Millions of Movie-Goers Take Gibson Film "Far Too Seriously"

by coopers ligament Thu Jul 15, 2004 19:28

Fargo is a completely fictional plot, the movie however opens with a "this is a true story" caption. Several years after Fargo was made, a japanese girl who had seen the movie, made the long journey from her home town to Fargo, and went searching for the buried treasure _in the snow_.
She was found dead. (exposure) in her hand was the map she had made from careful study of the movie, and she had made an attempt to enlist local police help. But the sheriff's deputy who had taken her in (on account of only wearing a miniskirt and looking "cold") to her a few nights before her death spoke no japanese and could not hold her without charge.

by Denzel Thu Jul 15, 2004 21:10

If it's not an Urban Myth then that stupid bitch is up for a Darwin Award. Some people are just a waste of oxygen.

by xp Fri Jul 16, 2004 10:58

Comrades!

I have not seen this Mel Gibson film and i have no plans to go see it.

by redjade Fri Jul 16, 2004 11:05

Death in the snow
http://film.guardian.co.uk/features/featurepages/0,4120,970908,00.html

A body is found in the frozen North Dakota woods. The cops say the dead Japanese woman was looking for the $1m she saw buried in the film Fargo. But the story didn't end there....

by Dorian Gray Fri Jul 16, 2004 11:56 Dorian.Gray at hotmail dot com

The Passion of the Christ is nothing more than crude fascist propaganda that encourages superstitious ignorant faith in a non-existant god and blind obedience to a corrupt and oppresive institution.

Denzel, your warm humanity is touching.. that poor girl was someones sister or daughter. The Darwin Awards are extremely insensitve and callaous.

by Sean Walsh Fri Jul 16, 2004 13:53

Jesus was a sham. Barabas was the real Christ. Religon is farcical!! Religon holds the human race back!!

by the guy called satan Fri Jul 16, 2004 16:14

I could never work out why it was called The Passion of the Christ and not The Passion of Christ .What's the subtle nuance all about? Perhaps someone out of Catholic Worker might be able to explain it . Maybe the Ciaron fella.
I thought the world socialist website had the best review of the movie :
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2004/mar2004/pass-m05.shtml

by the merrovinginvanjan Fri Jul 16, 2004 20:19

It wasn't like his surname.

by Badman Fri Jul 16, 2004 20:25

The special effects won me over I must say. From now on badman is a devout worshipper of the christ. I used to worship rocks but the worship of a phantom tripartite palestinian man-god is much more credible.

Hubba-Jubba-Wubba (that's praise be to the man-god in tongues)

by gullible Fri Jul 16, 2004 22:29

foot washing?
vegetarian food?
chanting?
vivienne westwood?
reincarnation?
comfortable cars?
you can't trust these single issue Gurus.

by Yossarian Sat Jul 17, 2004 18:02

The reference to Jedi in the main story is completely incorrect. As far as I know, there was a campaign to have Jedi Knight included as an option for religion in the UK census (if they got more than 10,000 respondents putting it down as their religion or something like that). The idea was to take the piss out of that particular question in the census!

by a guy called satan Sun Jul 18, 2004 19:21

thanks for the info on that. Must brush up on my Armaic. Still, The Passion of The Annointed doesn't really make much more sense than Passion of Annointed, does it ? Maybe the film makers were just trying to sound mysterious and spooky .
Mel Gibson was well into the whipping and flaying thing in Braveheart as well if I remember rightly. Liked him in Chicken Run though.

by Moorewatch Mon Jul 19, 2004 12:51

as well.Everything that michael moore has put on film has been distorted to moores view of the USA.Blowing for Columbine broke every rule for the qualification as a documentary under the Oscar rules.Yet Moore has never been taken to task on this either. Farheniet 911 is more of Moores distortion of the facts.Yet no one takes fat man to task?

by Voice of Reason Mon Jul 19, 2004 15:18

American's were persuaded that Saddam Hussein was responsible for September 11. Bush managed to pass himself off as a liekable ordinary joe, rather than an American aristocrat. And Al Gore was successfully portrayed in people's minds as an eastern liberal absent minded professor. And just watch the American news (CBS, Fox, etc).

Its unfortunate, but I think some propaganda is needed to seep into Americans perceptions, balance their views. Moore's film is perfect for this.

by hilton edwards Mon Jul 19, 2004 22:42 uptomyhiltonedwards at rte dot ie

So, if the facts are distorted, how come he hasn't been sued? Be honest, you don't like Moore because you like Bush and Co, but haven't got the balls to say it.

by moorewatch Tue Jul 20, 2004 17:02

Moore is being sued.For fraud in the Oscars .Not that you would hear much about that in the media.
Funnily enough fatboy doesnt like his own tactics been used against him.He issued a barring order against a moviemaker who was "stalking " him to get an interview ala Roger and me.
He also charged a students union in Kansas $30000 to do an hour lecture in the university.
Moore is no more than another on the take Hollywood greedyboy.His down home working Joe image doesnt fool most people.Considering that he claims to live in a humble working house.That is only worth about $4.5 million[apart from gullible liberals who think everything he says is gospel].
Have a read of a new book coming out in ireland this month.
Michael Moore is a stupid fat white man
Give u an eye opener.
About having balls to say wether I like Bush or whomever......
Your point is that I am a raving right winger because I dont swallow bullshit whole?????

Voice of reason
Where do you get your news from.?
If Al Gore was in charge and 9/11 happened .Do you think the outcome would have been any different?Methinks not!If the intelligence was as flawed as it seems to be.Gore would have orderd the attack on Iraq as well.If he had refused,there would have been a quick removal of another president.Legally or otherwise.

by nordie Tue Jul 20, 2004 17:24

'Moore is being sued.For fraud in the Oscars .Not that you would hear much about that in the media.'

Is this the massive news story that you speak off? :

http://www.washingtondispatch.com/culture/archives/000400.html

What a world shaking event. Moore must be crapping it.

by Voice of Reason Tue Jul 20, 2004 17:29

" the intelligence was as flawed as it seems to be.Gore would have orderd the attack on Iraq as well."

What?
Bush's people were lobbying for action against Iraq before 9/11. After that event they began building the case for Iraq involvement in 9/11. The "intelligence" was only flawed because they got the answer they were looking for. I cant say Gore would have done a better job overall, I like to think he would. I dont think he would have attacked Iraq though because there wasnt a good enough reason to do so.

by Moorewatch Wed Jul 21, 2004 14:00

That is only one of the plantiffs.There is also the lawsuit against Moore brought by the film industry for the faked evidence in Blowing for Columbine which was supposed to be a "factual" documentary.
Try moorewatch.com for more on fat man.

As for Gore and evidence.If the intelligence agencies wanted the evidence to fit the crime,it would have been done.If Saddam was to be made out to be a very nice guy and a paragon of human virtue,any intell agency could have made him look so.
There was every reason to go to Iraq! After Afghanistan had been sorted out,more importantly. Trouble is Gore wouldnt have stayed the pace in Afghanistan nor when the proper time or reason came to go to Iraq would he do so.Gore was /is too self absorbed in trying to reduce greenhouse gas and other projects.
Have a read of his book on his plans for America. you would have to conclude that [a] He is a total Nut [b] deluded and idealistic [c] All of the above. Not exactly a man you want in control of the button.

by softer imperialism please Fri Jul 23, 2004 21:53

this idea, popular in Europe and among US liberals, that things reagarding Iraq would be different under Gore needs to be knocked on the head. By the reckoning of Iraq bodycount Bush's war has killed somewhere less than 30 000 Iraqis. Lets call it 50 000. Clinton Gore killed closer to 1 million (according to the UN) Iraqis without even formally going to war! So Gore's anti war strategies are actually far more lethal and murderous than the looney serial kilers around bush. But sanctions were a price that could be paid because it is industrial death on the cheap and it can be ignored cos no americans or white people are dying. this explains how people here in the US can send kerry their donations, embrace moores lack of analysis and pretend that a democrat in the whitehouse can actually improve things. the democrats and most of the left have now signed up to this idiocy. A kerry victory will change nothing in Iraq nor will it change the US's increasingly agressive posture towards iran. But perhaps those who believe that bush (a personality) is the problem will feel better. Thats what this sort of empty thinking amounts to, it is essentially an emotional response to a political crisis. It will also allow these liberals to feel betrayed, and so wronged and victimised, as Kerry continues the slaughter.

by Habibi Sat Jul 24, 2004 03:57

Those are figures put together by activists. If a donkey died of mange in Iraq it went on the list.

Clinto/Gore did not kill anyone. Saddam Hussein and the inept, corrupt UN are responsible for those deaths (a few thousands BTW, nowhere near a million).

Get your propaganda right Commies, you're losing the plot.

by Christina Biernacki Mon Apr 17, 2006 17:37 Biernacki at bigpond dot com P.O. BOX, BALWYN. Vic. 3103. AUSTRALIA. 0425761021

Mel; Gibsons film is a marvellous gift to future generations. When all religions begin to go haywire and mankind is confused about what the truth is, Gibsons's film will remain one of the most important documentations of all time.

This film is truth. Jesus was born Son of God, lived as a man, had the feelings of a man and felt the pain that any mortal man does. Yet at the same time he was God. He fulfilled his destiny, and that was to make humanity aware of how they were to behave and how they were to treat one another. He suffered the utmost of degradation and tortue and he did this willingly. He showed us what true humility and true love is. As quoted in the film "There is no greater love than a man lay down his life for his friends". Jesus did this for us. He took the burden and magnitude of the world's sin upon himself, wiped the slate clean that we may have eternal life. Jesus made this sacrifice. He is truly the Sacrifical Lamb filled with love and mercy and forgiveness for all of mankind, even those who smited him. Mel Gibson's masterpiece portrayed this message clearly and concisely.

It was painful to watch, stirred emotions deep within the well of one's soul, yet at the same time left you
with a feeling of understanding of the meaning of life. No one else in the history of mankind has done it better.

Christina Biernacki Melbourne Australia