|
|
Post by Pennywise on Sept 27, 2004 18:29:13 GMT -5
I'd also liked to mention that Mel Gibson ponied up 25 millionof his own money to make the film, I'm not so sure he did it to make money. Sure the movie grossed nearly 400 million No, he took the risk, because he knew he'd get all the money. It's like with Michael Moore's movies; they know that they're spending a lot, but they know they'll get a lot. And I personally think Michael Moore needs to lay off the candy, on an un-releated note. |
|
|
|
Post by WesCraven on Sept 27, 2004 18:41:09 GMT -5
Mel wanted to make the movie, and didn't want to be controlled by producers/a studio. Yes, I'm sure Gibson had a good idea that he wouldn't lose the money (if not make some), however, I feel that wasn't why he made the movie. It was a movie that he wanted to make, and he wanted to tell it his way.
But really, it all comes down to the fact that I enjoyed the film (as did others), and appearently you didn't (as others didn't as well), and that's OK. People have a difference of opinion when it comes to movies. If they didn't it'd be boring, and films would probably be all too similar.
|
|
|
|
Post by DeraiLer on Sept 28, 2004 0:15:47 GMT -5
Good movie. Finally a no holds barred depiction of Jesus' torment and suffering. All those damn candy coated versions before don't make you realize just how much pain Christ went through.
Every movie is a crapshoot. Never certain if it will make money or flop. Even successful films have had sequels fail dreadfully. As films go, this one was estimated to be a huge failure, yet Mel continued to fight the good fight.
|
|
