Welcome to Emulationworld

Forum Index | FAQ | New User | Login | Search

Make a New PostPrevious ThreadView All ThreadsNext Thread*Show in Threaded Mode


Subjectas long as we're talking about movies released earlier this year new Reply to this message
Posted byJoffeman
Posted on12/28/04 12:10 PM



i actually liked the passion of the christ, a lot. i'm not a christian, but it was really good. made me cry even, but i've always had a deep admiration of the jesus character.

and the new merchant of venice with al pacino is fucking brilliant. uniformly great performances from the entire cast, i really dug it.

dogville was released in the states this year, so i'll include it and say it was really really good. von trier seems to always know how to craft good flicks that leave you feeling like shit.

dead man's shoes. not sure how i feel about this one yet, but i think i really liked it.

suburban nightmare was also really good, trent haaga is one of my favourite actors even though is career so far is really short, and both he and brandy little give believable, dysfunctional performances.

the first august underground was really good but august underground's mordum seemed pretty shite to me.

j


SubjectRe: as long as we're talking about movies released earlier this year new Reply to this message
Posted byDeath Knight
Posted on12/28/04 01:45 PM



> i actually liked the passion of the christ, a lot. i'm not a christian, but it
> was really good. made me cry even, but i've always had a deep admiration of the
> jesus character.
>
I've renounced my link with formal religion for some years now, but i still admire the person that was Christ, and because of that, i detested Mel Gibson's flick, it showed nothing of the philosophy he preached or the good he taught, it merely portraied the physical suffering he endured in his last hours. Surely, that's what the "passion" was, but there was a meaning and a purpose behind his suffering, and not once did the movie convey anything other than pain.
I strongly oppose the glorification of suffering that most christians seem to hold so greatly to them, and in my oppinion that movie was nothing more than that: a glorification of pain in the name of something higher, which is by no means what Christ tried to teach us, specially when it's portraied without any link with this supposed higher purpose.

> dogville was released in the states this year, so i'll include it and say it was
> really really good. von trier seems to always know how to craft good flicks that
> leave you feeling like shit.
>
Gotta agree here, i loved this movie, the only thing i hated about it was the photography. I loathe seeing handhelds in feature films.




Gives us a kiss precious.


SubjectRe: as long as we're talking about movies released earlier this year new Reply to this message
Posted byJoffeman
Posted on12/28/04 03:19 PM



> > i actually liked the passion of the christ, a lot. i'm not a christian, but it
> > was really good. made me cry even, but i've always had a deep admiration of
> the
> > jesus character.
> >
> I've renounced my link with formal religion for some years now, but i still
> admire the person that was Christ, and because of that, i detested Mel Gibson's
> flick, it showed nothing of the philosophy he preached or the good he taught, it
> merely portraied the physical suffering he endured in his last hours. Surely,
> that's what the "passion" was, but there was a meaning and a purpose behind his
> suffering, and not once did the movie convey anything other than pain.
> I strongly oppose the glorification of suffering that most christians seem to
> hold so greatly to them, and in my oppinion that movie was nothing more than
> that: a glorification of pain in the name of something higher, which is by no
> means what Christ tried to teach us, specially when it's portraied without any
> link with this supposed higher purpose.

my feeling is that it was a powerful film because of the backstory. yes, it focused on the suffering, and basically had maybe 10 minutes of flashback stuff that wasn't suffering-related.. i think the intended audience of the film was assumed to be knowledgable about the life and beliefs of 'jesus christ'. that may have been a mistake, as most christians i meet know less about their own religion than i do. i thought the depiction of cruelty would have been empty without an understanding between the filmmaker and the audience of the underlying message. it could even be damaging to the wrong audience, christians who don't know anything about christ other than what the king james abridged bible or the bigoted pastor at their local southern baptist church tells them. i do believe that it is a powerful film, although admittedly very emotionally manipulative and inaccurate, but i still thought the filmmaking was beautiful, and i came out of the theater feeling amped, wanting to do good.

i have a god complex, though.

PS the satanic baby fucking rocked too, and this cannot be disputed.

j


Subjectwtf anti-semite!?!?!?111 seriously though, was it really that good? Reply to this message
Posted byCreepingDeath
Posted on12/28/04 10:49 PM



I never went to see it because I didn't feel like subjecting myself to a xtian guilt trip. But, if it is as well done as you say, I suppose I should check it out.


SubjectRe: word new Reply to this message
Posted byJoffeman
Posted on12/28/04 11:38 PM



> I never went to see it because I didn't feel like subjecting myself to a xtian
> guilt trip. But, if it is as well done as you say, I suppose I should check it
> out.
it actually is pretty damned good. dean and i both liked it. that's a ringing endorsement, because i hate half of everything, so does he.

j


Previous ThreadView All ThreadsNext Thread*Show in Threaded Mode