The Passion Of The Christ

Started by MacGuffin, January 28, 2003, 01:49:48 AM

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Print
Go Down Pages 1 ... 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 ... 44
User actions

godardian

#345
February 26, 2004, 09:02:33 PM
Quote from: cowboykurtis

how does it feel to be a pansy?

Fine, for the most part... except for having it instinctively and wrongly used as some sort of insult to signify... what? Cowardice? Fear of contention or a Triplets of Belleville-type thread?  :roll:  

I suppose that the same mind that characterizes having a standard for discourse a "pansy" quality would also characterize having a standard for films (which Mel Gibson's fall well short of) as being snobbish, so I probably won't be losing any sleep over it.
""Money doesn't come into it. It never has. I do what I do because it's all that I am." - Morrissey

"Lacan stressed more and more in his work the power and organizing principle of the symbolic, understood as the networks, social, cultural, and linguistic, into which a child is born. These precede the birth of a child, which is why Lacan can say that language is there from before the actual moment of birth. It is there in the social structures which are at play in the family and, of course, in the ideals, goals, and histories of the parents. This world of language can hardly be grasped by the newborn and yet it will act on the whole of the child's existence."

Stay informed on protecting your freedom of speech and civil rights.

pete

#346
February 26, 2004, 09:58:37 PM
haha, if someone calls me a pansy, I'd never reply with the word "contention" in it.
"Tragedy is a close-up; comedy, a long shot."
- Buster Keaton

Ravi

#347
February 26, 2004, 10:15:59 PM
Quote from: cowboykurtis
Quote from: RaviI hope this doesn't turn into another Triplets of Belleville type thread.

how does it feel to be a pansy?

Quite dandy.  How do you talk to an angel?

ono

#348
February 26, 2004, 10:36:38 PM
Mel Gibson is on Jay Leno tonight if anyone wants to see what he has to say for himself.  The media onslaught continues.  :-D

LENO: Apparently, originally, Gibson wanted Bill Murray to play Jesus, and the film was to be called Lost in Salvation.
...
Also, Satanists are upset at the film, saying Satan came off bad in the movie.  Yeah, they're calling it anti-Satanic.

Sleuth

#349
February 26, 2004, 10:39:49 PM
:x
I like to hug dogs

grand theft sparrow

#350
February 26, 2004, 10:54:31 PM
Quote from: OnomatopoeiaLENO: Apparently, originally, Gibson wanted Bill Murray to play Jesus, and the film was to be called Lost in Salvation.

Mothers, hide your daughters.  That nutty Leno's at it again!

Pozer

#351
February 27, 2004, 12:31:14 AM
Quote from: Ghostboyalthough the final shot of Satan in the film was pointless and distracting.
but it wasn't pointless. It was Satan losing his power that he had throughout the film. Jesus went to hell before he was resurected and overpowered Satan.

To all the naysayers: How did this movie not meet your expectations? What more or what else rather did you expect?
and why the hate on Mel Gibson? I thought Riggs did a beautiful job.
If it was the same story, same portrayel but with...why not say Scorsesse at the helm and the camera moved or held a bit longer, I know your attitudes would be different. and that's sad.

****

Sleuth

#352
February 27, 2004, 12:36:13 AM
Scorsese challenged his own faith, Mel Gibson is catering to it.  I think we should stop comparing the two
I like to hug dogs

Ghostboy

#353
February 27, 2004, 01:12:13 AM
Quote from: poser(isms)
Quote from: Ghostboyalthough the final shot of Satan in the film was pointless and distracting.
but it wasn't pointless. It was Satan losing his power that he had throughout the film. Jesus went to hell before he was resurected and overpowered Satan.

You're right, and I shouldn't have said pointles...but to throw a big special effects shot in there at that moment was, in my eyes, distracting and tasteless.

Also, this film and Last Temptation ARE comparable, regardless of Scorsese and Gibson's differences in talent and intentions, because ultimately both films were made by filmmakers seeking to better understand Jesus. One film is concerned with the internal struggle, the other the external, and both take big risks of different sorts.

Sleuth

#354
February 27, 2004, 01:17:23 AM
Yeah, I just didn't want to see the argument 8)
I like to hug dogs

mogwai

#355
February 27, 2004, 07:47:56 AM
Quote from: hacksparrow
Quote from: OnomatopoeiaLENO: Apparently, originally, Gibson wanted Bill Murray to play Jesus, and the film was to be called Lost in Salvation.
Mothers, hide your daughters.  That nutty Leno's at it again!
jay didn't write that one, his chin did.

Pubrick

#356
February 27, 2004, 07:50:08 AM
the demonic scenes were awesome.

everything else has been said, either ur a Ghostboy or a Film Student.
under the paving stones.

SoNowThen

#357
February 27, 2004, 09:44:16 AM
Quote from: poser(isms)If it was the same story, same portrayel but with...why not say Scorsesse at the helm and the camera moved or held a bit longer, I know your attitudes would be different. and that's sad.

Can you please think about that for a minute and take that back, because that's an ignorant fucking comment.
Those who say that the totalitarian state of the Soviet Union was not "real" Marxism also cannot admit that one simple feature of Marxism makes totalitarianism necessary:  the rejection of civil society. Since civil society is the sphere of private activity, its abolition and replacement by political society means that nothing private remains. That is already the essence of totalitarianism; and the moralistic practice of the trendy Left, which regards everything as political and sometimes reveals its hostility to free speech, does nothing to contradict this implication.

When those who hated capital and consumption (and Jews) in the 20th century murdered some hundred million people, and the poster children for the struggle against international capitalism and America are now fanatical Islamic terrorists, this puts recent enthusiasts in an awkward position. Most of them are too dense and shameless to appreciate it, and far too many are taken in by the moralistic and paternalistic rhetoric of the Left.

phil marlowe

#358
February 27, 2004, 10:09:41 AM
how do i wait a full month to see this?

mogwai

#359
February 27, 2004, 10:16:40 AM
Quote from: phil marlowehow do i wait a full month to see this?
read the book?

Print
Go Up Pages 1 ... 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 ... 44
User actions