49% on Rotten Tomatoes

>49% on Rotten Tomatoes

!!!!!!!!!

Other urls found in this thread:

m.youtube.com/watch?v=6-rX_1nBIww
vimeo.com/59975315
youtube.com/watch?v=nB_mX4t5qpM
twitter.com/NSFWRedditVideo

The book was pretty shit too desu

>From five o'clock in the morning
>Til ten o'clock at night
>Give up!
m.youtube.com/watch?v=6-rX_1nBIww

Why did it get bad ratings? It was genuinely a good movie with good acting

it was the

>J....

It's gore porn with virtually no rewatch value. A cumulative 5.9/10 rating is pretty fair.

t. yitzhak goldenstein

Grow up.

fuck off reddit

Haven't seen this movie, but I was under the impression it was widely regarded as a masterpiece?

religious shit is pretty polarizing desu

also all the critics are jewish

Should have killed the dead kike on a stick again.

So is the Bible but have you read that shit? Makes no fucking sense at all.
>create entire world with all the fish and birds and other animals
>put 1 fucking guy on it

>Be son of God
>Have tons of super powers
>Willingly let the locals beat the shit out of you and kill you

The movie made no goddamn sense. If I was jesus I'd have gone full Frieza on those motherfuckers.

Jesus was a huge faggot

kys atheist kuck

...

Total divinity AND total humanity, user.

That's the point, friend. God had to show that humans were so full of sin they would kill his representative for no reason at all, and yet that he was so willing to forgive them and let the sinners become good people again that he would take it if it meant more sinners becoming good.
t. raised Catholic

it ditches anything important about the figure of Jesus just to focus on the violence

it's like made by someone that doesn't understand anything other than what is at face value

4-hour runtime notwithstanding (specifically 4h20m, kek) this is essential Christkino.

>John Wayne saying "Truly this man was the son of God"

Classic.

>hurr I believe all Protestant Black Legends

I thought fedoras were suppose to be smart?

Yeah but imagine if Jesus picked up Pontius Pilote with one arm and rammed his other arm through Pilote's torso like Android 20 did to Yamcha? The movie would have gotten a better RT score imo.

vimeo.com/59975315
This was way better

Fuck Ki...er critics, this movie was cultural beauty. Every other biblical movie just gives the Romans British accents and Jews American ones. Mel made an effort to make sound alike of Latin, Hebrew, Greek and Aramaic.

...

I've actually put off this movie for a long time because people kept saying that. I watched it recently and it wasn't that at all. The whole point of the film flew over your head if you amount it to just that.

This, the flashback to Jesus with his mother gave more humanity to Jesus than any other movie.

Does the extended DVD include Jesus awkward teen years? I think the first high school dance he attended would make us understand him even more.

I cry bitch tears every time I watch that scene, no shame though.

Nope, Mel was a good Catholic back then. All the gnostic stories about Jesus when he was in Egypt are heresy.

t. someone that only watched Mel's flick

Gee, I wonder why

>Muh Dafoe Jesus who considered fucking Mary Magdalene.

Short answer: the jews
Long answer: the jeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeews

>stories of my sky god that didn't fit imperial narrative from 2000 years ago are heresy

>fedoras think their opinion about Christianity matter

Truth is Truth, there was a whole council of bishops brought forth to weed out the gnostic heretical stories.

>a whole gospel of bishops brought together to make a offshoot of Judaism into an imperial religion that would culturally fit to a diverse empire by making it into an easy to consume faith that the plebs would buy into

fixed

>whole council of ((bishops))
I think I'll withhold judgement until I've seen some proofs, if that's ok with you.

Religion is for idiots.

Literally look up any Council of ____ the Catholic Church has done. They've all been debated by bishops.

why does he look exactly like what you think a porn historian would look like

>a offshoot of Judaism
That is a grossly inaccurate way of describing Christianity in any context

>ttw (((they))) won't give Mel the oscar for best picture even though Hacksaw Ridge was the best movie of the award season

It honestly isn't a good "movie". You would have no idea what's going on and why _unless you've read the book_, which by definition doesn't make it a good movie.

i-it's not a shit movie I-I swear. I-It's the g-globalists and those darn dirty j-jews!

Atheist and Jewish critics were butthurt that the best kino of the 00s was a film about Jesus.

This guy gets it.

i wonder (((who))) could probably take issue with this film's message?

Gee I wonder why...

...

>(((Rotten Tomatoes)))

Underrated.

I'd be more interested to see Jesus firing off energy waves, before charging up a big one to blast Judas in the face

don't forget (((christian zionism))) youtube.com/watch?v=nB_mX4t5qpM

underrated

Christianity is problematic

Internet critics and Christianity don't go hand in hand

sad. all those religious kuks love gay murder porn.

The hypocrisy of the people who are anti christianity.

If the movie were about the suffering of slaves or prisoners of war, then it would have been lauded.

it isn't his best movie, to be honest

Apocalipto is great

I'm an atheist and even to me this is KINO. Pretty much every one I know who liked the film was an atheist.

Also most atheists know the basic story about Jesus, it's just part of Western culture.

Which Austin Powers movie is this from?

short answer: jews
longer answer: juden
longest answer: hebrews

>Anecdote
I'm convinced

Purely political.

It's a fantastic film. It's a fantastic story (there's a reason it's still so popular 2000 years later), beautifully acted and gorgeously shot.

brb writing a peer reviewed study of all the atheists who liked this film so this fucking retard will believe my internet argument for an antisemetic flick that came out 10 years ago

Wow, your and idiot.

kek

>>the butthurt of the religious to perscribe a political pov to anyone who holds a differing view

enjoy having no healthcare you kuk

No, you are

>Decades of Hollywood’s and the news media’s chasing after uneducated youth, fostering an undiscriminating market (disguised as populism), have finally paid off with a culture in which nothing is learned or remembered. Nothing is valued past opening weekend, and the cultural fragmentation that sorts moviegoers by age, political proclivities, race, and gender cannot be mended by taste or education. All entertainment now reflects our political division

>How did we arrive at this abyss?

>Think back ten years: In the spring of 2004, there was the media’s lynch-mob excommunication of Mel Gibson and his film The Passion of the Christ, soon followed by the Cannes Film Festival’s ordination of Michael Moore’s anti–G. W. Bush documentary Fahrenheit 9/11. These events proved the effectiveness of pre-release hype, furthered acquiescence to cultural authority, and discouraged social unity. This was a moral, aesthetic, intellectual, and political shift — a break and a decline.

>Through these two films, religion and politics — topics one had never argued about in polite company — became the basis for categorizing moviegoers as members of factions. Beliefs and positions calcified. Passion became a red-state movie, and Fahrenheit became a blue-state movie.

>That turning point may also be where the canard of calling for a “conversation” (about race, sex, violence . . . take your pick) began. The need for such “conversation” stemmed from the disorienting wallop of the terrorist attack on September 11, 2001. Pundits collectively responded by saying, “Nothing is the same,” which meant that people whose livelihoods were made on directing popular opinion were irreparably hard-hit. Self-absorbed, they lost their ability to think straight or fairly. Ironically, post-9/11 “conversation” (essentially, “Let me set the terms for you”) started with a priori conditions that prevented most people from reacting to Gibson’s and Moore’s movies with anything like independent thought.

>Attacks on Gibson’s film had begun several months earlier, with The New Yorker’s smear campaign besmirching the filmmaker’s character. This tipped off the liberal press to torpedo the film’s upcoming release and alerted them that the film deserved no respect as a work of art or expression of faith. The Passion of the Christ was eventually a box-office success, primarily because churchgoers and Gibson fans defied the pundits and found value in the movie’s story and meaning. But a rift between secular media and spiritual moviegoers had opened up — evident, among other places, in reviews that loftily disparaged the film and questioned the principles on which it was based.

>Glib assessments of the story of Christ’s agony and its spiritual and historical basis used simplistic terms that dismissed any suggestion of divinity. The New Yorker’s David Denby stooped lowest, calling it “a snuff film,” a deliberate insult to Gibson’s professionalism and his Christianity. The sting of this affront was camouflaged by the disingenuous claim that the topic under consideration was “violence.”

Goldmember. It's from the Director's Cut.

is there anybody who watched picrelated'?

Why are you replying in my name?

Most atheist didn't give a shit about the whole jew thing, we're the people who watched it without having a horse in the race or however you say it.

No, you'r re.

>Such denigration, proffered by a venerable publication and followed by numerous negative articles in the newspaper of record, laid waste to civil discussion. Movie discourse has not been the same since.

>Blunt attacks on sensitive matters formed a pattern of intolerance from media normally expected to be cautious and respectful (even when not fair). Journalistic ethics were trashed, and formerly assumed rules of public dialogue and cautious conduct fell by the wayside. Even worse, reviewers’ hostility had a disturbing air of anti-religious bias; their snide rejections incited a mean collective contempt that deepened schisms in our ongoing culture war.

>It was moral vandalism, sullying ideas and totems sacred to many. Such a fundamental offense devastated civilized behavior in ways many still have not realized. It drove a wedge between the public and the elites who make movies; the very ground we walked upon as enlightened, cultured people was scorched like Ground Zero at the World Trade Center.

I did

It and Silence are two of my favorite Scorsese pictures

Plus, it has David Bowie in it. Fucking awesome.

>Had 9/11’s unsettling impact loosed some barely suppressed contempt? Or was something less mysterious at work? Since George W. Bush’s 2000 election, the liberal media had moved toward retaliation and gradually discarded what remained of their pretense to fair-mindedness. Did the Left’s need for reprisal in the wake of Bush v. Gore conjure the furies of 9/11? Many leftists certainly shared, to an alarming degree, the terrorists’ antipathy to America, even to the point of rationalizing the attacks as if they were cosmic vengeance. The Left’s misbehavior became so evidently self-serving and undemocratic that essayist Charles O’Brien ridiculed the termagants as “the Vichy Left” in First of the Month. In their mission to “get” Bush, they clamped down on all opponents, now perceived, in the growing antagonism, as enemies.

>Gibson and The Passion of the Christ were the Left’s initial targets in 2004; the pseudo-documentarian Michael Moore provided the anti-Bush Left its ultimate salvo.

>Moore’s Fahrenheit 9/11 was the first documentary to win the Cannes Festival’s top prize, the Palme d’Or, since the international film gala’s beginning, in 1946. Recall that Quentin Tarantino was the Cannes jury president in 2004 and that Tarantino’s Pulp Fiction — distributed by Miramax, then owned by brothers Harvey and Bob Weinstein — had won the Palme d’Or in 1994. To celebrate his ten-year anniversary, Tarantino returned his distributor’s favor by utilizing his discretion as jury president to break Cannes precedent and give the award to a documentary that so happened to be the Weinsteins’ newest release. Tarantino’s politics are as vague as his moral beliefs, so the decision to lend hype — and credence — to a film that blamed the calamity of 9/11 on George W. Bush might be explained as nothing more sinister than a concession to his bosses’ well-known leftist acrimony.

Fedoras and (((reviewers))) spammed

>Yet Tarantino’s toadying, if such it was, had disastrous, far-reaching consequences.

>Although Fahrenheit 9/11 doesn’t have the probity or imagination of such classic documentaries as Nanook of the North, Let There Be Light, or Fires Were Started, that Palme d’Or conferred prestige on Moore’s agitprop and bolstered the Left’s claim to righteousness. TV host Roger Ebert further sanctioned Moore’s folly, saying, “This film has a point of view, and that’s okay.” Ebert’s praise gave naïve viewers a distorted notion of what counts as truth in a documentary. In Fahrenheit, indifference to journalistic objectivity paved the way for such unacceptable tactics as Moore’s tendentious framing of the moment when aides first informed the president of the 9/11 attacks. Bush is in the middle of reading The Pet Goat to a group of schoolchildren in Florida. Hearing the news whispered in his ear, he looks stunned but remains calmly seated with the children for about seven minutes. Moore derides this behavior as an instance of befuddlement rather than of human shock.

>Fahrenheit 9/11’s stupid title confuses a thermological measurement with the remembrance of a fateful day in U.S. history, then sarcastically adds the suggestion of an unanswered emergency call. Moore attempted to take a moment of sorrow, the moment when Bush learned the news, and “make it sexy” — to use the leftist media’s term for inveigling easy response. Moore refused to acknowledge the possibility of a president’s spontaneous personal amazement at unimaginable tragedy. Nor did he consider the possibility that Bush was horrified but, like an adult, remained calm in front of the children. The pseudo-journalistic invasion of Bush’s privacy — Moore purports to show us Bush’s soul in a moment of crisis, and it is a blank — lacked compassion. But Moore and his media cheerleaders cater to leftist consensus, journalistic and artistic standards be damned.

Yes and it rules

>most atheists don't give a shit about the whole Jew thing

Let me stop you there you fucking fedora. It should probably be noted that almost every single major figure in the atheist movement is Jewish. You could make a compelling argument that atheism is specifically being pushed by Jews in today's society, and they seem to largely be targeting western Christians and only them.

For example, Sam Harris, Chapman Cohen, David Silverman, Michael Newdow, Gregory Epstein, Sherman Wine, Bill Maher, Eric Kaufmann, and of course, Richard Dawkins's mother has a Jewish surname and was stated to have lived in the only Jewish suburb of the city she grew up in. But he hasn't explicitly named her religion.

But that's only a tiny part of the list. We could discuss the Jewish atheists who aren't pushing atheism so much as atheism-enabling political views like Marxism. For example Soklonikov, Trotsky, Deutscher, Lenin, Uritsky, Kamenev, Zinoviev and Sverdlov.

And what about atheist Jewish public entertainers that constantly run down Christianity? We can go ahead and recycle Bill Maher here and also include Jon Leibowitz, Stephen Fry, Woody Allen, Rob Reiner, Daniel Radcliffe, Larry David, David Silverman, and... I'm sure I'm close to the post cap, so rather than just name the rest of Hollywood, you get the point.

PURE COINCIDENCE though.

>Leftists were eager to exact revenge for the Florida recount in 2000, and they ingested Moore’s defamation as if it were inarguable. The public went along out of hype-driven curiosity more than agreement.

>Here is where the culture broke — by breaking tenets of decency. After the media’s misrepresentation of Gibson’s faith and after Moore’s propaganda, all rationality and taste were rendered irrelevant. New low standards were set in place and have held sway over the past pitiful ten years. Hollywood’s one-sided approach to art, religion, and politics initiated superficial and thoughtless responses to Americans’ multifaceted personal and political views. From 2004 on, even “entertainment” movies were made and received with deleterious political and moral bias.

>This break in public civility — unbridled hostility for Bush, disrespect for the office of the presidency, ruthless personal attacks on ideological opponents — resulted from pent-up political differences and partisan complaint going back to Robert Bork’s dismissal, Clarence Thomas’s Supreme Court nomination hearings, Bill Clinton’s impeachment, and Al Gore’s concession in the 2000 presidential race. Heaping 9/11 bitterness on the pile gave Moore’s pseudo-documentary additional vengeful imperative; the film’s supporters no longer cared whether the work was balanced or sensible. This ruthlessness would warp the way later documentaries were made, perverting the concept of cinematic reporting. Narrow-minded advocacy became the new non-fiction standard — propaganda chic. Great documentaries of the past offered news and eye-opening insights. Moore, in his working-class onscreen costume, offered far less.

>By the spring of 2004, we saw an undeniable imbalance in cultural discourse. Pop culture is largely produced and promoted by people in fields that liberals dominate, and conservatives rarely grasp the significance of popular art not made by them.

>The empowered media classes of New York and L.A. hold sway, and less empowered or less popular attitudes are underrepresented. Conservatives desperately need a critical journalism that grasps this. Some still don’t realize that the split in 2004 was new.

>Suddenly, the 20th century’s great unifying art form — the movies — got reduced to a medium for generating polarized reactions, its artists and audiences divided by media agitation. With no place for evenly waged exchanges of ideas and aesthetics, national sensibilities could only fracture. No-longer-impartial media used their prominence to drive those who disagreed into quiet but resentful enclaves. This rupture was not along lines of taste but was instead derived from religious and political differences. It divided the moviegoing public along lines of alleged bigotry and professed grievance. In this light, charges that Gibson was anti-Jewish were impossible to challenge, but those aggrieved accusations destroyed any chance of achieving common ground. Trust was obliterated. No film has split the country so decisively since The Birth of a Nation in 1915.

>The Passion and Fahrenheit, as movies and as cultural events, are showcases of media corruption and dereliction of duty. Such obstruction of justice and abuse of power created a psychic stress that the culture couldn’t overcome. Culture went on, certainly, but the movies made in the backwash of 2004 — from Good Night and Good Luck, Syriana, Michael Clayton, and There Will Be Blood to Knocked Up, Frost/Nixon, Precious, The American, The Social Network, Black Swan, Bridesmaids, and 12 Years a Slave — all demonstrate a sour, contentious, pessimistic worldview. Even Steven Spielberg, the era’s great populist, succumbed in his depressingly partisan Lincoln. We may never have seen a period of American movie history so full of pointless bitterness, sarcasm, and lack of fellow feeling.

That's called cherrypicking, it's the exact opposite of a coincidence. You deliberately mentioned those people because you're shilling against Jews.

>We have achieved dumb-down. Passive receipt of placebos and the robotic reflexes of immediate gratification have replaced the search for moral comprehension. The effect of the 2004 dumbing-down is that a mania for consumption will distract the next generation from thinking and reduce its capacity for compassion.

>National division fomented the destructive fallacy that when we are opposed to one another, we all can be celebrities or elites, united only by palliatives (comic books, rom-coms, mockumentaries, blockbusters, TV). We become distinguishable from one another — and feel we are “independent” — only because we are divided against one another. Flowing through the political bloodstream, divisiveness pumps the heart of popular entertainment, in which our very diversity is alienating or antagonistic. Since 2004, this dumbed-down enjoyment of American adversity is proof that our once-unifying culture has broken.

>I ironically believe the atheism fairy exploded nothing into everything
>thinks religion is stupid

What's funny is no atheist I know reads any theology, or any serious theologian based in objective moralism I.e belief in God. No sound theology can have subjective morality since there is only one good, God, and all is good that flows through him. Thus he can only be subjective.

The obvious reason they don't read Christian arguments is that all theology of the last 150 are forces to be reckoned with. I've made it a point to read atheist books so I know best how to combat their silly ideas. I actually enjoy debating atheists irl for this reason. It's funny to watch them play their mind games and weasel their way out of reason, to observe their open contradictions in terms, to see them try so hard to argue that they themselves are an accident.

"He who never thirsts for God here, will thirst for him before he has been dead a minute".

>tfw seeing Passion of the Christ in the theater opening weekend

What an experience. Ask me anything.

Which country? Denomination of people watching? How did people act?

>0.2% of the population are overwhelmingly represented
>cherry picking

Sounds like you're a fucking kike

>North America is the world
>all these literally whos from Murrica and the long gone Soviet Union from a fucking century ago
>all this autism
Where I come from atheism is pretty much the norm, the fedoras are all the pagan-ancient-christian-shamanist-spirituality loons. I'm at least a third generation atheist.

Get a girlfriend user.

Where I come from, you won't find a single Sup Forums poster who doesn't go to Church. You and your family will burn.

Go to bread, user.

Same, atheism where I'm from isn't reactionary, it's more to do with apathy. The only people who go to church are old people and even quite a few of them make jokes about going, as if it's the most ridiculous thing in the world.

The only genuine religious people I know are members of evangelist/fundamentalist/JW churches and tend to keep to themselves. Really nice people though.

...

Gee, I wonder why Sup Forums sounds identical SJWs when discussing movies or their reviews

>everyone who isn't a nihilist like me is evil because they have beliefs!

>Which country?
United States, central Florida.
>Denomination of people watching?
I went with some people from my friend's church, a nondenominational one. I assume there were probably some Baptists; for the record there weren't a lot of Catholics in the area I grew up.
>How did people act?
The theater was packed, so there's a couple stories to tell. When Jesus stomped the snake in Gethsemane people were clamoring. Something about that must have hyped them up. I do remember a couple moments of laughter (Herod's palace and the Mary flashback, pic related - not the "ha ha" kind of laughter but rather the "warm fuzzies" kind of laughter). Most of the time it was either dead silence or gasping, plus some children crying - during the scourging scene I counted at least five parents escorting their young kids out (which annoyed me as even I as a 13-year-old questioned if I should even be in the theater). Lot of sniffling and tears during the crucifixion. At the very end when it was over even deader silence.

PAIN = ACTING

I could grab any rando off the street, prick him or her with a fucking needle, film it, and get the same result.

real acting is passion, speech, delivery, timing, it has nothing to do with having your fucking toe stubbed and catching it on camera.