For the New York Times Style Magazine...

>For the New York Times Style Magazine, Man Booker Prize-winning author Marlon James sat down with actor Brad Pitt and published his musings entitled “Five or Six Things I Didn’t Know About Brad Pitt.” In the interview, Pitt mentions that he’d like to make a film about Pontius Pilate and says that the film “won’t be for the ‘Passion’ crowd.” When James mentions that “The Passion of the Christ” drove him out of the church, Pitt laughs and responds, “I felt like I was just watching an L. Ron Hubbard propaganda film.”

independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/films/news/brad-pitt-compares-mel-gibsons-the-passion-of-the-christ-to-l-ron-hubbard-propaganda-a7237246.html

Pretty fucking rich for the guy who made "12 Years of White Guilt" to call anything propaganda.

Other urls found in this thread:

historyvshollywood.com/reelfaces/12-years-a-slave.php
youtube.com/watch?v=GQ0oi9Tfdc0
catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=3586
historytoday.com/tim-stanley/two-cheers-conquistadors
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

Mel is God. Fuck smelly PITT smell

>12 Years a Slave
>based on an easily verifiable autobiography
>Passion of the Christ
>based on the hysterical ramblings of a crazy virgin

Jesus > some black person

But Jesus was black

was the passion good?

jews just hate it because it shows jesus getting killed?

Caviezel is a better actor than Brad Pitt.

Jesus was asian

But didn't the guy who 12 years a slave was based on claim that the story written about him was grossly exaggerated? And didn't the filmmakers acknowledge that they were grossly exaggerating THAT story for their movie?

>the original story was some southerner asked if he was a slave
>he was offended and said no
>the end

as a movie, yeah it was fucking great
but most people hate on it because there is "jesus" in it

>Painstakingly-researched story presented in original languages vs. Distorted liberal propaganda where Pitt casts himself as the one tolerant white man.

historyvshollywood.com/reelfaces/12-years-a-slave.php

It's good. Don't listen to the faggots that try to say it's religious propaganda or torture porn. It's an all around good movie.

My only complaint is that Jesus could have been more personable and likable. There's always a "high and mighty" vibe he gives off even before he knows he's the son of God.

No, it's pretty cheesy in parts
If you like the production design and historical accuracy gore it's alright but some parts are laughable
I didn't view it as propaganda but I can see why people think it is

>we're making a movie about a slave
>"okay uh is there any white heroes in it"
>not really
>"okay uh i'll fund it but you have to change that minor character into a god like savior"
>i guess
>"okay uh and I'll have to play him, one sec need to adopt another foreign kid"

Mel would stomp a mud hole in Brad Pitt's ass and he's got a good years on him.

At least Mel has never given in to Jewish Hollywood.

Pitt BTFO

*10 years on him

>vibe he gives off even before he knows he's the son of God.

He knew since he was since childhood. It wasn't "high and mighty", it was bearing the burden of responsibility while having the fulfill a role as teacher.

It's too somber to be cheesy. it's a Renaissance painting come to life.

pitt feeling the need to shit on Mel shows great insecurity.....even years ago when mel's mug shots got around, he went around making fun of him out of no where

>>Painstakingly-researched

> A principal source is The Dolorous Passion of Our Lord Jesus Christ[21] the visions of the stigmatic German nun Anne Catherine Emmerich (1774–1824), as written by the poet Clemens Brentano.[6][7][8] A careful reading of Emmerich's book shows the film's high level of dependence on it.[6][7][22]

>However, Clemens Brentano's attribution of the book The Dolorous Passion to Emmerich has been subject to dispute, with allegations that Brentano wrote much of the book himself; a Vatican investigation concluding that: "It is absolutely not certain that she ever wrote this".[23][24][25] In his review of the movie in the Catholic publication America, Jesuit priest John O' Malley used the terms "devout fiction" and "well-intentioned fraud" to refer to the writings of Clemens Brentano.[5][23]

Who's more of a beta? Pitt or Clooney?

Pitt made fun of Mel to his face and Mel just took it like a cuck
youtube.com/watch?v=GQ0oi9Tfdc0

I've never looked at it like that. I'll have to watch it again.

Pitt

Even Jolie is more of a man than him.

I never knew Pitt was such a cuck, glad Mel took the higher road.

Real niggas don't flex nuts, because real niggas know they got them

>It's too somber to be cheesy.
I don't think you understand what cheesy means

>From a comparative philological and literary view, the contention that Brentano "fabricated almost all" the Emmerich material is exaggerated and false. Editorial work there certainly was, but Brentano's accounts agree with the basic picture of Emmerich found in the firsthand written accounts of Dr. Franz Wilhelm Wesener (Emmerich's medical doctor) and author Luisa Hensel. Moreover, as the internationally renowned and critically reserved Germanist Dr. Anton Brieger states, the Emmerich visions recorded by Brentano have all the marks of a woman's psychology and a feminine attention to detail. Additionally, Fr. Joseph Adam, the author of Emmerich's new official positio accepted by the Roman authorities, has demonstrated that the former charges made by Fr. Winfried Humpfner (whose activities led to the 1928 reponatur), namely that Brentano was guilty of wholesale fabrication, were "rabid attacks" against a pious Catholic, and were furthermore "hard and pre-emptory." Although recognizing at times their problematic nature and that they were adapted and edited, Adam nevertheless characterizes the Brentano Emmerich writings as exhibiting simultaneously "a deep piety and a solid ecclesiastical spirit."

catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=3586

More like Mel is nutless lol
Remember that time after the whole Jew thing when he met with rabbis and even had his film (which was directed by a Jew) open in Israel?

this

Tom Cruise got sprayed in the face with water while doing an interview. Does it make him a cuck for not beating the guy within an inch of his life? No, he took the high road and so did Mel. Good on you, Mel.

>by Samuel Sinner
user...

I understand what it means, and the Passion shows too much restraint to be considered cheesy. It's a meditation of sacrifice and suffering.

How is saying you didn't like a movie shitting on someone?

Again, I think you're confusing cheesy with camp. Lifetime movies are cheesy despite being played out completely straight. The random slow motion shots in the Passion and that whole tear/raindrop sequence were cheesy as hell.

Nah the original story actually took place in 1962

>Author asks some black dude "what if you were slave or something?"
>Black guy says "that'd be crazy or whatever"
>Maybe we make a movie about it and say you slave now

How do people not fact check before writing these "true stories"???

>any views I don't agree with are propaganda

They're just as bad as each other.

Neither were out of place and both were thematically appropriate. What are you talking about?

> Lifetime movies are cheesy despite being played out completely straight.

That's not what I was talking about when I said "restraint".

Sup Forumsbeards really do believe the definition of the word "propaganda" includes the string "anything I don't like," don't they? How can one group of people be so fucking stupid?

This is pathetic. Pitt is such a little pussy bitch, loves to pretend he's a tough guy from far away. Mel would shit on him.

I feel like this is true.

Mel and Pitt can both play movie tough guys convincingly, but the only difference is that Mel is a tough guy irl as well.

>Neither were out of place and both were thematically appropriate.
The slow motion shots were randomly applied in post (and this is evident in the frame rate), it was a very cheap way of attaching importance to a shot like "see how important this scene is!" I'm not against the tear/raindrop shot, just how kitsch and cloying it felt, especially with the bad CGI. These aren't examples of visual or cinematic "restraint" by any measure. They are cheap and lacking good taste, namely cheesy.

Lol

Stupid fagboi Brad Pitt thinks he can take on Based Mel

he looks like a rabbi

>10 years older
>still pulls more attractive women than Fuccboi Pitt

>i'll never double team a chick with Mel
>he'll never high five me as I get sucked off and he fucks her vag

There's always a chance, user.

If recent stories are true, he's still fucking like a man man. Meet up with him some day.

The next three pit movies coming out are
Allied, a WWII romance
War Machine, satire of war in Afghanistan
World War Z 2

How is Pitt still relevant?

His movies are stuck in the mid-2000's

*mad man

I'm special.

>"see how important this scene is!"

Because traditionally certain points of Christ's suffering have been emphasized. There's a very good reason those parts were slowed down.

The tear drop is left ambiguous enough to avoid sentimentalizing it too much.

>Kitch and cloying

These are words used by modernist art faggots to dismiss anything that evokes emotion.

What's pathetic is how passionately you alt right wastes of oxygen defend Mel Gibson just because he got drunk and said some middle school insults about blacks and Jews. The whole thing has strong homosexual undertones, which, on top of the fact that you're constantly describing penises as "BBC," perpetually have cuckolding fetishes on your minds and post about them everywhere and have photos of male celebrities saved on your computers so you can discuss how muscular they are for their age, all leads one to rather obvious conclusions about certain closets that you're clearly inside of.

Let us also not forget that you're obviously the same people who throw year-long temper tantrums whenever a minority is cast in your latest super hero movie, calling it a conspiracy, but somehow there's nothing but crickets when Jesus is cast as a white guy, which, if he existed at all, would certainly not have been the case. Logical inconsistency is a very clear sign of brainwashing.

Let us also not forget that you just spent the last several years of your pathetic lives whining that Mel Gibson is blacklisted and boo hoo it's a Joo conspiracy that ranting drunks don't get hired, and yet here he is making movies distributed by Hollywood production companies.

>666

Into the baptismal font with you!

Somebody get this hothead out of here.

>The whole thing has strong homosexual undertones

Do you have a problem with gay people you hothead?

I'm going to go ahead and disregard everything you said after
>What's pathetic is how passionately you alt right wastes of oxygen defend Mel Gibson just because he got drunk and said some middle school insults about blacks and Jews.

Is this what literal cuckholds actually believe? Nah, fuck the fact that Mel is an objectively amazing actor, writer, and director. People only like him because they're racist conservatives, right? It doesn't take someone with a triple digit IQ to realize that Mel is good at what he does and that's why people like him and defend him.

>being this triggered that you write a blog post

>If whitey hadn't come along you'd still be speaking oogly boogly
Did Mel go too far?

Brad pitt is a cuckhold and an fag

His talent is vastly overstated by all of his closeted homosexual alt right fans because he's "based" for making a few racist remarks. Apocalypto is the only decent thing he's ever been involved in. You're a fucking idiot.

He was right, though.

historytoday.com/tim-stanley/two-cheers-conquistadors

you millennials are fucking retarded

...

>my opinion is fact!

Nobody agrees with you. Stop using meme buzzwords to pretend like you know what you're talking about.

>those forsekin biting teeth

>Because traditionally certain points of Christ's suffering have been emphasized.
It's not just the suffering parts that were in slow-motion though. For example I remember when Judas catches the silver, that whole sequence was in that same cheap post-production slow-mo, trying artificially to give the scene some depth when a narrative or other more subtle editing technique would have had a far greater impact. And if you think a badly done editing room effect is need to emphasize anything in a movie, then that just speaks volumes of the kind of audience who'd want those parts spoonfed.

>These are words used by modernist art faggots to dismiss anything that evokes emotion.
Do you unironically enjoy soap operas too?

Considering I'm surrounded by Sup Forums posters who are literally dumber than what you find living in cages at the zoo, I'd be concerned if anyone here agreed with me. Passion of the Christ is a 0/10 movie, genuinely the worst piece of shit I've ever endured. No decent director could make something that abysmal.

>le Sup Forums boogeyman xDD

Go back to your hugbox. Whether or not people from Sup Forums are here is irrelevant. You just get triggered whenever someone brings up Mel Gibson because you have differing opinions.

Passion was good, really. A breath of fresh air compared to those 70's, tame Jesus movies they air every Easter.
And it was a masterpiece compared to Braveheart.

So you agree that Mel was inside the belly of the beast, was churned out and started not to only
name the jew
but also blame the jew
how based is Mel exactly?

>shitty, campy, terribly acted torture porn filled with hamfisted attempts at emotional manipulation
>breath of fresh air

Friendly reminder that Jesus probably didn't exist, and if he did exist he definitely had brown skin.

Criticizing both Scientology and Christian crazies in one move? In Hollywood?

Bold fucking move. Good thing he's attractive or he'd probably be in trouble.

>torture porn
Why is this legitimate criticism? If the torture of Jesus happened, that's probably how it would look.

Switching to a cat o' nine tails after the normal whip?

Come on. That was pretty silly.

Jesus was real, you fucking left wing parasite. It's whether or not he was actually the son of God that is differs from person to person.

He definitely wasn't the son of the god as there's no such thing as magic. He probably didn't exist either, since there's somewhere between no evidence and barely any evidence that he existed in any form.

Im so glad that atheism has began to overide the darkness and ignorance of religion. Obviously we enlightened few hover above the feeble masses who deign to believe in a goatherder religion. We must purge the worlf of this dangerous nonsense so humanity can take a great leap forward. Once the people are redeemed of their foolishness, they will obviously thank us and put us at the head of power and influence. Together we lucky few shall create a world free from hatred and the ramblings of a cult who see themselves as diffrent from us; for we are all one and nobody can rise or fall the median. People shall be united and non one shall ever ask such silly questions. There shall be peace because of atheism no one shall judge or see themselves as more righteous than others. Our day shall come.

Well, I'm glad you're 100% positive in that assertion. No evidence that Jesus ever existed? Okay, let's completely forget about the first hand accounts of him before the old testament was even written. Let's forget everything just as long as it fits your narrative. Do you also believe that Gautama Buddha wasn't real? Do you also believe that Muhammad didn't exist?

Hate to break it to you, genius, but the existence of all three of those figures isn't debatable.

>There shall be peace because of atheism no one shall judge or see themselves as more righteous than others
>you say as you act more righteous than religious people

You may judge that which is baseless and religion is baseless and derves to be derided. Obviously you are just another braindead christfag who cannot even comprehend anything above his own belief. Go back to /his/ or /christian/

You realize that you are just as wrong as chirstfags, right?

>Oh no, it's okay to shout, spit on, and attack atheists because they're baseless heathens
>You may judge that which is baseless and religion is baseless and derves to be derided

Tip your fedora elsewhere.

Leave it to atheists to derail a Mel Gibson thread to try and act like they're superior. You might as well be vegans too.

Atheists are right and religious people are wrong though, which is where your moronic comparison falls apart.

This thread is alt right shilling starting in the OP, you brain dead moron.

Why should i bother with such people as you who have never had a single orginal thought in your life. Your religion thinks for you.

I think for myself and therefore could never be decieved. I feel pity for you both.

Religious people often say "Religion is right, and atheism is wrong." You are the same problem just from the opposite side.

>I think for myself

Sorry, son, Richard Dawkins or whoever you follow thinks for you.

Literally the first half of this thread was discussing who was in the wrong, Brad Pitt or Mel Gibson, then faggots like you came and started shit posting "LOL CHRIST IS DUM MEL IS RASSIS XDD"

Posts like this remind me that I'm arguing with really the dumbest people alive. Thanks for the reality check, religious schizo.

Dont ever mention that racist, sexist fuck.

I am tolerant of all people and dont judge based on what priveleged men say. Islam is a religion of peace.

That's cute. Come back when you have an argument, hun.

Am I thinking of a different movie or did the passion of the Christ have that stupid shit with the devil tempting Jesus

God that scene was so cringeworthy

Am i thinking of a different Jesus movie?

Don't be mean to Brad, he's just venting because Angelina wants to adopt another nigger.