Reviews written by registered user

Send an IMDb private message to this author or view their message board profile.

2 reviews in total 
Index | Alphabetical | Chronological | Useful

Crossover (2006)
97 out of 121 people found the following review useful:
Fantastic movie?!?!??!, 21 January 2007

Fantastic movie? Fantastic? Are you kidding me? This "fantastic" movie has an average rating of 1.1, with 1 being the lowest rating on IMDb after over 1,200 votes. Fantastic? Fantastic trash, maybe.

The acting was bush league, and the plot was lame. All this is is just more of this same old tired and boring urban-up-and-comer-defeat-the-odds-make-a-life-from-nothing worship garbage.

I can't believe I wasted my time with this movie.

Voters rated "Gigli" higher than this, which should give you an idea of exactly how bad this movie is.

2 out of 4 people found the following review useful:
Seriously, folks. Are Gibson's true intentions that hard to figure out?, 12 March 2004

I don't normally post my opinions online, for a desire to be taken seriously by strangers is futile. However, there comes a time in one's life where they feel compelled to act outside of the box and offer their one-sided dialogue, also known as 'opinion'.

There is currently a love-hate attitude regarding Gibson's 'Passion', with no gray area. All reviews I've seen either gave it a zero or a ten on a scale of one to ten, and yes, I meant 'zero'.

What I am having difficulty reconciling is of these elitist, sanctimonious, condescending reviewers who evidently wish to redefine Gibson's intentions with this movie. Don't take my word for it, read the reviews yourself: David Edelstein from, Peter Travers from Rolling Stone, and the ever-not-so-eloquent Stephanie Zacharek from I can't post quotes here due to IMDb guidelines, so you'll have to do the research yourself.

This is but a mere short sample of the self-righteous punditry out there, asking the 'Where is Jesus' teachings of goodness, forgiveness, etc. etc.?'

What these monetarily compensated, yet ignorant 'professionals' can't seem to get through their Hollywoodesque, gray-matter-challenged craniums, is that this was not an attempt to relay all of Jesus' teachings, nor his messages, but simply Gibson's portrayal of Jesus' suffering, pain, and death. Gibson wasn't relaying Jesus' beliefs, but the manifestation of those beliefs. Atheists by the millions will not be "converted" by this movie, although some may. It was not Gibson's intention to outline Jesus' entire life, but only the last twelve hours.

So Gibson didn't include what YOU thought was most important. So what?

The simple fact, folks, is Jesus' death is the single-most important historical event of mankind, even more important than His birth. Our salvation wasn't earned by His birth. It was earned by Him through His death. Most people know the most of the facts, however, aren't familiar with the severity of punishment Jesus was put through, during and before his crucifixion. This brutal punishment to a man who did no wrong. This is what Gibson was trying to enlighten us with. If there are any screenwriters or directors out there who wish to enlighten us again with Jesus' teachings, miracles, and other actions he performed BEFORE those last twelve hours, they are free to do so. This was Gibson's movie, and his decision was to focus on Jesus' death, again, the single-most important historical event of mankind, ever. This movie was specifically about the twelve hours before Jesus' death. EARTH TO ELITIST REVIEWER: Jesus' did not conduct much teaching about anything during those twelve hours, as He was too busy earning our salvation for us, so of COURSE there will not be much of His teachings in this movie.

For any professional to ignore and distort Gibson's intentions can be summed up only two different ways: 1. These reviewers don't really believe their own reviews but just want to keep those cocktail party invitations coming in from their Hollywood elitist buddies by perpetuating the 'Be cool and hate anything Jesus' Hollywood attitude, which makes their professionalism and credibility shoddy at best, AND/OR

2. These reviewers disingenuously wish to redefine Gibson's intentions in making this movie, which makes them propagandists and spreaders of lies.

These so-called professionals should just do their job. In case they can't, I shall do it for them:

Was the movie compelling? Yes Was the cinematography good? Yes Was the acting good? Yes Was the musical score good? Yes Were the special effects good? Yes

Additionally, to those distribution companies who either failed to see a money-maker in this or just plain hate Jesus: How does your $370,000,000 crow taste (at #11 on the all-time U.S. box office gross sales list as of 2006-12-27)

Feel free to contact me with questions, comments, and even Jesus-hating propaganda if you're prepared for a response that will make you look and feel inept.