Change Your Image
TimVonKreitzhaus
Reviews
The Passion of the Christ (2004)
Takes the most important event in human history and reduces it to a gross-out film
I have so very many problems with The Passion of the Christ that I'm not really sure where to begin.
First of all, the movie's runtime would only be about an hour if it weren't for all the slow motion sequences. At a certain point, I started wondering if there was something wrong with my DVD player. All kidding aside, the almost constant use of slow motion loses its effectiveness and becomes little more than an aggravation after the first half-hour or so.
This brings me to my next gripe, which is that the film makes a gratuitous, sensationalized mockery of Christ's suffering. The torture scenes (filmed almost entirely in slow motion) are highly graphic, completely over-the-top, and 100-percent unbelievable as a direct result. As a Christian person, I believe that Jesus was God's messiah -- but I refuse to believe that Christ's body held 800-plus gallons of blood. If it had happened the way Mel Gibson portrays it in the film, Jesus would've died long before he ever made it to Golgotha. I'm not kidding, there was less Gore in Kill Bill.
But wait, there's more. Who knew that Satan was a bald, female druid who couldn't find a babysitter? I must've missed that part of the scripture. Actually, I could go on virtually forever about the many aspects of the film that have no scriptural basis, but I only have a thousand words to work with here.
Still another complaint I have is with how Judas' betrayal of Jesus was portrayed. Judas' actions were essential for Christ's sacrifice to be fulfilled, and I rather doubt that -- having served God's purpose -- Judas was condemned to hell for it, as Gibson would have us believe. It is my personal opinion that Judas, like all faithful sinners, was forgiven and received into joy.
Suffice it to say that The Passion of the Christ was a gross disappointment, and it frightens me how many people stand in awe of it. Christians should be offended by the non-scriptural licenses taken by Gibson, the gross-out factor, and the film's insultingly tedious progression. Not all of us out here in movieland are redneck peckerwoods who require that each device used in a film be cranked up to maximum cinematic amplitude in order to comprehend its meaning.
Hell's Angels '69 (1969)
Silly but nostalgic
Like many of the low-budget hippy/biker/exploitation films of the late '60s and early '70s, Hells Angels '69 is a stomach-turningly terrible piece of movie making. From shot selection to sound to the acting, virtually everything about this film will make the average movie-goer wince in agony. I won't even go into the plot, because it's so dumb that I'd lose I.Q. points just by attempting to explain it. Suffice it to say that it's a typical biker movie of the era with a totally lame caper thrown in.
When the idea for the film was initially pitched by its writer and eventual protagonist Tom Stern, it was turned down by every major studio he went to. To get the movie made, Stern had to finance most of it out of his own pocket, which makes one wonder what kind of "masterpiece" the guy thought he had written. It boggles the imagination.
The only redeeming aspect of Hell's Angels '69 is its plethora of classic custom choppers, the shots of which alone are more than enough to make most old school motorcycle enthusiasts go out and grab a copy for the nostalgia factor alone. Along those same lines, it's kind of surreal (albeit interesting) to see actual Hells Angels of the day playing themselves in the movie -- most notably a young, slender Sonny Barger, who gives one of the best performances in the film (which is not necessarily a compliment).
Bottom line: If you like old V-twin choppers and/or biker movies in general, you'll find at least some redeeming value in Hell's Angels '69. Otherwise, I don't recommend a viewing unless you just happen to surf across it on late night television.