This 2000 year old event has had more than enough coverage from the various fields of art and books to satiate a thousand millennia |
I hate to say it, but money talks in this case. If the world didn't need another, I don't think it would have already made hundreds of millions of dollars. If people were really sick to death of hearing about it, why would they go? For every review I see like yours, I see another that is very appreciative. I think anything as obviously exploitive and tawdry would offend both Christians and non-Christians. For the most part the complaints I see are from people that already have a problem with modern religion as a whole, and frankly those aren't the people Gibson was making the movie for, anyway. I don't like a lot of 'chick' movies, but then again they weren't made for me, were they?
Though I have not seen the film, nor intend to |
Honestly, 'nuff said. I don't see your 'critique' as anything pertaining to the quality of the film, only about why you think it shouldn't have been made. You could have made the same points and never mentioned the content. I think in the end all the hubbub will have to bow to the overwhelming popularity of the film. You may not like it, but obviously there are a lot of people who have seen it who differ. People have tried to exploit religion many times and failed, so I think the religious people are the ones that best judge whether they are being exploited.