Reviews

While it is true not all film directors can envision and extract the best from the actors in their films, this Karl Urban performance was different from what we have seen him capable of as Vaako in The Chronicles of Riddick and as Eomer in the Lord of the Rings Trilogy. Karl as the Viking boy raised by an American Indian tribe gave a primitive and exciting performance but his portrayal of an Indian brave did lack some of the close up intensity we know he can deliver. In this story, the Vikings and American Indians were struggling for survival, so perhaps more action and less character development was called for. If battle minded Vikings landed on those shores, they would have taken the Indians by surprise, and then swarmed on foot, killing at will. If we were watching a film about Crazy Horse fighting George Custer at Little Big Horn, we wouldn't want character development to slow the pace of the battle; rich character development was not this film's goal. Having said that, we watch Karl Urban as he learns to conquer his fears and we see Pathfinder's daughter learn to trust Karl's character, the ghost. We have rich character development in film when those characters have more leisure time, not when they are fighting for the survival of their loved ones and their tribe!

I couldn't believe that a movie directed by Ron Howard and starring Tom Hanks, Paul Bettany, and Jean Reno could be as uninteresting as this sedative was. I am highly skeptical about the whole premise of the story before I went, but I thought that Ron and Tom would provide a good thinking man's mystery/thriller; so I went to see it. The quality was as poor as most of the major network thriller movie fair (like the recent stinker about bird flu); I was astonished and felt like I was scammed. The characters were dull and uninteresting (how low can Jean Reno sink? He was excellent in The Professional), the story line unconvincing, and the movie was trying so hard to push the idea that Christianity was a fairy tale that it lost track of its purpose; to entertain! I will not recommend this film to anyone and I hope Ron Howard, Tom Hanks, and Jean Reno join Paul Bettany in self flagellation as penance for foisting this dog on the movie going public.

The film making aspects of this effort by Mel Gibson are superb. The film making is of the quality that we have come to expect from Mel since the days of Braveheart. The use of languages contemporary to the times was not only unique, but wonderfully added to the atmosphere of the film; you felt like you were really there witnessing the events. This film is without doubt excellence in film making. However, as far as biblical accuracy is concerned, Mel relied much too heavily on Roman Catholic Doctrine and myth than on the biblical record. The most obvious examples are the scenes concerning Pilate's wife, Claudia. The attempts of Claudia to persuade her husband to spare the life of Jesus and her comforting Mary after the beating of Jesus are not found in the biblical record, but are Roman Catholic myth. There is a Claudia mentioned in Paul's letters, but not in the gospels.

Another example is the trip from his condemnation to the execution site. In these scenes Mel relies completely on the Roman Catholic ritual, Stations of the Cross and the pilgrimage ritual of Via Dolorosa. While some of the events of these scenes are in the biblical record, most of them are not and are only found in these rituals. So from the time Pilate washes his hand to the end of the film, the audience is treated to a depiction of the stations of the cross rather than a depiction based on the biblical record; the only historic record of the events.

The film is definitely an expression of Mel Gibson's Roman Catholic beliefs; one that he obviously takes seriously to have spent so much time and effort on making this film and the tortuous process he endured in distributing it. I did not detect any blatant anti-Semitism in the film as is charged by some; there were Jewish leaders and common people who were outraged and deeply distressed by the events and the Romans were depicted as brutes who thoroughly enjoyed their job of torture and execution (as well as expressing their own form of anti-Semitism which caused me at least to despise them all the more). I am not Jewish and therefore not really as sensitive to anti-Semitism as they of course are (and rightly so), so I may have missed it.

I am of the Evangelical Christian faith, so while the film was done in an excellent manner, I cannot wholeheartedly endorse it as some of "my "brethren in the faith do" because of the heavy reliance on Roman Catholic doctrine. A film like the Jesus Film that is base entirely on the Gospel of Luke is one I would recommend for biblical accuracy as far as the story line is concerned even though it lacked in production quality and casting (Jesus definitely did not appear Jewish enough in the Jesus Film; the actors and actresses depicting Jews in the Passion were definitely more authentic looking).

In closing, if you have seen the film and were impressed by it and want to know more about the events, open up a Bible and read the first four books of the New Testament as well as the 53rd chapter of Isaiah and you will read how these events were foretold and how they unfolded, and perhaps you will believe in what Jesus did and join the family of God.

Why else would he and the rest of the big name stars in this travesty of cinema ever agree to be a part of it. I saw it in the theatre way back when. The lousyness of this film has only been surpassed in my mind by Saturn 3 (another film with great stars, Kirk Douglas and Harvey Keitel, but horrible story; perhaps Kirk did it because he could be cuddly with Farrah). The visitor makes no sense, is shot in a shoddy manner, and the production quality looks like super 8. I am sure the actors and actresses who participated are embarrassed and rue the day they ever agreed to do this picture. If their agents convinced them to do it, they should have fired them. Avoid at all costs! Don't encourage the makers of this garbage to make more films like it.

I saw the EE version of FOTR on the big screen and it was so much better than the theatrical release. The flow of the film was smoother and the additional scenes would certainly have been helpful to those unfamiliar with the book and a delight to those of us who missed such scenes as the presentation of Galadriel's gifts to the fellowship. Not to say that the theatrical release wasn't fantastic; I saw it 30+ times. I am just so glad that PJ and New Line decided to release the EE's on the big screen to prep us for ROTK. I am looking forward to seeing the EE of TTT next week. I hope at some point PJ and New Line will screen the EE of ROTK after they make their bundle on the theatrical release and DVDs.

All these critics who keep harping on the sensitivity issue obviously think that Americans are a bunch of whining wimps. Perhaps they don't want the public to see a film where the President is strong, determined, and decisive as well as a war veteran (horror of horrors, a Marine!)and the CIA doing a good job. The Sum of All Fears reminded me of the excellent film Thirteen Days and the Cuban missile crisis. The film also reinforces the need for America to be vigilant and to take terrorism seriously. Perhaps the critics don't like that as well. They don't seem to think that Americans need to be reminded that something worse than 9-11 could happen if we aren't vigilant. Our enemies would like nothing more than to unleash a nuclear or biological weapon upon one of our cities and I am sure all their minds and efforts are bent on doing so. Send Hollywood the signal that we need more films like this. Hollywood needs to react to the events of 9-11 like they did after Pearl Harbor. Go see the film!

We have a president from Texas at an unheard of level of popularity, and a population focused on justice and the elimination of ultra-violent terrorist criminals and what does Miramax do? They take an ace in the hole movie like Texas Rangers and barely release it! The Texas Rangers is a story of a group of brave men risking their lives to rid their territory of lawless violent criminal gangs who are terrorizing law abiding citizens. This is a true story and is based on one of the first wars against terrorism in our country's history. If Miramax had taken hold of the historic background and actually promoted this film, I'm sure it would of made the top ten in box office the week it was released. Instead they release it on 400 screens! They're treating it like one of their "art" films that are usually released in off beat "art" theatres. Miramax blew it. Texas Rangers was an excellent film and reminded me of the good old westerns from the '40s and '50s with an excellent cast of young popular actors. I highly recommend this film and hope more of you are able to see it. If you can't catch it in the theatre, definitely put it on your list of videos. I will definitely purchase it when available.

My wife and I went into this film thinking that it would be good. We both like good spy and suspense movies and thought this film would be a good diversion. We were wrong. This film was excellent. We were on the edge of our seats the whole time and the middle east sequence was so intense that one might need a prevacid to endure it. Both Robert and Brad turned in over the top performances and Tony Scott's direction was brilliant. I find it incredible that two excellent director's (Tony and Ridley) are brothers (the Cohen brothers are good, but they always work together). This film is a must see for anyone who loves the spy film genre or the actors and director. I give it 5 stars out of 5!

I remember this show as fun and would like to see it again in syndication (since Buddy was running from the "Syndicate"). It is also somewhat timely in light of the activities of John Gotti and his son "Junior". It was a product of a more innocent time and was amusing without being vulgar or offensive. I really miss this type of creative entertainment.

Although I did cringe at some of the liberties taken with the biblical account, I was impressed with the way the story was told using Dreamworks fanatastic animation. I was also impressed with the inclusion of the disclaimer at the beginning of the film about the liberties taken and the suggestion to read the actual story in the book of Exodus (reading Numbers, Leviticus, and Deuteronomy would also be profitable). This film and the companion merchandise will cause children and adults to investigate the fascinating story of the Jewish people and their establishment as the first "Nation under God". I applaud the filmmakers willpower to resist the temptation to include talking animals (they could make a film on the Book of Judges which includes a talking donkey and not be out of line with a talking animal) which would have severely abused the original history and cheapened the message of the Moses account. I do criticize the closing song about believing in that it wasn't clear enough that the faith involved was faith in "I am" (YHWH) not just some sort of magical self-centered believing which the song seemed to convey. Nevertheless, I hope Dreamworks is successful with this film and look forward to more biblical theme movies from them in the future.