The movie is a personal view based on a religious tradition, mostly a fundamentalist Catholic tradition. Mel Gibson is more fundamentalist than even mainstream Catholicism. Such traditions go far beyond the gospels, but are no less a part of the religion for that, any more than the parts of the Jewish law that are not found in the Old Testament are irrelevant to Judaism.
If anyone is interested, one of several traditional writings on which much of the movie is based can be found here. Odds are most of the reviewers know jack shit about Gibson's religion or Catholic traditions, and many probably know nothing of Christianity in general.
This is not a major field of interest for me, and I am largely just observing the cultural phenomenon of the impact of the film. I haven't seen the movie, and probably won't. I'm not of that tradition.
The film is number one again this weekend.
Off Topic » in reply to your 'epithet' is obviously meant for 9/11 conspiracy-believers. But I was just wondering why you hadn't replied to my last Gibson post. No harm done :)
One more comment
The whole thread (82 posts)
- Anyone seen the new Mel Gibson flick
- As soon as it comes out here I will. . .
- interesting, balanced article - recommended
- $200 million plus, and counting... (n/t)
- Reality check: what DOES qualify as "art" to the cultural elite
- Graphic violence
- The Passion
- please clarify
- re: please clarify
- partially but not completely clarified
- Translation for Daniel: Tom decides (n/t)
- - yes .. and I wonder if he's also decided that I'm part of the 'asshat avalanche' and hence not worth engaging with? (n/t)
- re: please clarify
- re: Anyone seen the new Mel Gibson flick
- Richard Corliss of Time Magazine
- We need less Passion and more Life of Brian (n/t)
- Another opinion, from someone who's seen it twice
- I think it has a surprise ending
- No, though I know some people who have.
- dis-Passion-ate
- re: Anyone seen the new Mel Gibson flick
