As I said, it's easier to trash someone's appearance than to make substantive comments about their writings.
False, children who have read the Gospels can see this movie. That is, of course, entirely up to the parent and the child's understanding of those Gospels.
Even adults are at risk.
No more or less than reading this womans rantings.
Mel Gibson's "The Passion of the Christ" is the most virulently anti-Semitic movie made since the German propaganda films of World War II.
A profound lie. I saw the movie, there is nothing anti-Semitic about it. Nothing. My impressions: Pity for the Pharisees, disgust with Pilate, an unchristian like desire to throttle the Roman Soldiers who beat Jesus and a love for God who would subject his only son to such brutality to provide a path to Him for us all.
It is sickening, much more brutal than any "Lethal Weapon."
It is not sickening. It is truth that wrenches the heart. That the author doesn't understand that is not a failing on Mel Gibsons part, but her own failing.
The violence is grotesque, savage and often fetishized in slo-mo. At least in Hollywood spectacles that kind of violence is tempered with cartoonish distancing effects; not so here. And yet "The Passion" is also undeniably powerful.
The violence "Is as it was." It is therefore not gratuitous violence but violence with a purpose and that purpose is to define the sacrifice that is the basis of Christianity, the Lord Jesus suffering so that we may all have a path to the Father.
Because of all the media coverage of this movie and the way it was shown only to handpicked sympathizers until yesterday's screening for movie critics, many questions hang in the air: Is it historically accurate?
Yes, but it is after all a movie and we all know that "artists" do art. So, no it is not historically perfect nor should anybody expect it to be.
Of course not. As with any movie, even a documentary, this one reflects the views of its filmmakers, who are entitled and expected to use their art persuasively. Gibson has been up-front about his own religious agenda.
Gibson is a Catholic and the Gospels are reflected historically. I don't know what her problem is here.
But is it any good?
It is a no blink film. I could not only not take my eyes off the screen, I found myself not blinking so as not to miss any of the translation or imagery. That is a testimony to the cinematic genius of the film maker and his use of the Aramaic language and English subtitles as well as the subject matter. Truly spellbinding.
"The Passion" - once you strip away all the controversy and religious fervor - is a technically proficient account of the last 12 hours in the life of Jesus of Nazareth.
In other words, "historically accurate". This is a contradiction of her previous thought process. John Kerry like.
The movie is sanctimonious in a way that impedes dramatic flow and limits characterizations to the saintly and the droolingly vulgar.
Bologna.
There is no hypocisy in Gibson's film, it is as he sees it and as the Gospels have taught us. The woman is in need of an English refresher course.
That said, there are many things in its favor - a heroic physical effort by star Jim Caviezel; stunning cinematography by Caleb Deschanel, and the chutzpah to have the actors speak in the dead language of Aramaic (with some subtitles).
Even a broken clock...
Is Gibson devout, or is he mad?
Ad hominem dementia.
Had Gibson claimed Napoleon helped him direct, instead of divine spirits, the answer would be clear. Even so, a touch of madness is often a good thing in a director.
More ad hominem dementia.
But "The Passion" feels like a propaganda tool rather than entertainment for a general audience.
It's not propaganda lady, it is my religion. It is what I have been taught, it is what I believe and I will believe as I take my last breath. It is these kinds of statements that engender enmity.
Is it anti-Semitic?
Not even close. Jesus was a Jew. Mary was a Jew. The disciples were Jews. The folks urging the Roman soldiers to halt the beating of Jesus were Jews. Simon, who demands the beatings stop was a Jew.
"Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do."
Yes.
NO!
Jews are vilified, in ways both little and big, pretty much nonstop for two hours, seven minutes.
A lie.
Gibson cuts from the hook nose of one bad Jewish character to the hook nose of another in the ensuing scene.
I don't remember even seeing a hooked nose. Should hooked nose movie actors be banned from films about Christ? Evidently the author had a list before she saw the film: Be sure to count the hooked noses. Cripes.
He misappropriates an important line from the Jewish celebration of Pesach ("Why is this night different from all other nights?") and slaps it onto a Christian context.
The line was inserted into the movie at the behest of Ms Morgenstern who portrayed Mary, the Jewish Mother Of God. Ms Morgenstern, a Jew, is presumably an anti-Semite.
Most unforgivable is that Pontius Pilate (Hristo Naumov Shopov), the Roman governor of Palestine who decreed that Jesus be crucified, is portrayed as a sensitive, kind-hearted soul who is sickened by the tortures the Jewish mobs heap upon his prisoner.
LOL. He is portrayed as a disgusting coward who places his own hide above what he suspects is truth.
Pilate agrees to the Crucifixion only against his better judgment.
No, he agrees to the Crucifixion to save his own hide from Caesar. What movie did this woman watch?
The most offensive line of the script, which was co-written by Gibson with Benedict Fitzgerald, about Jews accepting blame, was not cut from the movie, as initially reported. Only its subtitle was removed.
Well, that should certainly incite all of the Aramaic speaking anti-Semites to acts of violence against those of us responsible for Christs sufferings. Of course thats a lot of violence since Christianity makes it quite clear that we are ALL sinners.
"Passion" assumes the audience already knows Christianity 101, and plunges right into the aftermath of the Last Supper. Taunted by an effeminate, seductive Satan and anticipating betrayal, Christ suffers.
Perhaps with his profits from this movie, Mel will do a prequel. Barring that I would suggest reading the New Testament.
Oh, does He suffer.
Right, that is the bedrock of Christianity and glib comments regarding same does not move the ball toward understanding and truth.
The movie is a compendium of tortures that would horrify the regulars at an S&M club. Gibson spares not one cringing closeup to showcase what he imagines Jesus must have endured.
Yes, you've been there already It was no more true the first time.
The lashings are so brutal that chunks of flesh go flying and blood rains like outtakes of "Kill Bill."
Again, "It is as it was". The beatings were sadistic, there was no masochism. Jesus did not enjoy the beating and crucifixion, He endured it. Big difference lady and one you should try to wrap your arms around.
The Romans capture their prey with the help of a terminally regretful Judas, then haul Him around to be whipped, beaten, spat upon, mutilated and finally crucified - all with the cheering encouragement of a ghoulish mob of Jews. No one in the crowd speaks up for Jesus, not even, strangely, his mother (Maia Morgenstern).
A willful lie. Check out Simon or the young Jewess who who brings Jesus a drink. Or the many Jews decrying the savagery of the Roman soldiers.
Religious intolerance has been used as an excuse for some of history's worst atrocities. "The Passion of the Christ" is a brutal, nasty film that demonizes Jews at an unfortunate time in history.
The woman is an inveterate liar, the film demonizes nothing, it praises the ultimate sacrifice. And yes, men performed atrocities in the name of Christianity but that says nothing about Christianity, it says everything about the sins of men.
Whatever happened to the idea that the centerpiece of every major religion is love?
It is alive and well but bearing false witness is proscribed as sinful behavior in the Old Testament and this woman has some sinning to answer for in this piece.
Her writing was barely worth commenting on. But if your looking for substantive comments on it, here goes: It's sloppy writing that must have come from a sloppy mind and more importantly, her review was race baiting. Her "unstuff" remark is a lame attempt at shifting the blame from the writer to the readers, when it is her fault alone that she can't write succinctly, even after 18 years of considering herself a professional movie critic.