Hey, I had to close my eyes during BraveHeart, and I have NOT watched the Passion, and I don't expect to go to this movie.
I was just commenting on how the writer "excused" Braveheart and the Passion because they were historical, and wondering if he was saying that this WASN'T historically accurate.
I'm not a big fan of blood and gore, even for historical purposes. I don't watch beheadings on the internet either, and I can't watch unedited images from 9/11 with people jumping to their deaths.
My theory is that not only is Gibson fascinated with violence, but he also gets a kick out of luring people who otherwise wouldn't see a violent movie to watch his stuff.
First we had "Braveheart" and "The Patriot", which got a whole bunch of conservatives into the theaters to watch his stuff. (And I was one of them, although the violence in "The Patriot" repulsed me, and it was NOT historically accurate.) Then he made "The Passion," and got millions of Christians into the theaters to be traumatized by the violence he showed in exquisite detail.
Now he is done with excuses pretty much, but his talk about "human sacrifice" in Iraq sort of makes me think he is after the crunchy granola anti-violence crowd.
There is something wrong with him, and it is starting to show on his face. He needs some sort of help, and no one is apparently (until this reviewer) prepared to tell him that he is not playing with a full deck.