Reviews for "The Passion..." - Page 6

dissention · #76 02-27-2004, 09:47 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by trackaghost
I'm keeping out of the religious arguments here and I haven't seen The Passion... yet, but simply as a huge movie buff, of course I want to see it (and most of my friends do too, and none of them are particularly religious).
But I just have to say most of those films you mentioned of Gibson's are mediorce at best! Apart from the Mad Max series of course.
Whatever your opinion of the man, he has made some great films whether it be popcorn fare like Lethal Weapon or critically acclaimed movies like Braveheart. Of his recent films IMO, Signs was fantastic, Payback was surprisingly dark and menacing, Ransom was a real edge of your seat, silly but fun thriller, and even What Women Want was an effective rom-com. Oh and he was also good in The Singing Detective, even if that film didn't live up to expectations. Plus, on the business side of things, Gibson has never been more bankable! His movies are making more than ever (What Women Want and Signs were the biggest hits of his career and The Passion... has had the largest Wednesday opening ever, pratically making back it's entire budget in one day).
I don't know about the man, (hey John Wayne was a great movie star but had questionable beliefs too) but to say Gibson's recent movies aren't up to the quality of Bird On The Wire (ahem) seems a little far-fetched to me.

EDIT: I just re-read this post and if it sounds aggressive, I apologise I'm not terribly angry about you dissing Gibson, just a little too passionate about movies, I guess.

Well, with the exception of the brilliant "Payback", the rest of the movies you mentioned suck teabags.

I should clarify and say that "Bird On A Wire" isn't a particularly great movie, it just has a lot of sentimental value to me for personal reasons.

The thing is, I don't think he chooses the right movies. he did early on and was brilliant (ever seen "The River"? 'Nuff said.) But these days he sucks. "Waht Women Want" was a mess and "Signs" took itself way too seriously, when I thought it was *really* silly. But that's more Shyamalan's fault than Gibson's.

And don't worry about the tone, you didn't sound agressive at all.

dissention · #77 02-27-2004, 09:50 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by strandinthewind
I tend not to let my personal views of someone's personal life keep me from seeing them in a movie. I would not want someone to fire me for my personal non work-related beliefs. A good example is Susan Sarandon, Tim Robbins, the Dixie Chicks, etc. Everyone has said people unfailrly judge their work, refuse to see their work, etc. because of their political postures. Yet, some of these same people refuse to see a Charlton Heston movie, a Mel Gibson movie, a Toby Keith song or whatever because of their views. I think that is a double standard I chose not to have. I tend to judge it on whether the content interests me. Also, when you get right down to it, everyone has done something in their lives that I probably do not like. That being said , Gibson's new movie is his personal belief. So, I think no double standard is applied if I say I choose not to go based on that.

But, to each their own!!!!

I didn't say I wouldn't see his movies because of his beliefs (but that would certainly change if he goes the route of his father and says the Holocaust was an exaggeration, pal), I said I wouldn't see him because his movies suck these days.

For the record, I don't give two flying turkeys what his religious beliefs are. But when they spill into sheer offensiveness and insensitivity towards other people and religions, I'm gonna cry foul. But those beliefs won't stop me from seeing a movie of his; what will stop me is the fact that he's lost "it" in his movies. They stink, plain and simple.

strandinthewind · #78 02-27-2004, 09:52 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by dissention
I didn't say I wouldn't see his movies because of his beliefs (but that would certainly change if he goes the route of his father and says the Holocaust was an exaggeration, pal), I said I wouldn't see him because his movies suck these days.

For the record, I don't give two flying turkeys what his religious beliefs are. But when they spill into sheer offensiveness and insensitivity towards other people and religions, I'm gonna cry foul. But those beliefs won't stop me from seeing a movie of his; what will stop me is the fact that he's lost "it" in his movies. They stink, plain and simple.

I am batting 1,000 tonight

I was responding in general and at no one

dissention · #79 02-27-2004, 09:53 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by strandinthewind
I am batting 1,000 tonight

I was responding in general and at no one

I'm a real f*cker tonight, eh?

strandinthewind · #80 02-27-2004, 10:12 PM

Lent is here and I am not having cocktails damnit!!!!!

My poor 13 year old Scottie (Maggie Mahalia Jackson the Moo Cow) had her spleen out two days ago and I have to give her pain medication. I think Daddy may have to steal some of it!!!

darklinensuit · #81 02-28-2004, 06:31 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by ryan8472

Just one more thing about this movie....In my opinion, you can't sugar-coat something like a crucifiction; It's just not a pleasent thing to see.

Gee, they seemed pretty happy in he Life of Brian, singing their songs and whatnot.

- Jake

ryan8472 · #82 02-28-2004, 09:34 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by darklinensuit
Gee, they seemed pretty happy in he Life of Brian, singing their songs and whatnot.

- Jake

LOL, yes. If only they could have chosen who they could be crucified next to

But if I remember correctly, they were only tied to their crosses, not nailed to them.

darklinensuit · #83 02-29-2004, 04:51 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by ryan8472
LOL, yes. If only they could have chosen who they could be crucified next to But if I remember correctly, they were only tied to their crosses, not nailed to them.

Yes, but this was Monty Python's personal vision of the Gospels. They used money from their own accounts, so it must be a religious mission. Let's not even get into who tied the guys up. Oh, the cruel controversy

- Jake

Rob67 · #84 03-01-2004, 08:02 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by sparky
I'll see it if I get invited to a sceening. No chance I'll ever put money in Mel Gibson's pocket (proven nut case and gay baiting
dirtbag that he is.)

Just curious...how is he "gay baiting?"

Rob

dissention · #85 03-01-2004, 10:34 AM

This is sickening.

From the IMDB:

Gibson's 'Passion' Sparks Christian Fashion Craze

Mel Gibson's new movie The Passion Of The Christ has inspired a new craze across America for Christian-themed jewelry. The hit film, which follows the final 12 hours of Jesus Christ's life, is at the center of continued controversy with accusations of potentially inciting anti-Semitism. But as well as fierce debate, the movie has also led hordes of people to buy such souvenirs as crucifixes, lapel pins and cards tied to the film's promotion. A particularly popular item is a pendant fashioned from a single nail made of pewter and attached to a leather strap, say officials of Bob Siemon Designs, licensed by Gibson's Icon Productions to produce jewelry linked to the film. The pendants represent the nails used in the film to fasten Christ to the cross. The company has shipped around 75,000 cross pendants to Christian bookstores across America and approximately the same amount of nail pendants.

People will buy any ole **** they see.

strandinthewind · #86 03-01-2004, 11:52 AM

I have no problem with people wearing or buying religious symbols. We do, after all, still have freemdom of expression in America, at least for now

Now here is a silly article:

http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/South/03/....ap/index.html

Passion tickets bear 'mark of the beast'
Monday, March 1, 2004 Posted: 9:12 AM EST (1412 GMT)

ROME, Georgia (AP) -- Tickets at one movie theater screening Mel Gibson's "The Passion of the Christ" are being deemed decidedly unholy.

My fav. quote "Several patrons have made comments about the numbers, and one person who was uncomfortable having 666 on her ticket asked for a pass to be substituted for a ticket."

dissention · #87 03-01-2004, 11:56 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by strandinthewind
I have no problem with people wearing or buying religious symbols. We do, after all, still have freemdom of expression in America, at least for now

Freedom of expression is a thing of the past, but that wasn't what my point was. I meant the merchandising of this movie is sickening. I don't understand why people don't realize how inappropriate it is.

DrummerDeanna · #88 03-01-2004, 12:52 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by dissention
Freedom of expression is a thing of the past, but that wasn't what my point was. I meant the merchandising of this movie is sickening. I don't understand why people don't realize how inappropriate it is.

I agree....BUT Chriastinity has been merchandised for the past well...for a long time!! Even before this film one could go into any Christian bookstore and can choose from any variety of crucifixion merchandise...still...I see your point and I agree...but I've never been a fan of the crucifix as a decorative item or anything...so...

Anyway...I was holding out saying anything until I actually say the film, which I did last night. I, found it powerful and quite intense...and just from my personal opinion, if someone is incited to do anti-semitic things..then they've missed the entire point of the film and are themselves not acting in anywhere near a Christian manner...anyway...I am only going to start rambling so I will stop here

Rob67 · #89 03-01-2004, 01:10 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by dissention
Freedom of expression is a thing of the past, but that wasn't what my point was. I meant the merchandising of this movie is sickening. I don't understand why people don't realize how inappropriate it is.

I thought you weren't religious? How can you then have an opinion on how appropriate it is???

Rob

strandinthewind · #90 03-01-2004, 01:35 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by dissention
Freedom of expression is a thing of the past, but that wasn't what my point was. I meant the merchandising of this movie is sickening. I don't understand why people don't realize how inappropriate it is.

I do not see it an inappropriate at all. I mean I think the people are buying it not out of derision, but because they believe in it. Plus, all movies market this way if they can.

What exactly is inappropriate about it?

I am not being a smart ass; I just don't see where you are coming from