We've done this one before, and my answer is the same now as then: The Passion of the Christ.
Is it the greatest film ever? No. But it's extremely well done, and the 50% score from critics on Rotten Tomatoes is a travesty.
That's wasn't a movie, that was a snuff film.
Crucifixion was an extremely violent and unpleasant experience. It's a theme artists have explored for centuries, but hasn't usually been easily accessible to more modern audiences. The film fills a void by hitting you over the head with the brutal reality of Jesus' death. The critics who dismissed it as a "snuff film" missed the point entirely.
Also, they were technically incorrect, which is the worst kind of incorrect, considering that Jim Caviezel is still very much alive.
It's all subjective .. but ... I think Stan Marsh was spot on.
We go to church to learn stuff (about religion). We go to (watch) movies to be entertained. That was 2 hours of a guy getting tortured. Not entertaining.
Want to learn about Jesus other than going to church? Attend a study, watch a documentary or read a book.
I've never cared about technical aspects of any artform, they don't define the art, they only enhance or ruin it. The story being presented is the most important thing, the creative ideas. That's what a move is, a graphic story.
An adaptation is supposed to show a different PoV, fill in gaps, introduce an opposite perspective, something interesting that wasn't there before.. while staying true to the message of the original. There was nothing there that hasn't been told before. They wanted to be shocking by making it bloody. Gore. Meh .. not very creative.
Adding gore to a biblical story as a hook is as bad as adding rom-com tropes to a epic hero story set in space. vbg
We've done this one before, and my answer is the same now as then: The Passion of the Christ.
Is it the greatest film ever? No. But it's extremely well done, and the 50% score from critics on Rotten Tomatoes is a travesty.
That's wasn't a movie, that was a snuff film.
Crucifixion was an extremely violent and unpleasant experience. It's a theme artists have explored for centuries, but hasn't usually been easily accessible to more modern audiences. The film fills a void by hitting you over the head with the brutal reality of Jesus' death. The critics who dismissed it as a "snuff film" missed the point entirely.
Also, they were technically incorrect, which is the worst kind of incorrect, considering that Jim Caviezel is still very much alive.
It's all subjective .. but ... I think Stan Marsh was spot on.
We go to church to learn stuff (about religion). We go to (watch) movies to be entertained. That was 2 hours of a guy getting tortured. Not entertaining.
Want to learn about Jesus other than going to church? Attend a study, watch a documentary or read a book.
I've never cared about technical aspects of any artform, they don't define the art, they only enhance or ruin it. The story being presented is the most important thing, the creative ideas. That's what a move is, a graphic story.
An adaptation is supposed to show a different PoV, fill in gaps, introduce an opposite perspective, something interesting that wasn't there before.. while staying true to the message of the original. There was nothing there that hasn't been told before. They wanted to be shocking by making it bloody. Gore. Meh .. not very creative.
Adding gore to a biblical story as a hook is as bad as adding rom-com tropes to a epic hero story set in space. vbg
1. It's not adding gore. The crucifixion was a gory event. It didn't need to be added.
2. You don't like the film, cool. I'm just saying people who dismiss it as "a snuff film" are not only incorrect but also lazy.