Betty Bowers reviews Mel Gibson's film The Passion of Christ

You're hilarious and don't read the news or can't discern opinion from reporting (if you read all the reviews of the film at www.mrqe.com, you'll find the opinions repeated again and again by international critics). I'm not going to link to each and every one of those although I did provide a link to the story of the heart attack which occurred in the theater. This would mean, like a roller coaster ride, that anyone with health problems should avoid the film. I do have personal information about Mel's sexual daliances and you can still consider it rumor if you wish.

"If" and "Is he trying" are hardly statements of facts and if you can't tell tongue-in-cheek humor, you'd better go back to learning the language.

If you haven't read or seen all of Mel's statements, the burden is on you to use Google -- I'm not here to instruct how to use a search engine or waste my time on those who are in ardor over this awful movie.

If you wish to actually defend this film, do so at your own risk just as you went and saw the film at your own risk. If you think all that work and time in quoting me was worth it, you have a low opinion of your own time.

BTW, the woman was in her 50's and had no cardio-vascular health problems.

Well, the liklihood of some undiagnosed cv defect is probable. That's why they call it sudden cardiac death. Perhaps they should post signs at the theatres like those at amusement parks.

Or like on a pack of cigarets?

Warning this movie may be hazardous to your physical and/or mental health.

No press is bad press as it has been proven.

All the neg press on the Passion and it rakes in 23 million on the first day? If people just let it be and didn't get all up in arms about it it wouldn't have made that much in the first weekend. The ones that wanted people not to see it--made them want to see it.

Lightwizard, how does a 23 million dollar opener stack up?

Lets remember that is only numbers from Wensday.

That's a good number and considering all the bussed in groups who pre-purchased tickets on the premise that this was a wonderful picture about Christ, I am not surprised. Most of the experts believe it will drop off dramatically after the weekend. But to qualify a picture's quality by the box office is foolish. Everyone knows that. Some absolutely terrible pictures have had great box office.

As a matter of fact, all the foolish arguments I have heard justifying this film have put it several notches down -- a film is a result of all its components and now that I have had a chance to listen to the score without the movie, it's a maudlin attempt to sound like the score for LOTR.

The cinematography sometimes looks like classical painting and too often like the typical blockbuster manipulative and cliche imagery.

Bad movie.

Titanic, Pearl Harbour, Red Dawn, anything with Ah-nolt.


And at least as historically accurate as "A Knight's Tale," or "Braveheart."


The slow motion control in the editing booth shuold have been removed!

BTW, box office does not mean a picture is of high quality. Unless you want to compare "Passion" to some of the inane offerings that get high box office. Richard Roeper who like the film said he felt the box office would drop off after the weekend. Denby ("The New Yorker") who did not like the film pointed out on CNN that people were bussed in on pre-bought tickets. Who knows how many of those were appalled at the pornographic violence? Will they go back and see it again, the criteria of a blockbuster?

Actually, Ahnold hasn't had a blockbuster since "True Lies." "Terminator III" didn't even make its cost in theaters but the DVD will likely bring in some profit. No wonder he wanted to go into politics. "True Lies" was made over ten years ago.

Weekend box office for "Passion" should be between 75M and 80M. A mildly successful film will bring in about 130M and a blockbuster 250M except that "Titanic" and LOTR have raised the stakes on that. I'd have to research the latest box office standards for these designations.

I'm wondering if Gibbson will make cost. As I understand it he has his own money in this film.

There's been a wildly diverse estimate of how much Gibson has personally invested but the total cost of making and marketing the film is over 50M. In order to make money, the film will have to do over 150M. There are continuing costs of marketing and screening the film and the bottom line in moviemaking is really one of scariest parts of the business. Someone did state that Gibson would donate the profits but I've read nothing about that -- it would be interesting if he donated it to the Catholic church since he disagrees with the progressiveness (sic!) of the modern Catholic church.

(Maybe he intends on start his own sect? He's got the kernel on the grounds of his mansion).

I am sooo tempted to tie into the marketing by selling "indulgences" outside the theater. Ten dollars per second off of time in purgatory.

Betty is SOOOOOOOOOOOOO reliable!

As one of the first reviews in, Betty has been vindicated of being a lone voice of the negative response to the film. The link is worth repeating:

http://www.bettybowers.com/melgibsonpassion.html

BTW, where are you Bumble Bee? We feel like we've taken over your thread?

Strangely, I see rather few criticisms here of the form, "The movie shows x, which is innacurate, since the Bible says y." Nor do I see many of the form, "In an interview Gibson said...." followed by a statement which is clearly unworthy without first interpreting and stretching it. Most of what I see here is closer to, "Gibson probably sees himself as a saint," which is nothing more nor less than mind reading, especially when citationless, and not a valid criticism of Gibson or the film, since it is really putting words he never spoke in his mouth.

Many of us take the position: The bible says x, whilst the historical record says y. I view the bible as a collection of books of philosophy in the guise of historical fiction.