StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Pope John Paul II gave two thumbs up to MG movie on JC,he said its quite accurate.

Yeah, that's kind of been known for a while now.

Although all he said was :It is as it was," so that's not exactly the same as "two thumbs up," as IIRC, the Vatican isn't supposed to endorse commercial products.

Thats what i find funny,how can he know how it was 2000 years ago.

Because to the Church, it happened as it is described in the Gospel. And the film is reported to follow the Gospel.

Anyway, I want to see it, from a purely cinematic standpoint.

Do you know Arameic or will you guess what they`re saying?

Montcalm wrote:Do you know Arameic or will you guess what they`re saying?

I believe they decided to have subtitles, although, IIRC, Gibson insisted on not having any.

I thought it would be having subtitles now?

Montcalm wrote:Do you know Arameic or will you guess what they`re saying?

There are going to be subtitles.

Anyway, it wouldn't matter, as it's intended as a visual narrative.

The Pope's supposed quote "It is as it was" has been recently discovered to be untrue--a representative from the Vatican had originally reported the quote, but recently the vatican has said that the Pope never said such things.

And as far as i know, there will be subtitles, but i think limited--sort of the way silent movies had quote cards inserted for key pieces of information.

Could the Pope even sit through that? He is pretty bad off.

Jeremy wrote:Could the Pope even sit through that? He is pretty bad off.

Maybe they pumped him full of stimulants to keep him awake.

This is post #5555

Guys, the damn movie hasn't even come out yet, so how can you tell that it's boring?

Perhaps a lack of enthusiasm? I know I'm not looking forward to this movie, but then I don't look forward to any movies (except episode 3, which I'm still guarded about).

Spanky The Dolphin wrote:Guys, the damn movie hasn't even come out yet, so how can you tell that it's boring?

The story of Christ is pretty well-known in these parts, and for my money, it isn't really that interesting. People are always raving about how moving the story is, but when you think about it, it isn't vaguely moving unless you believe in the idea of a soul. Which I happen to not do.

And as far as watching the movie for its cinematic qualities goes, I don't know, dude...judging by Gibson's previous directorial efforts (Man Without a Face, Braveheart), I'm not really looking forward to this one. And since Gibson was apparantly the DP, the only other guy really lending to the visuals is Deschanel, the cinematographer, whose filmography isn't that impressive. Very melodramatic.
Sure, the flick'll be polished and well-made, but when you throw 25 mil at something nowadays, it had damn well better come out polished.

All in all, I'm not looking forward to this one. I'll rent it, considering that I get free rentals, but I'll be surprised if they achieve anything above "tolerable" with their combination of lame story and adequate filmmakers.