http://www.dfw.com/mld/dfw/entertainment/7989006.htm
A critic states that he can not be unbiased in assessing a work of art or movie. What should his newspaper publisher do? Why, assign him to review the film of course. Not surprisingly, Mr. Kelly rips "The Passion".
You might ask, "what makes a good movie to Mr. Kelly?" According to the June 12, 1996 edition of the Dartmouth Review, Mr. Kelly, a 1996 graduate of Dartmouth selected films featuring explicit depictions of castration and pederasty for the Dartmouth Film Society's 'Sex in the Cinema' festival. The Dartmouth review quotes Mr. Kelly as saying his favorite part of pornographic films is "watching the male ejaculate".
http://www.dartreview.com/archives/1996/06/12/week_in_review.php
As if this were not enough, in October of 2002, Mr. Kelly listed Mel Gibson as number one on his list of people with "too much power." He also wrote that Mr. Gibson "must be stopped" because Gibson "is now using his clout to finance a long-standing ambition to make a film about the life of Jesus."
http://www.fortwayne.com/mld/startelegram/living/4260887.htm
Among his past work, is an article explaining how he gets sexually aroused watching Tom Cruise movies.
http://www.salon.com/people/feature/1999/06/30/cruise/index.html
There is an article explaining that an "exemplary gay film" is one "wholly willing to allow its characters orgasm".
http://faculty.oxy.edu/tobin/documents/gayfilm.html
Despite these anti-Gibson and anti-Christian positions, the Fort Worth Star-Telegram found it appropriate to assign Kelly the task of reviewing "The Passion". He, of course, disliked the film. Today, I'm cancelling my subscription and would ask anyone else in Texas who takes this rag to do the same.
So far every review savaging this film has been done by a "critic" who had an agenda and an ax to grind. As such these reviews are nothing but an anti-Christian screed.
The one negatie review by a Non-Believer so far that I have found halfway decent is the review by James Jacoby of the Boston Globe. he clearly states what he took away fromthe movie , and the questions it left him with. His review was very well thought out and to me is a great example to use when trying to figure out what non-believers will take away from this movie.
Kelly's screeching histrionics are nothing more than gutter trash. This guy is a fruitckae (Literally and figuratively)
Congratulations, you got the message! BTW, it's not Mel's message.
And with the same certainty, all of the degradation, torture, pain, suffering, and violence were elements critical to the validity of the sacrifice. I am perplexed to hear criticism of this aspect of it from some nominal Christians, who fail to understand that this is the punishment for all of the sins of all mankind, from Adam to the end of mankind, whenever and however that comes about. (Opinions vary here.)
This is the price for every sin, by every man or woman, past, present, and future, forever. The cumulative punishment for that burden of sin must be the most terrible that the mind of man can imagine. And in the legend, it must be borne by one without sin, voluntarily, or else it would be merely the usual punishment for a common criminal. Lethal injection fails to measure up to the crimes being expiated, and critics who fail to understand that fail to measure up to their task.