Replies

Where's the barf alert?

Notwithstanding this glaring problem in reference to the "last 12 hours of Christ's life on earth.

Good grief, woman. Technically incorrect, but a glaring problem? Not really. You'd think that the movie doesn't portray the resurrection!

at least 10,000 pastors and leaders of Christian ministries and media have previewed the film and, although the majority of Christians have not seen the movie, entire churches are being mobilized to promote it

Not only does she slam Mel, she implies that the 10,000 Christian pastors/leaders are complicit in "Mel's conspriracy". Yeah, right.

influential Pentecostal and evangelical leaders have embraced it anyway, seeing its value as a tool in evangelism.

These leaders have told her that they embraced it because of its value as a tool? Or, maybe some because it appears to be an accurate portrayal of Jesus death, and His love for us? She's assuming the reason they are embracing the movie.

Since the movie has yet to be released, all reviews have been written by selected individuals who were invited to the private screenings. The typical review, which sounds almost scripted, goes something like this one written by Catholic apologist Keith Fournier:

Selected individuals like Matt Drudge? Michael Medved? Jack Valenti? Billy Graham? Yeah, these men are all cut from the same cloth, and I'm sure they used Mel's "review script" for writing their reviews. It's beginning to look like an intentional hit piece, to me. :-)

Focus on the Family is committed to promoting the Mel Gibson movie and, to our knowledge, has not repudiated the review attributed to Danae.

An allegation is a reason to repudiate someone? I allege that ms. aho is stupid. She should now repudiate her stupidity.

The actors in this film may be unknown to American Christians

Hey barb! Unknown, as in not blockbuster stars! Unknown, as in not box office draws. Ever gone to a movie because Jim Caviezal was in it? (Not in the past, but they will now, in droves, he'll be unknown no longer!)

to say that James Caviezel and Monica Bellucci are well-known is an enormous understatement. Monica Bellucci, who plays Mary Magdalene in Gibson’s “Passion” movie, is a famous pornography star!

To say that Monica Bellucci IS well-known would be an ENORMOUS overstatement. You, know, kind of like have done. If it was well-known that Monica Bellucci was a porn star, for example, don't you think that we'd have, uh, heard about it. The fact is, she's not done a single movie I've seen, and according to Yahoo's bibliography has NEVER done a single porn movie. Kinda tough to be a PORN STAR when you don't do PORN movies. This is outright slander.

I was going to read the whole thing and continue to debunk, but I've read enough of this drivel. This lady has some agenda, who knows what. Maybe she's PO'd because she wasn't invited to an early showing.

Hmmm, who to believe? barb aho, or Billy Graham. Yeah, that's a tough one.

OK, I couldn't help myself. I had to try and see what was driving this paranoid, delusional, "Christian" author...

She slams the marketing efforts and implies that 10,000+ Christians, Jews, and others are complicit in a grand conspiracy by Mel Gibson.

She blast Bellucci as a RENOWNED PORN STAR, when at most she's done some movies where she removed her clothes. By this definintion, Nicole Kidman is a porn star, along with Jody Foster (ugh!) and thousands of other actresses. ;-)

She implies that Caviezel is some cultish Catholic (but different from Mel's cult, BTW).

Then, we begin to get to the meat of her delusion filled arguements. She takes ONE reviewers comments about the Principal Figure and based the remaining 68,000 words on the assumption that the Principal Figure is Mary Magdelene as described in the fictional novel "The Da Vinci Code".

Not having seen the movie, she makes this assumption. That's funny, when I read that, I assumed that the Principle Figure was God, or Christ (the same to me). Wonder why this "Christian" doesn't assume the same? Could be she has some other agenda?

Then, mysteriously, she turns it into a historical review of Braveheart. Beats William Wallace all to hell and back, and she's back on some strange kick about Gnostics.

Lot's of delusional paranoia about the problem of the movie shot in dead languages, implying that we won't know, for sure what the actors are really saying. You know, like we're going to be influenced by languages we don't know.

So, in summary, this author is completely off her rocker.