|
Post by StevePulaski on Mar 26, 2012 9:24:37 GMT -5
Jesus being forced to carry the cross for his own crucifixion in The Passion of the Christ. Rating: ★★★★ I am not a religious person. If you know me, you know my views have been reduced to "I have no proof who or what exists, and I don't plan to get involved any time soon." I wasn't raised religiously, despite both of my parents having some sort of religious upbringing; my father an altar boy, my mother an avid church-goer. I'm glad I wasn't. I believe religion is an idea and concept one should pursue and study if they want to when they get older. Rather than being dragged every Sunday to a place of worship, being almost forced into beliefs, it's much more effective to allow a kid when he's older to form his own beliefs. I've come to the consensus over the years that I don't need religion. I have been successful without it for many, many years. I have published over five-hundred reviews, written many blog posts, volunteered at an organization, helped many people in my life, am constantly thankful for what I have, and have earned the respect of the people I care about. If I was your son, I think you'd say I'm doing a good job. I'm a free-thinking human being who looks to himself to solve his own problems. Not a book, not a verse, not a prophecy, not a prayer, or a story. Am I an Atheist? I don't think so. I have no proof there is/isn't a God. I have never seen him, I have never spoke to him, and I continue to bask in the area of skepticism. I think the idea of religion has been ghastly blown out of proportion in the last several years. People forget that religion teaches you to respect others beliefs and remain mature to other people despite their possible differences in faith. Now, many people who look to religion stew in their indulgence, thinking that others are "crazy" or "stupid" for believing in multiple Gods, not favoring a monotheistic position. I'm not saying every religious person does, but organizations like the Westboro Baptist Church have taken the meaning of God and have hypothetically spat on it. I've grown tired of all the fuss, controversy, ideas, and backlash religion brings. If it has helped you, keep believing in it. I don't need to hear about it. I'm comfortable enough in my position. But that's not to say I barricade myself in a cave, not allowing any religious ideas to flow. I'm open to films that focus on biblical aspects. I think even if we don't believe in something, we shouldn't shelter ourselves off, not allowing the other side to speak. If you're against abortion, do you immediately shun everything pro-choice? I believe many people do. By doing that, what can you learn? What can you accomplish by sheltering yourself? I try to watch a number of films, regardless of political, social, or religious beliefs. I believe the only way we can truly have an opinion on something is by seeing both sides of the argument, their benefits, and how they'd be applied. I decided to watch The Passion of the Christ for two reasons; one, to say I saw one of the most controversial films of all time, two, so I can further explore the work of Mel Gibson. He has successfully filmed a brutal journey, unlike one I have ever witnessed. I'm sure many others share that same view too. Going into this film blind will do no good. This is a brutally honest depiction of the treatment, brutality, and crucifixion Jesus Christ endured. It is bloody, unapologetic, gory, gruesome, and very, very cruel as it depicts the last twelve hours of Jesus's life up until the very lengthy scene of him being nailed to the cross. Gibson has filmed what many directors have avoided. Despite the negativity, death threats, harsh comments, and heavy, heavy controversy surrounding the film, Gibson's persistency and efforts must be commended, if not, cherished and admired. This is not only a vast achievement for filmmaking, but for religion as well. Jesus is portrayed by Jim Caviezel, in what I believe is his first major film role. What a debut, right? He is astonishing, avoids painful overacting, and it seems every time he slashed with a whip or a stick, the pain affects us audience members. We feel as we are being hit with every last weapon, unlike in many action films where characters take abuse and we feel no emotion, sympathy, or even sorrow. Just amusement. Here, no amusement is to be found. This is a melancholy take on a melancholy event. I've been to some online discussions where people have gone as far to say Jesus's crucifixion was "bloodless" and "painless" on his behalf. This will be probably the rudest awakening of their life if they actually believe that. Gibson is clearly religious, but he doesn't live in the clouds about his faith. He is aware of the hardships most likely endured by Jesus himself. He is fully capable in delivering a very brave and commendable film, that some will most likely not even watch till the credits. Those who do may not even hesitate to flinch afterwards and watch the entire credits all the way through. I know I did. The Passion of the Christ, even to a sacrilegious skeptic who rejects nearly every religious belief, is an astonishing film and a game-changing motivator to religious and biblical filmmaking. Despite the film's persistency showcasing cruel events, the main moral, as stated by Gibson, is love and forgiveness. Although I can definitely see what he means, you will not see any of that during the film itself. Nor will you even think those words. Starring: Jim Caviezel, Maia Morgenstern, Monica Bellucci, and Hristo Shopov. Directed by: Mel Gibson.
|
|
|
Post by StevePulaski on Mar 26, 2012 14:30:14 GMT -5
You've been seeing alot of Jim Caveisal lately. I know he's a freakily religious guy. But I like him in Person of Interest. He's such a strong, underrated, capable actor. Would love to see him in Long Weekend, but it never comes on TV.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 26, 2012 18:02:05 GMT -5
Yay: 4 stars for Mel Gibson's EGO.
|
|
|
Post by StevePulaski on Mar 26, 2012 21:10:29 GMT -5
Yay: 4 stars for Mel Gibson's EGO. I believe I've been very unfair to Mel Gibson. After those tapes of him screaming at Oksana came out, I said I'd never see one of his "crappy movies." I realize how impulsive and immature I sounded. But the four stars were definitely for his bravery, his persistency, and his realism on Passion.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 27, 2012 11:16:55 GMT -5
Bravery? Anti-semitism isn't bravery. And yes, this film portrays Jewish people in a way MANY have claimed is historically inaccurate and brow-beating. Which also shoots to hell the idea of realism.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 27, 2012 15:30:55 GMT -5
You should have tried to review The Last Temptation of Christ instead.
|
|
|
Post by StevePulaski on Mar 27, 2012 21:06:31 GMT -5
You should have tried to review The Last Temptation of Christ instead. That's been on my Netflix for the longest time. But the way my review is getting slandered, you can see why I don't wander into the religious area too often. I don't know the first thing about antisemitism, but the fact that Gibson pursued to make this film, in the bloody, realistic way the crucifixion probably took place, is what I admire. I'm not the one to judge if the film is historically accurate. I judge if the movie is worth seeing or not. To me, The Passion of the Christ is a brave look at a touchy subject.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 29, 2012 15:47:40 GMT -5
What is brave about spineless filmmakers making a film with the sole purpose to attack a group of people? Gibson more than proved his intentions were to attack Jewish people because he never liked them anyway.
|
|
|
Post by StevePulaski on Mar 29, 2012 21:43:52 GMT -5
What is brave about spineless filmmakers making a film with the sole purpose to attack a group of people? Gibson more than proved his intentions were to attack Jewish people because he never liked them anyway. Maybe I'm dense, but the film didn't feel that way to me. I just see it as brave filmmaking because it's a touchy point in history. Maybe I'm not cut out to review religious films. Maybe I'm an out of touch moron. I viewed Passion from a neutral point of view - I didn't see it as an act of antisemitism or a deliberate attack on Jews.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 30, 2012 18:02:12 GMT -5
Mel Gibson has already publically admitted that it was. That he has huge biases against Jewish people, black people, gay people, and women. The guy is a complete scumbag and his films suck too. That's all there is to it.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 30, 2012 18:33:12 GMT -5
I really liked how you expressed your opinion on the film, Steve, but I felt you could have said a bit more about the film. Even though I am an extreme, hardcore, God-hating, faith-hating, and fundamental atheist...I personally enjoyed this film very much. Bravery? Anti-semitism isn't bravery. And yes, this film portrays Jewish people in a way MANY have claimed is historically inaccurate and brow-beating. Which also shoots to hell the idea of realism. Absolutely right. Hitler coulda made this film. Just remember that it was the Romans, not the Jews, who killed Jesus... if he even existed. Even so, by the end of the film, I found myself really hating both Jews and Italians (the modern-day descendants of the Romans). Thankfully, I got over it real quick, but I still had such thoughts as "Damn guineas! Damn kikes! They killed Jesus!" Mel Gibson has already publically admitted that it was. That he has huge biases against Jewish people, black people, gay people, and women. The guy is a complete scumbag and his films suck too. That's all there is to it. I do agree that he is a complete scumbag as a human being, but I do really like him as a director and feels like he has a lot to offer for cinema. Plus he is FAR superior at filmmaking than Michael Bay. All Bay is good at is just pyrotechnics and everything else he does is just shit. Gibson, on the other hand, is not only amazing with gore, but he knows how to tell an interesting story as well. That is a quality trait that we will NEVER get from Bay.
|
|
|
Post by StevePulaski on Mar 30, 2012 21:30:47 GMT -5
Mel Gibson has already publically admitted that it was. That he has huge biases against Jewish people, black people, gay people, and women. The guy is a complete scumbag and his films suck too. That's all there is to it. I do agree that he is a complete scumbag as a human being, but I do really like him as a director and feels like he has a lot to offer for cinema. Plus he is FAR superior at filmmaking than Michael Bay. All Bay is good at is just pyrotechnics and everything else he does is just shit. Gibson, on the other hand, is not only amazing with gore, but he knows how to tell an interesting story as well. That is a quality trait that we will NEVER get from Bay.[/quote] Mel Gibson is a scumbag as a person, but like you said, that doesn't change the fact he is a great director. I'm not sure, I didn't hate anyone after watching the film. I just thought, if this did happen, it happened many, many years ago and present day Italians and Jews had no choice on Jesus' fate. I didn't talk about the plot because, really, it's pretty basic and simple. I feared I would complicate matters. I believe when writing a review, the plot is the least of the major concerns. You talk about it for a paragraph or two, on occasion I use several, and then move on to why you liked/disliked it.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 30, 2012 21:42:04 GMT -5
Mel Gibson has already publically admitted that it was. That he has huge biases against Jewish people, black people, gay people, and women. The guy is a complete scumbag and his films suck too. That's all there is to it. I do agree that he is a complete scumbag as a human being, but I do really like him as a director and feels like he has a lot to offer for cinema. Plus he is FAR superior at filmmaking than Michael Bay. All Bay is good at is just pyrotechnics and everything else he does is just shit. Gibson, on the other hand, is not only amazing with gore, but he knows how to tell an interesting story as well. That is a quality trait that we will NEVER get from Bay. Mel Gibson is a scumbag as a person, but like you said, that doesn't change the fact he is a great director. I'm not sure, I didn't hate anyone after watching the film. I just thought, if this did happen, it happened many, many years ago and present day Italians and Jews had no choice on Jesus' fate. I didn't talk about the plot because, really, it's pretty basic and simple. I feared I would complicate matters. I believe when writing a review, the plot is the least of the major concerns. You talk about it for a paragraph or two, on occasion I use several, and then move on to why you liked/disliked it. [/quote] I see what you mean. Especially since it is good courtesy to refrain from giving away any spoilers regarding the movie. While you did not hate anyone at any point in the movie, or afterwards for that matter, were you ever offended by the film's graphic content? I will admit I was a little offended, but not offended as I was by the movie Kids. My goodness, was that movie offensive! So do you think you'll watch any of Gibson's other films, like Apocalypto and Braveheart?
|
|
|
Post by StevePulaski on Mar 31, 2012 15:04:20 GMT -5
I don't really get offended by movies too easily. The graphic violence was justified, just like how strong language in mobster flicks is justified. Why sugarcoat things? Just show them in a brutally honest way. As for Gibson's other films, I bought Braveheart with intentions of reviewing it for "Cinema's Finest," but couldn't squeeze it in. Same thing with The Birth of a Nation. I scheduled too many movies and didn't have enough days to do them all. So, they're both postponed until further notice. Braveheart might get watched this summer, though.
As for Apocalypto, I'll see if I can borrow my uncle's copy.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 31, 2012 23:40:11 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.
|
|