Reviewer Reviews

The Passion of the Christ (2004)

The most accurate review ever (condensed)............

[7 March 2004]

Some Spoilers, Maybe?

Thanks for publishing this review. My friend has help me to compile this but should prove an accurate reflection on the film. These are points to consider when you have watched the film.

The best word that I can think of to describe the impact of the movie on myself is: "Shocking." What I saw is hundred times worse than the most negative reviews I read. From a biblical perspective, the movie contains numerous glaring errors designed to promote the wrong view of Christ's Passion and of the redemptive role of Mary, as co-redeemer with Christ. What shocked me most is the relentless torture of Christ's body. The brutality of flogging with switches and cat-o-nine-tails, blows out of proportions the physical suffering of Christ in order to promote the imitation of

His suffering as a way of salvation. What led Gibson to produce such a bloody and gruesome Passion of Christ that blatantly misrepresents the Evangelists account of His trial and execution? Since the blood factor is minimal in the Gospel, where did Gibson get his information? The answer is readily available, because Gibson himself openly admits that the movie is based not only on the Gospels, but also on the visions of two Catholic nun-mystics St. Anne Catherine Emmerich and Mary of Agreda. Referring to the visions of Emmerich, Gibson said, "She supplied me with stuff I never would have thought of" (The New Yorker, 9/15/03). This is evident, because, as we shall see, many

of the details of the movie are foreign to the Gospels. Emmerich (1774-1824) was a German nun who allegedly had the stigmata or wounds of Christ in her hands. The stigmata (bleeding hands) are the ultimate proof of sainthood for some people! Gibson was also influenced by Mary of Agreda (1602-1665), a Catholic nun and visionary mystic. Her entire family entered monasteries and convents in 1618. She was often taken in trances which carried away to teach people in foreign lands. In her one of her books, Agreda offers many details about Mary and Christ's Passion, which are not in the Bible.

Few viewers will note the glaring errors which are strategically located throughout the film. Most viewers come out thinking that they have seen an accurate portrayal of the last 12 hours of Christ's life. The truth is far from it.

In Gethsemane

As soon as the soldiers and priests capture Christ in the Garden, they bound Him with a heavy duty chain suitable for anchoring sea vessels, and start beating on Him. But in the Gospels there is no reference to the beating of Jesus in the Garden. We are simply told: "And they laid hands on him and seized him. . . . And they led Jesus to the high priest; and all the chief priests and elders were assembled" (Mark 14:46, 53; cf. Matt 26:50, 57). "Then they seized him and led him away, bringing him into the high priest house" (Luke 22:54; cf. John 18:12-13). What in the Gospels is presented as a simple arrest and escort of Jesus to the high priest house, in the movie becomes a plot to lynch Jesus even before he gets a chance to appear before the high priest.

While taking Christ to Pilate, the Pharisees throw Him off of a bridge together with the huge chain and thick rope that bound him. One would expect that a fall from a bridge into a rocky ground below with the weight of a heavy chain, would result in broken bones and emergency assistance. But in the film Christ is portrayed like a zombie Super Man who can withstand any fall or beating. They pull Him up with the chain bound around his waist like a sack of potato, and then they continue to beat Him all the way to Pilate's judgment hall. Common sense precludes the possibility of a normal human being able to walk normally after a hard fall from a bridge. But the movie shows that common sense is no so common after all. Since there is no mention in the Gospels of Christ being thrown off of a bridge by the Pharisees on the way to Pilate, where did Gibson get the information from?

I was shocked by the totally unexpected brief episode of children playing on the street and then being suddenly transformed into demons throwing stones to Judas while he was walking outside the city to hang himself. For few second I could not understand what was happening. This episode is foreign to the Gospels, but reflects Gibson's intent to portray the Jews as people, including their children as wicked, demonic individuals, responsible for the death of Jesus.

Yet a balanced reading of the Gospels shows that there were both Jewish leaders and Roman soldiers that accepted Christ and were gracious toward Him.

For example, the Gospels tells that Joseph of Arimathea and Nicodemus, both of whom were members of the Sanhedrin and secret followers of Jesus. They arranged with Pilate for taking down

Jesus' body from the Cross, treating it with myrrh and aloes, and placing it in a brand new garden tomb.

The episode of the carrying of the Cross contains a glaring error, because Gibson has both Simon of Cyrene and Jesus carrying the cross together. I could not believe what I saw because this openly contradicts the Gospels account which reads: "And as they led him away, they seized one Simon of Cyrene, who was coming in from the country, and laid on him the cross, to carry it behind Jesus" (Luke 23:26; cf. Mark 15:21; Matt 27:32). In the Gospels it is clear that Simon carries the Cross for Jesus by himself, while following Jesus who by now was totally exhausted.

The most glaring problem of The Passion is the prominent role that Mary plays throughout the film as a partner with Christ in the redemption of mankind

Oddly, the gospel message is suppose to be about love, peace, salvation through Christ's Sacrifice, but watching this type of movie does not show properly what mental strains Christ went through for our salvation!? Where in the plot does it highlight fully WHY he had to die? Will people really research to find the truth afterwards? Or the true mental struggle HE went through or indeed the true meaning of the last supper?

Movies like these that get non-christians and Christian going to the cinema can be seen as good to get a likeness of Christ, but doesn't Jesus say in Matthew 24 if Christ is in the secret chamber (cinema room) believe it not?

Movies are just getting more violent in general to sell more without giving us a verbal message on how to be proper people. We love the violence and want more, so who is really to blame? Mel Gibson for making this violent film or us desperate to see it?

Toy Story 2 (1999)

Better than the first one.

[10/10 · 15 March 2000]

This is an incredible return of the fab characters. I loved every moment of the film. It was made even better because it was so emotional in parts. It provide great laughs and had awesome animations. Watching this movie made me believe that this should have got a best picture normination.

Vertigo (1958)

Did everyone notice the second plot twist!!!?????

[10/10 · 3 December 1999]

Vertigo is the greatest movie ever made. The acting, drama, set design, lighting, plot and script are first class. This movie was robbed of the Oscars in 1958! However I'm not going to describe the movie as it MUST be seen. But for those who have seen it did you notice the second more subtle plot twist? It occurs after the scene when Scottie is in the hospital suffering from a mental breakdown. Notice how Midge does not appear in the movie again! In fact, the second half of the movie after that point, we are actually seeing what is going through Scottie's head and how he copes with his circumstances. Notice also that when the main Jury person is speaking he says that Scottie's previous weakness made the policeman fall to his death. You see Scottie comes to terms with his personal disasters by assuming the role of the person he could not save. What I mean is that it was the policeman who was hanging from the roof in reality but Scottie could not save him because he was looking down at the officer. He later reverses roles with Mrs Madeline Elster after the hospital scene. Now tell me how much of a genius Hitchcock really was!

The Sixth Sense (1999)

Nearly as good as Vertigo

[9/10 · 22 November 1999]

The 6th sense is one of the best build up movies around with a plot twist that is second only to Vertigo. Of course the little boy actor should be norminated for an oscar - but will he? For those of you who have not seen Vertigo (as the 6th sense movie takes many things from it) then go buy a copy now of the 1958 Hitchcock classic - you will be reviewing what happened in this movie in the end as you did with The 6th Sense.

American History X (1998)

The acting was as great as the flaws (Spoilers Included)

[8/10 · 30 September 1999]

Please note that these comments include spoilers, so if you have not seen this movie do not read on.

The acting in this movie as have been already said was great - enough said I think. Of course this was helped by a great script as well in many respects. However this movie should not be regarded as a classic because of the following flaws in plot design and characterisation. 1) At the beginning of the movie, Derek seems to have a valid right to protect his property against those black people who were stealing from him. It would have been best if the movie depicted the black people just sitting on his wall and talking and then Derek got mad and did what he did.

2) The middle part of the movie is a complete disaster. The prison scenes were the biggest let down in the movie without a doubt. How Derek quickly made friends with that black convict is unrealistic considering that he rejected mixing with the other blacks in the prison. His conversion and realisation of his criminal activity was too quick and non-existent or simply to unrealistic. When Derek is raped in the shower we see that he has suffered physically, but mentally we do not see how he copes with this harrowing situation.

3) When Derek makes his racist arguments there is no counter comments made throughout the movie, therefore the viewer is totally confused how Derek could have changed.

4) When Derek slaps the face of the leader of the Neo-Nazi organisation, we do not see the leader reacting against Derek afterwards by going around to Derek's place (like in many scenes in the Godfather movies) with his henchmen. Rather we get an unrealistic ending which involves a side incident that occurs in the movie, rather than the main purpose.

This movie is worth watching, but misses out on the classical status because of its flaws - hence no best picture norm in the oscars. Only if these flaws could have been dealt with then it would have been one of the greatest movies of all time.

Kiss of the Spider Woman (1985)

A classic in film noir drama!!! Perhaps as good as Citizen Kane

[10/10 · 13 April 1999]

This movie is so well acted and the drama involved has got to be seen to be believed. At first the story seem quite strange, if not surreal. However this is only on the surface as the movie's stories and other reflections shows the emotional and actual incidents which are happening in reality. The movies are use in a clever way to enhance the main drama by contributing to it. This movie overall shows that manipulation can be very subtle and extremely dangerous. This is by far one of the best thrillers ever made because it is so neat and clever. The images have hidden depth in which the viewer needs to concentrate to understand, but once you understand you can appreciate this movie. This is a thinking person's movie involving sexual conduct and fantasies, while there is a growing will to not only escape literally but within oneself and the ongoing struggle to change ideas and ideological positions. If this review does not make sense, the reason for this is because I don't want to spoil any element of this movie and its dream like qualities. This is not a must see, rather seeing it is a must.

Life Is Beautiful (1997)

Just as good as Forrest Gump - Perhaps

[10/10 · 12 March 1999]

La Vite e Bella is the type of movie that if you liked Forrest Gump (FG) you will love this. Both movies have the exterior vision of merely being a romantic comedy. Yet internally, both movies are talking and expressing very serious subject matters. With FG we see a) How disabled people can contribute to society and other people's lives. b) The movie FG is more about us as normal people than it was about FG. Normal people kill pop stars and politicians, child abuse children, use drugs and generally hurt others through words. With La Vita e Bella, the message is not about war, but how do you protect sensitive people to the violence and insanity around them. We do it everyday with violent TV progs and films. How do you control what young children watch and hear? To what extent will it affect them? Should we lie to our children to protect them from the outside world? The movie also shows true romance and love no matter how bad your situation is. The movie is not saying that lying is a way out of tricky situations, rather change the situation into a parable or a game like what Christ did to lessen the impact upon others. This movie is a 10/10 classic and deserves the Oscars hands down for its creativity, originality and being able to place two movies into one effortlessly.

Forrest Gump (1994)

The greatest movie ever made - and why it won the Oscars!!!

[10/10 · 10 March 1999]

A number of users have mentioned that The Shawshank Redemption (TSR) should have won the best picture Oscar over Forrest Gump (FG). This type of criticism is unjustified when you realise the various reason why FG actually won the Oscars!!! 1) The title Forrest Gump is a bit misleading as the movie is not really about FG as it first seems for the average viewer, rather it is about us the audience who are supposed to be normal but we act in real life even worse than FG. 2) FG is laughing at us as we laugh at him. We see him as abnormal, but when Forrest tries to understand us he finds out that normal people cause so much pain in the world towards other people. This is clearly shown with the short clips of political and social history throughout the movie which the viewing audience in the cinema failed to recognise. This helps to prove FG case against normal people. 3) The movie can be interpreted in so many different ways that every time a viewer watches it they get a different version of what Forrest sees and understands and what it means for human nature as a whole. Only Forrest seems normal in the movie, while others are killing pop stars and important people in society. Forrest can't understand why normal people do this, as for me personally I agree with Forrest on this issue. 4) While Forrest is telling his story of events in his life, many of the viewing audience thought it was literally happening, but because some of the events described are surreal in its feel many people thought the movie was silly. Yet it was the viewers who were silly as they see things through Forrest's eyes not their own. Equally the viewer misses many of the important aspects of the movies' message because they fail to go into Forrest's world and explore.

Misinterpretation that the viewer makes: 1) The running scene though at first seeming stupid is in fact one of the most thought provoking scenes ever in the history of movie making, but the average viewer does not realise this, because he/she cannot think broadly. This scene shows that normal people are stupid to follow people in the media as icons thinking they are clever people because they seem to be doing something special. What Forrest shows is that famous people are just as brainy as every else. But we normal people worship politicians in vain and others stars to sort out our world problems. 2) When Forrest is speaking at a rally against Vietnam, again people in real life follow anybody who has a big mouth without really understanding what they are saying - so profound as well as funny. 3) Jenny only realises that Forrest is the right person for her when it is too late, you should not judge on appearances, rather the character.

The Movie also shows how normal people bully others, rape and child abuse children, start wars, use people and discriminate others. Forrest does not do any of these things, yet we as the viewer call him abnormal. For me, this is the most innovative movie I have ever seen as it has duped the world to think it is about Forrest rather than themselves.