David Ansen proves his idiocy in his review of Gibson's new movie

[DevinDNC]

David Ansen has never been taken seriosly by America as a TRUE film critic. Unlike Ebert or other fair critics, Ansen is someone who just because he doesen't agree with the subject matter, will trash a film no matter how great it is. In his review of "The Passion Of The Christ", Ansen makes the moronic assertion that "There's always been a pronounced streak of sadomasochism and martyrdom running through Gibson's movies". He then goes on to use Braveheart, Mad Max, and Lethal Weapon as examples. This alone proves what an idiot Ansen Is. Braveheart was attempting to show how brutal Medieval warfare was. In "The Passion Of The Christ" Gibson is trying to show how brutal the torture and death of Jesus was. If Ansen is foolish enough to call these examples of "excessice sadisim" then he must also Accuse Steven Spielberg of the same thing in regards to graphiacally depicting the Holocaust in Schindler's List, or the Normandy invasion in Saving Private Ryan. Of course Ansen apparently wants to have it both ways, and is a notorious hypocrite.

As for the other Mel Gibson movies such as Mad Max and Lethal Weapon...well Gibson was the star of those movies but did not write, direct or produce them, so what is his point about how violent they are...Gibson had nothing to do with that, he just acted in those movies.

Ansen is and always has been a hack film critic. The only reason he hates this film is because he is anti-Christian and believes all movies should be rated G, and have cute little animals prancing around giving hugs to children.

[Jim Sagle]

1. How is Speilberg relevant to this rotten film?

[madrchsod]

2. i may be wrong but i

don`t think there were any films and first hand accounts of the death of Christ but there is of schindler and normandy invasion. the "passion" is mel gibson`s fantasy of what happened....

[atreides1]

3. Most Of His Movies Have Been Violent

With a few exceptions.

Braveheart was a movie based on one of Scotland's heroes, Sir William Wallace, not on how brutal Medieval warfare was.

And by the way it was historically inaccurate, unlike Schindler's List and Saving Private Ryan.

Willaim Wallace was not poor, his family held land, and were part of the Scottish nobility, William was slated to enter the Church, if it had not been for the deaths of his father and older brother.

While I'm not sure about Mad Max, in at least the first two Lethal Weapon movies the character of Riggs was just a tad bit sadomasochistic. I mean how many people do you know that take bets to see if they can put their shoulder back into place, after they dislocate it themselves. Not exactly something that someone who wasn't
disturbed would do is it?

And let's throw in the Patriot, take the burning of the church, I would say that it was just a little sick and disgusting. Especially when you consider that even at their worst, there is nothing that proves that the British committed atrocities like that. And remember the first rule of history, the winners write it.

I would say that Mr. Gibson is just a little bit on the sadomasochistic side, at least in his films, that and he definitely needs to take history lessons, maybe the next time he'll get it right.

[girl gone mad]

5. Also..

Wallace was very very tall for his day (maybe over 7 feet). Gibson had to lie about that in the film instead of using special effects to enhance his own height.

[Westegg]

4. I disagree...

Ansen's not a film critic for the ages, but he's a pretty good one. Even when I disagree wih him (more often than not), I think he does a good, writerly job of stating his case.

His statement--- "There's always been a pronounced streak of sadomasochism and martyrdom running through Gibson's movies"---is to my mind entirely accurate. And if you don't understand how Gibson the Mega-Star had a say in the wanton violence of the "Lethal Weapon" series, then you simply don't know how Hollywood movies get made.

[OneBlueSky]

6. sorry, but that's a lot of bull . . .

I suggest you read a couple of thoughtful reviews of the film . . .

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=105&topic_id=802313&mesg_id=802313

as I posted on another thread, what's apparently missing in Gibson's movie is context . . . anything can be taken out of context . . . and the violence and suffering of the crucifixion has no meaning if it's divorced from the Christian message of love, compassion, and forgiveness . . . without a context, the movie is just ugly and violent . . .