Escape to the Movies: Son of God

[Dragonlayer]

That was one cheesy looking Jesus walking on water scene.

 

[TailstheHedgehog]

I'm not a theologian or a historian... but why is a middle-eastern man always played by Europeans?

 

[putowtin]

Well, we've got "Noah" coming up... that one has Russel Crowe in it, so it has to be good, right? RIGHT?!

Yes the first Noah movie where the animals actually jump over board!

OT if this is the best the week has to offer, Hollywood is scrapping the barrel so hard their already through the wood!

 

[Movitz]

I don't get the beef people have with "The Passion of Christ". I think it was a good movie. I mean, yeah, it's violent, but wasn't Jesus supposed end violent? He was beyond any resonable doubt crucified, and that alone is a pretty painful way to go out. I can't really remember if the whipping part was in the Bible, but I don't think that somehow that was beneth a Roman provincinal governor when dealing with troublemakers.

So I think the movie being violent is not a drawback in any way, just a truthful retelling of the story.

 

[KiramidHead]

I don't get the beef people have with "The Passion of Christ". I think it was a good movie. I mean, yeah, it's violent, but wasn't Jesus supposed end violent? He was beyond any resonable doubt crucified, and that alone is a pretty painful way to go out. I can't really remember if the whipping part was in the Bible, but I don't think that somehow that was beneth a Roman provincinal governor when dealing with troublemakers.

So I think the movie being violent is not a drawback in any way, just a truthful retelling of the story.

I pretty much feel the same way. The backlash largely stemmed from the fact that it came out around when Mel Gibson went on his first rant and everyone wanted to ostracize him for it.

 

[Gerardo Vazquez]

The problem with your bit on godzilla is that the new movie is ignoring the franchise and is a remake/sequel to the 1954 original. You man not believe this, bob, but it was a great movie. A serious movie. Yup, you can take it seriously. The effects actually were quite good for the standards of the times. It is one of the movies that created the tokusatsu genre in japan, but godzilla itself was largely inspired by king kong and other amercian monster movies of the era. But you know what? Unlike you, I can enjoy the rest of the franchise for what it is. The orginial movie is serious, godzilla raids again, the direct sequel, tryed to be serious and was a load of shit, one of the worst movies form the franchise, godzilla vs. king kong was a big hit and, for the most parts, defined the rest of the franchise all the way to final wars. In other words, they tryed to be serious again, didn't work, so they went for camp and never looked back. But, since the rest of the franchise was tokusatsu, that's fine. The orginal movie was different. It was a great movie. One of the best movie's ever made, IMO, and right up there with the orginal king kong. Hell, the franchise afterwards had wonky starting points with a overall continuity that made no sense(no, bob, toei was not trying to be marvel), but the orginal movie was always the starting point, no matter what toei was doing. You don't seem to get that. The 1954 movie was not a cheese fest like the rest of the franchise. And that's ok. I still love the rest of the franchise(for the most part) as tokusatsu. But they aren't good movies. I can take the 1954 movie 100% serious. And once again, as always with you, it goes back to your basic mentality being:
"serious=bad, camp=good". You're so stupid as always it amazes me. I don't think you've actually watched any of the godzilla movie's and are talking out your ass as always. And all the nimrods on this forum eat it up and repeat it without thinking for themselves. fuck you bob.

PS-VR poopers sucks. Go watch the real shows, spielban and metalder, instead kids.

We all know VR Troopers sucks. It was a joke. Either way I agree with most of your comment save for the "serious=bad, camp=good" part. That's simplifying Bob's opinion as opposed to encapsulating it.

 

[Gerardo Vazquez]

Right calling a movie boring, unfaithful to the source material, a quick cash in on the miniseries, and hitting all the big scenes while missing the subtext. All while pointing out several other better movies about Jesus Christ. This was probably the least politically loaded review he could have done. Did you even watch the review or did you just see that a "far-left liberal atheist" doing a review on a Christian movie and decide to drag out your own soap box? The quote you have above doesn't have anything to do with what your saying but is a face palm about the cash grabbing exploitation that is this movie.

Remember, this is the guy who gave "White House Down," "Avatar," and "Elysium" positive reviews.

I loved the mini-series, so putting it into theaters would probably make fantastic viewing. I may in fact do just that later this weekend (if the weather cooperates.)

"Least politically loaded" in the sense, but why is an atheist reviewing a film about Jesus? Who is he really gonna convince? Other atheists will give him a high five, totally, but he'll just alienate his Christian fans.

Yes, because "God, I hate Christians" is exactly what I got out of Bob's review.

Remember, you're the guy who loved "The Bible" mini-series.

Once again you're missing the point. Nowhere in the actual review does he disparage your faith, your religion, or it's figures. His tone is professional, his comments are in regards to set design, acting, story structure, and the movie's weaknesses. He spends a good deal of time comparing the movie to other faith pieces like "Passion", and remarks on their own strengths and weaknesses in regards to this film. Bob put aside his religious views and attitudes about Christianity as an institution in order to bring you a fair and honest review........ and you can't even extend him the same courtesy, and immediately accuse him of being a close-minded liberal, who doesn't like a not terribly good movie, because of how biased he is. Stay classy fundamentalist.

 

[JoJo]

I'm not a theologian or a historian... but why is a middle-eastern man always played by Europeans?

Cultures usually depict Jesus as being the same ethnicity as themselves, if you look at Chinese Christian Art for example he often looks Chinese, in Africa he's black African etc. Similarly, in Western art and films he's inexplicitly European most of the time. Presumably people identify better with a deity who looks like them and no-one knows what Christ looked like.

 

[Cecilthedarkknight_234]

WHY IS JESUS WHITE!?

Blame the angleo saxon's for their interpretation of him in paintings/art works.

 

[Mortuorum]

I can't believe that nobody brought up that Jesus in the film looks almost exactly like Wundarr the Aquarian [http://marvel.com/universe/Aquarian].