7 Excellent But Morally Problematic Movies

The Passion of the Christ 7 Excellent But Morally Problematic Movies

Movies possess a power over popular culture, one that is diminishing but nevertheless impossible to ignore. They have the ability to broadly influence people in a way that perhaps no other form of art/entertainment is currently able to do. With that great power, it is said, subsequently comes great responsibility. So for as long as it has been culturally significant, film has for many people been the subject of a certain moral requirement, that it should teach its huge audiences how to be righteous while it entertains their attention.

Plenty of casual and professional critics have offered their opinions on movies largely based upon the how effectively they deliver a sound moral message. To an extent, everyone does this. It’s tough to like a movie when you find its dominating theme completely repellant. There are many, myself included, that can’t take the show 24 seriously largely because of its insistence that torture is awesome (I also don’t find it interesting enough to sustain a 24-“hour” season). More recently, Zero Dark Thirty has also caused many to question its portrayal and attitude toward torture. Other recent hits like Django Unchained have sparked debates over violent depictions in movies and the complications around hailing violent movies as great.

In the latter two cases, I think the objections are unfounded because both of them deal with their central moral conundrums in interesting ways. But is it possible for a movie to excellent at the same time that it is morally disgusting? Can we be of two minds, that a film is excellent in its filmmaking and artistry, but repugnant in its ideas? I say yes, based on several experiences with movies that I find incredible as well as incredibly foul. It’s a weird and troublesome duality to try and deal with, but that just makes it fun to think and talk about. Here are 7 instances of morally problematic movies I’ve seen that fall into this category, and have left me conflicted.

Continue reading on the next page…

Next

1: The Birth of a Nation

Birth of a Nation 7 Excellent But Morally Problematic Movies

This is the one most people cite as enormously important to movie history and also one of the most despicable movies ever made. Calling it “great” may not be entirely accurate, as by now it’s so terribly dated that most people I’ve talked to who have tried to watch it can’t make it through the entire 3 hours of silent, black and white action. But its significance is undeniable, pioneering many of the elements we now take for granted as norms of cinematic narrative-making including camera movement, color tinting, musical scoring, all these things we now associate with the standards of filmmaking. It was essentially the first to combine these in a cohesively effective way. I’ll take the experts word for it that it was, for its time, one of the greatest films ever made.

The problem is that it’s racist, just horribly, horribly racist. I’m not sure how it could have been not racist given that it’s based on a book called The Clansman: An Historical Romance of the Ku Klux Klan. Seems pretty destined for racism to me. It basically rewrites American history so that the only thing that restored order to the United States after black people selfishly launched a Civil War was the honor and dignity and bravery of the KKK. That’s all really messed up. Oh, and the black characters are played by white men in blackface. Quentin Tarantino’s KKK scenes in Django Unchained are his way of flipping off director DW Griffith for contributing Birth of a Nation to the world. I’m less conflicted about how I feel about this movie probably because I’m too far removed from the time period and unable to relate to just how revolutionary it was when it was made. All I can see in it is the racism, and all I hear are my own thoughts about how racist it is. So maybe it doesn’t neatly fit the spirit of the list as I imagined it, but it has to be mentioned in any discussion of great-yet-wow-that-is-seriously-awful movies.

Continue reading on the next page…

Previous Next

2: The Passion of the Christ

Passion of the Christ 7 Excellent But Morally Problematic Movies

This movie is probably the first one that really made me come to terms with the idea that horribly offensive images and philosophies can still be made into great art. It may not have been clear to me at first—I lived a, shall we say, sheltered adolescence and so I didn’t find anything wrong with Mel Gibson’s Passion when it came out—but since learning that he’s a raging anti-Semite with violent tendencies and revenge fantasies far less cartoonish than you’d get from someone like Tarantino, I’ve concluded that this film is awful.

The hints of portraying Jewish children as demons and absolving Pontius Pilate and having the Jewish leaders declare the blood of the messiah shall forever be on their children somehow seemed innocent until the news of Gibson’s racist tirades came to light, then it was like ok, maybe there’s something to the overwhelming amount of racial issues people have noticed in his movie.

That’s nothing to say of the theology of the movie, which basically says the worse Christian imagines Jesus’ suffering to be, the more meaningful it is. That’s pretty extreme, though more widely held than those outside the community may realize. So that’s problematic too. But I imagine if I agreed with this theology, and found it meaningful, well this is probably as beautiful a depiction of this suffering and the emotion carried by that suffering that perhaps there could ever be.

Gibson’s personally a mess, but his knack for visual storytelling speaks for itself, as it does from the gorgeous opening shots of The Passion of the Christ, right through the tactile realism of the brutal torture scenes, all the way to the ending (spoiler: resurrection!). Seriously though, the empty tomb scene is kind of beautifully handled. Such expert filmmaking put to such twisted ends is saddening.

Continue reading on the next page…

Previous Next

3: Dumbo

Dumbo 7 Excellent But Morally Problematic Movies

Many opinion-makers insist that Snow White, the one that started it all, is Disney’s best animated film. I say this was only true until Pinocchio came out three years later. But the one movie that was the apex of Disney’s early animated years is, to my mind, Dumbo, which combines the bizarre experimentalism best demonstrated by the “Pink Elephants on Parade” sequence with the beautiful and devastating “Baby Mine” montage, featuring Mrs. Jumbo rocking Dumbo with her trunk through the metal bars behind which she has been caged. Heartbreaking stuff.

It would be a nearly perfect movie if not for the awkward racial components, including the fact that all the circushands are black guys who don’t have faces for some odd reason, but more famously, the Jim Crow scene. Yes, it’s important to the movie that birds talk about Dumbo the elephant learning to fly. I’m not entirely sure what statement they’re trying to make by depicting these birds as crows, with their leader going by the name of Jim, and having them speak in jive and act as classic black stereotypes. Most commentators seem to find this racist, and I’m in no position to offer a strong counterargument. It seems more odd than anything to me, as if the filmmakers were trying for something and it just fell flat and ended up like a failed Michael Richards routine. I find it less nefarious than the awful racism of later movies Peter Pan and The Jungle Book, but still kind of puts a damper on how sweet the rest of the movie is.

Continue reading on the next page…

Previous Next

4: JFK

JFK 7 Excellent But Morally Problematic Movies

I don’t know how this movie works. I mean, I don’t know how it works so effectively when the material is basically conspiratorial nonsense. The movie clocks in at over 3 hours, but when I watched it, it passed by in a flash. It’s Oliver Stone at the peak of his game, detailing three decades’ worth of investigative work and paranoid speculation but somehow making it more than just mildly compelling; it’s completely enthralling. If movies can earn points for creative difficulty, this one deserves enormous credit for its success in pulling off this story without making it seem like it’s coming from a bearded man shouting at you on a street corner.

When I watched it, and this is perhaps a testament to my gullibility or the film’s skill or a healthy portion of both, I started to wonder whether there was any truth to what Kevin Costner was earnestly arguing before my eyes. Then I went online and everyone was like “Yeah….no.” So that was settled. But what does that mean for assessing the film? Do we dismiss it as a fun experiment or fantasy like National Treasure? I think JFK almost belongs in a class of its own, serving as an interesting account of a type of thinking that has been all but discredited but can still be fun to think about. The complicated business comes when you consider the extent to which it could legitimately mislead people into suspecting a government cover-up and fuel even more delusions. This puts it in potentially problematic territory, but 22 years after its release, I don’t think it has had any profound negative effects.

Continue reading on the next page…

Previous Next

5: Rocky IV

%name 7 Excellent But Morally Problematic Movies

The Rocky saga can maybe serve as an analogy for America itself: it starts off with a masterwork, follows it up with a few hiccups but stays on a pretty solid course, and then starts to veer away to the point where it’s just trying to live up to its initial greatness once more. And to continue the analogy, maybe the starting point wasn’t perfect to begin with, but I maintain that the original Rocky is a pretty beautifully told story of resilience and redemption. The second film does a good job following up and capping off the original, then the third one tries to recreate the first two films condensed into one, and then it flies off the rails.

There were elements of hardcore patriotism in the first 3 movies, the third one ramping it up higher than ever, but Rocky IV takes it to another dimension, serving essentially as a pure Cold War propaganda film. The anti-Soviet, pro-US sentiment is layered on so thick that it comes off as completely comical to contemporary viewers. The efforts of Rocky V and then Rocky Balboa are actually quite noble, but the brand was already sullied by the story’s detour into Cold War politics. Despite this, the first two films, particularly the original, are wonderful.

Continue reading on the next page…

Previous Next

6: Being Elmo: A Puppeteer’s Journey

Being Elmo1 7 Excellent But Morally Problematic Movies

This is one instance where hindsight is a killer. Being Elmo: A Puppeteer’s Journey was one of my favorite documentaries from 2011, telling the story of Kevin Clash’s enduring love of the Muppets and Sesame Street and chronicling his journey toward realizing his dream of being a professional puppeteer at the Jim Henson Company. It’s tremendously engaging and captures the magic of the Muppets for the generations that grew up on Jim Henson’s work. Clash comes off as a delightful, determined individual who overcame some big obstacles to get his puppet to his spot in the Muppet pantheon.

Since the news of Clash’s legal issues involving sex with minors, I’m more conflicted on how to evaluate this documentary, which paints a very flattering and rosy picture of who Kevin Clash is, both as a professional and as a person. While they remain allegations, I’m curious to know whether the filmmakers behind this documentary knew about the situation, which would either call into question a decision to edit that part of his story out, or their glossing over fairly big revelations in their research, resulting in a portrait of pure veneration rather than trying to understand a complicated figure.

Continue reading on the next page…

Previous Next

7: Every movie Roman Polanski has made since 1977

Roman Polanski Carnage 7 Excellent But Morally Problematic Movies

It’s fairly common knowledge for people familiar with Roman Polanski’s work that he can’t work in the United States because he’s wanted for statutory rape of a 13-year-old girl dating back to the 1970s. There’s all sorts of complications surrounding the case that are laid out nicely in the documentary Roman Polanski: Wanted and Desired but the truth remains, from the facts I can gather, that what he did was pretty awful. Really, really awful. So it puts those of us who are fans of his work in an awkward position when we eagerly anticipate his next film, which he makes overseas in fear of being extradited to the States. I love The Pianist, The Ghost Writer, and Carnage to pieces, they are brilliant pieces of work, but the moral dilemma remains that they’ve all been made under some morally tenuous circumstances.

I can’t determine how much that actually takes away from the quality of the works made by Polanski, or any of these film examples. Considered objectively, it would seem like it would be easy to just say they’re excellent and end the discussion there. But it’s impossible to consider them objectively if we’re honest with ourselves. A film whose morals we completely agree with and get excited about because they’re so right will always be judged more positively than one whose morals we find deplorable. Is this right when evaluating art? Or even when evaluating what entertains us? The impossibility of answering the question one way or another for me supports the notion that it’s one of those paradoxical cases where the beauty put into the world by an artist or entertainer cannot be completely cancelled out by a context of advocating morals we disagree with, but to some degree it compromises them. This is appropriately unsatisfying I think.

Previous
   
Promoted Content
  • solgazer

    oh you went online to check the validity of the JFK conspiracy. oh well. well done then. well researched sir. tip of the hat to your investigative brilliance.
    you meat puppet.
    the book and investigative journalism this film is based on were slightly more rigorous in their approach than you have been.
    you absolute meat puppet.

    • Darren Ruecker

      I assure you that the conclusion “Yeah…no” is a direct quote from a thorough, peer-reviewed study.

      • Edward La Guardia

        That may be true to but I think what the solgazer was trying to say (even though he didn’t say it very nicely) is that Stone presents so many different arguments that it is pretty much impossible for anyone to discredit all of them…and if only one of them is true then it means there was a conspiracy of some kind.

        No matter if it was tons of people or just Oswald and one other person. The point is that people cannot deny that too many things lined up a little too perfectly leading to Kennedy’s death.

        Even the House held an investigation a decade in the 70′s and they concluded that there it was likely that there was more than one shooter.

      • Kang the Unbalanced

        You forgot the accompanying ironic chuckle and eyeroll.

  • Fernando Yanmar

    you forgot to mention the incredibles, despite being amazing it has the most confusing morals i’ve seen on an animated picture, i meam, syndrome was only trying to be like mr. incredible, but got kicked out of it by his own hero

    • janegray

      It’s an Objectivist allegory.

  • Will

    The passion of the Christ issues that make everyone so mad are all from the bible. I’m not saying the bible is does’t have its dark points or anything but the racist tendencies in it are just what is written. Gibson didn’t make them up to put Jewish people in a bad light, he just made the movie based off the bible.

    • http://www.facebook.com/rob.lamoreux Rob Bammin Lamoreux

      Umm the issues that irritated me weren’t racist at all…they were things he added in unnecessarily. If you are going to make a story based on a much-read book, don’t add to it. Mary cleaning up Jesus blood, Jesus getting 91 lashes when 29 was the Roman maximum, the temple splitting in half, the crow pecking the thief’s eyes, the demon children scaring Judas into hanging himself with the rope that tied off the (now dead and rotting?) donkey Jesus rode into Jerusalem, Jesus getting knocked off the wall of Gethsemane, Jesus getting flipped over on the cross multiple times, Satan either laughing or screaming in anger in hell after Jesus death (heck if I could tell which it was)….the list goes on. This movie was a snuff film with indeterminable symbolism scattered throughout.

      • Jason

        And yet all of this is in the Bible. You would be surprised what’s there my friend.

        • DJ

          not in any non-catholic translations it isn’t. A curtain split in half, not the whole temple (destroyed much later), 39 lashes, no one knows where Judas got the rope to hang himself with (but the donkey thing makes it interesting), and it says nothing anywhere about Satan having an emotional reaction to anything. Not at any point in the bible.

        • LCD

          I HAVE TO AGREE WITH ROB. I have read my Bible in the 16th century version (King James, English ) and I’m not surprised at the inhumanity of man and their so-called inspired interpretation of the Judeo-Christian God. And since I don’t know you I can’t call you a friend or a brother but perhaps a fellow traveler on the road of life. LCD

          • OniRaptor

            You read the Bible in the 16th Century? Ah, the stories you must be able to tell from personal experience over the past 300 years. Or, did I get that wrong and you actually took your Bible to the 16th Century to read it.

            Sometimes, the details are very important.

        • OniRaptor

          well I have read the book, several different versions, corollaries, and textes written by theologians and historians over the past 30 years. I have also read a great many others books on the times and cultures. There is absolutely nothing in the Old or New Testament surprising, nor much that is actually even unique. the Gibson movie was historically inaccurate in even unimportant details. the only reason that I could even see to it being made is that if you put the names “Mel Gibson” and Jesus” together you are bound to make a great deal of money. That it didnt just shows that most people arent as gullible or uneducated as it is commonly believed.

    • janegray

      I don’t remember the parts of the Bible that painted Jews as evil.

      • Steve

        Well, Christ called them “White-Washed Tombs” and a “Den of Vipers”…And He was a Jew…so I suppose He is qualified to voice an opinion.

        • janegray

          I’d need some specific verses so I can see for myself. But, Jesus being a Jew, and, being a guy who was seeking a different way, it’s hard for me to see that as “racism written into the Bible.” He didn’t actually stop being Jewish, just as Luther didn’t stop being Catholic even as he was founding the basis of what would become Lutheranism.

          • Kang the Unbalanced

            That is an interesting question, isn’t it? Peter and Paul and other figures in the early Christian church had that same debate; is this an outgrowth of Judaism or something new? Was Christ a Jew or had he transcended it? The eventual decision was that Christ had overturned the old ways, one didn’t have to become a Jew first to be a Christian (thus skipping that whole circumcision thing) and that while Jesus was born a Jew, he became something else and therefore it was OK (in some psychotic bastards’ eyes) to revile and despise the Jews.

          • janegray

            But if that was the case, why would they keep so much of the Torah and incorporate it into the Bible? I mean, I realize that’s why they thought it was okay, I just find it odd that they’d keep all that and then declare that Christianity was something completely separate and different.

          • california

            Jesus didn’t become something else. You seriously need to research before you comment on the internet. Jesus WAS always of jewish beliefs, he just started teaching new ways of life and behavior. Although he did transcend that religion he never intended to create another one. Catholicism and other forms of Cristianism were, ironically, created by the romans.

          • Kang the Unbalanced

            Pardon me. I think we have a misunderstanding. I will start with your absolutely correct points.
            From scripture, there is no question that Jesus was not only an ethnic Jew but an actively practicing Jew, and I did not say that he was anything else, but that the founders of the Christian church did debate this.
            From scripture, in his own words, or at least as well as those who wrote them down decided to remember them, Jesus did not intend to overturn or replace Judaism but to fulfill it; what he sought to overturn was the spiritually bankrupt and oppressive hierarchy of the temple at that time. (I’m oversimplifying, I know.)
            The point I was making was not about what Jesus actually was, but about what his followers and spiritual inheritors thought he should be. A lot of it was aimed at bringing Gentiles into the budding Christian church, widening their demographic. Marketing. No one, Paul especially, wanted to drive off potential converts with all that foreskin-snipping and dietary restrictions and all. The eventual conclusion that they came to was Jesus fulfilled the Jewish religion, thus making it superfluous, and sure he was Jewish, but he wasn’t really a Jew but had gone beyond it, son of God and all that, and therefore converts could skip the bar mitzvah and jump straight to the wine and crackers.
            Interesting enough, this all gave the Greeks a great deal of influence in the early church, since they were the first transcribers of the books of the new testament. It’s not like they rewrote or drastically altered the text, but any good study bible will show how the choice of words in translation greatly influences the meaning. The Romans may have made Christianity hip and trendy, but the real roots of kataholos Kristos, the Catholic church, were Greek.

          • MikeH

            Matthew 27:22-25

          • janegray

            The part where other Jews called for Christ to be crucified is not in dispute, nor, frankly, does it paint Jews as evil.

          • theKYrose

            Verses to show what Jesus thought about the Jewish leaders around him?

            Matthew 23:27
            “Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You are like whitewashed tombs, which look beautiful on the outside but on the inside are full of the bones of the dead and everything unclean.

            Matthew 3:7
            But when he saw many of the Pharisees and Sadducees coming to where he was baptizing, he said to them: “You brood of vipers! Who warned you to flee from the coming wrath?

            Matthew 12:34
            You brood of vipers, how can you who are evil say anything good? For the mouth speaks what the heart is full of.

            Matthew 23:33
            “You snakes! You brood of vipers! How will you escape being condemned to hell?

            Luke 3:7
            John said to the crowds coming out to be baptized by him, “You brood of vipers! Who warned you to flee from the coming wrath?

            Matthew 6:2
            “So when you give to the needy, do not announce it with trumpets, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and on the streets, to be honored by others. Truly I tell you, they have received their reward in full.

            Matthew 6:5, Matthew 6:16, Matthew 15:7, Matthew 22:18, Matthew 23:13, Matthew 23:15, Matthew 23:23, Matthew 23:25, Mark 7:6,Luke 12:56,Luke 13:15,

      • Alex Figueroa

        The Jews where the ones responsible for Christs death….duh..

        • steve

          wasn’t it the Romans who crucified him?

          • janegray

            They did, but the story goes is that there were two dudes named Jesus, Jesus Barabbas and the Jesus who came to be called Christ. Pilate brought them before the crowd and asked them who should be crucified, and the crowd said to let Barabbas go and crucify Jesus Christ instead, likely because they’d been told that he was claiming to be their king. According to the Gospels, all kinds of crazy shit went down on Golgatha and a new religion was born.

          • theKYrose

            It wasn’t just a chance happening. God was perfecting his covenant with mankind. His original covenant left too much to chance…people were too far from him by ritual and their hearts. It all goes back to their liberation from Egypt. Israellites emerged from Egypt with a lot of contamination God had to deal with. He had to make such a complicated set of laws. Every rest stop had them squalling to go back to slavery….go back to what was familiar. They had all sorts of ideas and practices God hadn’t intended. So, he HAD to give the most complicated set of instructions I’ve ever heard of…whole chapters in Numbers & Leviticus devoted on how big to make it, what materials to use, what sort of fabric and who to make the temple of the meeting. It seems that he had to take them all back to square 1…treat them like that to get them out of the mindset they’d been in for a few hundred years. They wavered and slipped many times on the way to the Promised Land. Once there, they even began a cycle of sin, get a judge, ask forgiveness and ask for a King, then sin again and start it all over again. Sin, Judge, repent,King, sin again. The New Testament was to fulfill his will. He created a new covenant. It was much more simple and easy to follow. No more burnt offerings, no more yearly sacrifices for the whole group. It became as easy as 1 person simply repenting…and having the Kingdom of God at their fingertips. No more middle man. God took it from a religion to a relationship. The next part of it…is that PEOPLE have made it a million times more complicated than it is. Because they had free will, people took the unity and simple nature of the early church and have done everything BUT adhere to what God intended. Regardless of the fact that people have twisted God’s will, we still must strive to discern his will in our lives. We need to seek him and find out what we need to do for him, not necessarily huge numbers of people who THINK they are doing his will….people that led the Spanish Inquisition, people that kept slaves in the US…people that have created large churches, with new, elaborate rituals….no meat or cheese during…..XXX days….lie down on the floor 35 times to welcome the MET. Big Wig. These people today have made up a whole mess of new rituals, proscribed behavior….anything and everything other than what God intended.

          • Eric Novak

            Yep, the Romans did crucify him… meaning that BOTH the Jews and the Gentiles were responsible. As for Pilate, all he cared about was keeping his position, he could give a rat’s rear end about killing an innocent man.

          • james

            hmm yet they say the Jews are the guilty party

          • theKYrose

            The Romans carried out the sentence. The Jews were the ones who held a trial in the middle of the night. They condemned him to death for “Blasphemy”. They then went to Pilate. They relied on the mob rule scenario. They ranted, raved and this threatened to make things get a whole lot uglier. The Romans did knuckle under in a last-ditch attempt to prevent mass chaos.

        • janegray

          Okay, but if the Jews hadn’t told Pilate to take Christ instead of Barabbas we wouldn’t even be having this idiotic conversation. According to your own dogma, Jesus had to die, it was his destiny.

          • Hoho

            not his destiny, but Gods grace for us humans to have an opportunity of repent and salvation. You… ‘now days’ can see that we are not worthy of that grace; because by generations we forget and ignore what was told.

          • janegray

            That happened when a bunch of deeply corrupt humans decided for everyone what was the Word and what wasn’t and then refused to let anyone else read for themselves what they decided on. It has little to do with “now days.” And considering that the people who claim to know the true Word tend to ignore it when it suits them, I’m really hard pressed to think that God’s grace is the answer.

          • theKYrose

            I, for one, don’t happen to know a whole mess of ancient languages. It might be nice to be able to translate the ancient scrolls…if someone were to let me, but at some point, MANY of our most cherished works are in languages we don’t speak, or languages anyone rarely speaks in this century. I’ve seen pictures of Shakespeare’s handwriting…and…though I can muddle out some words and sentences in Old English….*his* writing was an absolute mess. That doesn’t mean we should just throw out anything we can’t decipher ourselves. I believe in the law, and the Constitution of the US….I just don’t have happened to have ever seen the original document.

        • CrouchingWeasel

          To be accurate all of mankind was responsible for Jesus’ death. Yes many of the Jewish people called for his death but ultimately he died because of our sins.

      • theKYrose

        They aren’t painted as evil in the Bible. They are described as being a people that had very different ideas than God. He wanted to be their King. They demanded a King to see and talk to….thus came King Saul…..dude went bad….power corrupted. God sent them a Savior to save them from sin….1 last sacrifice for all time. They wanted a conquering hero to rub out the Romans and make them the “haves” instead of the “have-nots” and rejected Jesus because he didn’t come galloping through snorting fire and belching out violence towards their suppressors. Because he didn’t fit their idea of a Savior, they wanted to shut him up and be done with him. Their BEHAVIOR condemns them. Some may see them as evil because the readers of the Bible DO know who he is.

        In General, about many movies on this list: just because a particular film was made in a certain historical period and reflects practices of that time doesn’t mean it’s to be emulated or otherwise applauded today. Yes, slavery is an abomination, like a couple of modern practices, but that doesn’t mean we can’t appreciate Gone With The Wind for what it is. It is a movie about fictional people in an ugly period of time….a time that included slavery & the Civil War.
        Also, the writer of the main article just seems like a mealy-mouthed, gutless little worm. Oh, he liked the movie once…but OHHHHHH! The director broke the law…..”oooooh…I’d better say I hate it just to make everyone else feel better about me.” Gutless, spineless little worm.

        • Robert Orozco

          ^That’s kinda how I feel about him. He is like a religious person who hates gay people cuz well the rest of his crowd does and he doesn’t want to be different. but in this case his people are pc or whatever its called now.

    • Christopher Luther

      Most of what was in the film is not in the Bible. The Bible is about Jesus’ teachings, not the manner in which he was killed or the people who killed him, which are both entirely beside the point—Jesus stood in for all mankind when he died on the cross, giving everyone, including those who killed him, a chance for redemption.

      For the record, I am an atheist, so what the Bible says is of little importance to me—it only matters how people interpret it and how that interpretation informs their actions.

      • Knybee

        You may say that you are an atheist, but you have a very good grasp of the Gospel. Ironic.

        • OniRaptor

          why should someone not have a “good grasp” of the tenets of a culture just because they arent part of that culture. We study lots of mythologies and cultural specific events and understand them just fine.

          • Knybee

            No, I may study your family, but you would be the first to say that I don’t “know them” just because I did. The personality of God is not a culture to be studied, just the same as you are an individual with specific life experiences that only you and God know of. For a third party to suppose certain things about you then from study is conjecture not the truth.
            I was talking to Christopher of the deeper truths of God.

          • OniRaptor

            You are incorrect and also wrong.
            in fact you are pretending their is a distinction that does not actually exist.
            studying your family does allow me not only to understand them but to, but a small degree of failure, understand how they will react to situations. the details are irrelevant. the basic information is still valid regardless. to believe you are unknowable simply because another person is not you is arrogance beyond the pale.

      • theKYrose

        The manner in which he was killed wasn’t in the Bible? Have you EVER even glanced through the 4 gospels of the New Testament? It gives very clear details…being flogged, his beard being plucked out…etc. What the Bible doesn’t include, historic record *does*. Crucifixion victims were stripped naked and nailed up in a manner that prevented them from being able to take a deep breath. After the horrific beatings some didn’t make it to be crucified. They were pierced through their feet bones, wrist bones and left there to suffocate…a long agonizing, painful death. Because their “holy day” was approaching and they needed to clear up unfinished business so they could go “be holy”, they pierced his side with a spear just to make sure he was good and dead. being beaten-in the Bible. The Pharisee conspiracy-in the Bible (in detail) Jesus’ trials-in the Bible…crucifixion-in the BIBLE.

        CHRISTOPHER LUTHER: You “say” you’re an atheist. IF you really are and IF you have the guts…. read A Case For The Creator and A Case For Christ. If you are going to say you don’t believe in something, take a look @ what another “atheist” wrote. Someone challenged him. Before you dismiss it all….look at what Lee Stroebel did. He examined everything logically, researched it….looked at what people base their beliefs on. If indeed you are an atheist, and if you aren’t a coward or some spoiled child throwing a tantrum to get attention, I DARE YOU TO READ THOSE 2 BOOKS.

        • Christopher Luther

          I said the Bible is not ABOUT the manner in which he was killed—certainly not primarily, anyway. Plenty of people were crucified by the Romans; it doesn’t make them any more worth paying attention to than the next guy who was killed in a brutal manner. The crucifixion was the fulfillment of Jesus’ duty of paying the penance for all of mankind’s sin, but his teachings are more important because, if you’re a Christian, following them is the only way to make his death meaningful.

          I haven’t read that book and I’m not about to hand Mr. Strobel my money, but I’ll try to find or borrow a copy. However, looking at Wikipedia, it sounds as if the people he “interviewed” rely entirely on arguments I’ve heard before, none of them particularly compelling.

    • Eustace Cromartie

      LMAO!

      ” racist tendencies in it are just what is written”

      Pure bullshit, my friend!

      There is no racism in the Bible at all. But man has changed it to put his own bigotry in it. It has been changed and manipulated hundred of times over the years by man to include all kinds of false doctrine. The King James version is a joke at best. But they don’t teach people that, so people get taught racism and hatred and believe it is the work of God. I live in the south I see this BS everyday. People denying racism exist while citing their own racist beliefs as proof. For example they teach their children the God cursed Ham and that black people are the descendants of ham so they are cursed. When the original and first many version never mention any color. It was not God but Noah who cursed Ham’s son Canaan. But the bigots many years ago started teaching the lie and at some point they added the belief that you can tell where each race of people came from according to the Bible.

      • Knybee

        Actually the King James version, I have found, to be the purest. And just so you know an attribute of God, He is Almighty. Not half mighty or three quarters mighty. No man can take anything out of His hands. Not even all men rushing at Him could do so. If God in the past has struck people down, by deafness, blindness, lunacy, or even death (as in the scriptural case of Annanias and Sapphira), who do you think can change or alter His scriptures without Him being able to stop it from happening? Do you know of someone greater or stronger than God?
        I agree that over time He has allowed false versions to test us, but the King James version was done by King James according to Gods ways. And if you understand the difference between a true foundation and a false foundation in any work, you would understand from other historical documents that King James had the blessing of God to undertake such a task. He put it in the hands of holy and devout men. But tell me, where does the King James version say that the descendants of Ham were black? Don’t mix apples and oranges. If some versions have it wrong don’t yourself add condemnation to those that don’t.
        And one more very important thing for you to consider. There is no sin of racism in the Bible. It was called hating your brother. The sin of racism is a new sin created by those who think that by calling it something else they are somehow immune to committing it. It’s a devils ploy to divide. And it’s working very well, isn’t it?

    • Luke Elliot

      The bible implies that the Jewish leaders were corrupt with power and greedy for money with the market sellers outside the temple. I don’t think the bible says that Jews are evil but the Jewish leaders at the time were not nice people.

      • OniRaptor

        OMG, someone who actually paid attention when they were reading.
        Do you realize that you are like a passenger pigeon in the middle of Times Square.

        • Luke Elliot

          “What’s the point of being religious if you don’t pay attention to all the sub-text to your religious teachings?” Thats what I was raised on and when I read the bible I bear that in mind. Such a shame to see so many people mis-interoperate their faiths both in the past and today.

  • skunkybeaumont

    The KKK wasn’t in Django Unchained. There was a large group of goons on horseback with bags covering their heads but no KKK.

    • youidiot

      they were KKK it’s pretty obvious. Just because no on introduced them as such doesn’t mean they weren’t in fact it’s quite obvious to everyone except idiots like yourself

      • Guest

        They’re not KKK because the KKK didn’t exist yet. They were just a lynch mob.

        • maryag

          You have got to be kidding me.. It’s implied that they are KKK please. Think of them as an early version.

      • skunkybeaumont

        entirely too late but still gonna do it:

        The KKK wasn’t a thing until AFTER slavery (1865-1870, somewhere in there). They were founded specifically to support the white land owners who needed to protect their land (and daughters apparently) from the recently freed black men who would come do abhorrent things. Just watch ‘Birth of a Nation’.

      • skunkybeaumont

        entirely too late but still gonna do it:

        The KKK wasn’t a thing until AFTER slavery (1865-1870, somewhere in there). They were founded specifically to support the white land owners who needed to protect their land (and daughters apparently) from the recently freed black men who would come do abhorrent things. Just watch ‘Birth of a Nation’.

    • Kang the Unbalanced

      I think my sarcasm detector is malfunctioning?

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=746875316 Jon ‘Jonny’ Preece

    but…but….crows ARE black

    • merchant

      there was once an albino crow.

    • skunkybeaumont

      see above

  • BudaSideHero

    Seriously, critics should get over this whole racism thing. Oh, racism here, racism there, blablabla. Come on, the movies you refer as racist were made in an era where the term racism didn’t even exist! Of course I am not saying racism is something we shouldn’t judge awful, it’s just that those were different times. I find it very hypocrite to refer to great films as awful ones just because they depicted things in a way which today is called poitical incorrectness.
    An concerning Gibson or Polanski, in my opininon it is a very, very way of judging art by the acts of the artist. It’s just not fair.

    • Ghoul

      Re: Polanski.

      Well, people have turned a blind eye to the deplorable crime Polanski committed because he’s such a “great artist”, so…

      • Elton

        If I understood it right, Polanski didn’t RAPE the girl (had sex with her against her will) – it’s automatically COUNTED as rape because he had sex with someone UNDERAGE. That’s the law in the US, but not in every country of the world. In Germany, there is a crime called “rape” and another that’s called “having sex with s.o. underages”. Different charges.

        • Jackie Jormpjomp

          She was drugged and sodomized and not even 15 years old. What the hell planet are you from sicko?

          • Anonymous

            sounds like fun to me, got to get ‘em young.

          • jhernandez1981

            Lets be clear, she was on drugs – not drugged. There is a difference. For some social context, at the exact same time period both Jimmy Page, Ted Nugent, and Rolling Stones bassist Bill Wyman were in public relationships with underaged girls. It wasn’t exactly the taboo it is today.

          • Sith Lord

            In order to be clear about things, you would first be required to get your head out of your ass. She was drugged, not on drugs. He was 40, she was 13. It has ALWAYS been taboo; who are you and where do you live that this is acceptable to you?

    • janegray

      Oh, it existed, it’s just that no one who could do anything about it cared.

      And Polanski is a confessed and convicted rapist who has gotten off scott free.

    • janegray

      Oh, it existed, it’s just that no one who could do anything about it cared.

      And Polanski is a confessed and convicted rapist who has gotten off scott free.

      • Sammy

        He did NOT get off scot free. He served time in prison and upon learning that the judge was going to renege on the plea bargain, he fled the country.
        That is not getting off scot free.

        • janegray

          He went to jail for 42 days for drugging and raping a little girl. He got off scot free. Unless you honestly think a child rapist should only spend a little more than a month in jail.

          • Devil_Dinosaur

            I think the problem here is actually that you don’t know what “scot free” means.

          • janegray

            No, the problem here is that you seem to think a month and a half of prison time is a suitable punishment for a child rapist.

          • Devil_Dinosaur

            Why do I seem to think that, exactly? Allow me to explain, because you obviously need special help. “Scot-free” means “without consequences or penalties.” Being that he’s served prison time twice, cannot return to America, and has been unable to shake his reputation ever since, he, by definition, did not get off scot-free. Whether he deserves less or more punishment was not something I addressed; I simply pointed out an obvious gap in your learning. You don’t have to thank me for my assistance; I only ask that you think of me when you use that particular hyphenate properly from now on.

          • janegray

            Whatever you say, chumly.

          • Alexia

            Judging a work by it’s artist is the ad hominem principle at it’s finest. It doesn’t matter if he raped an entire middle school child-by-child and then made meat pies out of their bodies; it does not magically make his works any better or worse.
            This makes me think of those kids who are enjoying a meal and then their parent lets them know the food had spinach or whatever veggi they hate. And now the kid won’t finish the plate because it tastes bad suddenly.

            Frankly, I would love to see a romance movie directed by Vlad Tepes. Maybe Ghandi does the screenplay. Maybe decoration is handled by Adolf Hitler.

          • Jackson

            While I agree that many of the reviewers arguments were ad hominem and are logically unsound and an artist’s behavior shouldn’t have an affect on the art. Still someone that watches his movies are supporting him albeit financially it is still support. Imagine a mass murder or rapist or whatever despicable thing you can think of that got away with it but who is a great musicians but instead of protesting his song or choosing not to listen it you decide to buy it. That is why sometimes people protest businesses most of the time not b/c they have awful products but b/c of some deplorable act.
            And Yeah I agree that all of this may not dismiss the art itself it does leave you with a bad feeling like “dirty money.”

          • janegray

            Wow, you’re so edgy! But I don’t know why you’re telling me, I never said that Polanski was a bad director. However, the fact remains that he is a scumbag and a pedophile and I’m sick of people acting like we shouldn’t talk about that when we talk about him.

            That said, I don’t know why you’d want Hitler as your designer, he was a mediocre artist at best.

          • CyberianGinseng

            He got off with a horribly bowel liquefying wrist slapping.

          • jhernandez1981

            he didn’t drug and rape a little girl. he got busted partying with some teenagers in the fucking 70s.

          • janegray

            In March 1977, film director Roman Polanski was arrested and charged in Los Angeles with a number of offenses against Samantha Gailey, a 13-year-old girl[1] – rape by use of drugs, perversion, sodomy, lewd and lascivious act upon a child under 14, and furnishing a controlled substance to a minor.[2] At his arraignment Polanski pleaded not guilty to all charges,[3] but later accepted a plea bargain whose terms included dismissal of five of the initial charges[4] in exchange for a guilty plea to the lesser charge of engaging in unlawful sexual intercourse.[4][5]

          • janegray

            Yes he did, he plead guilty to it. Google it.

          • OniRaptor

            you have no idea what you are talking about. not a clue.

    • Spork

      To consider that racism is not alive and thriving is an ignorant perspective to live by. In addition, using a phrase like “it was a different time” only exacerbates your ignorance. Racism is very much present in modern culture. Movies are a reflection of real life whether we want/consider them to be or not and racism makes itself very clear in film as it does in reality. Open your eyes.

    • OniRaptor

      sorry but its completely fair. Racism is a huge problem that most white people dont even understand is still as bad as it ever was. I say specifically whites because in poll after poll they consistently are shown to believe there is no disparity between the treatment of races in the modern world..

      • Happy Socks

        So now you’re being racist by singling whites out. And the cycle continues…

  • G.Y. Water

    I would add “Triumph of the Will” the Nazi documentary/propaganda film by Leni Riefenstahl of the Nuremberg rally .
    I have the the same problem with Woody Allen that you have with Polanski.

    • Kang the Unbalanced

      Um. Two excellent points and additions to the list. The whole Soon Yi thing made it very hard for me to watch Woody Allen films afterwards, no matter how good. And, Triumph of the Will is a masterful piece of filmmaking, which I can appreciate but just cannot sit through. Birth of a Nation is the same for me.

  • Korabljenik

    Rocky IV has become pretty unwatchable for me.
    It has so much in-your-face ”values” and cartoon heroes vs villains.

  • Werner Goring

    Moral dilemmas aside, I found this to be a very insightful and honest interpretation of someone’s view.
    Very well-written too, I thought…

  • BlahBlah

    You’re a moron. That all I have to say.

  • Ghoul

    I’ve not seen any of these movies.

  • budasidehero

    Personally, I think the creators behaviour or legal issues has NOTHING to do with their art. Art is art, it has to be judged objectively, and not in the shadow of its creator.

    • LCD

      Thank you for stating what should be obvious to most people. The Art must be judged on it’s own merits. The art transcends the flaws of the artist who after all is just a human being with all the problems and prejudices of his time and era. LCD

      • Windsonged

        I can agree that art should be judged on its own merits, but we’re not talking about reading a Shakespeare play that has racists and anti-Semetic tones. We are talking about financing a guy who escaped justice for molesting a minor. The author claims that he is himself looking forward to the next offering from Polanski. That has moral implications, not because of “art”, but because it’s giving power to a man who has and will continue to leverage his cache into getting away with a crime. That’s a moral question that should make you pause, even if you decide that the “art” is worth it after all.

      • Tony

        Oh so whatever Hitler did as an artist is okay then, and should not have stopped anyone from praising him for it and putting money in his pockets? (after all, Hitler was “just a human being with all the problems and prejudices of his time and era”)

        Or are we just conveniently making exceptions to the rule for some people?

        Maybe we should also appreciate the movie “Clownhouse”, even though director Victor Salva used it to show kids in their undies and to molest boys on the set.

        • Kang the Unbalanced

          No. No it’s not. For one thing Hitler’s paintings are pretty pathetic.

    • Windsonged

      So, we should go on financing his art and creating an audience for him that he can then leverage to get off scott free for molesting a minor. Sorry. When appreciating art means putting money directly into the hands of a criminal, I think you have a moral question. Not saying it’s absolutely wrong, but saying it’s absolutely okay is really disingenuous.

      • Sammy

        He didn’t just molest a minor. He doped her and then raped her. He served the agreed upon time in prison, then when he learned the judge was going to rewnege on the plea bargin and give him more time, as well as deprot him, he deported himself. Even the Victim says to let it go.

  • Michael Link

    What Christ went through in the movie is nothing like He went through in real life. He wasn’t whipped with switches, He was flayed up to 40times with bone, glass, and metal encrusted whips that would rip the flesh of his back until you can see His organs. If it were presented as it really happened, the uproar would have stopped the film before it got started. Oh, and if you say it didn’t happen, then you don’t know history because it is one of the most documented ancient event ever.

    • Nathan King

      I’ve heard it said that even the Muslims concur that the crucifixion happened (they just don’t think that it was Jesus that it happened to).

      Anyone confirm that?

      • Michael Link

        There are two arguments that follow that line:

        1> Jesus was taken down before he died and healed

        2> It was a ‘stand-in’

        Both don’t make sense logically or historically

        1> IN the civil war, more soldiers died from medical treatment than from their injuries – 150yrs ago, medicine was terrible. Are we then to believe that 2000yrs ago, medicine in the Roman world could heal injuries that were so catastrophic that you could see his organs through the rib cage?

        2> The Romans were experts in torture and death. Do you think they would simply put someone in his place and let Jesus go free – even after Pontious Pilate comvicted him to death? The Jews and the Romans wanted Jesus dead to shut His followers up. What purpose was served by sparing his life? It defies logic and shows a severe lack of historical understanding of the times back then.

        Have a great day….

      • Knybee

        They believe that Jesus didn’t die on the cross, but that He was still alive.

    • Knybee

      Although I understand your zeal, the true depiction of what happened to Jesus is clearly defined on His own burial cloth The Shroud of Turin. You should read up on the incalculable odds of it being anyone in history other than Jesus and of the still inability of the Scientists to this day to replicate it or explain it.
      Before you nix the possibility you should take into consideration the motivation of why scientists don’t want anyone to believe in the Shroud. And also the insurmountable evidence thrown away because of their carbon dating.
      In truth just as much evidence or more so on the Shroud to believe in it’s authenticity than there is to believe in evolution. Because the Shroud they have surmised as having one flaw but evolution has been proven to have many.
      These things having been said, Gibson went overboard in his depiction. And whereas I believe with no doubt whatsoever that Jesus took the greatest cross there was, it still creates doubt when things that didn’t happen are added to the truth. Like the story of Veronica in the Catholic tradition.

      • Michael Link

        Not sure what your argument is about. I have no doubt of the Shroud’s legitimacy and it certainly clarifies certain aspects of the execution (nails through the wrists, the crown of thorns, his disfigurement (Isaiah 52:14) which was a result of the Roman process of preparing for crucifixion). If you reference the non biblical reference (such as roman historical descriptions), the process was so brutal it had to be done outside the city limits to prevent the citizens from being too horrified and it was considered the cruelest and most disgusting form of punishment that was meant only for the worst of offenders, They also have scourging whips (with the bones, nails, and glass adhered to it) from the era that clearly support my point about it’s severity.

        Read up the medical descriptions of what constituted scourging and you would fully understand how worse it was than simply hitting someone with a tree branch.

        • Knybee

          I am not ignorant of such things as I have well read many of the facts about crucifixion. But my point is quite clear. We should not add to scripture as if it is our artistic right. We are different than the world and set apart from it. And just because Hollywood makes up facts that doesn’t give us the right to do the same thing.
          Therefore God does not want us to add, by way of supposition, to the truth that we have been told. Revelation is one thing but supposition is another. If we suppose something is true and then someone finds out that it’s not we have laid the foundation of doubt. It wouldn’t then be their fault if they then sin when they were following our teaching. In other words we shouldn’t lead people into temptation by supposition.

          Or think of it this way. Once a person finds out that we were making something up why should they believe any other truth we spout afterwards? As people have done to their children about Santa. If we are Elders and teaching we need to steer clear of this, and especially for the children’s sake, not to lie to them in any way about what we know. God never lies and neither should we.

          Jesus was not whipped with nails or glass adhered to the whip. It’s not only unscriptural but not born out by the evidence upon the Shroud (There were some type of balls upon those whips that may have been metal, possibly lead). But that in no way takes away from His cross. As I said, I know beyond a shadow of a doubt that He took the greatest cross of anyone ever. Period!

          And I never said that those types of crucifixions you mentioned didn’t happen! But again to add them to the film as if it happened that way was wrong. I hope that you understand why. We are not followers of Hollywood but of God. But I also give Gibson the benefit of the doubt that he did not go by what was on the Shroud.

    • Liz

      loooooooool

  • Prydonian

    Also sending a morally questionable message: an article about the moral obligations of the media written with so little research and understanding of its subjects that most of its points boil down to, “I don’t know why it’s bad but people told me it was.”

    And seriously… The Jungle Book? *Really?* ::facepalm::

  • Prydonian

    Also sending a morally questionable message: an article about the moral obligations of the media written with so little research and understanding of its subjects that most of its points boil down to, “I don’t know why it’s bad but people told me it was.”

    And seriously… The Jungle Book? *Really?* ::facepalm::

  • Matt Mosley

    J.F.K
    “the material is basically conspiratorial nonsense” …Yes, because conspiracies are a fictional type of crime

    “paranoid speculation” … Yes because you can point to even a SINGLE such case within the movie

    “it could legitimately mislead people into suspecting a government cover-up and fuel even more delusions” … Yes, because Governments NEVER cover anything up, in fact they don’t EVER commit crimes, and anyone who says otherwise is deluded ;-)

    This ‘writer’ is a f**king half-wit at best who thinks he can debate the J.F.K assassination when he clearly failed 1st grade physics (M.R ‘Writer’ – if i punch you in the head from the back-right downwards, in which direction would your head travel? And if I punched you and your head went back and to the left, from which angle did I punch you from?)

    The clown forgets the House Assassinations Committee concluded HJK was most likely killed in a conspiracy and even THEY didn’t allow lots of evidence to be heard, INCLUDING the doctor testimony from those that worked on him in the hospital.

    Jack-ass.

    • Kang the Unbalanced

      Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. You’re making the claim of conspiracy, you bring the proof, boyo. Garrison’s key flaw, the “magic bullet” theory, is based entirely on everyone in the car sitting still, facing forward, at the same level in the seats of the limo. Photos from immediately before the shooting show that this was just not the case.
      I might kindly suggest that you research the whole thing a little deeper than just one motion picture.

  • Tanis11

    In response to your Passion of the Christ review. You need to separate the drunk, obscene, ridiculous Mel Gibson from director Mel Gibson. The depictions in the movie were taken from history and he stuck pretty close to the Biblical writings. Jewish people were angry at how they were portrayed, but this is how it was recorded to happen, it is no offense to them, nor was it directly insulting them. Now, crazy-drunk Mel Gibson on the other hand was completely wrong it what he said and it has thus far pretty much destroyed his career. People need to learn to separate these two things. The meaning of this movie, as well as his other movies, doesn’t change for me just because I found out he has some ridiculous beliefs. The fact that I love Braveheart and a lot of his other movies doesn’t mean i support his beliefs. There are a lot of assholes out there who can still put out quality entertainment.

    • azazil

      Jews are no Saints as it is during Jesus time…They are bad jews which most of them are very close to Roman Authority and good Jews that the one who support and accept Jesus teaching…until today I still believe jews are good people in general but at the same time they cannot deny that some of them smear good names of jews by act as same as some twisted jews who responsible to back stab Jesus at those time

      • Nathan King

        Two words: The Crusades… Us Christians don’t exactly have the most clean history either :- /

        • Tony

          Who are you referring to with “us Christians”?
          Speak for yourself.

        • Knybee

          It’s not right to judge the dead without every bit of information about their lives. Which we can’t possibly have at this time. Though people now love to depict the “Christians” as the perpetrators of those wars, it is false witness to not take into account the history of what the Muslims were doing and all kinds of other facts. Even so, is anyone that claims to follow Christ able to condemn those who went into such battles when David, Moses, Josue, and many others who pleased God also went to war? Were they not also part of Gods plan of salvation as the apostles were?
          Those who think that they know all of the facts of the lives of the dead use a misguided application called hindsight. You might ask yourself this, are you comfortable right now, this day, to call for the disbanding of the military of this country? And if not, how is that any different?
          It is also good to keep in mind that those who seek to teach others in schools and textbooks about the history of the followers of God are of the world and therefore biased against the ways of God. Or you tell me, how can one who has never known the ways of God know justice? Or truth, since Jesus is the truth. In this it’s good to remember the scripture that says that the works of men are as filthy rags in Gods sight. Doesn’t that include then their perception of right and wrong?
          On a lighter note I would add, nice picture of you two. Cute.

      • Kang the Unbalanced

        In short they are people, and as with any group of people, there are good people, and there are bad people. Funny ol’ world, ennit.

      • Kang the Unbalanced

        In short they are people, and as with any group of people, there are good people, and there are bad people. Funny ol’ world, ennit.

    • janegray

      Too bad they’re the same guy.

  • Gottahavemypops

    I give you Peter Pan and Dumbo, but at what point is Disney’s The Jungle Book racist (Rudyard Kipling’s colonialist leanings aside, which were not present in the adaptation)?

    • janegray

      One Jazz song in the whole film performed by monkeys.

      • Gottahavemypops

        Okay, but the lead performer was an orangutan, voiced by Italian jazz great Louie Prima.

  • Tracy Cervellone CWE

    Seriously, who gives a rat’s ass what this imbecile thinks about movies? Primarily because they are MOVIES. You are allowed, in fact, to take them or leave them. Like them or hate them. Or be neutral. Movie critics: the arbiters of culture and morality. Ah. The overweening self righteousness of it all.

  • Daniel

    What are you talking about? This was an excellent movie. There’s no problem with the moral message here. I think non-Christians and weak christians are trying to find issues where they don’t actually exist. The author thinks that his own moral incertitudes are similar to many of the rest of us.

  • RoC

    The Jewish kids weren’t being portrayed as demons. Judas betrayed Jesus, and that cursed him and so he was being haunted. (remember the demon in the ally?) The kids were simply trying to help but the devil was getting into his head and making him see the demons instead of kids. Gotta pay CLOSE attention to the movie. There’s no racism in it at all, anywhere.

  • Tom Khan

    Why don’t you just use the politically correct term “underaged?” That M-word in that sense almost as morally problematic as Kevin Clash allegedly having sex with them.

  • NavidHayder

    thing about racism in Dumbo — well yeah they were stereotypes but don’t forget that a) those black crows were also POSITIVE characters. How is it “racist” if they never specifically mention that ALL black people were jive-talkin’ Jim Crows? For all we know, that was just that one stereotypical bunch of crows who were jive-talkin and at the end of the day, deus ex machinas for ol’ Dumbo.

    • janegray

      Does your arm hurt from all that reaching you just did?

      • Guest

        Does your mouth hurt from…well you get the idea

  • Tony

    About 75 % of all movies are “morally questionable” by the standard the writer uses, but turned around against himself. His definition of morals is clearly his own subjective, arbitrary view of the world, and by that definition, 75 % of all movies (especially the modern ones) are shoving a disgustingly liberal, left-wing message down people’s throats.

    Of course, most movie critics are themselves liberal, and therefor only see the “immorality” in movies that in whatever way are not propagating a leftwing message. It’s not that movie critics shouldn’t be allowed their own political views, but it is hypocritical to the extreme to present them as a standard for judging whether a movie is “morally questionable”.

    Oh, and especially in the age of Wikileaks, Fast and Furious, the IRS persecuting right-wing groups, and Prism, it is stupid beyond imagination to slag off stories about “government cover-ups” as if they were nutball conspiracy theories by default.

    It can be concluded from “peer reviewed reports”. Well gee, i guess that settles it, doesn’t it. Those ‘experts’ are all so bereft of their own agenda’s and biases after all. Ever heard of “argument from authority”? It’s a logical fallacy.

  • Sir_Baskerville

    Sorry but this movie is fantastic anyway you are catholic or not. What Gibson shows in this film really happened. He is not being racist at all; Gibson doesn’t introduce Jewish people as Evil. Jesus himself was Jewish!!
    Every writter of Bible was racist too… so Gibson doesn’t think Jewish are evil, he just want us to know what happened.

  • winthrop

    “Rocky” may have been well done as a piece of cinematic storytelling, but…
    It may depict “persistence and redemption” or whatever, but does so while celebrating stupidity and brutality. Rocky Balboa was a stupid character and boxing is surely one of the most brutal and violent “sports” conceived by contemporary civilization. “Rocky IV” is just a bad movie, but “Rocky” is truly deserving of a place on this list.

  • hellolance

    hmmm this topic is very telling of modern pop culture…
    some of the entries are tainted by the production crew / some are tainted by the overt premise advertised by the production company.
    Either way it is clear you didn’t comprehend Orwell, well enough (pun intended)
    Take a simple film like 1984 Videodrome (pun intended) sick twisted sex & violence but it was thought provoking and clearly the production crew did their homework…
    skip ahead to 2012 The Hunger Gamest ? not nearly as twisted but an example of less thought provoking, shoddy work…
    either way, fiction is fiction and in line with the premise of your topic which is to quantify a value through WESTERN morality. It’s idolatry whether someone making money from it raped anyone or killing is explicitly shown on screen … Fiction kills souls. It takes you further away from what is human and at some point I think you have to factor in good old fashion hard work and ingenuity cause those two are very human traits.
    so it’s a complicated issue that you try to examine in a simple, superficial way.
    But the topic is actually very deep.
    unlike most films!
    which is wrong!
    sorta…

  • Dyce Raptor

    I fail to see how the patriotism of Rocky IV was bad.

    • Guest

      Clearly this guy is a libtard

  • zipgow

    This intro is slightly misleading. Would you really call Rocky 4 a beautiful film that you find disgusting?
    Judging Passion of the Christ for its morals is like calling The Pianist pro-rape because Polanski was a rapist. Gibson is an anti-Semite, but the basis of The Passion was the Bible. It wasn’t written as an anti-Semitic work, especially since Jesus called himself a direct descendant of King David; all of his disciples were Jewish, but he was also critical of the people who betrayed him, and the Pharisees were Jewish. It wasn’t built on any racial hatred, but an honest adaptation of the Bible wouldn’t portray Judas and the Pharisees in a positive light–any more than it would portray Jesus, Mary, and his disciples in a negative one.
    That said, I would never show recommend that movie to anyone. It did a huge disservice to the Christian community, because Mel Gibson’s hateful rant immediately wrongfully associated religious people with prejudice.

  • Danny Høy

    Polanski being a perverted criminal, does not in any way detract from the brilliance of his work. It simply makes him a perverted criminal.

  • http://sicblug.wordpress.com/ André F.

    By looking at all the questioning these movies have generated in you, I would say they are, in fact, not morally problematic, but quite the opposite. A work of art that only comforts (yours or the public’s) established morals instead of challenging them would be, on the other hand, problematic morally. Morals are drawn from conflict, not from consensus.
    On the matter of JFK, please try to find answers about conspiracies on the Internet.
    And thank you for your list.

  • Patrick

    Pontius Pilate ‘washed his hands of the whole thing’ (heard the saying? That’s where ‘WE’ get it.) Also Judas was a ‘necessary evil’ (another one that’s survived 2000+ years!)

    I agree w/ the the differentiating between a person and their work and as such neither see nor picket Allen or Polanski (those actions would only give them *MORE* publicity) I have however seen “Take the Money and Run” a “Antz” (I’m *ONLY* human Harry!-Lloyd Christmas, DUMB AND DUMBER)

  • Jesuis Generis

    leave morals at the cinema entrance.

  • California

    From the intro to this list I thought it was going to be something really different, I mean, you made me think I was gonna read stuff on movies like American Psycho or Lolita… Instead I ended up reading your opinion on the personal lives of the directors. Really misleading.

  • The Carnivore

    All this guy is saying is that he does no research, and fails to grasp even a rudimentary understanding of historical context. None of JFK has been discredited, actually, even the official government position from 1977 agrees that there were multiple shooters. And calling things racist in 2013 means nothing, the term has been watered down. Just because the times change on movies, does not make them less great later on. It just makes the contemporary reviewer look more idiotic when they showcase their lack of historical comprehension.

  • Hoffmann

    I hate when people make this kinda crap just cause they have to make something. Go watch Rocky 4 again, and pay particular attention to the ending and what Stallone has to say after his fight.

  • Hoho

    The natural person does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned

    -Standard Ver.

    The person without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God but considers them foolishness, and cannot understand them because they are discerned only through the Spirit.

    -NIV Ver.

  • crap journalist

    “Conspiratorial nonsense ” the hack has no idea.

  • Movie Man

    This person should just stop watching movies. It’s just story telling; like around a campfire. Musicains do the same, and alot of people think a songs lyric totally refects the views of the person that wrote it, but sometimes storytellers are like acting and playing a role that is not their opinion. For instance you may met racists in your life and hear their views on things and put it into a song. Not because you also think that way, but beacause that type of thinking is real and should be out there for people to confront instead of hiding those ideas away like they don’t exist. “Out of sight out of mind” is the cliche.

  • Dave Clary

    I was with you until Rocky IV. Dude… Rocky Balboa and Ronald Reagan brought down the WALL, man. While Ronnie was saving East Germany from its Soviet overlords, Rocky Balboa single-handedly turned the tide of the entire Cold War.

    Problematic? The moral concept that “Maybe we oughta stop beating the fuck out of each other just because we’re from different countries?” No way. Give me that philosophy any day.

  • Joshua Thirteen

    I think people take some words and events in Passion which are not created by Gibson but are from the bible, and read in meaning informed by centuries of historical & Gibsonian (like that word?) antisemitism. The early christians and bible authors were nearly all Jewish so It’s safe to say the intended meaning was not antisemitic. Depicting the jewish leadership as having responsibility for Christ’s death is often seen as antisemitic because of the later extension of it to all jews down the centuries by hate filled, illogical people. Of course they did not have sole responsibility, there were the romans as well. But it’s ok to say these particular historical personages who were Jewish wanted Jesus dead and conspired to do it, getting the romans in on the deal as well. It’s the people who take that and use it as a justification for evil towards the innocent who are not ok, who instead imitate the very act they claim angers them – the murder of an innocent.

  • Jez James

    The reviewer can’t seem to separate the person from the work–and finally from the person he (the reviewer) is or was. Which makes this work a pretty jumbled piece of utter bullcrap.

  • Alexander

    In the Bible it states that Judas was haunted and tortured by demons, which then led to his suicide. Those little children were the demons that haunted him, you can see they’re not even there when the camera angle changes and you can see Judas running from nothing. Please, get your facts straight for Christs sake.

  • castor mason

    you lost me after your ridiculous and under informed comments regarding the jfk assassination…. maybe turn off the t.v. and read a damn book on the subject, and not the warren commission report ….?
    I mean seriously what the F?
    its hilarious reading these people debating the passion and all of its historical accuracy while there is absolutely no way of finding any sort of resolution on the subject…
    Even a brief study of Astro-theology should alert the most devout believer to the fact that the story of jesus is in fact rooted in an antiquity that predates the biblical stories by thousands of years, and pertains to the movement of heavenly bodies in space, given names and personalities and regarded as personages as a metaphor or myth, useful in oral histories…..the personage called jesus may not have ever walked the earth..
    but on the other hand our natural born rights are being torn away from us at an ever increasing speed due to catalyzing events like the assassination of jfk, and 911 and others, and therefore understanding what happened and who is culpable is of far greater importance than defining the motives and moral fiber of characters in a story that may or may not have actually existed and are so far removed from us in time that such debates are completely and practically irrelevant. Perhaps we should focus on more contemporary and relevant issues that have verifiable truths and are actually resolvable…

  • AGuest

    Finally we found him. A man who is morally perfect enough to throw the first stone at everyone. All hail to the morality nazi who wrote this article. Not.

    • Guest

      ARetard is more like it

  • Kenji

    Polanski’s movies don’t belong on this list: they can’t just be labelled as “morally problematic” movies because their author is a morally problematic individual. Unlike other movies on the list, they don’t specifically display any overtly troublesome content per se.

    • Student

      Bingo! Lumping an entire work of a person is a cop-out. None of the films from Polanski I have seen are up there with being the most morally probelmatic; not by a long shot.

      And if we are going to blacklist the movies for what an individual did (note: I do not approve of what Polanski did) then where do you end and to what extent of being involved does it go?

      Come to think of it, only about 3 at most on list list can count.

  • Yogi

    Regarding the passion of the Christ I am not entirely sure how old you are. When you are my age 72. You just might think differently. Mel Gibson may be a bit graphic but probably on the mild side , more than the worse, reality side . I think of Sharia Law when I say this.

  • Joe joe

    JFK should definitely not be among this category. Morally problematic is not the same as historically accurate. There is more than enough evidence against the official story to warrant a debate(and investigation)-period! But, again, this is not a moral dilemma, unless finding the truth is a problem for you?

  • Guest

    Rocky IV? Really?

  • Carlos M Chapa

    Whether Mel Gibson is a racist film director or not, that is a debatable issue. He denies to be one, and to me that’s good enough (I know great people who once in a while say something that may appear to be racist).
    The article seems to agree that Mel Gibson is racist because of this movie, when in fact critics are divided over the racist issue of the Passion of the Christ. I feel Mel been unfairly labeled as such, in a time where it’s so common to see racist movies such as Ed (the teddy bear), the Dictator or A Very Harold & Kumar 3D Christmas.

    This article’s author’s views about the film are most likely shaped by his views against Christianity in general. This is something you can see from the beginning when he writes: “horribly… philosophies can still be made into great art.” Christianity is not a horrible philosophy. It is not even a religion; it’s much more than that. Everything in this life will pass away (including the “great art”) but the words of Christ will NEVER pass away.

  • Adam Wynn

    I actually took a rather beautiful meaning from the Jews in “Passion” shouting that Jesus’ blood would be on them and their children for generations. Jesus Christ came to Earth in human form to save all of us, both the Jews and the Gentiles. As the Bible clearly states time and time again, it is the shedding of blood that brings about the beginning of salvation. So, by the Jews shouting that Jesus’ blood would be on them and their children, they are in a way accepting that salvation for them and their children. Not that they were believing, I know that, but they were still making an inadvertently beautiful statement about the source of their possible salvation. Sure, other moments in the film could be seen as racially biased, but I don’t believe this is one of them.

  • James H Watschke

    ‘having the Jewish leaders declare the blood of the messiah shall forever be on their children’ is actually a part of the Gospels. And what Pilate does in the movie is also done in scripture. He is not absolved of his sins, because he has no regret for them. I believe Gibson was just trying to add to the narration of the movie by going behind the scenes with Pilate and showing the pressures of a public official in such a position. I’m sorry to sound so nit-picky about this article, but if one notices(it’s been a LONG time) I believe the movie starts out with a quote from Isiah, a prophetical Old Testament book. In it the prophesied torture and beating is actually described as much worse than in the Gospels by the eye witnesses. In one prophesy he is described as so horribly pummeled his mother could not recognized him. Until Gibson’s film, no other attempt was made to even come close to such horror endured for our immortal souls.

    It was neither the Romans or the Jews alone who killed Christ, but all of us and them, we all nailed him to the cross, we all stabbed his dead body, we all deserve the same.

    • xactomundo

      hokum, all of it, which is why I never watched the film. The story of Christ is highly emotional and resonant in western culture. It is also mostly fabricated and otherwise embellished. I love Gibson’s Braveheart and (the underrated) Apocalytpo, some of my favorite action set-pieces in films with great emotional pay-offs. Those stories are engaging as fiction, even though some of the characters have tenuous connections to historical figures.
      I have no doubt that PotC plays the same way, and is probably a very moving STORY if divorced from the fact that so many people in our society believe the events to be factual, and not concocted and molded to entrance it’s believers into following along with specific agendas. Maybe someday I will be able to watch it without the baggage. I hope so…

  • James H Watschke

    Yep, it’s technically racist. And yep they act EXACTLY like the three old black guys I used to work with, all in their 70′s, who used to sit around talking sports, music, politics etc. and how everything now days stinks and how kid today are so stupid. They were great guys. Listened to great music in the shop, blues and jazz, and were fun to have around. One day the maid, in her thick central American accent asked me if they reminded me of the black birds in the Dumbo movie. I busted up laughing. Great movie though.

  • shaunn

    My attitude to these things is to separate the art from the artists. If I judged art by the morals/behavior of the person who made the art, there is a lot of great art that I would need to boycott.

    With Polanski, I find this particularly difficult. He is a child rapist who drugged and sodomized a 15 year old girl as she begged him to stop. He later bragged that he did what every man wants to do. He continued raping child actors when he was in Europe. The man is filth in every sense of the word. But he is also a great artist. What I find interesting about the Polanski case is partly what it says about Hollywood. Lots of Hollywood actors are quite happy to work with Polanski, despite his horrendous behavior and history. At the same time, many are prepared to blacklist Mel Gibson who, despite his own atrocious behavior, can’t hold a candle to Polanski. If there were any moral consistency here, actors would be refusing to work with Polanski. Well, at least most of them are sensible enough to not leave him alone with their teenage daughters.

  • Back Breaker

    Yeah… the whole idea of multiple shooters is ludicrous. It’s much more believable to believe in “Magic Bullets”.

  • Advocate’s Devil

    I dont think its fair to judge a movie as bad just because of the controversy of the directors/writers/ect. If we did that, then we’d have to judge Michael Jackson the same way, and we ALL know he’s one of the best artists of the late 20th century!

  • Dianne Schuch

    This proved that Mel Gibson was one sick f*ck. After seeing it, and leaving it before I passed out, I decided I was never going to watch anything of his again.

  • Dianne Schuch

    I boycott all of Polanski’s and Woody Allen’s films.

  • Rob Grizzly

    This is an excellent, but morally problematic article.

    Jk

    Very good work. I am not going to judge the behind-the-scenes.cases like Gibson or Polanski, but the ones with the moral issues within the film are interesting to think about.

    I remember Dumbo and Peter Pan, but what was racist about The Jungle Book? Haven’t seen it since I was little, so I’m sure it went right over my head.

    A fine artcle.

  • Knybee

    Gibson did not portray all Jewish children as demons, only a few. Is that not possible? Or do demons stay away from Jewish children? He did not “absolve” Pilate in point of fact he showed the cruelty of the Romans. Matthew 27:24-25 “His blood be upon us and our children”. Do you find fault with someone who quotes the Bible exactly?

    “…the theology of the movie, which basically says the worse Christian imagines Jesus’ suffering to be, the more meaningful it is.” The greatest cross in the history of man was taken up by Jesus. That greatest cross in itself is not the full story though when one considers that all others have been deserving of punishment but He was innocent. “All have sinned…” To imply that “Christians” or even “non-Christians” can imagine His great suffering at all is foolish. “But I imagine if I agreed with this theology, and found it meaningful…” Is that how a movie should be reviewed? Whether you agreed with it’s theology?

    Also, to review a movie by what a person has done in his private life is the biggest lie and hypocrisy of anyone who reviews movies. Go review Woody Allen that way. Or Polanski. Hollywood, in almost every movie it puts out twists the truth and lies about conversations and actions to put forth their own agenda. Isn’t that really their “theology”? “Based on a true story” to Hollywood is considered “creative license” even if that means outright lying. And what cowardly reviewer calls them on their constant lack of character. You! Bull! To lie on film isn’t any different than any other lie.

    Again you falsely accused Gibson by implying that he somehow made up the the line ” “His blood be upon us and our children”. But it’s actually in the scriptures. You then imply that it’s further proof of his anti-Semitism. What about you then? Aren’t you a liar to imply that he added it to the film when it’s right in the Bible. You’re anti-Christian. Maybe if you had real courage you would admit your own hypocrisy. But that’s very in nowadays, isn’t it? If only you had as much fervor against that bias as you do for those who are biased towards Jews.

    Your problem isn’t with the film, it’s with him and with “Christians”. Your review here is nothing more than a chance to question “Christianity” rather than the film. If you weren’t acting so cowardly you would admit that. As a fair reviewer you should be honest and recuse yourself so you wouldn’t be such a hypocrite. But to the real racist everyone else is the racist.

  • Daniel Scroggin

    this is another article i have read from the author. Dude you are a dumb opinionated idiot. Most of your reasoning for hate of some of these awesome f*cking movies is retarded, I feel that you don’t really research this stuff well enough before writing it. Well that and you’re an obvious libtard, no doubts about that.

  • Sith Lord

    Only in America can a pedophile be celebrated as an “artist”. You people backing Polanski are without a shred of moral fibre and human decency.

  • OniRaptor

    As an historian, theologian, and Christian I strongly disagree with your inclusion and statements about the Passion of Christ. It is far more racist than Dumbo, far more perverted in its glee at showing torture and historically worthless. I have noticed that has Gibson’s career has moved along, but even in Mad Max, Mel delights in seens of torture. Granted he may not have had control of eevery film he made but it seems odd that he is so consistent in this element.. Its almost like watching a flagellant through his life. There is not one aspect of this film that redeems it.
    Birth of A Nation is without a doubt one of the most important films ever to be made. It is like the works of Homer; the essence and beginning of everything that came after in terms of the technical aspects of movie making. Any film student that doesnt watch it has no business bothering people about wanting to make movies. That said ,even for its time it was morally debased. I hope that it always exists but seeing it more than once is punishment.

    I agree with you on the Kevin Clash documentary and just like Dumbo, really the reality surrounding the work calls it into question. I would like to point out that a person is not evil but DOES evil. Hitler genuinely loved Eva and doted on her. You can see it in every footage of them together. People always have both good and bad inside. I say “and Dumbo” because while its depiction are over the top racist, the movie is also tremendously moving. I hated the changes to other Disney films before their release and am glad it isnt out but am sad that it still not available as it was an important part of my early childhood. It would be a good way for parents to teach kids about right and wrong in how we see each other.

    Lastly, Roman Polanski is a wretched human whose lack of remorse makes anything he creates worthless, to me. If he had been brought back to the US and served his time after a publicly humiliating trial none of these later films would have been made. Even the people who associate themselves with him should be seen as suspect. For instance I have very little respect for Jack Nicholson for the same reason. He was also there is the house, aware the girl was there and what was going on. I have little doubt he participated. In other words Im not a fan

  • Rabidwombatz

    Hi, the part about “let this be on our children” etc is in the Bible, in Matthew 27 v25.
    The point about how much Jesus suffered is important to show that, since He was dying as a sacrifice for what we have done wrong (taking our punishment on Himself), it wasn’t something done easily. It was a difficult thing to go through with it, but Jesus did anyway, out of love.

    I am an ardent supporter of Israel, but the simple sad fact is that throughout history until 1945, the Jews were in the bad books with most of “western” society. A lot because of a misguided understanding of the role of the Jews re Jesus.
    After all, all of the disciples and most of the early church were Jewish.

    • Raiden

      Here’s my personal Issue with Passion Of The Christ. The film barely touches on what Jesus taught and WHY he had to die. Instead Gibson seemed to focus on and revel in HOW he died. In doing so I believe he did a horrible disservice. To a Non-Religious person it comes off less as a Biblical Epic, and more as an Exploitation Film.

  • Mike Roukas

    “I started to wonder whether there was any truth to what Kevin Costner was earnestly arguing before my eyes. Then I went online and everyone was like ‘Yeah….no.’ So that was settled.”

    Omg lol, liek, such erudite research skills!

  • Conner Nielsen

    This feels more like a “Morally Problematic Production” list

  • YouLuvBobBarker

    JFK was just “conspiratorial nonsense”. How did he get all of those shots off so fast from that bolt action riffle again? Are you sure you weren’t just watching Dumbo?

  • ScratchNDent

    Too bad ol’ Roman wasn’t home when the Mansons came over to visit.

  • Say what?

    So you are morally offended of how the Soviets were depicted and the patriotic backdrop in Rocky IV? Are you for real? So a decade after the Cold War and now liberal weenies do what they always do and gloss over history, changing reality. The Soviets…boy weren’t they the most honest, greatest, nicest group of people? It was the patriotic Americans who bullied the….yada yada yada

  • JudeyJudgerton

    I love all these perfect people over the years who bash Mel Gibson like they’ve never made a mistake or said something out of anger that they ultimately knew not to be true. And we all know that no normal person ever does something they regret under the influence of alcohol like say plowing into someone’s grandparent’s while they were driving to their family’s home on Christmas Eve. One my best friends from the Army did that after he got out and I think back on all the times we all went out drinking together on the weekends to have fun and wondered if that could have been me. Mel was drunk and depressed and in the back of a police car having committed a DUI. The DUI was the real sin but Hollywood isn’t populated with teetotalers. It happened after POTC was released and after a whole bunch of Jewish critics and organizations attacked Mel for making a movie that was true to the gospels. If you finally make a movie about the person who inspired you the most after wanting to do so for years and everyone attacked you about it, do you think maybe you would be just a little bitter on the subject? If Mel said that Jewish people are responsible for all the wars in the world, well you’re certainly not going to defend war are you? As for Jewish people being the cause of it, they’re are plenty of conspiracy-oriented people who think the super rich families like the Rothschilds profited from the wars in Europe and may have had a hand in fueling the conflict. Should I hate Mel Gibson because he read a subjective book or article on history and took it to heart and later on lost his brain-mouth filter after drinking an entire bottle of liquor? It has been almost a decade man. Let it go. If you understood what Jesus was really about then maybe you could forgive the guy. I forgive you for this dumb article idea after all.

    • Thatonegirl

      I think you are right. or atleast, that most of it was right. I never watched a movie by mel but he only dui’d. I was hit by a DUI and forgave the person so the internet should do the same!

  • Fed up with PC

    Art is subjectively interpreted by each viewer depending on their life experiences, maturity, etc. Film critics need to remember that it is just that. You can give your opinion whether you like it or not but you absolutely cannot judge the director, actor and/or artist by what YOU saw in the film. Previous posts are right… let’s take your comments on Dumbo.. perhaps the artistic creativity behind the crows was to express the artist’s distain for white man’s not putting faces / humanity to blacks. Sometimes, perhaps, an artist’s intention on expressing such social issues is to bring them to light to the masses. For you, in current times, to be judging older movies that were made for the specific time and events – how dare you!! I remember well the sentiments during the “Rocky” movies.. and I can tell you as a patriotic American… there was nothing immoral about the Cold War theme. Not then and not now. But as far as Polanski… it really isn’t that hard… serial killers may write incredible works of literature (after I’ve paid for their education) but I will NEVER support or encourage their rise to fame by purchasing their book… Want my opinion – boycott Polanski’s movies… I’m sure you’re overlooking a lot of great films while supporting that blemish on humanity. You want to point your finger in judgment of films.. how about The Butler… you want to talk about a racist film.

  • JIM

    You saw JFK and you were “gullible” to beleive in the conspiracy? ANd then you went online “and everyone was like “Yeah….no.”? WHERE DID YOU FIND THESE PEOPLE? Because all I see is the majority sayin “HELL YEAH” Because more and more on the WWW realise that the FED is a private owned bank and from then on NO PRESIDENT OF THE USA IS REALLY PRESIDENT. JFK ‘s asassination was just a message for those who didn’t get it. How many JFK’s, false flag events, lone gunman patsies, and 9/11′s untill YOU get it? OR ARE YOU JUST A PAYED MEDIA WHORE WRITING THE SAME OLD HORSE SHIT PROPAGANDA? (Full of questions ain’t I today?)

  • californiaineurope@gmail.com

    Regarding JFK as, “… basically conspiratorial nonsense…” shows that you have not done your research. Supporting your uninformed position with …”went online…everybody was like yeah…so that was settled” simply puts you in the bingo-brain seating section. Fact: Twice, on the senate floor, the Oswald/single-shooter ‘theory’ has been disclaimed as incorrect. Fact: Also during these two senate hearings the Warren Commission’s report has been deemed as complete bunk. Do your research before making statements that are simply insulting to the memory of JFK … the person and the film. Read H. Halderman’s, ‘The Ends of Power’ if you really want to understand the ramifications of the JFK assination in the present day power structure … not a collective position from specific users of internet sites that you petition.

  • Shawntelle

    Dumbest article I’ve read in a while. They’re not morally problematic, they’re movies. Now, you saying these movies are racist, is your way of interpreting that outside the filmic spectrum, which makes you either very confused, or slightly racist in YOUR thinking.

  • CrouchingWeasel

    If Darren has a problem with Mel having the Jewish people say “His blood be us & our children” then maybe he should read Matthew 27:25 where the Jewish people actually said that. Pilate was complicit but he gave the people every chance to allow Jesus to live. Judea at that time was the most turbulent part of the Roman empire & his reasoning was that it was better to give the people what they want than risk open insurrection. Take issue with Gibson as a man all you want but in this his storytelling was accurate according to the account in the Bible.