ, he would have Jesus fighting zombie dogs in hell in overcut martial arts fighting sequences. If anything, this could resemble a film by Paul Thomas Anderson, entitled Magnolia, a film that flourished as well as suffered in its own excesses.
Understanding the nay-sayers..... by bizarromark	Feb 25th, 2004 11:52:52 AM
I think columnist Steve Beard said it best at National Review Online: "This is the Sunday-school flannel-board lesson for a generation that grew up on violent video games, skipped church, and stood in line to watch Quentin Tarantino's Kill Bill, Volume 1
Birth. Life. Death. That's all there is you cowards. by CellarDoor	Feb 25th, 2004 11:53:05 AM
That is all.
Piss Poor and Uniformative Review by clserafini	Feb 25th, 2004 11:58:30 AM
My God, how long until this review makes a point. Why am I reading about what religions you were? How about backing up your opinions with some examples! Try reviewing the MOVIE and not the SUBJECT of the movie. And who cares if Gibson gravitates to a martyr type story in his movies? What does that have to do with this movie? You waste my time with your ramblings! Can people just move past the contriversy and rate the film on the film's merit alone. Keep your religious beliefs to yourself!
One of the most memorable portrayals of Jesus as a zombie... by ZombieChrist	Feb 25th, 2004 12:19:43 PM
...was the work of Thomas Patrick, in "Zombie Christ", the most controversial movie ever made. I only mention it because it's relevant to Techtite's point about the frivolous portrayals of Jesus. Speaking of which, how about Keanu Reeves as Buddha? That's almost as bad as Will Ferrel as the King of Kings. I'm going to send a DVD of Zombie Christ to Icon Pictures, Attn: Mel Gibson. www.zombiechrist.com
Of course Gibson's movies have a strong martyr theme by Silver Shamrock	Feb 25th, 2004 12:21:17 PM
Because he's been working towards maikng THIS FILM his entire directorial career. It's not like he said, "I want to make another persecution movie, how about that Jesus dude?"
So what's the news on The Da Vinci Code movie? by mortsleam	Feb 25th, 2004 12:24:49 PM
Anyone?
Moriarity, please note by LordZanthos	Feb 25th, 2004 12:28:22 PM
To indicate that Pilate was a violent, cruel man, would not be an inaccurate portrayal of not only him, but also most Roman governors at the time. However, to indicate that the Sanhedrin and the Pharisees and Sadducees were in any way not primarily at fault for the decision made to execute Christ is incorrect. Any of the Gospels one might wish to read are full of attempts by the above-mentioned Jewish Leaders to discredit, humiliate, and yes, kill Christ. The Jewish people themselves were split, some wanted Christ dead, and others wanted to follow him. Christ was preaching a message that such people were not going to be needed, and like any powerful, controlling group, they did not want to lose power; witness the Crusades, Inquisitions, or any attempted coup, or the reign of any Dictator. Some people will do anything to keep power. And remember, just a few days before Christ and his disciple had what some call
Haven't seen the film, don't know if its good or bad, but I full by NFLRefugee	Feb 25th, 2004 12:30:12 PM
I respect Gibson's guts. I think the guy has a serious set of balls to make this film. People who critize Gibson as makind a simple vanity film, well maybe it is but I would rather see this vanity film, than other vanity classics such as The Postman or Battelfield Earth. As a film lover, I am glad to see that such a serious-minded subject is being put on film. As a film lover, I am glad that such a risky (art) film is getting such a wide release. As a film lover, I am glad people are talking, debating, and screaming about a film. This type of controvery hasn't played out in the mainstream press, and in public forums since the release of JFK back in 1991. Its an exciting week to be a film lover.
Libs can't handle this film by Silver Shamrock	Feb 25th, 2004 12:32:10 PM
With the exception of Harry of course. His review was fair and well thought out. Who'd have thought he'd write a better review than Mori? "no one should be faulted or dismissed based on how much or how little they know." What sort of relativistic liberal clap trap is that? By that logic, Mori should have given Gibson a free pass because Gibson should not be faulted or dismissed based on how much or how little he knows about the gospels. OOPPS!!
The Greatest BDSM Epic Of All Time!!! by Marco_Xavier	Feb 25th, 2004 12:33:12 PM
I pity the poor deluded fool who hasn't by now recognized that Mel Gibson is a sadist. The man has been associated with more images of bondage and torture committed to film than any violent porno director who ever lived. Over at CHUD.com, Nick Nunziata pointed out in his own negative review that about 85-90% of the movie is devoted to acts of brutality committed against Jesus. Any other film so overwhelmed with deviant imagery would be universally reviled, but simply associating it with a figure of worship seems enough to absolve Gibson in many eyes. Perhaps those same eyes could be used to read news articles about how Gibson cribbed much of the material used in the film from a delf-declared prophetic nun named Emmerich who wroted a deeply anti-Semetic novel about the passion in the 1800's. Even though the scripture Gibson claims to have been faithful to credits the Pharisees with warning Jesus about the plot against him, they were explicitly filmed by Gibson as being among the Christ's tormentors. I expect that if the film had spent a bit more time on Jesus' life, we'd have seen him weilding a cat o' nine tails against the moneychangers. Whether or not a "Jesus Christ" ever existed, we know for a fact that a great many Jewish martyres suffered these very same tortures (and worse, if you've read some of the gut-wrenching tales in the Talmud) without their blood washing away anyone's sins (as opposed to adding to them). The most rough and basic understanding of Hebrew reveals that "sin" is an archery term meaning "to miss the mark." How can the crucifiction of a man 2,000 years ago absolve anyone of falling short of doing what's right in God's eyes? By extention, how is anyone served by two hours of fetishistic imagery that could have been devoted to actually teaching someone Christ's way? Gibson is guilty of the sin of missing a glorious opportunity to teach the world about something righteous, instead of wallowing in and romanticising one of humanities greatest wrongs in popular belief.
Wow..what a shock Moriarty...... by Shaner Jedi	Feb 25th, 2004 12:33:35 PM
...doesn't like the film. You're just playing to your own crowd Professor and you know it. Excuse me, but I have to go watch the film again.
Wow by timmer33	Feb 25th, 2004 12:34:01 PM
You guys base entire arguments on books(gospels) written by religioius zealots centuries ago and you think they're historically accurate? You think they're valid arguments? People base their faith on gospels which are either completely inaccurate or partially accurate and claim that they're 100% truthful. Believing in this stuff is equivalent to believing in the tooth fairy. Just my opinion, and I do realize you're entitled to your own. Now flame away, but know that to hold to a belief with no evidence whatsoever is the sign of a weak, impressionable mind and is even worse than astrology.
Kimberleigh where do you get your information by Sheik Yerbouti	Feb 25th, 2004 12:35:16 PM
What you just said makes absolutely no sense. You believe Newmarket has anything to do with the succesfull marketing of this film? Props to them for taking a chance, but lets be honest here, this is Icon's (interpret Gibsons) show all the way. They are footing most of the bill to publicize, Newmarket is merely a distributor. Also when the blockbuster numbers come out, and they will, it is the grass roots campaign through churches and Christian organizations that helped to get theater after theater booked for private screenings, Newmarket just gets to enjoy having their name up on the screen. Of course this use of Christian marketing will have Hollywood up in arms for several reasons. The first is that they hate Christians and do not want to see any film suceed on a national level that portrays their faith positively. Secondly they will be mad that they didn't think to do this first and will want to know how they can get a piece of the pie. Get ready for "The Bible" directed by McG, written by Charlie Kaufman and starring Paul Thomas Walker as Jesus.
how can Hulk Hogan play Jesus,when clearly he is God?!! by Brody77	Feb 25th, 2004 12:44:54 PM
Hulk Hogan rules,come to Wrestlemania XX, Brother!! PS-religious movies are just a way for those gits that come round people's doors invading our privacy to do so without getting off their arses. Having Faith is one thing (mmm, Eliza) but the bible is pants. I used to like "Mad" Mel.
Why did Leonardo not show more than by jimmy_009	Feb 25th, 2004 12:45:21 PM
just the Last Supper?Poor choice, Da Vinci. Not to compare Mel Gibson with Leonardo Da Vinci, but critics that complain that there isn't more of Christs life on display miss the point. This is one glimpse at one moment in time, nothing more.
Obscure Reference by pdiddy	Feb 25th, 2004 12:47:25 PM
The dudes in Getmo are alive for a lot longer than international law says they should be. According to the Geneva Convention, if you are an irregular combatant on the battefield and not in uniform you can be killed without any process whatsoever. These guys were trying to kill soldiers, not preach on a street corner. Bam and be done with it. That being said, these guys are being held and being interrogated and I have some questions about that too. Nothing to do with religious persecution...
HAHAHAHA by AlgertMopper	Feb 25th, 2004 12:48:43 PM
you're so predictable Harry, it's sad realy
pdiddy response = Moriarty owned by mildewproduction	Feb 25th, 2004 12:54:44 PM
Good night, turn off the lights on your way out.
passion by THEREALBADMOJO	Feb 25th, 2004 12:56:03 PM
Why the hell do the jews think they are hated for killing Christ? If Christ had not been executed he wouldn't have done what he was meant to do. If anything they were chosen by God to be his chosen people to deliver Christ back into heaven...Christians owe great thanks to the jews and the romans...sheesh...talk about a persecution complex!!
This Debate by Barry Egan	Feb 25th, 2004 01:01:24 PM
Does anybody besides me think that it's just cool that a film has triggered this sort of discussion? Films should be thought-provoking and this one seems to have done just that.
THEREALBADMOJO... by Marco_Xavier	Feb 25th, 2004 01:02:26 PM
...you make an excellent point. Now please tell people to stop trying to kill, convert, and defame us (not necessarily in that order), and maybe we can work on our collective persecution complex. We're about a generation removed from having slurs like "Christ killers" shouted at us, ferchristsakes...
Shut up just shut shut up... oww think I'm goin crazy. WHO CARES by TheGinger Twit	Feb 25th, 2004 01:06:21 PM

I'm Jewish, so.... by Jack the Lad	Feb 25th, 2004 01:06:32 PM
I put on my sharpest yarmulke, the loudest Hawaiian shirt I could find, and went to the 12:15 am show. Then, when the scourging started, I fired up a stogie and laughed like Max Cady in Cape Fear all the way through to the end. I think a few people sitting near me may have gotten a little irate.... Seriously, though, I'm Jewish and I would say that while Gibson made some choices that puzzled me and it's neither as good nor as bad as it's been made out to be, TPOC is NOT (that) anti-Semitic. I've not read Harry's review or many others so appy-polly-loggies if I repeat any points they made. First of all, there are several parts in the film where we see Jews vociferously protesting what's going on. Two of the high priests leave in outrage, calling Jesus's trial a travesty. Another Jew is forced to help Jesus carry the cross. At first he does so reluctantly, but after he sees how the Romans are treating Jesus he starts screaming that he won't take another step until they stop. They force him to anyway. Really, the people Gibson leans on the most here are the Roman soldiers. A Jewish woman washes Jesus's face at around the same point in the film. Many Jews are seen weeping and protesting on the way to the Crucifixion. And finally, after they take Jesus down, there's a shot where Mary stares sadly and accusingly into the camera as it tracks back for what seems like about five years.... meaning, WE, the audience, EVERYBODY, basically is responsible. I'm not a theological scholar, but it seems to me that Gibson soft-pedals Pilate's responsibility quite a bit. He practically has to be threatened with crucifixion himself before he'll order Christ crucified. And there's a part where he's telling Jesus he's sorry and Jesus says something like "those who delivered me to you bear the greater sin." This could just mean the high priests and the Jews who wanted the crucifixion, not all Jews. So I don't know why Gibson has such a hard-on for Pilate. But all this is pretty much wiped out by the stuff I mentioned before and the last shot of Mary. I don't know what I thought of it as a film, I'm still trying to absorb the experience less than 10 hours later. I will say that it's well worth seeing. And there are actually some sweet horror film moments in it here and there - gotta tip my beanie to the actress who played Satan, she was quite effective. Anyway, that's my two cents. Even if you wind up hating the movie, the process of engaging with it will be worthwhile.
Fact or Fiction? by jsmokehaus	Feb 25th, 2004 01:15:39 PM
I think the single most important thing to consider regarding this whole movie ordeal is fact and fiction. Lets be realistic there are no "factual" accounts of Jesus doing or meaning anything special outside of religious cirles, namely the bible folks. I find it very disturbing that everyone (here, the media, churches, etc) think they acutally have merit to argue for or against this movie with "facts". If there was actually any hard evidence one way or another there wouldn't be a single non-christian in this world, would there? The bible and everything in it are not factual (no other account in history supports the bible stories) they are simply what you make them. So arguing that Jesus was condemned on Tuesday and not Wednesday or that the jews condemend him or not is really irrelevant. Either you believe it or you dont, in which case I cant find the correlation this has with the movie. Afterall, the Lord of the Rings is a book with no factual documentation why arent we up-in-arms about its "factual" content as portrayed in the movies or the severe outcry against anti-orc mentality portrayed therein?
This coming from the dude who is writing MORTAL KOMBAT 3!! by Shigeru	Feb 25th, 2004 01:19:22 PM
Domination, brother! Gimme a break. And there is more evidence that Jesus lived than a TON of other historical figures that we take for granted. Oh yeah, did you forget about the part that says... Give us Barabas, Crucify him! I'm seeing it tonite.
Why do Jews get a pass but other races don't? by SexyBeast	Feb 25th, 2004 01:30:28 PM
Movies about 1930's Germany are not considered Anti German. Movies about 1800's American Slavery are not anti white. So why is a movie about Jews wanting Jesus dead Anti Semitic? Are Jews so over sensititive that they want to rewrite history? Maybe next time roots comes on, I should scream out Racism because whites are portrayed as slave masters.
Wait... by darthferris	Feb 25th, 2004 01:32:48 PM
...so if you don't like the movie, you're a liberal? What a right wing thing to say.
This film is anti-semitic!! by George Newman	Feb 25th, 2004 01:35:53 PM
Calling this film anti-semitic is like saying that Christians BLAME the Jews for killing Jesus, as if he was never supposed to have died. This is ludicrous and in thinking this, one has totally missed the entire point of Christianity.
Why Mori hated this movie by zacdilone	Feb 25th, 2004 01:37:48 PM
Because just about everyone else at AICN raved about it.
"Unfortunately, the film by trafficguy2000	Feb 25th, 2004 01:37:52 PM
of a painting in terms of character and subtext" Hmmm... You don't go to many art galleries or exhibitions do you? Also, making comparisons with "Life of Brian" is just plain crass. How about a comparison with reasonable depictions of the Passion or of the government that ruled at the time? I think that would be a little more fair.
Why do people keep BITCHING about the violence what a buncha hip by Rcamacho2278	Feb 25th, 2004 01:38:11 PM
Did anyone BITCH when Spielberg showed how the jews were treated in Schindlers List? All of a sudden now people cant stand to see the persecution of a man who went through all that for us, what a bunch of pussies. maybe its the incredible guilt that hides within that doesnt allow you to stomach scenes like that but its ok to see a man shot in the head or people hack n slashed . im seeing the movie today to determine if the critics are right about mel focussing more on the persecution than jesus actual message but you know what, even now I think its ok cuz everyone here knows jesus message already and they still choose to do whats wrong. people are gonna do what they want and what feels right to them , they dont care they know the message, so why make a movie to try to change their minds, instead, SHOW what he went through, show the ingrates of this world full of pride and self righteousness that this perfect man went through this ordeal for our sins, just to give you monkeys a chance to actually have that choice of right and wrong. pussies...
GingerTwit by zacdilone	Feb 25th, 2004 01:39:34 PM
"Fuck religion and pay attention to your life." Strangely enough, I'd say that's the basic message of Christianity. Good on ya', Ginger!
Moriarity -- you're an insufferable ponce... by BraveCapt.	Feb 25th, 2004 01:42:12 PM
Strutting your "conflict" & "confessions" around like a peacock. Are you and the "self-satisfied" Gibson all that different in your creative expression? Twit.
Obscure Reference by pdiddy	Feb 25th, 2004 01:44:12 PM
As I said, I've got questions about Getmo too. I'm certainly not going to defend holding people who weren't captured on a battlefield indefinitely. I think that it's a good thing that people are being released who are found to not be a threat and if I were them I'd be pretty pissed about being there too. I concede your point there. The guys captured in combat are a different story. If they were Afghans or Iraqis, they should be treated as POW's and as far as I know, they are. In fact many of the regulars have been released back into society. I don't know of any actual Iraqi soldiers being sent to Getmo for instance. However, if they were terrorists shipped in from out of the country and were trying to kill soldiers, they can and should be dead already and legally so. They're getting off easy so far by being in prison. As far as the "they're only Muslims" crap, I don't think that's the point (we executed Nazi spies that we captured in WWII for instance) and it certainly doesn't represent my point of view. We can disagree but it's disingenuous and a little lazy to try and pull out the bigot card on me. Doesn't fit.
Bad comparisons by jsmokehaus	Feb 25th, 2004 01:44:29 PM
Comparing this movie to movies like Schindlers list and saving pvt ryan is just wrong. Almost every movie sited on this thread is based on DOCUMENTED FACTUAL HISTORY ACCOUNTS AS NOTED BY 1000's to 1,000,000s of people. Jesus is a story accounted by a handful of people during a very explosive timeperiod. No where near the same thing. You show me evidence other than the bible and youve got a decent comparison. Lets not compare facts and speculations.
Jsmoke , The bible is historically accurate, you just are not th by Rcamacho2278	Feb 25th, 2004 01:44:51 PM
What are you talkin about the bible is not factual and nothing in history supports it? Thats a comment an Atheist would make. An an Atheist is someone who just doesnt wanna believe in anything even if it was true. True ignorance. Historians have countless of times went to the bible to compare for historical accuracy and have proven events and people IN the bible. also including times, dates and locations. Just because you dont see a huge tomb with the name JESUS does not mean he never existed, do some research first before you try telling people the bible is a fictional piece of work.
I always think it is funny when people think a piece of art will by PumpyMcAss	Feb 25th, 2004 01:44:51 PM
If you think that your religion or lifestyle is so fragile that a movie will fuck over your entire people, maybe you should consider getting some new beliefs.
Coming Soon: "Christ 2--The Revenge!!" by spoolyfoods	Feb 25th, 2004 01:46:24 PM
Also, from Oliver Stone, "JFK 2-The Bionic Years"
If JC really was the son of God... by Short_Circuit	Feb 25th, 2004 01:48:18 PM
...a deity made flesh so that he might succumb to all the pain and anguish and temptation that everybody else faces; then his allowing himself to be crucified was the choice by a god to commit suicide, as he would have had the power to stop it all at any time and didn't. I personally have no intentions of putting my faith in a deity that chooses to commit self-murder and then tell me he did it to symbolicaly save me from the judgement of an already cruel and indifferent god. The whole thing sounds like a goddam conspiracy by arcane spirits in high places who demand obedience in return for good fortune. The Hebrews sacrificed animals prior to JC's coming and passing, and he said "I am the lamb", to suggest that you wouldn't have to sacrifice animals to make up for wrongdoing and get into the afterlife. He also said "I am the way, the truth and the life". I've personally found that all truth is subject to interpretation, that there are many ways to get through life, and if there IS an afterlife, there's more than one idea on what comes after death, when you look around the world. Who's right? This carpenter's son from the countryside of Nazereth who chastised Jewish priests and hung out with the dregs of society? I'd be more inclined to listen to one of those nut jobs who have near death experiences and see a "white light". Forgiveness is a touchy thing, and tugs at alot of people's heartstrings, and that's why they fall for it. In order for it to work though, the churches must convince you that you're loved, but still a worthless decaying body that cannot make proper decisions on your own. This coming from people who once said the earth was the center of the universe. Then they make you afraid for your life after this life, which you are informed does not belong to you. Fear + Guilt + Shame = Control. It's why Rome chose Christianity as their official religion a few decades after destroying the temple in Jerusalem. This is no philosophy I'll be a part of, thank you.
Apt Observations Save One Point by Nixons Nighthawk	Feb 25th, 2004 01:50:21 PM
Who came up with the theory that Early Christians layed down to the Romans by sweetening the account of who Pontius Pilate was? The early Jewish Christians by historical accounts were pulled apart by wild horses, eaten by dogs and crucified. Despite all this they never abandoned their faith. Do you really think they would compromise their moral principles and lie about Pilate in order to curry favor with Rome. And what did they hope to accomplish? That the Romans would crucify them right side up rather than upside down. There is no logical or historical basis for the idea that they tried to make the Romans the good guys in the biblical accounts. Then you might ask why would Pilate show favor to Christ when he was a big time Jewish Crucifier? Never underestimate the power of a woman. If Nancy could get Ron Reagan to dabble in astrology don't you think Pilates wife could woo him to show favor to a Jewish Mystical Prophet called Jesus the Christ? Food for thought.
Research by jsmokehaus	Feb 25th, 2004 01:55:37 PM
I have read the bible several times. All of the dates, people and places you are referring to are not accounted for historically. The bible, if anything, is very non-specific. If doesnt say that on Tuedsay the 17th of February Moses decided he would build a ship. It is all loose language (translated several times) and vague metaphorical descriptions. The only facts from the bible are very loose ones at best. Also dont forget that the New testament is drastically different from the old in context and form. Probably because of the time they were written. The point I was making before and am still trying to make is simply this: Either you believe it as fact or you dont. You shouldnt be so bold and quick to issue ignorace claims unless you have (beyond a shadow of a doubt) facts to support your vision of clarity. I can prove that Hitler existed, just like I can prove Alexander existed. If you can prove Jesus existed there would be no athesits, muslims, budhists, jews, or any other religion now would there?
By feasting on his physical destruction, he has turned Jesus bac by Lizzybeth	Feb 25th, 2004 01:58:02 PM
Thanks for sticking to your guns on this one, Mori, and for bringing up a few of those irksome political/historical "choices" Gibson made in a film he wants to claim as accurate and truthful. Gibson's taste for torture has always put me off, and it's a shame so many are willing to support and celebrate mindless bloody violence as a meaningful and spiritual experience. One more quote from the only other sensible movie reviewer around these days: "In
Come on, Mori. You're smarter than that. by Edison	Feb 25th, 2004 01:59:13 PM
You talk about this film having no context. This film does not exist in a vacuum. It isn't the purpose, or the responsibility, of this film to frame the socio-political climate for us, or to recount 33 years of His life so that we, as an audience, can become atached to Jesus. The audience will come into this movie with opinions, notions and knowledge of the subject matter prior to seeing the film. Your review shows that your opinion of this film is formed largely by your beliefs and prior knowledge. I really love this site, and truly enjoy reading your reviews, Mori. In fact, you make several very good points in this review. I agree with not liking the choice of "softening" Pilate. But could this just be a case of you being eager to be the first one on the backlash bandwagon this film is sure to cause with all the attention it is receiving? I hope not.
Chris Cunningham should have directed this by Psalmolive	Feb 25th, 2004 02:06:11 PM
That would have been INSANE!!!!!!
Obscure Reference by pdiddy	Feb 25th, 2004 02:14:28 PM
No sweat. I come ready to be pissed off on these boards myself... Wait, could two people have possibly had a reasonable exchange of ideas on a talk back? Wait, you favorite movie sucks or something...!
What If Christians ARE Right? by zigmondsrh	Feb 25th, 2004 02:14:39 PM
Think about this for just one second. If Christian doctrine is correct and all I have to do is believe that Jesus was the son of God, died for my sins, go to church for about an hour a week, honor the 10 commandments, live life by the golden rule, pray, and educate my soul then I receive eternal life in heaven. If I am wrong and their is no God, no heaven/hell, and no life after this then I die and rot in the earth. Either way I win so why take the chance? I would rather follow the Christian doctrine and take the chance that God does exist then not follow it and go to hell. If God does not exist, then nothing happens. Either way, I win.
Jsmokehaus by pdiddy	Feb 25th, 2004 02:17:25 PM
Plenty of people don't believe that Jesus rose from the dead or is the savior. Far, far fewer believe that the man didn't exist at all. The two aren't the same.
Everyone... relax by BubbleWrap	Feb 25th, 2004 02:18:08 PM
I just can't wait to see John Travolta's "The Passion of Terl"
Believe by jsmokehaus	Feb 25th, 2004 02:19:00 PM
There is a philosopher who argues the very same point. I think, with christians, your motives wouldnt be pure. And what if it turns out the muslims are right and youve been worshipping jesus?
Jews by Blood T Cat	Feb 25th, 2004 02:20:39 PM
they're offended alright, all the way to the bank. They could've stopped all the publicity on this piece of catholic propaganga if they wanted to.People are sheep and always will be.
Lizzybeth by bizarromark	Feb 25th, 2004 02:24:26 PM
Lizzybeth: "Gibson is so thoroughly fixated on the scourging and crushing of Christ, and so meagrely involved in the spiritual meanings of the final hours, that he falls in danger of altering Jesus
Pdiddy by jsmokehaus	Feb 25th, 2004 02:30:38 PM
You are correct, there are accounts of a man named jesus, but they are very few and most of them are in conjunction with religion (muslim, catholic, jew). There was also a man named David Koresh (think thats the right spelling) who had a handful of followers and a few words were written about him. Does that make him holy? In the eyes of some people (his followers) yes it does. Does that make him just another crazy? In the eyes of some it does. But does that prove the bible and jesus (the son of god) existed? just because a few people wrote about you doesnt mean its a fact. Look at Julius Caesar he lived before Jesus, theres not doubt he existed, and he didnt create the worlds second largest religion. Very strange there are not more accounts of Jesus than a handful when he is argueably the most widely recongnizable figure in the history of the world. Im not saying Jesus or the bible is right or wrong, Im simply saying its not fact and if there is any fact its the religious kind not the historical or scientific kind. IE thats why its called FAITH.
I'm not mad... by pizzatheface	Feb 25th, 2004 02:35:55 PM
even though Christ is one of the most important figures in my life. Moriarty gave it his honest opinion, which he's entitled to, but the thing that gets me is how he is dissapointed in Gibson's influences. I mean, really, who can make a movie nowadays that is completely innovative, without ever having drawn influence from another source? The reason most people choose to use those techniques is that they have been proven effective. To think otherwise is ludicrous. If only the edgy, pushing-the-envelope type movies (I'm talking technically, not content) were the only movies people deemed worth watching, who knows what kind of pretentious, art house, handheld headaches we would be forced to endure? Anyway, point is, it's stupid to get mad at any MOVIE for employing MOVIE techniques.
Moriarty, sometimes the fact that you are just a mediocre hanger by FluffyUnbound	Feb 25th, 2004 02:37:12 PM
Why? Because this review sounds like nothing as much as some clown who has a website where he charges losers to "make notes" on their wretched spec screenplays. Never having made a real sale himself, all he knows how to do is bitch about the stuff he heard in some other douchebag's screenwriting class. "Wah! Mel, your screenplay doesn't have a 3 act structure! Wah! There's no context! Wah! We need character development! Wah! We can only go by what we see on the screen, and can't consider 2000 years of cultural history of the main character!" No, no, no, and no. There is only pain, and horror. That is all that is supposed to be there. On the basis of pain and horror the devotee is meant to transcend his own doubt. It is not supposed to be a rational experience. Judging this film by its narrative structure is like judging a baggie full of shrooms by their TASTE.
i just dont care... by darlin13	Feb 25th, 2004 02:39:21 PM
Honestly I dont even have a desire to see this movie. Mel just seems so, I dunno, smarmy when hes on TV hyping it and in everything ive read its just a 2 hour bloodfest of pain and torture that i dont see what redeeming value i could take from seeing the movie....i also take offense to those who are on the "the jews killed jesus" bent. #1 they didnt and #2 jesus was SUPPOSED to die to save us from our sins, if the jews killed jesus that should make everyone pro jew since they helped us all not be damned....fuzzy logic?
Truman_Burbank.... Hey Stupid by Damer1	Feb 25th, 2004 02:40:52 PM
Have you heard of Josephus? He was a Jewish historian who lived at the time of Christ. He corraborated his existence. Thanks for playing. You don't have to believe the fantastical accounts in the gospels but don't say stupid stuff.
What's this, nobody complaining that Bruce Campbell should have by Trav McGee	Feb 25th, 2004 02:41:32 PM
...Is this because so many already believe that Bruce Campbell IS Jesus..? Actually, having shaken the man's hand, consider me agnostic on the whole "Divinity of Bruce" thing. ...Haven't seen "Passion" yet, look forward to it, but in a couple weeks probably, when passions (ha ha!) aren't running so high. But I wonder, having very recently made it through the harrowing "The Battle of Algiers" (in small rerelease) on the big screen, if Gibson's purported aim for "the most realistic depiction" would have been better served (and even more wrenching) in ye olde cinema verite style, rather than what I've read so far of Passion's highly stylized visual... style. Just a thought.
jsmokehaus by pdiddy	Feb 25th, 2004 02:46:12 PM
Damn if I don't find myself agreeing (mostly) with two people in a civil exchange on a talk back in the same day. No arguement from me on the faith portion. As far as the small amount of documentation I see your point, to a point. But religious writings, paintings, buildings are one of the most enduring records we have from every time and culture so it gets rid of a lot of the historical record to discount them just because they are religious. Writings from other religions (notably Islam) also don't have much to gain by making up a Jesus guy just to add him to the lenghty list of prophets but only to go that far. I follow you on the Koresh thing (and I often think about the horrible misconceptions that people in the far future might draw from stumbling upon the wrong examples of our time out of context) but I'll also say that the some of the limits placed on "Jesus publicity" for lack of a better phrase can be accounted for by the fact that the apostles and other early Christians were forced to hide their beliefs (to the extent of meeting in catacombs etc) to avoid getting whacked by the Romans. Not the best environment to start breaking out the printing press (if it existed then) or building monuments. That wasn't able to start en masse until Constantine and the whole "Conquer with this" conversion made it the fashionable thing in the Roman Empire.
Jesus was condemned by Pontius Pilate and betrayed by the Jewish by KryptonsLastSon	Feb 25th, 2004 02:46:37 PM
Sorry to say but thats basically what you get when you look at the different books of the Bible. The Romans may have done the crucifying, but the Jewish people ultimately turned their backs on Him. Oh and as for Moriarty talking about how Pilate was softened because of when the books were written so as to not anger the Roman occupiers... well yeah I saw that History Channel documentary too about 4 weeks ago..... Just because its on television deosn't make it true, that was a small group of historians conjecture about the crucifixion. Bottom line, if you're Christain you already know this story, and are just glad that someone made a high-quality version of it to help explain one small bit of our faith to others. If the details are hard to swallow, well history is a bitch sometimes....
Years from now, we will look back at this as a great film. by WPMayhew	Feb 25th, 2004 02:53:09 PM
Once the hype has died down, we will look back on "The Passion of Christ" as one of the boldest works of cinema ever. The fact a self-professed film fan like Moriarty cannot appreciate this is very disappointing. There's a general strain of intolerance in the reviews of this film- intolerance against religious and artistic freedom. The same sort of biased criticism that dogged "The Last Temptation of Christ." I think it will be up to future generations, (those whose reactions haven't been tainted by the media hype), to form fair opinions of the movie.
What was his middle name anyway? by spoolyfoods	Feb 25th, 2004 03:02:22 PM
Jesus H. Christ-- Harvey??
mori by ZO	Feb 25th, 2004 03:03:20 PM
is he still a part of this site? i thought harry fired his lame ass weeks ago
Why did the Religious Right Wing condemn Temptation and praise P by charliechaplin	Feb 25th, 2004 03:04:46 PM
Strange how Mel Gibson flipped the situation that Martin Scorcese had with his Christ film. Martin had the right wing fundamentalists screaming for his head, while the intellectuals and film buffs championed him for his complex vision. Mel Gibson now , has the right wing fundamentalists championing him while many intellectuals and film buffs criticize the movie for being simplistic and painting in strokes too broad. Personally, I prefer a work of art that fleshes out ideas by complicating them and searches for truth by questioning. After seeing the Scorcese's film, I pondered it for days, bringing it up in disscussion with my family and friends. I watched it numerous times on home video and each time I was struck by different moments while the film, as a whole, avoided easy asnwers by providing multiple interperetations and a human, dynamic and complex Jesus. My views on Spirituality are similar to my views on art, a true faith does not mean a lack of questioning, in fact, avoiding simple answers and embracing the complexity of ideas in the world can lead to an ever evolving more compete worldview. In fact, one of the Jesus' attributes that I admire is his questioning of authority and search for a true morality. The real issue between Jesus and the Pharises to me, is not one of Judaism vs. Christianity, but one of a Corrupt Authority vs. a Non-Violent Movement for Justice. Mel's movie would have done better to further illuminate what Jesus stands for vs. what the establishment stood for, and explore what ways he was a revolutionary, not just a martyr. Too focus so much on a literal depiction of the Crucifiction at the expense of all else, the film simplifies things to a level of he was God's son who was brutalized and killed, a narrative which is more horrifying than illuminating. Too what end? To show the extent of his sacrifice? But what does his sacrifice mean when divorced from a true understanting of what he stood for? Since Christianity was adopted by Rome and spread by conquest throughout Europe and the globe, the revolutionary nature of Jesus has been dampened and his non-violent beliefs and actions have been de-emphasized. Christianity was now a religion that belonged to authority. As in most societies with a major organized religion, religious faith became conflated with believing and obeying without question codes set forth by the official church. Historically religion has been used by those in power to control those without power. It is ironic how Jesus formed a new religion by exposing the corruption of his own, then Martin Luthor started the protestant movement by exposing the corruption of the Catholic Church, then many Puritans left England for America, seeking a less tainted form of Protestantism, and now after hundreds of years of Witch Trials, Manifest Destiny, the Klu Klux Klan and other American religious attrociites we have a very corrupt and powerfull religious institution in this country. Mel Gibson in examining the condemning to death and execution of Jesus Christ, could have hit upon these issues of Jesus' struggle against a controlling corrupt religious authority and exposed the hipocrisies of the religious right in this country, especially at this day in age when we have a President who claims to be pious, who seeks to divide people against others by writing discrimination into our constitution, the document which guarantees our freedom. Instead Mel has made a movie which the religous right adores because presents a brutal and literal representation of Jesus that will galvanize their followers as each lash and blow to Jesus fills them with both sorrow and self-righteousness anger. An anger which inflames and unites. While, as I said, to me questions of anti-semitism are beside the point to me, let us also seriously consider the anxieties of those Jewish people who might fear the fallout of a widely viewed Passion film, let us not forget that historically passion plays have been used by the religious establishment (those who use religion as a way of maintaining power) as a method of scapegoating Jews and inciting pograms. So while, scapegoating is not Mel's agenda, could it be that of the powerful evagelical groups that are championing the movie? The same group that are always trying to scare their followers about a Hollywood Jewish conspiracy? Isn't that itself scapegoating, blaming problems on a few successful jews, while those who hold the real power are the George Bushs and Dick's Cheneys, not the Steven Spielbergs and Harvey Weinsteins? I don't take away an anti-semetic message from the film, yet also I am a critical and questioning type. So, please let us discuss these things... My searching and questioning mind cannot help but see that the religious right's condemnation of Tempation and praise of Passion represents a rejection of questioning authority and a desire for blind faith and inflamation of self-righteous anger.
Thank you Moriarty... by Daryl van Horn	Feb 25th, 2004 03:07:14 PM
...for once again being the voice of reason on this site, and pretty much the only reviewer worth reading. Before Harry's undoubetdly gushing Gibson's-ass-kissing rant comes in I'm glad you said what you did. Gibson has guts for the whole project, I'll give him that. And when it comes to emotion, he's a fairly able film maker (OH and to those people shocked you mention Wallace: so has 90% of every OTHER reviewer you idiots. Yes, it shows Gibson has always had a thing for martyr stories.) But the knowledge of his personal beliefs bother me. The branch of catholicism he's a fanatical member of ('opus dei') finds the current pope and vatican 'too modern' and disagrees on many fronts with the 1965 'renewal' that among other things, finally lifted the official policy that 'the jews killed christ and should suffer for it'. Mel obviously agrees with this. (And let's not even get into his father denying the holocaust)Furhtermore, the deliberate hype and controversy he so painstakingly created (saying he wanted to 'kill his animals and put a pole up his $%^' about a critic, calling people with objections 'the forces' or 'dupes' of Satan, among many other charming things) is simply distasteful. His cowardly attempts to hide behind the bible are ludicrous seeing how as you point out, the 4 gospels give different accounts and it was entirely up to him what to pick. The scourging isn't even mentioned in 2 of the gospels and in the 2 that it's in, it's only a few verses. So it was pretty much HIS choice to turn it into a 30 minute horror scene. (Btw Jesus would've been dead long before any crucifying if this had actually happened) The infamous line with which the rabble in the square is supposed to've cursed the entire jewish bloodline (an obviously fabricated and ridiculously primitive notion) is also not in all the versions, so it was HIS choice to put it in. Which doesn't even cover all the elements he lifted from some 17th century nuns' visions (huh??) or that he completely MADE UP! The moment Jesus defiantly gets up after the first part of the scourging was pure action-movie macho bullshit that served no purpose and is not in any scripture. It was a Rambo moment. The demonic children, the eye gouging, Pilate's wife, the female statan, etc. etc. all taken out of Mel's ass apparently. Also I am happy you pointed out what we know by now, that Pilate was a cruel SOB that even by other roman rulers was considered too brutal a sadist. He cared nothing for the jews and didn't even speak their language. He crucified them by the truckloads on a weekly basis. To turn him into the kind good, slightly wimpy man that is all guilt-ridden about this is just another emphasis on how 'innocent' the romans were in this. But the worst of all 'crimes' in this movie to me (a former christian, now agnostic/freethinker) is that Gibson seems to think that by shokcing us nauseous with gallons of blood and hanging flesh, by making a movie about nothing but slow horrific, torturous death, he thinks he can get the real point of Jesus across. Like he wants to scare and guilt-trip us into the church. "SEE!? SEE??? ISN'T THAT HORRIBLE!?? AND YOU DON'T EVEN GO TO CONFESSION!!" seems to be his message. Never mind what Jesus' teachings were, never mind his kindness or rebelliously modern ideas, never mind that he said that what's in your heart is more important than abritarily following the rules and obeying priests. Never mind all that. You're supposed to be horrified by the cheap shock effect of over-the-top gore. Oh and before I forget it, to make money on selling 'jesus-merchandise' like Gibson is doing, ('get your jesus nails here!') is of exceptionally lowe taste.
Last Temptation sucked by Krillian	Feb 25th, 2004 03:12:33 PM
Sometimes I wonder if these people who praise Last Temptation of Christ actually saw it. It wasn't that good. And if you think Mel screws up some details like Pilate being too nice, what do you think Marty does by making Judas the noblest apostle and making John the Baptist 40 years older than Jesus when they were born six months apart? Last Temptation was like Jesus Christ Superstar with better cinematography and no songs. I haven't seen The Passion, I may not even like it, but it needed to be said.
Why I won't be seeing this film tonight... by zer0cool2k2	Feb 25th, 2004 03:17:31 PM
Because it's Wednesday, which means I've got Angel, Smallville, and The O.C. to watch. I will get around to seeing "TPOTC" eventually though. I gotta' say, normally I too think that Moriaty is the voice of reason on this site. I tend to respect his reviews more than others, but maybe the writer's block affected him a little too much. Not only the Caravaggio reference, but Every Single Criticism he makes about the film, I've read in other reviews. He did change it up a little and attack Mel as a director instead of the attacking the score,as other reviews have. (The cinematography seems to be the only universally praised aspect of the film). Not saying Drew's a repeating bastard, just maybe he subconsciously borrowed a few things to get his feelings across. now, I like Mel Gibson, and I think he's OK as a director. Still, I think he's made Braveheart three times, in different time periods (the original, the American Revolution, and WW II), with varying degrees of success. I'm not expecting this one to be Braveheart IV, but I guess we'll see. I think what's really eating moriarty, and ultimately may annoy a lot of us, is the fact that this has all been another case of the Hollywood hype machine in motion. People who will love this film no matter what are going to buy tickets. People who will hate this film no matter what are going to buy tickets. And the rest of us are going to buy tickets (or download bootlegs) out of curiosity. Mel sunk a lot of money into his vanity project, what probably would have been a niche film playing in art houses, and fired up that big 'ol controversy machine to make him his money back. Now, I'm not saying it's all about the cash for him, I think Mel is very passionate about the story he wanted to tell, but I also think he wants as many people to see it as possible, and if that fills his bank account back up, well that's OK by him. .................. And for whoever mentioned it earlier, only one of those thieves mocked Christ on the cross, the other said "Truly you are the Son of God", unless you think he was just being sarcastic.
The Mormons ... The correct answer is the Mormons. by Ralphus	Feb 25th, 2004 03:19:14 PM
Thanks Matt and Trey.
Believe in me, worship me. obey me. or BURN IN HELL FOREVER! by Mr. Waturi	Feb 25th, 2004 03:20:36 PM
Why would anybody want to be a part of that?
jsmokehaus by SkurdJ	Feb 25th, 2004 03:24:35 PM
"If doesnt say that on Tuedsay the 17th of February Moses decided he would build a ship." Um, if you have read the Bible several times you may remember that Moses didna build any ships (that would be Old Man Noah)! Moses, he just parted the water and swaggered on through!
2 hour blood and torture fest? by Edison	Feb 25th, 2004 03:26:40 PM
One other point of note: What is the reason for this film to be comprised almost entirely of the savage torture that was levied upon Christ in His final hours? It serves to show how, when faced with the most inhuman, brutal torture, with wounds heaped upon wounds, He held fast to faith, love and forgiveness.
LAST TEMPTATION by Renata	Feb 25th, 2004 03:27:52 PM
Stands alongside Pasolini's book as the best religious movie ever (I know, we all loved TEN COMMANDMENTS, but that was for different reasons). It was never meant to be a strict recreation of the life of Jesus (as was clearly stated in the prologue of both the book and the movie) but rather using the historical figure of a man who, over the centuries, had been deified to the point of being otherworldly. LAST TEMPTATION was an attempt to bring that figure down to earth, to make him wholly human, so that we may better understand and empathize and see ourselves in his nobility and his sacrifice. Yes, the movie/book says. You can feel doubt, weakness, paranoia, depression, guilt, rage, and lust, and still be a good person, even a divine one. To me, being a secular person, that was a beautiful message that still resonates. I have not seen THE PASSION yet (I have tix to a friday screening), but I eagerly await the opportunity. Whatever the result, I have to give Mel Gibson props for putting his money where his mouth is. Sure, he stands to make it all back and then some, but that wasn't always the case in the life of this movie, so it was a gamble. How many directors would be willing to do that? Michael Bay? Brett Ratner? Hardly.
facts... specific facts please! by truebeliever1023	Feb 25th, 2004 03:29:08 PM
There are way too many people claiming this film is inaccurate without citing specific examples. If you believe this film to be inaccurate, I challenge you to state some specific ways in which it is so. And please don't give me "facts" based on assumptions and arguements from silence. "Pilate was a brutal man and wouldn't have blinked at condemning Jesus." Blah blah blah. It is a recorded fact that Pilate was too brutal, unable to keep a handle on the region, and warned by Rome for both. (hmmm, maybe that scene wasn't in the version of the film you saw, but it was in mine.) Could it be that Pilate knew there were no fence sitters when it came to Jesus (much as it is with Jesus now and with this movie). People were either wildly devoted to him or fanatically opposed. NOt the best position to put Pilate in. If he kills Jesus, the followers revolt. If he doesn't the detractors (many in the religious leadership) revolt. Hmmm, that's an easy decision. And for those who don't believe the Sanhedrin had any pull. There are examples of rulers doing things like placing shields with images in the temple (strictly against Jewish law). The Sanhedrin objected and the ruler removed the shields. In fact, I think Pilate may have even been the one who did that. All I ask for is people to state facts based on solid evidence. Also the point of this film is to cause one to ask the question, "Why?" "Why did Jesus knowingly walk to his brutal death?" The answer is simple... love. (P.S. I borrowed that last sentence from a book called "A Case for Christ.")
I'll just rent Cool Hand Luke by JRKerr	Feb 25th, 2004 03:29:46 PM
Yeah, moriarty you are right about Gibson's matyr complex. In addition to those you mention I think you should plug Cool Hand Luke. Thats my favorite matyr film anyway. I wonder if Gibson got a taste for this death in cinema thing because of Gallipoli? I bet that he hears all the time about that being his best work.
Enough of this pimping Jesus as entertainment!...you're all just by KAWS	Feb 25th, 2004 03:32:12 PM
Now that's the kind of shit that I worship. I wonder if they'll make Jesus action figures and T-shirts too. I bet they will. You know this to be true.
Good review Mori. Now... talkbackers... by Swithin	Feb 25th, 2004 03:32:58 PM
This is the archetypical talkback, anyone noticed that? We have right-wingers, left-wingers, atheists, Christians, Jews, non-denominationals, Pagans, etc... and yet, everyone falls into one of two camps: the reasonable people, and the unreasonable people. Funny thing is, being in a particular group from the first list has nothing to do with entry into either one from the second. Someone's going to call me out on being a left-wing atheist for being so "let's all love and understand each other", so what the hey, I'll admit to it straight up. But seriously, there are people here who are doing their best to understand the other sides... I'm impressed. It's almost annoying that there's wheat in this chaff, but still. Anyway, for my $0.02 (which I'm giving out of a piqued interest here) it seems like both a bunch of the atheists and religious people here are forgetting what the word FAITH means: belief in something that CANNOT BE PROVED. Faith can be a beautiful thing, I'm not dissing it, but if you've got faith... even in your atheism... well, don't pass it off as TRUTH. If you're sure you've got TRUTH, then good for you... you just might, I can't say (my personal belief is that human beings just aren't smart enough to know the difference, even if there really is one correct belief - I mean, look at all the other ones we believe just as strongly, and they must be wrong... the best we can do is to try to be good people, since somehow we all seem to know the difference between right and wrong.) Just don't be surprised when people who don't share your religion question your cosmology and call you out on 'evidence' - I mean, you're taking science and history on faith... don't get all defensive about it. You're choosing to believe something that can't be proved - that you believe should really be enough. Let's leave the religious debates out of the talkback, it's actually going pretty well and on-topic so far (although I seemed to fail at that... ^_^)
COULDNT DISAGREE MORE! by antmanx68	Feb 25th, 2004 03:36:00 PM
This movie is excellent in every aspect. Ther is not one weak scene, weak performance, or any weak link. Even if you dont believe in Jesus as the son of god, or even that he is a real person........ you cannot deny that power of one man going through hell and back because he thinks he can save mankind. I realy think that everyone who says "the only people who will like the passion are people who would like any jesus movie..." I couldnt disagree more. This movie is for everyone, i believe that the only people who WONT like it are the ones with the pre-concieved notions, and the deep rooted beef with christianity in general....... shame on you moriarty, how could you miss out on one of the most moving films in recent history?
Catholic church by Renata	Feb 25th, 2004 03:39:27 PM
It can't be overlooked that just as the religious right was having a bad time in the late 80s and, thus, used LAST TEMPTATION as a means to rally the troops AGAINST something, then, with all the sex scandal in the Catholic church now, they are using this movie, hyping it, pushing it to the forefront, in hopes of reigniting a religious institution that was being slammed on a daily basis by salacious headlines. I know that sounds a little conspiratorial, and may have no relevance in fact, but its crossed my mind.
Good review by brainedchild	Feb 25th, 2004 03:43:45 PM
Even though Mori's review could be seen as negative in a certain light, at least he was genuine enough to put the "this is my opinion, and not the 100% proven truth" label out there first. And did it ever occur to anyone that just as the Bible was written only for people who believe, maybe Mel made this movie only for people who all ready believe?
Those who've seen it: Which last words did Gibson choose? by Trav McGee	Feb 25th, 2004 03:44:17 PM
"Forgive them, Father, they know not what they do" ...or "Father, Father, why have You forsaken me?" ...Not to kick off a whole new theological debate, just curious which Gospel Mel went with.
Spitting Image said it best by McEwan	Feb 25th, 2004 03:54:45 PM
"My god is better than your god: My god's gonna send you to hell" "My god is better than your god: Your gods all smell"...
Anti-Semitic straw man by Peirce	Feb 25th, 2004 03:56:11 PM
This movie is not Anti-Semitic. No rational person would blame Jews for killing Jesus. He freely gave his life. The Anti-Semitic comment is used to insult the people who will see this movie. Guilt by association. The argument goes. 1) The movie is Anit-Semitic 2) The story of Christianity is not Anti-Semitic 3) People who see this movie may become Anti-Semitic 4) Therefore the people who go to see this movie are stupid and racist. And about context. This is the passion of Christ. His suffering. Mel is either preaching to the choir, or he is hoping they will read the Bible to understand. How about that context? And the silliest comment is to complain what Mel used the Gospels as source material. Mel believes the Word of God is true and God inspired. Why would he make changes because someone else doesn
Final words by Peirce	Feb 25th, 2004 03:57:45 PM
His final words are "It is finished." He also does say "Father, forgive them."
OK, I gotta' take the Anti-Semitic Bait by zer0cool2k2	Feb 25th, 2004 03:57:47 PM
Much as I hate to. I was raised in a Christian household with Parents who believed in the King James bible (and who, fortunately allowed me to develop my own beliefs and opinions). Point being, I never took any hatred for Jewish people from any of it. I never cared if someone was Jewish, Muslim, Methodist, whatever. I still don't. (although I do have a slight fetish for Asian chicks). When I was in grade school, I got to meet a Concentration Camp survivor. He talked to us in an assembly, sshowed us the blood-stained hat he used to wear, and the tattoos the Germans had put on him. It really made the whole story of the Holocaust a lot more real for me. Still, I didn't refuse to hang out with my blonde-haired, blue-eyed friends after school. And actually, the man made a point of how he had no hatred himself, but sure appreciated life more than most. so, where were all the critics kicking Speilberg in the ass for being Anti-Nazi when Schindler's List came out? (Funny how Poppa Gibson wants to condemn the Catholic leadership for being revisionist, when he wants to revise a little history himself). And what about The Patriot being Anti-British, or Dawn of the Dead being Anti-Zombie? Anyway, you get the point. Freedom of speech is great, as long as you're saying something I agree with. The Jews got kicked around by the Nazis, and they don't want anyone to forget it. (As well they shouldn't). But don't bring up any bad mojo in Jewish history, that's just wrong! Hell, the Boston Tea Party was a terrorist act, but fuck those Arabs up their stupid asses if they're gonna' fuck with the Grand ol' U-S-of fuckin' A! Besides, I'm assuming there's not a scene in "The Passion" where the entire Jewish race gets together, takes a vote, and decides as a people to crucify Jesus. People, make bad decisions. Politicians make bad decisions that affect a lot of people. And make no mistake, religious leaders were, and are politicians. But it was a long time ago, move on. I'll freely admit there were Caucasians in this country who kept black people as slaves. I'm not one of them. It was a fucked up thing top do, but not my fault. Don't hold it against me. y'know who's review on this movie I really want to hear? Kevin Smith's. I know a lot of you hate him, but he took a load of shit over Dogma, and I thought it was one of the most positive messages about religion I've ever seen on screen (wrapped in dick and Fart jokes). As Rufus said, It's better to have a good idea than a belief. People get killed over beliefs.
JESUS!, what a movie! by Roboteer	Feb 25th, 2004 04:03:38 PM
Sorry. Personally, I thought GODSPELL got it right, especially the clown outfits and mime makeup. Wasn't THAT suffering enough for everyone?.... Keeping it light.
ACTUAL FINAL WORDS by antmanx68	Feb 25th, 2004 04:03:47 PM
In the movie, as Jesus is being nailed to the cross he says "father forgive them.... they dont know, they dont know." Then when he is already up on the cross he says "Forgive them father, do know not what they do". Then at one point towards the end he says "Father, Why have you forsaken me?" Then right before he dies he says "Father, into your hands i commend my sould.... It is accomplished." then he dies...... its not TOTALLY word for word, but thats what he says. then..... dead body....... Black screen...... Stone being rolled away from the tomb....... RESSURRECTION WITH ONE OF THE MOST TRIUMPHANT THEMES EVER COMPOSED!
I have to admit... by Thing-Fish	Feb 25th, 2004 04:05:24 PM
.... such much as I dislike some of Moriarti's other reviews (and I know that a lot of talkbackers would disagree with me on that) I think this review was very well-written and thought-out, and probably hit the nail on the head. I haven't seen this film yet but ever since I saw Life of Brian as a child I haven't been able to take christianity seriously so I probably won't see this film.
Why the Jews DON'T get a free ride and other thoughts by Sledgeh101	Feb 25th, 2004 04:07:23 PM
First of all, thanks to Mori for a thoughtful review. I've been reading reviews all day about this movie, and this is probably the most divisive movie I've seen in regards to reviews. People either literally love it or absolutely hate it. There's no middle ground here, so I suppose in the end, it should just be up to the person watching the movie whether they fall into the former or latter category, and shouldn't take potshots at someone who disagrees with their opinion. As for the idea that Jews shouldn't get worked up about this movie because there wasn't such a ruckus over Roots or Schindler's List in regards to whites and Germans - get a clue. Black people in America, while certainly not being on completely equal footing as many white people, are virtually safe from the government and most local people from racism. Yes, there are still racist whites out there, but thankfully they are a small minority. Same with Germans. While there are some skinheads running around proclaiming their loyalties to Hitler, Germany by and large has moved past their Nazi past and are embracing the present (where in fact a sizeable number of Jews have recently moved to in the last 10 years). Jews, on the other hand, are still vilified as being in power of everything - we've already had bubbleheaded remarks about how Jews control the media in this forum already, and that's also not counting the dozens of Muslim and Arabic leaders who claim that Jews are controlling governments for their own agendas (when in actuality, it's the Arab leaders who are attempting to do that themselves). Jews are still hated as being part of the devil. Jews, in short, are still subject to the kind of level of racism that virtually every other denomination now looks back on. So for those who think that a movie like this can't do any kind of harm to the Jews, that it's all hype - I wish I could live in your world, where there was no racism, but unfortunately I live in the REAL world, where there is racism, and where people will take this movie the same way Mel Gibson took the gospels - at face value.
Something is rotten in the state of AICN by Sheik Yerbouti	Feb 25th, 2004 04:16:53 PM
You know for both Moriarty and Harry, who saw this movie months ago, and who complained for so long that there were no movies worth reviewing, to not review this film until now smells wrong. This seems like Moriarty has simply stuck his finger in the air, see which way the wind was blowing, and then piss right into it. If everyone was panning it and a few arthouse lovers were embracing it, I think he would have been all over this flick, but he wants to be the one that didn't like it, the one that gets to smile and say "Daredevil, AOTC, those movies were amazing, but I just didn't care for POTC" Why? Because it gets him attention, it gets a bunch of talkbackers surrounding him hounding him to like this movie, hell it seems like the entire butt-numb-a-thon audience liked this movie, there were hardly any negative reviews. Yet Moriarty never said a thing, he was biding his time, why because he was lazy? Well he is, but that's besides the point, no cause he wanted to wait and respond to reaction. That is a bogus way to review a movie, at least have the nuts to put your comments out there when no one else is saying anything.
Fuck Mel Gibson, fuck him up his stupid asshole. by Fitzcarraldo2	Feb 25th, 2004 04:22:01 PM
Trouble-making little religious fruitcake.
But Gibson never DOES explain... by Kid Z	Feb 25th, 2004 04:25:01 PM
...why Jesus suddenly gets the power to control the machines in the real world!
A couple points..... by jimbotron	Feb 25th, 2004 04:25:38 PM
I find a few things rather odd about this whole hubbub over this movie...though I have not seen it yet, I am a Christian and I take the Bible as the Holy, perfect, and Inspired Word of God...that being said I find some of the criticicisms of this movie a little off... 1) Whether or not Jews had a legalistic definition of guilt assigned to them in the crucifixion of Christ is ENTIRELY IRRELEVANT - The message of the New Testament is ALL MEN (and women for that matter), past and present are/were responsible for the crucifixion of Christ. I believe as a Christian that I am JUST as guilty as anyone of that day for killing the Son of God. To focus on the Romans or the Jews for blame (and therefore shame) is useless. If someone wants to see why Christ was crucified all they gotta do is look in the mirror (this especially goes for me). 2) The fact that the movie only depicts the suffering of Christ should not be a point of critique people - Gibson never once said that it would be anything else. It was never advertised as anything else. His point is to show what another INNOCENT man did for the salvation of complete strangers that he loved them whether they loved Him or not - to the point that he accepts the blame for ALL sin in your and my place because we can never do enough good things in our lives to get to heaven. Through his actions, God no longer judges those who accept Christ by their sin but by the complete cover of Christ's sacrifice. Christians get to in effect claim that they are holy in God's sight BECAUSE Jesus paid the ultimate price for us - torture and death - for ALL our sin and his record of debt is paid in full. God gets the justice he demands for sin - death - and we get salvation that we are entirely undeserving of. Catch that last part...? ENTIRELY UNDESERVING OF... THAT is why folks, that the suffering alone is so profound. He knew exactly what would happen to him and did nothing to stop it. Would you take punishment to this extent for strangers? I know I wouldn't or couldn't. Just some things to keep in mind when you get around to thinking about/seeing the flick.
HEY MOVIEMACK by antmanx68	Feb 25th, 2004 04:40:23 PM
Good job on being wrong on ALL counts, what do you base that on? The passion is anti hope..... wow, thats the stupidest thing i've ever heard. Making a faggy King Herod and an asexual satan has nothing to do with fetishes..... Honestly, if this movie was about someone other than jesus, you little fri

Talkbacks

Moriarty Reviews Mel Gibson's Holy Hand Grenade, THE PASSION OF THE CHRIST!!