157 replies to this topic

[Sensualist]

Sen, isn't it near time you were thinking about getting ready to go out and watch the film again?!!!

3:30 viewing, old chum. Got to go to the gym and do some weights and cardio first. Then have a swim and a steam bath and a shower. Then to the theatre!

Edited by Sensualist, 28 February 2004 - 05:53 PM.

[Blofeld's Cat]

[quote name='Sensualist' date='28 February 2004 - 22:42'] [quote name='Blofeld's Cat' date='28 February 2004 - 12:31'] Geez, I must be shallow.

[Sensualist]

Brett, the techno cues are quite subtle really.

As for the DVD. Forget the DVD.

This movie is an epic that needs to be seen on the Big Screen in all its gory. Oops! Did I say 'gory'?...Er, I meant 'glory'.

Edited by Sensualist, 29 February 2004 - 02:54 PM.

[Blofeld's Cat]

I agree Sen, it seems to be a BIG movie worthy of the cinema screen, but I can't wait to see all the extras that'll hoepfully be included on the DVD.

[Sensualist]

The early numbers are electrifying, folks!

Looks like this movie, which is estimated to have grossed an unbelievable $117 million by Sunday, is shattering box office records on a number of fronts:

Biggest EVER opening for a foreign language film. Guaranteed to shatter the record exponentially by the end of its run.

Biggest EVER opening for a non-summer/non-christmas release.

Biggest EVER 5-day opening for an 'independant' film. (The top 10 studio bosses are looking like the biggest losers of all time thanks to Mel Gibson)

2nd biggest 5-day opening behind LORT:The Return of The King

Even Star Wars: Episode I and Matrix: Revolutions with its techno-spirituality mumbo-jumbo have been swept aside. Decimated!

Ho hum.

Edited by Sensualist, 03 March 2004 - 02:01 AM.

[Robinson]

The early numbers are electrifying, folks!

4th biggest 5-day opening behind LORT:The Return of The King, Star Wars: Episode I, Spider-man.

Even Matrix: Revolutions with its techno-spirituality mumbo-jumbo has been swept aside. Decimated!

Ho hum.

I was wondering when the much maligined MATRIX sequel was going to show up.

If MATRIX REVOLUTIONS has been swept aside, I wonder how DAD got treated by THE PASSION? I can see the blurb now...

"Truly, the ONLY man you can count on to save the world."

I'll wait a bit on this flick before I see it. Personally, I'm hoping it'll bring back the biblical epics of yesteryear. Realistically, I can envision a Hollywood pitch going just like this...

"I'm telling you Sodom and Gamorrah will be a hit! It's got sex, intrigue, passion and a disaster pic all in one!"

The bigger issue will be how the film's success(I'm predicting over $300 million domestically) will fare over next year's awards races and what of Gibson's future in Hollywood?!

[Sensualist]

The early numbers are electrifying, folks!

Even Matrix: Revolutions with its techno-spirituality mumbo-jumbo has been swept aside. Decimated!

Ho hum.

I was wondering when the much maligined MATRIX sequel was going to show up.

If MATRIX REVOLUTIONS has been swept aside, I wonder how DAD got treated by THE PASSION? I can see the blurb now...

"Truly, the ONLY man you can count on to save the world."

I'll wait a bit on this flick before I see it. Personally, I'm hoping it'll bring back the biblical epics of yesteryear. Realistically, I can envision a Hollywood pitch going just like this...

"I'm telling you Sodom and Gamorrah will be a hit! It's got sex, intrigue, passion and a disaster pic all in one!"

The bigger issue will be how the film's success(I'm predicting over $300 million domestically) will fare over next year's awards races and what of Gibson's future in Hollywood?!

He he.

Robinson, as I said before the weekend started, Mel Gibson was going to COIN IT BIG! He took a HUGE risk and marketed the pants off of the thing. It paid off!

The so-called big studio bosses, meanwhile, look like total schmucks. LOSERS!

I said earlier in this thread that they'd be "sucking on Mel Gibson's knee caps" soon enough and, some of the hypocritical slime balls (the ones that openly criticized him) will be doing the big U-turn. The old 180! Schmucks! (Just wait. They'll lie and say they were mis-quoted/mis-understood/etcetera.)

So, what of his future in 'hollywood'?

Well, The Passion of The Christ has decimated his previous high-water pic, "Signs" by a country mile. (And, he ain't even in it!)

I say he'll be able to sing (act, direct, co-write, co-produce, whatever) to his own tune (if he already hadn't with this flick) but even with a BIGGER band!

He he. The critics who panned this movie for it being ALL gore were looking at another movie. The critics who panned this movie with-out wacthing it were total idiots. Shame on them!

Don't get me wrong. I prefered LORT:TROTK to this movie (of the movies i've seen in the past few months.) I also prefered Gladiator (of the movies set in a similar era) to it.

It's damn fine art inspite of it not being 100 percent historically accurate. It ain't, however, tremendous entertainment like a James Bond movie.

I'll take a 007 adventure over any other movie any day!

Edited by Sensualist, 29 February 2004 - 09:10 PM.

[booyeah_]

Interesting thread but oddly most of it does not refer to the actual film. I saw the movie last Friday and plan to see it again just to completely

[Blofeld's Cat]

[quote name='booyeah_' date='3 March 2004 - 08:56']Interesting thread but oddly most of it does not refer to the actual film. I saw the movie last Friday and plan to see it again just to completely

[Agent 76]

This movie is making money as rain falls down....

[Sensualist]

This movie is making money as rain falls down....

Whoever you are, you seem to have a knack for writing absolutely useless one-liners followed by a rolling-eyes emoticon.

Any reason for that?

[Agent 76]

This movie is making money as rain falls down....

Whoever you are, you seem to have a knack for writing absolutely useless one-liners followed by a rolling-eyes emoticon.

Any reason for that?

useless????????

why is that?

they are about the theme of conversation in treads.

[Loomis]

From http://news.bbc.co.u...ent/3532085.stm:

Passion 'could earn Gibson

[Jim]

When's the novelisation coming out? It's that one about the lippy carpenter who got duffed up by everybody, isn't it?

Anyway - have to decide whether we will see this. Have read plenty pro and con; did enjoy hugely the review which invited the viewer to consider what intellectual stimulation could possibly come out of it given that it was made by a ) an actor and b ) an Australian. Apologies, but I found that jolly funny.

[Loomis]

When's the novelisation coming out? It's that one about the lippy carpenter who got duffed up by everybody, isn't it?

The novelisation I'm looking forward to (if Gibson's smart he'll have commissioned Raymond Benson to write it), but what I really can't wait for is the game!

[Genrewriter]

And given the success, of course there will be a sequel.

[Sensualist]

Hurrah to the smart CBn-er for not begrudging Mel Gibson his huge financial success from this film.

Lest we forget, the Antipodean took a risk by putting up his own money at a time when NO established studio would take the risk of producing and distributing the film for fear of it being a financial failure.

Gibson took ALL the risk. He, as a result, ought to benifit entirely from the venture. What he does with the money is HIS business and his business alone.

Make fun of him all you like. He's the one laughing at everyone now.

He he...He doesn't even have to pay royalties to the authors of the original source material. Nope. No sharing with the Apostles who wrote the Scriptures! He he.

By the way, a fine, fine film, this.

Edited by Sensualist, 05 March 2004 - 12:00 AM.

[Loomis]

Yes, here's to Mel. I've always liked him. A terrific actor, and I think he'd have made a splendid Bond.

*Raises "tinny"*

Good on ya, mate!

[Sensualist]

Yes, here's to Mel. I've always liked him. A terrific actor, and I think he'd have made a splendid Bond.

*Raises "tinny"*

Good on ya, mate!

Yes. The Legacy would have been the richer had he had his one and only James Bond outing in 1992 or 1993. I just melt at the idea of him beind Bond 5 (the 2nd Antipodean-onetimer) before Pierce took up the role for GoldenEye.

It would have been such sweetness! Oh, the wilderness years...

Sigh.

But, yes. Cheers to Mel for a banzai offering in The Passion!

Edited by Sensualist, 05 March 2004 - 12:12 AM.

[Robinson]

Yes, here's to Mel. I've always liked him. A terrific actor, and I think he'd have made a splendid Bond.

*Raises "tinny"*

Good on ya, mate!

Yes. The Legacy would have been the richer had he had his one and only James Bond outing in 1992 or 1993. I just melt at the idea of him beind Bond 5 (the 2nd Antipodean-onetimer) before Pierce took up the role for GoldenEye.

It would have been such sweetness! Oh, the wilderness years...

Sigh.

But, yes. Cheers to Mel for a banzai offering in The Passion!

Now, was Mel approached to take over from Dalton during the "hiatus?" Granted, Gibson's a gifted movie star, but I'd wonder if his persona would overshadow the Bond character.

Sorta like Tom Cruise or Harrison Ford, some folks become too big that they can't disappear into a role.

[TGO]

Saw this on Tuesday. Its a good movie, but it sort of fell weak to me. The violence...ehh...see Battle Royale if you want to see violence. But, it did feel gradudious, Battle Royale doesn't feel that way. The movie itself feels like the 4th act to a 4 act movie...it feels incomplete. Now, I did like the use of original language, and the cinematography was excellent. The score is pure atmosphere.

But Gibson assumes everybody knows about Christ. I think, if we had taken a journey through his life, the scourging scenes would have been even more profound.

[Jaelle]

Well I went ahead and saw the movie. Brutal, cruel film. I changed my mind about not seeing it after putting myself in a position of talking about it so much. I've posted a long review of it on the ajb site. You can read it here:

http://www.ajb007.co...c=17883&cpage=3

And I wouldn't change a thing I said already on this thread, except that I now give greater weight to Xen's point about the female Satan. I discuss that in my review on the ajb site.

Some thoughts: Go see LIFE OF BRIAN and LAST TEMPTATION OF CHRIST! Still love them both!

Sensualist, you are entirely wrong to dismiss the criticisms people make re inaccuracy against the film since it is Gibson's frequently stated position that the Holy Spirit worked thru him in making the film, and that it is absolute revealed truth, that it is a literal depiction of the Gospels. That is the entire point of these criticisms: it is *Gibson* making these claims of literal, revealed truth. It is therefore perfectly legitimate to challenge him on it. His claim is complete nonsense and I realized the extent of that when I finally saw the film. It is totally legitimate to discuss and judge an artist on what he says he intends to show with his work. It is public knowledge from Gibson's own mouth several times over that he is a literalist, a fundamentalist, and that this film is a literal depiction of the Gospels, which is manifestly not true.

That said, the film is compelling, powerful, technically beautiful. I esp. appreciated the first ten minutes. Caviezel is a rather opaque actor, I thought, Christ is reduced to a bloody carcass, and you could see that Gibson would've loved to have played Jesus himself. While I do not view the film as anti-semitic, I can see quite well why some Jews have taken offense in Gibson's dramatic choices (by elevating the Jewish priest Caiaphas and the Jewish raving mob to far more importance than they are given in the Gospels). And Satan is seen moving comfortably among the Jewish mob crying out for Christ's death.

Anyway, I agree with Time's Richard Corliss: Gibson has invented a new subgenre, the religious splatter film. Horror fans will love it. And I will never again tolerate any Christian right-winger whining about the graphic violence in Hollywood films. I have no more tolerance for the moralists who go on about KILL BILL and yet have no problem indulging in an invented and over-extended depiction of the torture of Jesus Christ.

I liken Gibson and his film to the following: DW Griffith/Birth of a Nation and Leni Riefenstahl/Triumph of the Will. All three are effective, talented manipulators and makers of propaganda films. The Passion is a just a religious propaganda film, an excellent, challenging film in its own right, as were the the films of Griffith and Riefenstahl.

I also liken Gibson to the Jimmy Swaggarts, Jim Bakkers and the medieval church officials who became so rich on religion. He's another Father Joe. (there's your Bond reference). The makers of those Hollywood religious films like KING OF KINGS or THE TEN COMMANDMENTS made no pretense of religious piety or devotion. They just wanted to provide entertainment and make money from it. There's no hypocrisy there. There is, however, loads of moral and religious hypocrisy from a man who publicly for years professes deep religious piety, a deep commitment to Jesus Christ, a moral rejection of modern society's ills, who condemns the sinfulness of today's Christians and sits in judgment over their lack of faith, while making millions off of the bloody carcass of Jesus Christ, even licensing merchandising from it. It is the same as a politician who publicly professes anti-capitalist beliefs and constantly rails about the plight of the poor while making millions off of that same system and not even donating much of it to charity. Like most fundamentalist converts who wear their beliefs on their sleeve, Gibson is a hypocrite and his religious devotion is an empty, self-serving farce.

[Kingdom Come]

Jaelle, you always did write a good post! Very interesting. Maybe me quoting; "It's only a movie" [Hitchcock] seems churlish. I wish the film well and I haven't seen it, just if the mood and occasion match, then I will.

Time for Gibson and Cameron to make films that are not treading paths that better men have trod before!

May your body and soul be our food and drink and all that is you flow into us.

[Jaelle]

Jaelle, you always did write a good post! Very interesting. Maybe me quoting; "It's only a movie" [Hitchcock] seems churlish. I wish the film well and I haven't seen it, just if the mood and occasion match, then I will.

Time for Gibson and Cameron to make films that are not treading paths that better men have trod before!

May your body and soul be our food and drink and all that is you flow into us.

Hi KC,

I understand the "it's only a movie" argument but I just don't think that's true of some books or films. Art (and I think The Passion is definitely a work of art) is always very much rooted in the world and society that it springs from. Gibson is *deadly serious* about his film and his message. I actually think that all the controversey around it is a *good thing* -- divisive but ultimately healthy. And thanks for the kind words.

[Loomis]

Gibson is *deadly serious* about his film and his message.

Well, I should hope so.

[Sensualist]

Jaelle, funny how you completely caved-in after I repeatedly bashed you in this thread about criticizing a film you had not seen.

I never once in this thread pretended to be a religious individual and only praised the film for what it is.

Looks like you continue to lump the film in with the individual who made it.

And why do you begrudge someone who takes a risk and wins? Why? He could easily have lost millions if the likes of you had had their way (i.e. bashed the film, judged it based on the ideas of the director's lunatic father, and attributed 'never-ending gore' to it proclaiming you'd NEVER see it at the cinema!)

Edited by Sensualist, 05 March 2004 - 10:27 PM.

[Jim]

Hypocrite!

Was it necessary to say that?

You wouldn't want to dilute your valid points by resorting to that. What happened to forgiveness, then?

[Sensualist]

Hypocrite!

Was it necessary to say that?

You wouldn't want to dilute your valid points by resorting to that. What happened to forgiveness, then?

Jaelle, i'm very sorry I that i referred to you as a hypocrite. Jim, I thought about editing my last post BEFORE you were correct enough to point it out.

It was unnecessary.

Humble and sincere apologies.

Glad you found 'something' out of the movie, whether it was "art", whatever.

Friends, again?

[Xenobia]

Thank you Jaelle for a brilliant post both here and at AJB, and for letting me know where MBE went.

I'll be seeing the film tomorrow, and I will probably be posting a similiar thread here.

-- Xenobia

[Harmsway]

Sensualist, you are entirely wrong to dismiss the criticisms people make re inaccuracy against the film since it is Gibson's frequently stated position that the Holy Spirit worked thru him in making the film, and that it is absolute revealed truth, that it is a literal depiction of the Gospels. That is the entire point of these criticisms: it is *Gibson* making these claims of literal, revealed truth. It is therefore perfectly legitimate to challenge him on it. His claim is complete nonsense and I realized the extent of that when I finally saw the film. It is totally legitimate to discuss and judge an artist on what he says he intends to show with his work. It is public knowledge from Gibson's own mouth several times over that he is a literalist, a fundamentalist, and that this film is a literal depiction of the Gospels, which is manifestly not true.

Gibson has never stated that his film is a literal depiction of the Gospels and is to be taken as absolute revealed truth. He's stated again and again that this is only his interpretation and not necessarily the definite one. What he means is that the Holy Spirit worked through him, but the film's not necessarily perfect. It's more that the Holy Spirit inspired him as opposed to leading him to create a film that's just as inspired as the gospels are.