In defense of Mel Gibson...

[the_real_38]

...What could possibly be making Mel Gibson so paranoid? Well, he does have journalists hounding (or indulging) his zany old father, and then reporting everything he says as an indictment of Gibson himself. He's got committees of biblical scholars poring over secretly obtained scripts before his movie is even finished, and declaring the work anti-semitic. The national Newspaper Of Record has joined in the media gang-bang for good measure. Maybe the religious character makes it a little scarier, but it seems a little paranoia might be in order.

In his time, Jesus was a Jewish radical. He was speaking to the common people of Judea, railing against the Pharisees, and posing at least a political threat to the leaders of the church in Jerusalem. It seems clear that they agitated against him, when we read in John 11:8 "His disciples say unto him, Master, the Jews of late sought to stone thee;" which does seem to indicate some underlying tension. At his trial Jesus stands in front of a crowd of Jews, who choose to have him and not the thief Barrabas executed. Saying that you can't depict this antagonism between Jesus and some Jews on screen is tantamount to saying that you can't really believe in the New Testament.

The caution that Jews would have over The Passion is understandable, in light of the pogroms staged in Europe over the centuries. But one must observe that the conflict between Jesus and his fellow Jews was tied to a historical dynamic which is outmoded. The divisions have re-aligned, the teams have changed, and so have people. Frankly, the concerns over the film seem to rest on an old stereotype of the goyim, easily whipped into a blood-sucking frenzy on the simple suggestion that Jews killed Christ. For my part, I got through Taxi Driver alright, so I doubt the Passion will make me do anything crazy.

[Deere_John]

1. As ye sow, so shall ye reap.

Mel Gibson promoted his movie in a provocative and confrontational way, and guess what? He got a lot of provoked people spoiling for a confrontation.

And, by the way, if Holocaust Denial is "zany" then we'll just say Jeffrey Dahmer was guilty of bad taste.

[sangh0]

2. Confusing cause with effect

This might surprise you, but the press weren't "hounding" Mel's Dad (who seems to enjoy the attention. He has done several interviews) before he started making this movie.

He's got committees of biblical scholars poring over secretly obtained scripts before his movie is even finished, and declaring the work anti-semitic.

The scripts they are poring over were supplied by Mel Gibson.

Saying that you can't depict this antagonism between Jesus and some Jews on screen is tantamount to saying that you can't really believe in the New Testament.

No one has said "you can't depict this antagonism between Jesus and some Jews on screen". Like the rest of your screed, the facts contradict your arguments.

[sangh0]

3. And here's proof you have misportrayed the facts

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5744,8727351%255E1702,00.html

Holocaust exaggerated: Gibson dad
From correspondents in New York
February 19, 2004

"A WEEK before the United States release of Mel Gibson's controversial movie, The Passion of the Christ, the filmmaker's father has repeated claims the Holocaust was exaggerated.

Hutton Gibson's comments, made in a telephone interview with New York radio talk show host Steve Feuerstein, come at an awkward time for the actor-director who has been trying to deflect criticism from Jewish groups that his film might inflame anti-Semitic sentiment..."

Poor, poor Hutton!! Forced into telephone interviews. I guess no one told him he could just hang up the damn phone!

[the_real_38]

6. You better look at post 4 -

note the (indulging) there - that means he wanted to speak and the reporters heard him out, no matter how zany it was. Dictionary.com should have it under "indulge".

[sangh0]

13. You said "hounding (or indulging)"

It's clear that it's "indulging" and your use of "hounding" is contrary to the facts, and not justified by including "indulging". It's would be just as wrong to say "1 plus 1 makes 2 (or maybe 3)"

You misleadingly make it sound as if this might be debatable when the facts make it clear that Hutton loves the attention and there is no "hounding" going on here.

[the_real_38]

4. re: confusing cause with effect

"The scripts they are poring over were supplied by Mel Gibson."

No, they weren't - months ago, some were smuggled out - and they weren't even the final draft.

"the press weren't "hounding" Mel's Dad (who seems to enjoy the attention. He has done several interviews)"

that was the meaning of (indulging) in the original post.

"No one has said "you can't depict this antagonism between Jesus and some Jews on screen". "

All of the objections are rooted in his portrayal of this antagonism, and as such, the facts support my argument.

[sangh0]

14. confusing fact with speculation

"The scripts they are poring over were supplied by Mel Gibson."

No, they weren't - months ago, some were smuggled out - and they weren't even the final draft.

They were smuggled by people who had obtained a copy from people (religious scholars) who had been given the text by Mel Gibson.

"No one has said "you can't depict this antagonism between Jesus and some Jews on screen". "

All of the objections are rooted in his portrayal of this antagonism, and as such, the facts support my argument.

This has as much truth to it as your innuendo that Hutton was being "hounded" by the media. It's not that the "antagonism" is being portrayed. It's that it's being "misportrayed". Gibson is not merely claiming there was antagonism; He's claiming "The Jews killed Jesus". I'm surprised that anyone would miss this as it's SO CENTRAL to the criticisms of this movie.

[sangh0]

15. Proof that criticism is not merely due to portraying the antagonism

http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/7984487.htm

"Despite Mel Gibson's effort to disavow any anti-Jewish influence in his film about Jesus' death, his critics are firing back with fresh evidence that the movie closely follows an anti-Jewish book by a 19th-Century German nun."

You see, the complaint isn't that it portrays the antagonism; It's that it MISportrays the antagonism and MISportrays the New Testament

[Pale Blue Dot]

5. tantamount to saying that you can't really believe in the New Testament. "

What's to believe? The Bible is a religious text, not an historical record. You may have faith in its contents, but there is no other reason to believe it absolutely as, well, gospel.

[John_Shadows_1]

7. I think that's what he was driving at...

... the nature of the creed is faith, or belief. You can't have knowledge. What seems to be happening here is that people are dictating which parts of the New Testament are acceptable and which aren't.

[smirkymonkey]

9. Thank You!!

It's about time someone said that. Personally, it's nothing more than a book to me. I am tired of people implying that it is the abslolute truth. It is nothing of the sort.

[Scairp]

10. Exactly

Even the most prominent biblical scholars say it is an allegory, an abstract and dramatized telling of possible historical events. I have never understood, at least since I became an adult, how people can take the Bible literally. Yeah, like Methuselah really did live to be what, 900 years old? Uh huh.:eyes:

[Bake]

47. Um, exactly which prominent scholars are you talking about?

I know a bit about NT scholarship, and I've read Rudolf Bultmann, among others. I don't know of too many who refer to the Gospels as "allegory." Bultmann used the term "myth" IN ITS TECHNICAL, SCHOLARLY SENSE, NOT IN THE POPULAR SENSE (i.e. "that it's false").

Your post makes it seem that everybody who studies the NT categorizes it as allegory. I assure you there are tons of serious, respected scholars who do not.

I also take issue with your lumping of the entire Bible into one category of "not to be taken literally" and using Methuselah as an example. The Bible is a collection of writings from various times over thousands of years, written for different purposes. Sort of like a library. There are parts of the OT that are considered decent historical documents, verified by archaeology. Some parts were never meant to be taken literally, like the first 11 chapters of Genesis. When you come to the New Testament, you've got similar distinctions. Nobody reads the Gospels the same way they read Revelation (and if one more person calls it "Revelations" I am going to scream). For that matter, anybody who KNOWS anything about the NT knows you don't read the Gospel of John the same way you read the Synoptics--Matthew, Mark, and Luke.

To put it bluntly, you know not whereof you speak.

Bake

[WarNoMore]

8. I posted in another thread about

Mel Gibson, there is a lengthy article today in Salon.(day pass required-simple). Be sure to read the side story.

[JohnLocke]

11. --

[ChavezSpeakstheTruth]

12. Either watch the movie or don't

can we move on yet?

IT"S A MOVIE!!!!

[bmbmd]

19. Exactly!

To some, Gibson is the instrument of God's will. To others, he is a lunatic. I suggest you either read the new testament, watch the movie, and decide for yourself or just ignore the whole thing.

[Mrs. Overall]

16. Mel Gibson is part of a conservative, fundamentalist Catholic

group that is as much to be feared as conservative, fundamentalist, Protestant Christians.
I have family members who are part of this same group and it has torn our family apart. This group has very cult-like behaviors and is extremely anti-Jewish and anti-Muslim. They take the Bible literally and believe in all sorts of conspiracy theories, especially theories against them--hence, paranoia.
If Mel Gibson were asked about some of his personal beliefs in an interview, his answers, if he were honest, would probably mean the end of his career--the beliefs of this group are so radical, illogical, and hate-filled.

[LeahMira]

17. Out of curiosity...

... are there any web sites that Mel's group of Catholics have put up? It might be interesting and helpful to see what they have to say for themselves.

[sangh0]

18. The name of the cult is Opus Dei

Google it and I'm sure you'll come up with some interesting stuff. More than enough to start a thread (hint, hint)

[Maeve]

20. I believe you are mistaken

Opus Dei is a very conservative movement within the Catholic Church, but Gibson is a bit further to the right.

This is from an AP story in 2003:
Gibson and his son, the star of blockbuster films like "Braveheart" and "Lethal Weapon," are practitioners of an ultraconservative Catholic movement known as traditionalism. The small splinter group seeks to revive orthodox practices that were abandoned several centuries ago by mainstream Catholicism.

The actor has been especially forthcoming about his religious affiliation recently. Gibson is building a traditionalist church on a 9,300-square-foot complex in Malibu, Calif., for about 70 members, the Times said. He is serving as the director, chief executive officer and sole benefactor of the church, which intends to conduct its Sunday Mass entirely in Latin. The property was purchased by a church group called Holy Family.
http://www.orthodoxnews.netfirms.com/Mel%20Gibson%20Is.htm

[sangh0]

23. Yes, you are right. I was mistaken

I'm going to have to learn a bit more about this group, Holy Family. Being to the right of Opus Dei can't be easy

Thanks

[itcfish]

26. Far Right???

Keeping mass in Latin is far right? Well well live and learn

[TahitiNut]

27. Dogs have four legs.

Four legs means it's a dog? Well, live and learn. :shrug:

[Maeve]

32. Wanting to have the mass said in Latin is one thing

There are Church-approved Latin masses all over.

Turning the clock back a few centuries and rejecting Vatican II (and parts of Vatican I) is another.

[mobuto]

34. Its not "right" or "left" but ultra-conservative

given that the Catholic Church adopted the vernacular and other reforms forty years ago, in Vatican II, and these guys reject it as heresy.

[Odessey]

45. Good Grief!

Mel Gibson and his family are simply traditional Catholics. They attend the traditional Catholic Mass the way it was ALWAYS done before Vatican II in the early 60's - not 'several centuries ago' as the article says - and some Catholic churches still have the traditional mass. There is a group that has been in disagreement with Rome, but there are indications that there may be a reconciliation. I believe, but am not sure, that he may be a member of this group. I believe they are the SSPX (Society of St. Pius X, I think) I made my first communion under the Latin Mass, and I am one who would not mind seeing it brought back as the 'norm'.

This hardly makes Mel Gibson anything out of the ordinary. And "Holy Family" is the name of many Catholic churches - nothing unusual. I love my church and I tire of the attacks against it any who choose to be a part of it. These days, it seems that we have to watch what we say about every other special interest group or race, or religion, but it is perfectly OK to attack the Catholic Church. Whoever wrote this particular AP article could not even bother to get his facts straight. Yes, I know, it was not an attack on the Church. Nevertheless, I have a right to a kneejerk reaction as much as the next person! ;-)

[Lurking Dem]

21. Mel is not Opus Dei.

Even they recognize the Pope.

He is a traditionalist.

http://www.latinmass-ctm.org/

[the_real_38]

36. Mel Gibson is not a member of Opus Dei...

... though Antonin Scalia's wife is, and it's rumored that Clarence Thomas may be - Gibson is a member of some other hard-core Catholic sect - I think it's traditionalists.

But he has that right - and people have the right to see or not see the movie if they like/

[LeahMira]

40. I looked, and...

... found that apparently this "church" is pretty small, like maybe just the Gibson clan and a few other hangers-on.

Interesting stuff here, though...

http://www.flatlandbooks.com/gibson.html

http://www.geocities.com/prakashjm45/rmc/rmchugi1.html

[Mrs. Overall]

30. I'm not sure exactly what they call themselves--

my family members refer to themselves as "traditionalists" and they are not part of Opus Dei, which is actually less radical than they are. I posted below in response to ictfish some of the beliefs of this group. My family members have currently moved to a city which has a Latin Mass parish, so that they can have a community of people with similar beliefs. Many Catholic Church officials view this group as verging on being schismatic.

[itcfish]

25. Since When is Being

Catholic mean you are mean and hate filled? I am Catholic and all these ignorant comments are very offensive. Opus Dei is a secret group like the Skull and Bones and the Illumaniti. They are very powerful, but most Catholics have nothing to do with it.

[Mrs. Overall]

29. You don't seem to be understanding what we are talking about--

this is no slam against mainstream Catholicism, but is about a very traditional group of Catholics (I have family members part of this group, so I know what I'm talking about) who do not recognize the current Pope as legitimate. They believe Pope John Paul I was murdered because he was going to return the Church to its Pre-Vatican II state. This group votes Republican (pro-life), wants evolution thrown out of school in favor of creationism, is frightened of the ecumenical movement, believes women should be in church veiled, believes that Mass said in English is invalid, believes in ascetism, fasting, self-inflicted suffering, do not want their children mixing with people of other belief systems, therefore, they almost exclusively homeschool, believe that Russia and China are evil and will eventually try to take over the world---the bizarre stuff goes on and on....
Now as a Catholic, ictfish, do you adhere to the above stated beliefs?

[itcfish]

33. The This Group

is not Catholic. Are you talking about that French priest that separated from the church? I can't remember his name LaBauef (?). They are not Catholic Period. It is a cult. I know the Catholic church is guilty of many sins, but they have also done good. My children go to Catholic school and you would not believe what they are teaching. They teach respect and tolerance of others and also point out the many faults of the church. I do not agree with many of the policies of the Vatican. As a democrat and a liberal it hurts me that my fellow democrats make any religion demonic. Sorry, but I am a little touchy on the subject.

:cry:

[Mrs. Overall]

37. Me, too--

I am very touchy about it also and I didn't mean for my heated response to be offensive or insensitive to you or to Catholics--real Catholics.
I went to Catholic school in the Bay Area (California) and it was very liberal. I was a nun for six years in a liberal order in San Francisco, so the Catholic debate is near and dear to me.
I totally agree with you about the tolerance and humanitarian values taught in liberal Catholic schools.

[sydneyguy]

46. a rebuttal

So they dont believe the Pope is legitimate.Do Muslims,Protestants or Jews believe he is?Women do not have to be veiled in their churches,absolute lie.Some CHOOSE to,and if you go to a church in Ireland,Italy or Spain you'll see the same thing.Its an emulation of Mary.Mass said in English was viewed as invalid by every Catholic before Vatican II,so they want to stick to tradition,so what?And whats wrong with fasting or self-inflicted suffering,Buddhists use these methods also.They dont want evolution thrown out of schools either because they dont send their children to public schools.And ofcourse they're pro-life,just like Muslims,Buddhists and most Christians are.They are not evangelical,so i dont know what your problem is seeing they're not out to convert anyone.On the whole,they hold no more extreme conservative beliefs than say,mainstream Islam does.They were totally against the Iraq invasion too.There are many traditionalists where i'm from and they do alot of work for the poor.It also matters little that the Vatican sees them as schismatic,as Traditionalists dont recognise Rome as having authority over Catholics anymore than Mecca does.Their roots go back 2000 years,Vatican II doesnt even have a century under its belt.

If you want to pick on someone,try the hundreds of televangelists looting lonely people and pushing for wars.Or does it bother you that Traditionalists(and most regular Catholics) are pacifists,and dont base their Christianity around the belief that it is Americas's duty to wage wars against Iraq/Iran/Syria to create a greater Israel like so many American Protestants believe.

Catholic Tradionalists do nothing more than practise what all Catholics did before Vatican II.They are very private,spiritual and dont harm anybody.If you dont like it,dont go to Latin Mass or see The Passion Of The Christ.Chances are you'll never hear of them unless you actively pursue them.I dont know why you're making it your business to 'expose' them,are you suggesting they should be banned?

[Mrs. Overall]

49. Wow, sydney, sorry to get you all upset....

I am not "exposing" anyone or anything. I know quite a bit about this group from personal experience, and yes, they have the freedom to worship however they would like; nevertheless, like Protestant fundamentalists or tele-evangelists, they have a certain presence and power which does effect all of us when their views are instrumental in setting public policies, e.g. women's reproductive rights, and science in the classroom.
About the accusation that I might be upset that Catholics are pacifists--hmmm, yes, I guess I'm a real war monger. I spent several years as a nun-activist in San Francisco protesting everything from nuclear proliferation to inhumane conditions for the homeless. I was a Catholic pacifist to the core.
Your defense of the traditionalists' various beliefs is pretty weak. Do you know about them because you are one? Or are you looking at them from the outside and coming to your conclusions?

[theHandpuppet]

22. Mel is a misogynic, homophobic ass

And I mean MEL, independently of his whack-job of a father!

Mel neatly avoids answering a direct question about whether or not he believes the holocaust happened: http://www.creators.com/opinion_show.cfm?columnsName=msm

The Gibsons: a family of whack-job, homophobic bigots and loonies: http://web1.splcenter.org/intel/intelreport/article.jsp?sid=50
http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/article.asp?ID=927

Gibson's dad a certified RW nutjob:
http://www.flatlandbooks.com/gibson.html

[the_real_38]

39. I looked at one of these links...

.... this one:

http://www.creators.com/opinion_show.cfm?columnsName=msm

and here is the substance of it.

The interviewer asks Gibson if the Holocaust happened:
<snip>

"You're going to have to go on the record. The Holocaust happened, right?" Noonan asked Mel Gibson.

Mel Gibson responded: "I have friends and parents of friends who have numbers on their arms. The guy who taught me Spanish was a Holocaust survivor. He worked in a concentration camp in France. Yes, of course. Atrocities happened. War is horrible. The Second World War killed tens of millions of people. Some of them were Jews in concentration camps. Many people lost their lives. In the Ukraine, several million starved to death between 1932 and 1933. During the last century, 20 million people died in the Soviet Union."

</snip>

and then the writer takes issue with this response like this:

<snip>

Wait a minute. At first blush that may sound OK. But go back and read it again. Upon closer inspection, it's unacceptable if that is as far as it goes. It just might be a more cleverly disguised version of what his dad told the Times Magazine.

Mel Gibson acknowledges the existence of the concentration camps and that atrocities occurred in them. But he then stops short of accepting that Hitler murdered six million Jews. And he unfairly equates famine with genocide. Overall, he chooses to answer a very specific question about the attempts by the Nazis to exterminate an entire race with a reflection on the suffering of war generally.

Here is what he should have said.

"Of course the Holocaust occurred. And in the world's history, it stands alone as a deliberate effort to eliminate an entire race of people. Unfortunately, it succeeded in eliminating one-third of all people of Jewish descent from the face of the earth. And its occurrence is not the subject of any legitimate debate."

</snip>

I've got some news for you here - this is an attempt to force historical standards on others, and to somehow hold the death of Jews as more special or more atrocious than the death of others.

Mel Gibson's response was exactly accurate - millions of people died in the global butchery due to Hitler and the other fascists (including 20 million Soviets). He acknowledges that many of them were vicitmized Jews in concentration camps, but it is undeniably true that others died in fire-bombings, atomic-bombings, and famine. The writer's assertion that you can't "unfairly equate famine with geoncide" is bull****. The hell you can't - what if the famine is man-made, with one group of people withholding resources from another that needs it to survive.

Gibson's statement was a call to recognize the barbarity of all these actions, pogroms against Jews included. But the writer wants not only to insist that the death of Jews stands out over all others, but wants to state in exactly what way these matters can be discussed. That's outrageous! Murder is Murder.

[John_Shadows_1]

41. Yes, I think it's important to remember...

... that Jewish people aren't the only ones who have ever suffered from war, or been subject to violence in the name of prejudice.

[sangh0]

43. Everytime??

Must we remember the starving Africans even when the subject (oh, let's say like "The Holocaust") has nothing to do with starvation or Africa?

If I tell someone how much a mosquito bite of mine is itching, must I also include the full inventory of human suffering from the beginning of history until the present time, or is there some shortcut way of referring to this?

If I talk about the Civil War, do I also have to discuss every other instance of human misfortune?

[itcfish]

24. My Father

Rest his soul, had alot of opinions that I thought were quite sick. He made Archie Bunker look like a liberal. I did not and and do not share his views. I hope I am never judged by his views.

Everyone must remember above all this Hype that Jesus was a JEW and most of his followers were Jews. We can not mention the Inquisition and fear that Spaniards and Catholics will be attacked, we cannot Mention Hitler and fear that Germans will be attacked. I would hope that we are above such hate and ignorance.

[sangh0]

28. Mel's father, and Mel have very similar views

and you will never hear Mel describe his views as "quite sick" or "He made Archie Bunker look like a liberal"

[theHandpuppet]

31. Exactly!

Mel shares his father's own homophobic, misogynic, religious fundamentalist views in almost all aspects. Not that I care what Mel thinks -- since I'm gay and a non-Catholic, I'm going to hell anyway according to Mel -- but here's the really frightening thing about Gibson and his appeal to religious extremists and bigots: check out this site: www.SupportMelGibson.com

Whether or not Gibson deliberately imbued "The Passion" with an antisemitic undercurrent, it is obvious that the extremist and bigoted elements of the Chrisitan faith are latching on to Mel as if he were the coming of the Prophet.

(There are too many long diatribes to post, but here are a few snippets frrom that website.)

Why is it, that in the midst of near-unanimous approval among Christians, Jewish leaders harbor such irrational fear toward a historically accurate depiction of Jesus’ life?

The answer is simple: Jewish leaders want a monopoly over the spiritual life of the Jewish people, and do not want them to learn about the liberating faith of Christianity because Jewish leaders would lose their power.  

Because of this near-dictatorial control over the spiritual lives of Jews, Jewish leaders are able to spread lies and disinformation about Christianity in the Jewish community, depriving individual Jews of the opportunity to escape the legalism and corrupt power structures of a faith that denies the divinity of Christ.

(Just a couple of short excerpts from a long diatribe against the ADL)
The ADL has called outreach efforts to the Jewish community an “insult” and strongly condemned Southern Baptist efforts to bring the light of the Gospel to Jews in spiritual darkness. (ADL Website, 6/14/1996)

By supporting gay marriage, the ADL reveal themselves to be under the same corrupt and God-defying influence as their spiritual forefathers, the Pharisees. 

[LeahMira]

38. Too darn bad...

... that I didn't see a "Contact Us" link in that website. I was about to give them a piece of my mind.

The answer is simple: Jewish leaders want a monopoly over the spiritual life of the Jewish people, and do
not want them to learn about the liberating faith of Christianity because Jewish leaders would lose their
power.

What a bunch of nonsense! "Jewish leaders" do not have a monopoly over the spiritual life of any Jewish people. Our Rabbis are simply men and women who have studied the Torah and the Talmud in depth and so are "specialists" in the field of Judaism. We respect them for their special knowledge, but they are in no way different from any of the rest of us otherwise. They are our teachers, not our ministers. There's a lot more control of belief and spiritual life among the Christians than you'll find in Judaism.

If there are Jewish organizational leaders who have concerns, their concern is that Jewish individuals might be misled by some of these Jews for Jesus groups and find themselves unintentionally worshipping in a place that is not a synagogue.

No, Mel supporters, Jews are not afraid of our numbers diminishing as we learn about the "liberating faith of Christianity." Jews are afraid of our numbers diminishing as Christians try to liberate us from our lives. How many Jewish people have been killed in the name of that man Jesus?

Anti-Semitism is cropping out all over Europe these days. Geez, thanks a bunch Mel. We really needed it to start in the U.S. NOT.

[LeahMira]

35. Like father, like son?

I don't know that Mel needs to describe his father as "quite sick." IMO, that would be disrespectful. I might think that, but about my own parents I wouldn't say it in public. At the same time, children don't always share their parents' views, and Mel could simply say that, like any two people, he and his father don't always see things the same way. I don't think Mel deserves any paarticular criticism for not dumping on his dad, but I do think there's plenty else for which Mel could be criticised. I suppose that in some ways Mel could actually be congratulated for coming a bit farther along than his dad did... proving that cruelty is not destiny.

[oldcoot]

42. Gibson knows what he is doing

He is not a young, unexperienced actor who accidentally said the "wrong" thing and now the big bad press is jumping on him. He has been in show business for a long time and should know, at this point, how the business works. He also knows (or should know) that controversy can be a very powerful marketing tool. This controversy might even attract movie goers who normally would not be interested in this movie.

[sendero]

48. Exactly...

... this is the theatrical equivalent of Janet's boob. Why anyone would care about this apparently over-the-top fiction is beyond me.

[Carolina]

44. who cares

Mel Gibson is Republican. Sorry but I can no longer support any Republican in any endeavor at all.

Save the energy debating this film and especially save the money you would have spent to see it. Instead send that $4-7.50 (depending on where you live and what time you were going to go to the movies) to DU or the Humane Society.

Screw Mel, let him lose his shirt on this for all I care.