If someone has a heart condition then they shouldnt view movies like that. Just another excuse to probably "sue" Mel later. LOL
If someone has a heart condition then they shouldnt view movies like that. Just another excuse to probably "sue" Mel later. LOL
Quote from Roger Ebert's review of the film:Link to the full review... [T]he film is the most violent I have ever seen. It will probably be the most violent you have ever seen. This is not a criticism but an observation; the film is unsuitable for younger viewers, but works powerfully for those who can endure it. The MPAA's R rating is definitive proof that the organization either will never give the NC-17 rating for violence alone, or was intimidated by the subject matter. If it had been anyone other than Jesus up on that cross, I have a feeling that NC-17 would have been automatic.
Yikes. I definately am not interested in seeing this myself. I hope people don't force their kids to watch it out of religious zeal.
Eek.. Thanks for the link, Jagged.Originally Posted by jagged link=board=1;threadid=6859;start=msg77843#msg77843 date=1077766934
![]()





I have no great faith in Mel Gibson's ability to accurately portray the events leading up to the death of Christ, whatever version of religious propaganda he chooses to follow. Expecting the Bible to be historically accurate is as wise as believing anything written by any other priest(s) with an agenda, and masses of potential converts available, as was the case in the Roman Empire in this period.
The battle scenes in "Braveheart" were entertaining but had little to do with what actually happened. They didn't wear blue paint or charge the English in a crazed and undisciplined horde, or they would have been slaughtered. William Wallace did as well as he did by making the Scotch hold firm in formation. Pikes were effective indeed against cavalry, as depicted in one brief segment, but the Scots won that battle by staying put with them. But it was better entertainment to see a bunch of idiots running full tilt into each other.
Maybe Mel honestly means to portray what he believes took place, but I won't accept it as history, other than that there was a man named Jesus, who probably was killed in an extremely painful fashion. There are conflicting accounts as to what actually took place at the scene of the crucifixion, and they don't all make sense or agree.
Crucifixion was without question an extremely unpleasant way to die, as was drawing and quartering (which was actually a considerably more brutal and painful process than that depicted in Braveheart). But I suspect that Mel might be overdoing the process, horrible as it was, for the shock effect. Getting all pissed off at the Jews because of seeing this would only be expected from those who were ignorant of the role of religon in persecution as practiced by so-called Christians themselves.
The only Jews who wanted Jesus crucified were those whose authority and power over the rest were threatened. But Christians and Moslems were considerably more savage in the wholesale slaughter of those within and without their faith than Jews ever were. The Christians were no sooner spared the possibility of being eaten by lions, than they happily began burning people alive for heresy, tens of thousands eventually being killed this way in the name of the Lord.
What we have here is yet another example of religon being used to work people up into a frenzy and hate each other, and make a certain few people rich in the process--something that Christ, be he man or deity, would have abhorred.
You must have chaos within you to give birth to a dancing star.
Friedrich Nietzsche
Free your mind, and your ass will follow.
George Clinton
______________________________________





Wow you can read the New Testament in 15 minutes? Thats fast.
"The ultimate measure of a man is not where he stands in moments of comfort, but where he stands at times of challenge and controversy."
The only reason I can see for Jews to be crying foul is because the movie shows that they asked for Christ to be put to death. And the main reason they cried foul about him 2000 years ago, and the reason that they're crying foul now is one thing- POWER. The Jewish Sanhedrin of that day felt threatened by Christ because they thought that his kingdom was going to be an earthly one and take the power away from him. The reason Jews today feel threatened is two fold. One, because Gibson is trying to show the truth of how their ancestors acted, which leads into number two- for centuries, they have taught that Jesus was only a good prophet, but not the Son of God. If that was true of the Sanhedrin, why kill a simple prophet? The only reason they would have felt threatened enough to have him killed was if they truly believed he was the Christ.Originally Posted by anais link=board=1;threadid=6859;start=msg77427#msg77427 date=1077678039
Age is only important when it comes to wine and whiskey!
Bookmarks