Bad Movie Logo
"A website to the detriment of good film"
Custom Search
HOMEB-MOVIE REVIEWSREADER REVIEWSFORUMINTERVIEWSUPDATESABOUT
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
November 29, 2014, 02:34:04 AM
538311 Posts in 40757 Topics by 5135 Members
Latest Member: matthewtrub
Badmovies.org Forum  |  Movies  |  Bad Movies  |  Passion of the Christ (spoilers, I guess, and the boat sinks in Titanic, too) « previous next »
Pages: 1 2 3 [4]
Author Topic: Passion of the Christ (spoilers, I guess, and the boat sinks in Titanic, too)  (Read 5702 times)
Eirik
Guest
« Reply #45 on: March 02, 2004, 12:17:47 AM »

"And yet, Mel hasn't said anything about his share of the bread."

In the Bible, Jesus specifically says that donations to charity should always be made in complete secrecy (this is the passage where we get the phrase: "the left hand should not know what the right is doing.").  If Gibson wants to really follow the faith, he won't publicize any donations he makes like all the self-serving image-conscious celebrity "humanitarians" out there.  He'll also do his best to keep you from finding out what donations he made.  

Of course if Gibson did make a public donation somewhere, all the snide people talking about the profits he made would then be sneering about how his donations were only made to help his image.  He's pretty much damned if he does and damned if he doesn't.  I hope he tells the press it's none of their business what he does with his profit from the film.

I still don't plan on seeing this movie, but the level of venom for Gibson just because he made it is absolutely baffling.  I mean jeez, don't go and see it if you don't like religious stuff.
Logged
Eirik
Guest
« Reply #46 on: March 02, 2004, 12:42:10 AM »

"I won't use the word "hypocrisy," but I do think it is interesting that some of the people, and I have no body in particular, protesting the protests against this film, no doubt protested against "The Last Temptation of Christ," "The Life of Brian," etc. It is as if "Freedom of Speech" has become "Freedom of Speech for Me, But Not for You.""

I think it's curious that you should equate protestors with enemies of free speech.  I don't recall one person - not ONE - who protested Last Temptation by saying it should be banned and the government should confiscate all the reels.  As I recall, the protestors said that because they didn't like the movie they were going to boycott the studio's other movies.  How exactly is this anything but an exercise in their own free speech and organized consumerism.  Seems to me that if Paramount made a pro-Pedophilia movie, or a pro-Nazi movie, it would be okay for people to boycott all of Paramount's movies in protest.  So what's the problem with religious people boycotting a studio that made a movie that offended them?  If there's any hypocrisy in the case of POTC, it's from the people who protested the movie and are now whining that some people don't agree with their point of view.
Logged
Chris K.
Guest
« Reply #47 on: March 03, 2004, 12:14:12 AM »

Eirik wrote:

> In the Bible, Jesus specifically says that donations to charity
> should always be made in complete secrecy (this is the passage
> where we get the phrase: "the left hand should not know what
> the right is doing.").  If Gibson wants to really follow the
> faith, he won't publicize any donations he makes like all the
> self-serving image-conscious celebrity "humanitarians" out
> there.  He'll also do his best to keep you from finding out
> what donations he made.  
>
> Of course if Gibson did make a public donation somewhere, all
> the snide people talking about the profits he made would then
> be sneering about how his donations were only made to help his
> image.  He's pretty much damned if he does and damned if he
> doesn't.  I hope he tells the press it's none of their business
> what he does with his profit from the film.

Well thank you for the insight on this one, Eirik. Damned if you do, damned if you don't is the situation that he is in. However, as I mentioned on a later post, I recently heard that Mel is donating his share of the profits to charity. If true, so much for the complete secrecy. And you know what, if Mel is donating his money then I wouldn't consider him to be a self-serving image-conscious celebrity "humanitarian"; rather I would feel that he is living up to his religious beliefes that he has expressed to the public and I would give him credit for it. As for being none of our business what he does with the profits, we can only wonder, can't we?


> I still don't plan on seeing this movie, but the level of venom
> for Gibson just because he made it is absolutely baffling.  I
> mean jeez, don't go and see it if you don't like religious
> stuff.

Well Eirik, I hope you are not aiming this comment at me because I already saw the film and, watching it with an open mind and ignoring the issues with Gibson, I'm sorry but I just didn't think it was any good. If anybody else liked it, I have no problem with that. It's a film that has some merrits, but otherwise I just wanted to tear the whole theatre down during the whipping and crucufixion scene. I'll just end it right here for now.

And yes, for the record, I do admire religious pictures such as THE TEN COMMANDMENTS and THE GREATEST STORY EVER TOLD and LIFE OF BRIAN (sorry, just HAD to add this one in the mix). And at this time, I am trying to locate a good copy of THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO ST. MATTHEW so if anybody has some insight.

Logged
Scott
Frightening Fanatic of Horrible Cinema
****

Karma: 185
Posts: 5785


Hey, I'm in the situation room ! ! !


WWW
« Reply #48 on: March 03, 2004, 12:55:03 AM »

It was like 2 hours of brutal torture. Well, I don't know how significant this is as a film or religious experience. I know that any film that involves pain as a essential ingredient in their film will never surpass this one. You'll be watching some other film and an important scene were someone takes a beating and you'll be saying to yourself "that wasn't so bad". We may have just become totally desensitized to any violent act portrayed in any movie to come due to THE PASSION OF THE CHRIST.

The main thing I liked about this movie is that I heard that Mel Gibson financed the whole film and it explains how he was able to have such freedom in putting it together. If only people could find such freedom to make films without the money problems.

My main question is how will anyone ever top the pure violence of this film?

Logged

Eirik
Guest
« Reply #49 on: March 03, 2004, 01:23:35 AM »

"As for being none of our business what he does with the profits, we can only wonder, can't we?"

You can wonder all you like, Chris, but I am firmly of the opinion that what other people do with the money that they earn themselves through their own hard work is none of my damn business whatsoever - as long as they pay their taxes.  If Gibson made an announcement that he's donating his money to charity - that's a lapse in religious practice if you ask me.  If some reporter dug that up and reported it with no announcement from Gibson - well, what are you gonna do?

"Well Eirik, I hope you are not aiming this comment at me because I already saw the film and, watching it with an open mind and ignoring the issues with Gibson, I'm sorry but I just didn't think it was any good."

Oh I don't care if people like or dislike the movie.  As someone who doesn't plan on seeing it anyway, I have no stake in that whatsoever.  What bothers me is the condescending guffawing about Christians crediting miracles to the film as if we're a bunch of unsophisticated fanatics (by the way, I haven't heard anything like that in the press) and the implication that Gibson is a hypocrite if he makes any money for his year or so of hard work on a movie.  It seems a lot of people have a real agenda against this movie, be they people who bashed its content before seeing it or people who find it necessary to question the director's motives, and I'm curious as to why that is.

PS - why apologize for liking Life of Brian??
Logged
Chris K.
Guest
« Reply #50 on: March 03, 2004, 02:47:01 AM »

Eirik wrote:

> You can wonder all you like, Chris, but I am firmly of the
> opinion that what other people do with the money that they earn
> themselves through their own hard work is none of my damn
> business whatsoever - as long as they pay their taxes. If
> Gibson made an announcement that he's donating his money to
> charity - that's a lapse in religious practice if you ask me.
> If some reporter dug that up and reported it with no
> announcement from Gibson - well, what are you gonna do?

Well now, not to sound as if I'm trying to go back down from my own words, but I do agree with you that it is none of my damn business what somebody does with their own money. Hell, I'm rarely concered at how much my associates make at my workplace; I'm there just to work and make money so as to survive. I just thought that, considering Gibson's faith, that he would consider donating his own money. As I said, if Gibson did so I would not find it to be an act of self-satisfication of his celebrity-image unlike some would consider. In fact, if he did so it would change my personal outlook on him a bit. Just my personal interpretation of the subject at hand. I will admit that I wonder, but it's out of curiosity considering how the film is turning out in the box office (100.7 million, as I can recall. But I am sure it's risen higher than that now).

And if some reporter dug up info on Gibson's claim to donate his money, well then that just does prove your statement that Gibson should make it clear about his business and that it's his business only. But like you said, this is the media-what are you gonna' do?


> Oh I don't care if people like or dislike the movie.  As
> someone who doesn't plan on seeing it anyway, I have no stake
> in that whatsoever.  What bothers me is the condescending
> guffawing about Christians crediting miracles to the film as if
> we're a bunch of unsophisticated fanatics (by the way, I
> haven't heard anything like that in the press) and the
> implication that Gibson is a hypocrite if he makes any money
> for his year or so of hard work on a movie.  It seems a lot of
> people have a real agenda against this movie, be the people
> who bashed its content before seeing it or people who find it
> necessary to question the director's motives, and I'm curious
> as to why that is.

Well, I pretty much question the director's motives, as well as what he has delivered "on film" and his skills. Hell, I question Tarantino's motives, and I like his films! Right now, at this time, the issue of his personal lifestyle and such is something that I will not bring into criticising the film. I honestly feel that Gibson's direction/visual style is dry and unoriginal; I really felt that the film would have been better if say Dario Argento would have been behind the camera (maybe even Mario Bava, that is if he were alive). Argento has a flare for visual storytelling, Mel is...well, kinda weak at it and overplays his most "dramatic" moments (i.e., the overuse of super slo-mo is one example). But I digress, the real issue is why is the film under fire? I can only shed som slight insight on what I know about the subject matter.

For the people who have a "personal agenda" against the film, the only ones that I can think of are the Jewish community who are deadly afraid of the film having anti-Semitisim propoganda. Yet, their only connections to this belief is surrounded by Mel's father, Hutton Gibson, who has written numerous thesis and documents about the non-existance of the Holocaust (that and his father is a spokesman for the film, another clue that must be taken into account). That and back during the Middle Ages the Jews were under constant threats from crazed Christians who would go nuts over a Passion Play, and thus attack and beat up whatever Jewish community that was in their wake. Plus add that Mel was "inspired" by the works of a nun Anne Emerich (hope this is correct), who is also known for her anti-Semetic remarks as well. Their are a few other instances, but these three are the most common items on the list.

Despite the paranoia from the Jewish community, I must confess that I can see where they are getting at. The Jewish community has been the most mis-understood religious group and have been under attack throughout the years via Christian groups due to different outlooks of their differing religion and customs. But is Mel Gibson anti-Semietic? As much as I disliked the film, I can honestly say their really is no anti-Semitisim in the film at all. Their is the belief system that Mel is "Like father, like son." However, this is something that I really don't believe in at all. His father is, let's admit it, a conspiracy theory nut who combines religion into the mix as well, and that's not a good sign. While I find Mel to be very pretencious and lacking some common sense, I don't think for a minute that his film was meant to cause Jewish hate.

Another issue is Mel's religious background: he is a Roman Catholic and is part of the Vatican 1, which is somewhat of a small group who practices the old style traditions of the Catholic Church. The issue of this is that Vatican 1 does not obsolve the Jews for crucifing Christ; Vatican 2 does obsolve the Jews for any wrongdoing as well as breaking some of the traditions. This too has another connection to Mel's father: Hutton, a devowed Roman Catholic, has written criticisims saying that the recent Catholic Pope is a nothing but a man who sucks-up to the Jews. Not exactly high praise for the Pope.

This is, of course, what I know so far about the controversy and have read about it. If you do have anything to add Eirik, please feel free to shed some insight. But the "personal agenda" by those who are against the film (i.e., Jewish community) is not that of vengence, in my eyes. It is more of a personal fear that they feel will erupt from the heavy Christian community, which I personally don't think will happen. However,as the old saying goes, "You never know..."


> PS - why apologize for liking Life of Brian??

Uh, I'm not so sure why I apologized for liking LIFE OF BRIAN. Maybe because the film is literally considered to be a "joke version" of the story of Jesus Christ and some would consider it horrible to laugh at it. But hey, it was funny and had something to think about.
Logged
Eirik
Guest
« Reply #51 on: March 03, 2004, 04:40:06 PM »

 "I honestly feel that Gibson's direction/visual style is dry and unoriginal; "

Having sat through both Braveheart and the Patriot, I couldn't possibly agree with that statement more.  It's actually one of the reasons I won't see POTC.

I think that Jews have a lot more to fear from atheistic belief systems (Nazism/Communism) and Radical Islam than they do from the Christians, but not being Jewish I won't try to tell them how to feel.  I kind of get the impression that a lot of the "agenda" against this movie is not from Jews fearing some massive pogrom that obviously isn't going to happen, but rather from people who don't like religion and don't want to see it take center stage in the public arena - especially in an election year.  That's just my take on it.

"Maybe because the film is literally considered to be a "joke version" of the story of Jesus Christ and some would consider it horrible to laugh at it."

Well, only those Christians who don't think God has a sense of humor would think that's horrible...
Logged
jmc
Bad Movie Lover
***

Karma: 1
Posts: 637


« Reply #52 on: March 03, 2004, 05:19:06 PM »

Historically, Jews have suffered more from Christians than from other groups of people, but that's more or less changed during the last century.  I guess people are worried that this movie might somehow open old wounds.  

I agree, my big problem with the film is that it's in the hands of Mel Gibson, who has never done it for me as a director.  

But some of the critics who hate the film go way overboard...there was this guy on National Public Radio who was practically foaming at the mouth and said that Gibson was some kind of sadomasochist.    I liked Ebert's review, though it also made me decide I didn't really want to see this, at least not anytime soon.
Logged
Chris K.
Guest
« Reply #53 on: March 04, 2004, 12:43:34 AM »

Ebert pretty much claims that's THE PASSION OF THE CHRIST is one of the most violent movies ever made. I can challenge that: has he ever seen DEAD ALIVE or KILL BILL? Maybe he was supposed to mean "the most violent religious picture ever made"?

I agree that some of the reviews are becoming a bit towards the foaming of the mouth territory, one saying that the film was a new kind of "religious-art-slasher film" (what was this dude smoking?) and another said that it should be called "The Jerusalem Chainsaw Massacre"!
Logged
Lee
Bad Movie Lover
***

Karma: 0
Posts: 255


« Reply #54 on: March 04, 2004, 02:20:28 AM »

One critic actually refered to this as an action movie. According to him it's an action movie because there's alot of violence in it. That makes no sense.

Logged

This is the Hell that's my life.-Howard Stern: Private Parts
JohnL
Frightening Fanatic of Horrible Cinema
****

Karma: 0
Posts: 2388


« Reply #55 on: March 04, 2004, 02:36:41 AM »

>What bothers me is the condescending guffawing about Christians crediting
>miracles to the film as if we're a bunch of unsophisticated fanatics (by the way, I
>haven't heard anything like that in the press)

I suppose I'm to blame for that since I made the comment a while ago about how people would start attributing miracles to the film. Maybe you see it as making fun of Christians, but you can't deny that some people do some silly things where religion is concerned. Several years ago in this area, people from miles away were making a pilgrimage to see a tree in someone's yard because the owner had cut off some limbs and one of them left a shape that vaguely resembled the outline of Jesus or the Virgin Mary (I forget which). The paper ran pictures of people crowding around the tree holding candles.

>and the implication that Gibson is a hypocrite if he makes any money for his year
>or so of hard work on a movie.

Maybe that's because he emphasized how this wasn't just a movie, but an important story that people needed to see. If someone came up with a cure for the common cold, which would give you a higher opinion of them; If they gave the cure away for free to anyone who needed it or if they charged $20 a pop for it?
Logged
Eirik
Guest
« Reply #56 on: March 04, 2004, 02:02:22 PM »

"Maybe that's because he emphasized how this wasn't just a movie, but an important story that people needed to see."

Spielberg says the same thing about every movie he makes - do all of his profits go to the families of holocaust survivors, WWII vets, and shark hunters?  Is he a hypocrite for not making such donations?  I sense a double standard.

"If someone came up with a cure for the common cold, which would give you a higher opinion of them; If they gave the cure away for free to anyone who needed it or if they charged $20 a pop for it?"

I sure as hell wouldn't fault the person for charging $20 a pop (I'd pay more to get over a cold, frankly) since it was his or her hard work that resulted in me being able to fell better.  And frankly if they gave me the cure free, I'd probably be a little suspicious.

No argument that people do wacky things in the name of religion... but people do wacky things in the name of EVERYTHING.  Last week, a few hundred people got together in Chicago and exploded a baseball because some guy deflected it away from their left fielder.  Okay - maybe I'm being a little thin-skinned here.  It's just tiresome hearing about the fringe wacko element every time the word religion comes up in a public foum.  It'd be like if every time you mentioned you were a film enthusiast people looked at you funny and started talking about Gigli and Glitter.  (That analogy is a stretch, but does it make sense?)
Logged
raj
Frightening Fanatic of Horrible Cinema
****

Karma: 109
Posts: 2549



« Reply #57 on: March 04, 2004, 02:17:17 PM »

JohnL wrote:

> Maybe that's because he emphasized how this wasn't just a
> movie, but an important story that people needed to see. If
> someone came up with a cure for the common cold, which would
> give you a higher opinion of them; If they gave the cure away
> for free to anyone who needed it or if they charged $20 a pop
> for it?

I'd have a higher opinion if they charged $20.  I'm not going to invest in a company that gives its products away for free.  But then, I am a capitalist.

Mel gambled $25 mil of his own money on this (and it could have tanked very easily, being blasted for anti-semitism on the left and blasted for violence on the right).  It is quite fitting that if it succeeds, he makes back that and then some.
Logged
JohnL
Frightening Fanatic of Horrible Cinema
****

Karma: 0
Posts: 2388


« Reply #58 on: March 05, 2004, 12:39:38 AM »

In other news...

Some teacher in New York is in trouble for showing his 6th grade class a bootleg copy of TPotC. Not for having a bootleg copy, not for bringing religion into the school, but for showing such a violent movie to kids. Parents are said to be outraged.
Logged
Pages: 1 2 3 [4]
Badmovies.org Forum  |  Movies  |  Bad Movies  |  Passion of the Christ (spoilers, I guess, and the boat sinks in Titanic, too) « previous next »
    Jump to:  


    RSS Feed Subscribe Subscribe by RSS
    Email Subscribe Subscribe by Email


    Popular Articles
    How To Find A Bad Movie

    The Champions of Justice

    Plan 9 from Outer Space

    Manos, The Hands of Fate

    Podcast: Todd the Convenience Store Clerk

    Faster, Pussycat! Kill! Kill!

    Dragonball: The Magic Begins

    Cool As Ice

    The Educational Archives: Driver's Ed

    Godzilla vs. Monster Zero

    Do you have a zombie plan?

    FROM THE BADMOVIES.ORG ARCHIVES
    ImageThe Giant Claw - Slime drop

    Earth is visited by a GIANT ANTIMATTER SPACE BUZZARD! Gawk at the amazingly bad bird puppet, or chuckle over the silly dialog. This is one of the greatest b-movies ever made.

    Lesson Learned:
    • Osmosis: os·mo·sis (oz-mo'sis, os-) n., 1. When a bird eats something.

    Subscribe to Badmovies.org and get updates by email:

    HOME B-Movie Reviews Reader Reviews Forum Interviews TV Shows Advertising Information Sideshows Links Contact

    Badmovies.org is owned and operated by Andrew Borntreger. All original content is © 1998 - 2014 by its respective author(s). Image, video, and audio files are used in accordance with the Fair Use Law, and are property of the film copyright holders. You may freely link to any page (.html or .php) on this website, but reproduction in any other form must be authorized by the copyright holder.