dividebyzero
Joined Nov 2003
Welcome to the new profile
Our updates are still in development. While the previous version of the profile is no longer accessible, we're actively working on improvements, and some of the missing features will be returning soon! Stay tuned for their return. In the meantime, the Ratings Analysis is still available on our iOS and Android apps, found on the profile page. To view your Rating Distribution(s) by Year and Genre, please refer to our new Help guide.
Badges3
To learn how to earn badges, go to the badges help page.
Reviews6
dividebyzero's rating
Terrible.
Where to start..
Ok.
It's a fair interpretation of the last days of Jesus' life as according to the gospels. But it is so poorly carried out as to be insulting to the intelligence of the average movie goer.
For example, for some reason they decided to spell symbolism in bold capital letters. It wasn't symbolism so much as S*Y*M*B*O*L*I*S*M. Every time something symbolic would happen, the camera would zoom in and everything would go slow motion. This happened about every 45 seconds. Had the movie not used slow motion, it would have been about 55 minutes long. Bad symbolism ensures that an audience remains totally disconnected from a movie.
The music changed exactly as the story did, something that should only be reserved for pulp movies.
Satan was pretty cool. Unfortunately he/she was not given a context; you didn't really know why he/she was in those chosen scenes. Oh yeah..Gibson also decided to use deformed children and deformed babies to represent Satan's demons. Somewhat distasteful, and it was a pretty good example of S*Y*M*B*O*L*I*S*M that this movie tries to hit you with.
This movie had an unprecedented level of violence. I'm a horror fan and I've never actually seen a close up slow motion view of skin, blood, veins, muscle and fat being torn from a man's ribcage with a razor blade tipped whip. Until now. Basically, the movie is 2 hours of Jesus bleeding. Gorehounds would love this movie. It almost made me sick. It was sad to see that violence was the only way emotion was brought into the story. There was potential for much more. Maybe some acting would have helped? Or some decent dialogue?
Absolutely no context for the characters. Jesus is portrayed as a weepy pawn. Mary is portrayed as a helpless doting mother. The disciples are barely present and don't do much of anything. Judas was nothing but a backstabber.. they barely made him human (according to the Bible, he was the catalyst for the sacrifice; had he not done what he did, Jesus would have not been crucified and would not have been able to avert the apocalypse). The only character with any depth was Pontious Pilate.
The movie's format was problematic. Basically it tries to be a 'flashback' movie. You know, where the main story occasionally stops to explain something that happened in the character's past. But this movie does it so badly you end up confused. They're done at random and mostly have nothing to do with his current state of affairs. And unless you have a good understanding of the gospels you're lost in the flashbacks; they don't make it clear who he's talking to; what he's doing; or why he's doing it.
For example, there's a Mary Magdalene flashback that has only three short cuts: Jesus drawing a line in the sand, a bunch of rocks being thrown onto the ground, and a hand reaching for Jesus' foot. Ms. Magdalene was barely present in the movie, though I suppose the same could be said for the Bible. There's a short flashback with Lazerus' sister.... Amarian? (not sure if that's her name) that was presented with no backstory whatsoever. The random flashbacks looked like they were added in after the rest of the movie was done, and didn't help anything.
There are a few completely ridiculous aspects of the movie.
King Herod: Remember "Jesus Christ Superstar"? It's the same character. Exactly. He's a dirty, fat yippie. I waited for him to break out in song, yet I was disappointed.
Jesus's genitals: NOT PRESENT. I was astonished to see that he was not completely naked during crucifixion. I don't know what the MPAA was thinking. They showed him being beaten, whipped, stabbed, flogged, spiked and pierced, yet the didn't remove his loincloth prior to crucifixion!
Roman soldiers: The romans weren't known for tickling their prisoners to death, but they were known as a well trained and disciplined army. Every Roman except for Pilate and his wife Claudia (who were made out to be completely innocent and guilt ridden) were made out to be insubordinate drunken lunatics.
Anyways.. I had to see this movie. I was raised Catholic and educated in Catholic schools. My girlfriend is Anglican and we're both interested in all aspects of religion. I was curious to see how a modern interpretation of religious events would be carried visually. We were both let down in a big way. "Passion of The Christ" is only the story of a man bleeding to death. Nothing is explored, nothing is developed, nothing is explained, no message is present in the story.
Where to start..
Ok.
It's a fair interpretation of the last days of Jesus' life as according to the gospels. But it is so poorly carried out as to be insulting to the intelligence of the average movie goer.
For example, for some reason they decided to spell symbolism in bold capital letters. It wasn't symbolism so much as S*Y*M*B*O*L*I*S*M. Every time something symbolic would happen, the camera would zoom in and everything would go slow motion. This happened about every 45 seconds. Had the movie not used slow motion, it would have been about 55 minutes long. Bad symbolism ensures that an audience remains totally disconnected from a movie.
The music changed exactly as the story did, something that should only be reserved for pulp movies.
Satan was pretty cool. Unfortunately he/she was not given a context; you didn't really know why he/she was in those chosen scenes. Oh yeah..Gibson also decided to use deformed children and deformed babies to represent Satan's demons. Somewhat distasteful, and it was a pretty good example of S*Y*M*B*O*L*I*S*M that this movie tries to hit you with.
This movie had an unprecedented level of violence. I'm a horror fan and I've never actually seen a close up slow motion view of skin, blood, veins, muscle and fat being torn from a man's ribcage with a razor blade tipped whip. Until now. Basically, the movie is 2 hours of Jesus bleeding. Gorehounds would love this movie. It almost made me sick. It was sad to see that violence was the only way emotion was brought into the story. There was potential for much more. Maybe some acting would have helped? Or some decent dialogue?
Absolutely no context for the characters. Jesus is portrayed as a weepy pawn. Mary is portrayed as a helpless doting mother. The disciples are barely present and don't do much of anything. Judas was nothing but a backstabber.. they barely made him human (according to the Bible, he was the catalyst for the sacrifice; had he not done what he did, Jesus would have not been crucified and would not have been able to avert the apocalypse). The only character with any depth was Pontious Pilate.
The movie's format was problematic. Basically it tries to be a 'flashback' movie. You know, where the main story occasionally stops to explain something that happened in the character's past. But this movie does it so badly you end up confused. They're done at random and mostly have nothing to do with his current state of affairs. And unless you have a good understanding of the gospels you're lost in the flashbacks; they don't make it clear who he's talking to; what he's doing; or why he's doing it.
For example, there's a Mary Magdalene flashback that has only three short cuts: Jesus drawing a line in the sand, a bunch of rocks being thrown onto the ground, and a hand reaching for Jesus' foot. Ms. Magdalene was barely present in the movie, though I suppose the same could be said for the Bible. There's a short flashback with Lazerus' sister.... Amarian? (not sure if that's her name) that was presented with no backstory whatsoever. The random flashbacks looked like they were added in after the rest of the movie was done, and didn't help anything.
There are a few completely ridiculous aspects of the movie.
King Herod: Remember "Jesus Christ Superstar"? It's the same character. Exactly. He's a dirty, fat yippie. I waited for him to break out in song, yet I was disappointed.
Jesus's genitals: NOT PRESENT. I was astonished to see that he was not completely naked during crucifixion. I don't know what the MPAA was thinking. They showed him being beaten, whipped, stabbed, flogged, spiked and pierced, yet the didn't remove his loincloth prior to crucifixion!
Roman soldiers: The romans weren't known for tickling their prisoners to death, but they were known as a well trained and disciplined army. Every Roman except for Pilate and his wife Claudia (who were made out to be completely innocent and guilt ridden) were made out to be insubordinate drunken lunatics.
Anyways.. I had to see this movie. I was raised Catholic and educated in Catholic schools. My girlfriend is Anglican and we're both interested in all aspects of religion. I was curious to see how a modern interpretation of religious events would be carried visually. We were both let down in a big way. "Passion of The Christ" is only the story of a man bleeding to death. Nothing is explored, nothing is developed, nothing is explained, no message is present in the story.
This show is hilarious. The characters are great. The stories are original and funny as heck. The animation isn't squiggly, I don't know why people think it's like that; it's more of a nice rounded look.
People who enjoy more traditional American sitcoms (you know, where men and women act/think differently with hilarious consequences and there's a wacky next door neighbor) will hate this show. Which makes me like it more.
And anyone who ever obsessed over a hobby when they were a kid will totally relate to Brendan's life.
So at least check out the show; if you don't, it'll be time to pay the price.
People who enjoy more traditional American sitcoms (you know, where men and women act/think differently with hilarious consequences and there's a wacky next door neighbor) will hate this show. Which makes me like it more.
And anyone who ever obsessed over a hobby when they were a kid will totally relate to Brendan's life.
So at least check out the show; if you don't, it'll be time to pay the price.
I don't know what cartoons people are watching that have such "GREAT" animation. Mission Hill had rather average animation, at least on par with other adult-aimed comedy toons (Simpsons, Family Guy, Undergrads, Home Movies).
I thought the stories were funny, the characters were both believable and hilarious (who doesn't know a Jim), and the overall tone was laid back and fun. People who enjoy traditional American sitcoms (Friends, Frasier, Seinfeld, Home Improvements) will hate this show, mainly because a wacky thing doesn't happen every 15 seconds. And there's no helpful laughtrack.
Overall, I'd give it an 8/10 and I wish there had been more episodes. RIP, Mission Hill.
I thought the stories were funny, the characters were both believable and hilarious (who doesn't know a Jim), and the overall tone was laid back and fun. People who enjoy traditional American sitcoms (Friends, Frasier, Seinfeld, Home Improvements) will hate this show, mainly because a wacky thing doesn't happen every 15 seconds. And there's no helpful laughtrack.
Overall, I'd give it an 8/10 and I wish there had been more episodes. RIP, Mission Hill.