Quote Originally Posted by GrendelZ
I belive its one of the boldest moves in a long time.
I see very few "new" movies these days... just too many "older" film classics to catch up on. But this movie doesn't interest me much anyway, even if it's as well made as it seems to be. PS: I wouldn't call it “bold,” at least not in the artistic sense. "Bold" would be if it showed Jesus as the leader of an outlaw group of 12 gay outcasts (a non-mainstream view... but a view held by some non-the-less).

If you wanna see a similarly themed film, that has much more to offer, watch the 50's version of Ben Hur. It's easily one of the best films ever made IMHO. It has action, suffering, revenge, justice, beauty, nature, spirituality, perseverance... all great/classic themes, and all in one film... and yes, even Jesus has a cameo in it!

Perhaps you could call it "bold" because of all the roadblocks and opposition Mel got from the media elite (suits) that forced him to bankroll tens of millions of his own cash in order to do it. That is symptomatic of what many people like myself find so troubling about Hollywood in general -- their self-expressed “liberal” (open to all) views, touting "freedom of expression," but which is hypocritical to certain views they find distasteful.


Quote Originally Posted by Troy
Religeous controversy should not be depicted as mass entertainment. It's just too loaded and issue and too easy for people too close to it to mistake the movie as fact rather than fictional entertainment.
This is a complicated issue, and I have/see views on both sides of your statement. I just don't see why religion should be marginalized (out of) film, where all manner of other themes & things, like gratuitous violence & sex are the norm. I don't see, if you're making judgements (and you are), you can make that one. What's so special about "religious controvery" to exclude it from mass entertainment? (most would argue this IS NOT controversial anyway... the "controvery" aspect is more a marketing scam taken up by the media). If you don't wanna see it fine, but don't say he shouldn't use film to communicate an emotional idea to the audience through entertainment. (PS, I'm not gonna see it either).


Quote Originally Posted by Troy
Gibson does come accross as a humorless zealot fanatic in interviews about this project.
I thought he was thoughtful and serious, and hardly humorless. What did he say that was "fanatical?" "Zealot" is also a loaded term that I didn't see any evidence of (did I miss him saying "kill all the Jews" or something?). He wasn't degrading or marginalizing others... he was just offering up his view (new testament really) in the marketplace of artistic ideas... take it or leave it.

I’m not religious, but I find absolutely nothing about the film that should scare, frighten or trouble anyone. Are some afraid it might convert a few to Christianity? I’m not religious... but I don’t get that at all. So what if it does? I'm closer to atheist than anything, but I have absolutley no negative feelings when I see people going to church. In fact, it scares me to think how most of 'em would act if they DIDN'T believe in a higher power.

The anti-Jew "controversy" here is without foundation. The same people who would prohibit the film because it might give someone ammunition in their anti-Semite views, don't seem to speak up about certain Islamic sects where Jew-hating is part of their doctrine. Better they should worry about REAL discrimination & resentment of Jews in Europe today (burnings of Synagogues). The whole anti-Jew aspect of this is a straw dog IMO.

BTW, the clips I've seen show this film as VERY violent. They've really overdone the blood thing to the point of almost satire IMO. That aspect may give others a more "reality" basis for the story, but to me (anyway) it looks overdone, false and hokey.(but gimme a break here... I reserve that comment since I ain't seen the whole film). Great film directors knew that NOT showing too much is more effective than throwing stuff in your face, whether it's romance (grutuitous sex), violence (Hitchcock teased you with it, which was MORE effective), or even comedy (Laural & Hardy falling down out-of-the-frame was way funnier than on-screen. Less, is usually better, and more effective... but today's culture is more "in-your-face" and heavyhanded... and less artistic IMO. I DO like Mel Gibson though. He surrounds himself with talented people and has a good eye. I look forward to his future works.