Passion Of The Christ Snubbed By Academy

B

Brutus1964

We are not alone!
Registered Senior Member
269715321


The Academy Awards snubbed the Passion of the Christ, so I will be snubbing the Academy Awards this year.

They could only throw in a couple of token nominations for cinematography, and music.

It should have been nominated for Best Picture, and Best Director. Mell Gibson was robbed.
 
Last edited:
well, you have made a statement. here's mine in reponse
I wouldn't cross the road to see that film. Gibson has made a sado-masochismic film which apparently has caused an erotic (thoufgh violently denied of course) frisson amongst the fundy community
focussed as it is on A human being undergoing the vilest torures and lovingly dwelling on ...torture actually. And at the same time creating a SCAPEGOAt at the same time. The Jews. so a two way, or threee way nasty affiar is a going down.....a secret craving to see such horrific torture; a self-righteous identification with the dude being tortured; and the group catharsis of being able to name the enemy who is torturing their 'god'....Horrendous

Gibson, the incompetent literalist that he is has no idea the deeper meaning of sacrifice....for which he would have had to research paganism to find out (it means the 'sacrifice' of the egoic boundary that tends to become static and needs encouragement to flow), and has just spread more anti semiticism with his literalist superfical effort. also a complet waste of money too. though fundys are paying to see it in droves. another huge waste of money

a complete sham, in my view

see it at a cinema near YOU!

just jokin heh
 
I admit that I havent seen the movie but Duendy's post got me wondering......I heard that there is like a 30 minute "torture" seen in the movie but is that anywhere in the Bible?
 
I'm in totally agreement with deundy, and thats a first,the oscars are absolutely right, it's crap it's the worst film gibsons ever done and theres far to much gratuitous violence for a fantasy film.
lord of the rings and harry potter are much better films, and harry potter has'nt got a oscar, so why should a much poorer film.
 
duendy said:
well, you have made a statement. here's mine in reponse
I wouldn't cross the road to see that film.
Click to expand...
So, was the cinema on the same side of the road as your home? Your statement indicates that you have not seen the film, that you have no intention of seeing it. Strange that you are able to formulate such a detailed condemnation of the film without having seen it. Such an approach smacks strongly of prejudice, as if you don't require to sit through the work to form a clear impression of all its faults. Well, never let reality interfere with a good raging hatred, eh?
duendy said:
Gibson, the incompetent literalist that he is has no idea the deeper meaning of sacrifice....for which he would have had to research paganism to find out (it means the 'sacrifice' of the egoic boundary that tends to become static and needs encouragement to flow)
Click to expand...
Will you be publishing this deep insight into Sacrifice and its Primal Role in Global Religions: What the Pagans Did for Us. You don't think there is the tiniest possibility that other religions than paganism might have an understanding of sacrifice? While you are thinking on that, what is the shallow meaning of sacrifice that Gibson (incompetent literalist ???) has grasped?
 
It was snubbed because it wasn't a movie. It was one man's desire to coerce people to his view through bloody depection of a "scared" act.

The movie had no plot, no real drama besides the ass whipping of Christ, and for those of us who never read a bible and saw the movie, were left confused by many of the things in the movie.

A movie tells a story to neutral audience....no matter who is watching, the story and plot, are alien to the audience and it is the movie's job to entertain you by telling you a tale.

Passion of the Christ wasn't that. Gibson knew who would be watching and he knew what the reaction would be. He bloody (no pun intended) well made sure of that.






Oh wait...that is my reason why I would snub the movie.

Academy snubbed it because it pissed off a lot of Jewish movie moguls (the fact they can be pissed about this is laughable itself) and because it is too conterversial of a movie to award and to handle against other movies in nominations for an award.
 
Hollywood, promote something contrary to its own agenda? Hell, no! The media isn't recognized as the private enterprise it is.
 
Brutus1964 said:
269715321


The Academy Awards snubbed the Passion of the Christ, so I will be snubbing the Academy Awards this year.

They could only throw in a couple of token nominations for cinematography, and music.

It should have been nominated for Best Picture, and Best Director. Mell Gibson was robbed.
Click to expand...
'Course Moore's 9/11 got nothing, nada, zero, zip....:D
 
Brutus1964 said:
The Academy Awards snubbed the Passion of the Christ, so I will be snubbing the Academy Awards this year.

They could only throw in a couple of token nominations for cinematography, and music.

It should have been nominated for Best Picture, and Best Director. Mell Gibson was robbed.
Click to expand...
Not that I care much about the particular circle jerk they call the Academy Awards but out of curiosity just what about the movie do you find deserving of an award?

The plot was abbreviated to the point of being unintelligible (as per sgtlard's comments). The acting was sub-par even for what amounted to a single over-dramatized and drawn out death scene. And it was told with all the compassion and artistic insight of a snuff film.

The only even remotely interesting part of the film is when Judas starts seeing demons.

Mel Gibson's obsession with martyrdom is apparent but at least it can be entertaining when the martyr gets to chop off a few heads with a big fuck-off claymore first.

~Raithere
 
Brutus1964 said:
269715321


The Academy Awards snubbed the Passion of the Christ, so I will be snubbing the Academy Awards this year.

They could only throw in a couple of token nominations for cinematography, and music.

It should have been nominated for Best Picture, and Best Director. Mell Gibson was robbed.
Click to expand...
The movie was pure gore. If it got a few nominations for cinematography and music, it didn't deserve those either. Gore aside, it was a crappy movie. Not just painful to watch because of the gore, but because it was such a crappy movie. It was enough to induce me into wanting to rip out my eyes within 10 minutes into it. By 15 minutes I'd turned it off.
 
Ophiolite said:
So, was the cinema on the same side of the road as your home? Your statement indicates that you have not seen the film, that you have no intention of seeing it. Strange that you are able to formulate such a detailed condemnation of the film without having seen it. Such an approach smacks strongly of prejudice, as if you don't require to sit through the work to form a clear impression of all its faults. Well, never let reality interfere with a good raging hatred, eh?

Will you be publishing this deep insight into Sacrifice and its Primal Role in Global Religions: What the Pagans Did for Us. You don't think there is the tiniest possibility that other religions than paganism might have an understanding of sacrifice? While you are thinking on that, what is the shallow meaning of sacrifice that Gibson (incompetent literalist ???) has grasped?
Click to expand...

Ophiolite...you are such a clever sod, i am sure you can answer your own questions yourself.
ME, i have better things to do. when you have something intelligent to say, and with respect, i might make some effort
 
The movie was supposed to be difficult to watch. It was to show the world a glimps of what Jesus Christ went through for us. He suffered for every one of our sins. I came out of the movie greatfull to him, but also ashamed that I personally caused Christ pain. I myself take a lash at the flesh of Christ every time I sin, and Christ willingly took it and forgives me if I only follow him and repent.
 
Brutus1964 said:
The movie was supposed to be difficult to watch. It was to show the world a glimps of what Jesus Christ went through for us. He suffered for every one of our sins. I came out of the movie greatfull to him, but also ashamed that I personally caused Christ pain. I myself take a lash at the flesh of Christ every time I sin, and Christ willingly took it and forgives me if I only follow him and repent.
Click to expand...

D___how sad that you have really bought this fantasy!....look. you are an individual. a unique individual who has jhoy, suffers, has many many emotions, etc. You don't NEd some fantasy character mythic hero from the past to justify your life.
MANY people including kids suffer more than the story-book christ. why are you not crying for them?
 
Brutus1964: The movie was supposed to be difficult to watch. It was to show the world a glimps of what Jesus Christ went through for us. He suffered for every one of our sins. I came out of the movie greatfull to him, but also ashamed that I personally caused Christ pain. I myself take a lash at the flesh of Christ every time I sin, and Christ willingly took it and forgives me if I only follow him and repent.
*************
M*W: Bullshit!
 
Godless said:
Ophi; the movie SUCKED!! Period. and I did see it!.

G.
Click to expand...
And I value your opinion for precisely that reason. You saw it. You thought it was crap. End of story.
Duendy, on the other hand, apparently did not see the film, but constructs an elaborate put down that is much about his agenda of patriarchal subjugation as it is about the film.
I never saw it. I might watch it out of interest if it ever appears on TV - especially to see if it is as bad as most of you think!
 
Brutus1964: Medicine Woman

You just took a lash at Christ with that statement.
*************
M*W: So?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top