Fidia

"And thanks to many uncritical viewers, he managed to pass off crap as art.."
This, it seems to me, with all due respect, is a huge nonsense.
I notice a lot of presumption and arrogance among the comments.
The fact is that I don't like it when just because some people liked the film, there are always the Morandinis lurking around the corner who, from their height—this is indeed uncritical wisdom—begin to pontificate about other people's tastes, implicitly telling them that they don't understand a damn thing.
These condemnations, needless to say, I return them all to the sender.
P.S.: I can certainly distinguish crap from art, despite the fact that I liked the film.

Setting aside that I couldn't care less about all the historical-sociological-religious issues, my 5 is because the film intrigued and interested me at the same time. I really liked it a lot. And I also really liked Jim Caviezel's performance. Usually, when I watch a film, I couldn't care less about the cultural background of its director or the pseudo-subliminal messages that the film may potentially convey. If it stirs even a little bit of emotion in me, it stays with me regardless of the supposed political views of Mel or the warehouse worker. The fact of comparing it to Spielberg seems, to me, really out of place for objective reasons that everyone knows.

I'm sorry junior, but this is something that really pisses me off.
It pisses me off all these people who have nothing to do with the claims of certain categories of workers and who absurdly demand to continue their social struggles when, in reality, a large part of these individuals uses these issues only as an excuse to do nothing, living like parasites, and to vent their frustrated souls by making a fuss at any demonstration, whether in the square or at the stadium.
With this, I'll close, regards.

Allow me, junior, but I believe you could have skipped your opening or at least only hinted at it. Because, in this way, I cannot refrain from offering a comment that is also extramusical. Well, I think that all those who barricade themselves behind these pseudo-anachronistic social struggles, which we see shattering shop windows or parked cars, creating chaos everywhere and ruining peaceful marches or demonstrations, are nothing but absolute buffoons who deserve at least to spend a few months in hard prison with a big guy in heat in the same cell. They certainly do not even know what the struggles of working-class life mean; I bet they have never held a clod of scorched earth in their hands or gotten dirty with grease that doesn’t come off even after three showers. They are probably mostly daddy's boys. It would be good if these idiots did not instrumentalize these issues to act like petty hoodlums, declaring, in some cases, that they feel like partisans. Instead, they should go plow the land because there is a need for hands in the farming work.

Who knows why, but something tells me that the scores will rain down for many reasons. Because it was directed by Mel Gibson, a controversial and debatable figure; because it’s a heavily marketed film, and therefore very commercial (which annoys most Debaser users); because the message is distorted; because it’s not historically accurate; because Pasolini’s film is better.
I anticipate these predictable critiques, and who knows how many others will be thrown at the film. All things that, personally, I don’t care about at all.
Yes, because I found the film to be very beautiful. And Jim Caviezel's performance is truly incredible. Then I leave the many predictable criticisms to others (who will surely be many in here).

Trell, it’s called ius, but my intention wasn’t to correct you rather to share a smile over a term I found amusing. I’m not so presumptuous as to correct what others write, you know ;)

Right of the first night :-D

Let it be clear that I say all this outside of any relationship/problem you have with the webmaster, which, to be honest, does not interest me at all.

Burns, really congratulations.
Damn, you dismantled a film that I really liked because of that gruesome half hour that overshadows everything else.
It's true, there were no soldiers of color. Thinking about it, it's just absurd.
Even today, if you look at the faces of the soldiers sent to Iraq for nothing, you find faces of any color except pale ones.
Poor people recruited from the unfortunate of the suburbs.
Only one family of French: this is also true, I hadn’t noticed, just like it’s true that Americans are the cool and good-looking ones while the rest is generalized ugliness.
And the assertion, more or less explicit, is also true, that it's impossible that still, after 60 years, we continue to bow before them because they saved us from the Nazi yoke.
Surely true, but we can't every time we face an international issue, bow our heads just for that reason.
It reminds me a bit of the Jewish question, where if you even minimally express thoughts in favor of the Palestinians’ reasons, you get labeled as antisemitic.
These are ties that should be broken to be more intellectually honest.
What you say, Burns, I completely agree with.
One thing though: in my opinion, Zionism doesn’t have much to do with the film, unless there are hidden messages that I didn’t perceive.
P.S.: And here I thought the pinnacle of pettiness and patriotic propaganda was achieved by the Yankees with the film on Pearl Harbor...

Thank you very much to everyone.