|
Post by StevePulaski on Apr 1, 2012 11:36:45 GMT -5
Imagine if they made Passion of the Christ action figures. I bet they already have. Send that idea to Robot Chicken.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 4, 2012 17:34:29 GMT -5
Well, my problem is that guys like this make fucktons of money for spreading messages of hate and intolerance. Why should people get rich for doing something like that? It's not something to be cavalier about or an area where someone should even consider cinematic talent. Not when the guy proudly produces a piece of anti-human propaganda under the guise of humility until he's gotten rich off of foolish audiences. If I had been in your position, I wouldn't have even reviewed the film. Or watched it. And I don't think Jib is in the business of advocating sugarcoating in movies. I agree that it is wrong for any director to spread messages of hate (be it subliminal or otherwise) and get rich off of it. Which is why I think of Mel Gibson as a complete douchebag as a human being. Yet, despite that, Gibson is a far better filmmaker than Michael Bay will ever be. Sure, Gibson is hateful, but at least his movies are not oversaturated with stupidity and meaninglessness. That is why I find Bay to be a much worse director than Gibson, since he makes mindless action look "so awesome." I'm sure if Gibson had directed the TF films, they would have been much more meaningful and entertaining. And no, I am not at all in the business of sugarcoating movies. Quite the opposite to be exact. I think cinema should not be afraid to tell story no matter how brutal or unpleasant it may be. Of course, such films should not expect everyone to want to view them. As such, one has to wonder if the MPAA originally pondered giving The Passion an NC-17 rating for graphic violence and gore before finally giving it an R rating.
|
|
|
Post by patface1979 on Apr 5, 2012 19:46:32 GMT -5
The movie was basically a snuff film to me because all you see is a guy getting beating and then left out to die!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 6, 2012 11:55:12 GMT -5
At best, that's exactly what it is Pat.
|
|
|
Post by StevePulaski on Apr 6, 2012 12:33:31 GMT -5
The movie was basically a snuff film to me because all you see is a guy getting beating and then left out to die! Well, according to the Bible, and from many side-sources such as biblical forums and my friends who are very religious, that's how it happened.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 6, 2012 13:20:28 GMT -5
Steve, do you need to see an actual rape to know how bad it is? Nobody does. So, why do we see the crucifixion of a character a lot of people believe was a real person to know it was graphic and horrifying?
|
|
|
Post by StevePulaski on Apr 6, 2012 13:36:13 GMT -5
Steve, do you need to see an actual rape to know how bad it is? Nobody does. So, why do we see the crucifixion of a character a lot of people believe was a real person to know it was graphic and horrifying? No one living now has ever seen Jesus or anyone in the Bible, meaning that the book itself is open to ones interpretation. Some say Jesus's crucifixion was bloodless and painless on his part. How ridiculous does that sound? No one needs to see rape because if you hear someone say "the forcing of a woman to have sexual intercourse" many, if not everyone, will know what you're talking about. This is the brutally honest, unsugarcoated way the crucifixion could've, and probably did, happened. Gibson made a film that was violent, cruel, and bloody, but it was realistic and haunting. It was hard for me to even get up and move on to writing a review of the film, let alone shut the damn DVD off. It haunted me, a rare trait in film. Because of the way it affected me, and the taste it left in my mouth, I believe it had to get four stars.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 6, 2012 22:33:56 GMT -5
Sorry, Steve, but you're way off.
|
|
|
Post by wes1016 on Apr 6, 2012 22:41:45 GMT -5
4 stars? really? patton oswalt does a great bit about this movie on one of his albums. i couldn't find the clip online so i'll try my best to sum it up:
even with the latest unpleasantness about gibson, i can still enjoy a gibson movie. even without the calls, which really are no one's business, this movie is just bad. i'm not looking to get into a religous debate. this is a film debate. you're getting the hardships of jesus, without the rest of jesus. it's gore/torture porn. i second the recomemmdation for the last tempation. now there's a director with guts who made a truly controversal film that he actually recieved death threats about. i've heard nothing but praise by the religious for this film.
|
|
|
Post by StevePulaski on Apr 7, 2012 8:09:23 GMT -5
Sorry, Steve, but you're way off. Per usual, I guess?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 8, 2012 3:27:55 GMT -5
4 stars? really? patton oswalt does a great bit about this movie on one of his albums. i couldn't find the clip online so i'll try my best to sum it up: even with the latest unpleasantness about gibson, i can still enjoy a gibson movie. even without the calls, which really are no one's business, this movie is just bad. i'm not looking to get into a religous debate. this is a film debate. you're getting the hardships of jesus, without the rest of jesus. it's gore/torture porn. i second the recomemmdation for the last tempation. now there's a director with guts who made a truly controversal film that he actually recieved death threats about. i've heard nothing but praise by the religious for this film. If you honestly think that Gibson did a bad job at telling the story of The Passion, then try imagining just how Michael Bay would have told it. The way I see it, Bay would not be at all faithful to the biblical story, and would just take outrageous and blasphemous liberties. Bay would make it so that Jesus runs from the Romans, kicks their asses with the help of his disciples, and blow up the Roman temple with one badass EXPLOSION! Oh, and Bay would also get some hot bimbo to play as Jesus' love interest, Mary Magdalene. As well as have everyone speaking English, since having it any sort of ancient language would be too much for Bay. Can you imagine that? Or would you rather take that over Gibson's so-called "torture porn"?
|
|
|
Post by StevePulaski on Apr 8, 2012 14:17:25 GMT -5
Can I just say something? If I would've known the backlash and rebuttal this review would've given me I probably wouldn't have seen the film in the first place. I wanted to watch it to try and see if I could sit through a biblical epic, and more importantly, see if I can appreciate it. Clearly, that idea has been thrown out the window. It's more or less reduced to "you just rewarded a crappy film by a crappy director four stars. You don't know what you're talking about."
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 9, 2012 1:42:45 GMT -5
If you honestly think that Gibson did a bad job at telling the story of The Passion, then try imagining just how Michael Bay would have told it. The way I see it, Bay would not be at all faithful to the biblical story, and would just take outrageous and blasphemous liberties. Bay would make it so that Jesus runs from the Romans, kicks their asses with the help of his disciples, and blow up the Roman temple with one badass EXPLOSION! Oh, and Bay would also get some hot bimbo to play as Jesus' love interest, Mary Magdalene. As well as have everyone speaking English, since having it any sort of ancient language would be too much for Bay. Can you imagine that? Or would you rather take that over Gibson's so-called "torture porn"? Nothing in the bible is even historically accurate. So it doesn't matter who makes the film or how "accurate" it is. The fact that even the mainstream media is admitting this is proof that there is overwhelmingly strong evidence that religion is fake. www.huffingtonpost.com/staks-rosch/the-biblical-exodus-story-is-fiction_b_1408123.html Very interesting article right there, Eduljee. It kind of reminds me of this video, by The Amazing Atheist: Can I just say something? If I would've known the backlash and rebuttal this review would've given me I probably wouldn't have seen the film in the first place. I wanted to watch it to try and see if I could sit through a biblical epic, and more importantly, see if I can appreciate it. Clearly, that idea has been thrown out the window. It's more or less reduced to "you just rewarded a crappy film by a crappy director four stars. You don't know what you're talking about." Of course, it would seem we are arguing more about Mel Gibson as a director than about the crucificion of Jesus Christ. Anyway, I agree with you, Steve, regarding your review of it. Gibson did a great job on the film, despite what anyone else may say. Sure he is a hateful jerk-off, but the way he does gore in movies is just amazing. That, and how he keeps a coherent storyline going. If anyone should have rebooted Friday the 13th, it should have been him. Of course, it would appear that am now trolling Michael Bay by constantly comparing him to Gibson.
|
|
|
Post by wes1016 on Aug 22, 2012 18:01:00 GMT -5
4 stars? really? patton oswalt does a great bit about this movie on one of his albums. i couldn't find the clip online so i'll try my best to sum it up: even with the latest unpleasantness about gibson, i can still enjoy a gibson movie. even without the calls, which really are no one's business, this movie is just bad. i'm not looking to get into a religous debate. this is a film debate. you're getting the hardships of jesus, without the rest of jesus. it's gore/torture porn. i second the recomemmdation for the last tempation. now there's a director with guts who made a truly controversal film that he actually recieved death threats about. i've heard nothing but praise by the religious for this film. If you honestly think that Gibson did a bad job at telling the story of The Passion, then try imagining just how Michael Bay would have told it. The way I see it, Bay would not be at all faithful to the biblical story, and would just take outrageous and blasphemous liberties. Bay would make it so that Jesus runs from the Romans, kicks their asses with the help of his disciples, and blow up the Roman temple with one badass EXPLOSION! Oh, and Bay would also get some hot bimbo to play as Jesus' love interest, Mary Magdalene. As well as have everyone speaking English, since having it any sort of ancient language would be too much for Bay. Can you imagine that? Or would you rather take that over Gibson's so-called "torture porn"? this is a really late response. I must've missed it originally. my apologies jib: does this really need to be an either/or proposition? michael bay and mel gibson arent the only two directors in hollywood. you can't say criticism of a film is illegitimate because it would have been worse of michael bay did it.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 7, 2012 18:32:41 GMT -5
If you honestly think that Gibson did a bad job at telling the story of The Passion, then try imagining just how Michael Bay would have told it. The way I see it, Bay would not be at all faithful to the biblical story, and would just take outrageous and blasphemous liberties. Bay would make it so that Jesus runs from the Romans, kicks their asses with the help of his disciples, and blow up the Roman temple with one badass EXPLOSION! Oh, and Bay would also get some hot bimbo to play as Jesus' love interest, Mary Magdalene. As well as have everyone speaking English, since having it any sort of ancient language would be too much for Bay. Can you imagine that? Or would you rather take that over Gibson's so-called "torture porn"? this is a really late response. I must've missed it originally. my apologies jib: does this really need to be an either/or proposition? michael bay and mel gibson arent the only two directors in hollywood. you can't say criticism of a film is illegitimate because it would have been worse of michael bay did it. I wasn't implying that criticism was illegitimate, and you guys have a tendency of taking even the smallest thing I say super-seriously (Hawk is the only one who doesn't). There tons of directors in the film business, but give a choice between Mel Gibson and Michael Bay, I would have to go with Gibson. Other directors that would have done The Passion would include: David Fincher, Ridley Scott, Peter Jackson, James Cameron, Wes Anderson, Francis Ford Coppola, and Stanley Kubrick (if he was still alive). If there are any director's that would have done an awful job on telling the story of the crucifixion of Jesus, they would include: Michael Bay, Uwe Boll, Jason Friedberg & Aaron Seltzer, Brett Ratner, Joel Schumacher (although, he might do just "okay" at best), Roland Emmerich, and Roger Christian (just look what he did with Scientology in Battlefield Earth). As for the idea of Gibson vs. Bay, I just know that Transformers would've been awesome if Gibson had done it. He would have put effort into storytelling, plot, character developement, and background story, as well as into action sequences and visual effects. Heck, he probably would've thrown gore into the mix just to make TF rated R. Those were all things Bay neglected, with the exception of visuals and action, and instead just desecrated the whole TF franchise. I was such a big fan of Transformers before the movies came out, and while Hasbor was already ruining their good name, it was Bay that hammered the final nail into the coffin. Now I pretty hate Transformers, with the exception of Generation One, Beast Wars, Beast Machines (even though I will admit that it was NOT fantastic, it was still better than Bayformers), and even RID/Car Robots. To this day I ask myself: "Why? Why did Michael Bay have to ruin Transformers? And forever, too! Why couldn't they get a good director to do Transformers." Then again, if you're not a fan, then you probably don't understand. Or do you?
|
|