This is the same clown that gave Pirates of the Carribean II 3 1/2 stars. *Gag*

Recently, she reviewed Mel Gibson's "Apocalypto." I have yet to form an opinion on the film, but this is her review:

http://www.usatoday.com/life/movies/reviews/2006-12-07-review-apocalypto_x.htm

And one of her stupidest remarks is, "With films such as Braveheart and Passion of the Christ, Mel Gibson revels in violence."

Yeah, like those two films are a celebration of violence. *Rolls eyes*

Nevermind that Braveheart earned Mel an Oscar, or that Passion of the Christ was the 5th highest grossing film of all time domestically at $390M. No, Claudia thinks those films are terrible exercises in gore and you should too.

It's obvious that Claudia has an ulterior motive to her critique, and isn't just basing her evaluation of Mel's film on the merits of the picture but on Mel's character itself. It's obvious that Claudia is a Jew, or that her boss and editor for USA Today is a Jew. I respect and admire the Jewish people, but its quite clear that these two are not very nice Jewish people. Some people aren't nice, whatever their race or creed is, and these two aren't very nice Jews.

Just because they're "Jewish" doesn't mean they are nice.

I am quickly losing faith in USA Today. I used to find their movie reviews informative and accurate. It all started downhill for me when that pig Puig gave POTCII 3 1/2 stars. And the 1 1/2 stars for Apocalypto is adding salt to injurty. I bet Puig is doing the boss, that is why she is not fired and is able to run her fat mouth about anything.

Adieu.

quote:

It's obvious that Claudia is a Jew, or that her boss and editor for USA Today is a Jew.

Mel? Is that you?

What are you lookin' at, Sugartits?

quote:

Originally posted by ericg75:

quote:

It's obvious that Claudia is a Jew, or that her boss and editor for USA Today is a Jew.

Mel? Is that you?

What are you lookin' at, Sugartits?

I won't be baited by your race card. =)

quote:

Originally posted by PenguinIzzy:

I won't be baited by your race card. =)

Come on. Please? I love hearing about how the mean old Jews are out to get poor old Mel Gibson. Clearly, Mel Gibson is the victim of racial and religious intolerance.

quote:

Originally posted by ericg75:

quote:

Originally posted by PenguinIzzy:

I won't be baited by your race card. =)

Come on. Please? I love hearing about how the mean old Jews are out to get poor old Mel Gibson. Clearly, Mel Gibson is the victim of racial and religious intolerance.

It is clear that he is.

You act as if Jews are above having an agenda of their own. I am not saying anything ALL of them. But I'm not a racist just because I am a realist and believe some people are just mean, no matter their creed.

First of all, I'd imagine it's pretty tough for an entire religion to have a secret agenda in this day and age.

Secondly, why would the Jews give a rat's ass about Mel Gibson? Of all the people they could potentially target, they're going after the Road Warrior? I'm pretty sure the Israel-Palestine conflict is a bigger issue for them.

Thirdly, you really believe that Mel Gibson is a victim of racial and religious intolerance? Ah yes, the world has always done a pretty good job of keeping white, Catholic males down. When will they get their due?

I'm glad that Eric found this before I did, I might not have used the tact and eloquence that he did. The bottom line is that the very thought that an entire national newspaper has it out for an actor, is ludacris. I and many others , actually, believe that Claudia may have hit the proverbial nail on the head with regards to Gibson's fixation on violence in movies.

The bottom line is that your theory is not plausible.


Good luck with your gaming troubles though.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: St. Mike,

quote:

Originally posted by ericg75:
First of all, I'd imagine it's pretty tough for an entire religion to have a secret agenda in this day and age.

Secondly, why would the Jews give a rat's ass about Mel Gibson? Of all the people they could potentially target, they're going after the Road Warrior? I'm pretty sure the Israel-Palestine conflict is a bigger issue for them.

Thirdly, you really believe that Mel Gibson is a victim of racial and religious intolerance? Ah yes, the world has always done a pretty good job of keeping white, Catholic males down. When will they get their due?

To answer your post:

I'm not saying an entire religion has a secret agenda, it is two very specific Jewish people that have a not-so-secret agenda that I am referring to: Claudia Puig, the reviewer, or her boss and Senior Editor of USA Today who has the agenda.

Also, you don't believe that the Jewish people have an agenda against Mel after "Passion of the Christ" and his drunk anti-semitic rant? Then why did the Jewish community demand an apology from Mel if they couldn't care less about his beliefs?

Third, I did not state that he is a victim of intolerance and discrimination, but rather the film "Apocalypto" is clearly being judged by Puig not by its artistic merits but rather as a project of Mel Gibson as the director. Why is that so hard to understand?

Adieu.

quote:

Originally posted by Mike:
I'm glad that Eric found this before I did, I might not have used the tact and eloquence that he did. The bottom line is that the very thought that an entire national newspaper has it out for an actor, is ludacris. I and many others , actually, believe that Claudia may have hit the proverbial nail on the head with regards to Gibson's fixation on violence in movies.

The bottom line is that your theory is not plausible.


Good luck with your gaming troubles though.

Oh right, the national media can't possibly have an agenda against an actor, after the media made a mockery of Tom Cruise and Scientology and depicted both as "crazy". You're right, national media at large are always, always, always objective about things such as Entertainment and would never use their position as writers to vent their own personal beliefs. You are absolutely right.

Oh, just in case you couldn't tell, I was being sarcastic!

http://movies.monstersandcritics.com/news/article_12318...to_leads_anemic_pack

Despite that pig Puig's best effort, Mel Gibson's "Apocalypto" ascended to the top of the box office in its first week with $14.2M. This, despite a movie entirely subtitled and with no big-name actors.

That pig Puig can eat out of her trough now.

You do realize Claudia Puig wasn't the only critic to give this film a bad review, don't you? I'm just curious why you're singling her out as if she's trying to single-handedly bring down Mel Gibson. Or can we look forward to "Dana Stevens is a Dummy" and "Andrew O'Hehir is a Poopyface" threads?

I was almost tempted to lable our new guest a troll early on, but I now believe he may actually think that Mel Gibson is being "Persecuted."

No matter how great you feel a film is, there will always be a few stray critics that dislike the film for some reason or another. Really, why does it matter what the critics think, we have all seen that critics only affect people who want to watch "Good" film, while the majority of the population would simply prefer an "Entertaining" movie.

quote:

Originally posted by ericg75:
You do realize Claudia Puig wasn't the only critic to give this film a bad review, don't you? I'm just curious why you're singling her out as if she's trying to single-handedly bring down Mel Gibson. Or can we look forward to "Dana Stevens is a Dummy" and "Andrew O'Hehir is a Poopyface" threads?

I am singling Puig out since:

1. USA Today is my favorite place to look for film reviews, and Puig is stinkin' up the joint recently.

2. Her review of the film "Apocalytpo" is entirely unjustified, and I am trying to expose her as a Mel-basher.

Really, I have made these two points quite clear in the very first post, I would wish that you would read before posting, and quit wasting my precious time.

Adieu.

quote:

Originally posted by Mike:
I was almost tempted to lable our new guest a troll early on, but I now believe he may actually think that Mel Gibson is being "Persecuted."

No matter how great you feel a film is, there will always be a few stray critics that dislike the film for some reason or another. Really, why does it matter what the critics think, we have all seen that critics only affect people who want to watch "Good" film, while the majority of the population would simply prefer an "Entertaining" movie.

It matters because this entire forum is based on critiquing the critic? Or did you not read that before entering this forum?

[Aside] God, some people can be so dumb sometimes..

Adieu.

quote:

Originally posted by PenguinIzzy:

[Aside] God, some people can be so dumb sometimes..

Adieu.

...such as the ones who start threads like this.

I think that you missed my point Penguin. I was simply saying that having a vendetta against a critic is particularly intelligent in that it won't, in any way, effect ticket sales.

I really doubt that Clauda Puig is on a mission to get Mel Gibson. In fact I think shes pretty right about his work. As a filmmaker he is incapable of expressing anything through subtlety and seems to think that excessive blood shed is the way to make up for this. You try to defend Mel Gibson by saying that he won an Oscar for Braveheart. Well the Academy voters suffer from the same problem as Mel in that the don't appreciate subtlety. Thats why Crash won best picture last year over the far better Brokeback Mountain and why Renee Zellwegger won an oscar for her completely over the top performance in Cold Mountain. You also try to defend him by citing how much money the Passion of the Christ made. Since when have a movies gross and quality gone hand in hand. Infact if you had looked at some of the other highest grossing films you would have noticed that the Grinch, Home Alone, and Stars Wars episode one: the phantom menace all made the list. All of those movies suck!

quote:

Originally posted by Mike:
I think that you missed my point Penguin. I was simply saying that having a vendetta against a critic is particularly intelligent in that it won't, in any way, effect ticket sales.

Your statement makes no fucking sense. "Having a vendetta against a critic is particularly intelligent."? I thought you thought my vendetta against Claudia is a waste of time, now you're saying that it's intelligent?

And I'm not trying to "affect ticket sales" you moron, I'm trying to expose Claudia's critique on the film "Apocalypto" as pure Mel-bashing with little to no relevance to the film itself? God, why is that one fact so hard to sink into your tiny little ostrich-egg sized brain?

Adieu.

quote:

Originally posted by ryanryanryan102:
I really doubt that Clauda Puig is on a mission to get Mel Gibson. In fact I think shes pretty right about his work. As a filmmaker he is incapable of expressing anything through subtlety and seems to think that excessive blood shed is the way to make up for this. You try to defend Mel Gibson by saying that he won an Oscar for Braveheart. Well the Academy voters suffer from the same problem as Mel in that the don't appreciate subtlety. Thats why Crash won best picture last year over the far better Brokeback Mountain and why Renee Zellwegger won an oscar for her completely over the top performance in Cold Mountain. You also try to defend him by citing how much money the Passion of the Christ made. Since when have a movies gross and quality gone hand in hand. Infact if you had looked at some of the other highest grossing films you would have noticed that the Grinch, Home Alone, and Stars Wars episode one: the phantom menace all made the list. All of those movies suck!

Again, I am offering to you two measures of success: either a critic's praise, or box office and academy awards.

Think about this in a scenario: Supposed you released a film, entitled "Ryan's Journey to the Center of the Earth." Now, Claudia Puig gave your film four stars on USA Today. But your film tanked at the box office, and you won 0 academy awards. Would you consider your film a success?

At the same token, what if you released the same film, and Claudia gave you 0 stars. However, your film was a huge blockbuster hit with America, and you won Best Director. Would you consider the film a success?

My point is, the Academy Awards and Box Office ticket sales are much better indication of a film's success than a puny critic's column, would you not agree? That is why I am saying that Claudia Puig's opinions about "Braveheart" and "Passion of the Christ" are highly erroneous since the two standard measures of a success for film, the Academy Awards and Box Office sales, clearly favored his films. We can debate the credibilty of the Academy Awards or Box Office sales, but at the end of the day, they are far more credible indicators of a film's success than a single writer's opinion in a column. WOULD YOU NOT AGREE?

I'm still not clear on the point you're trying to to make. First, you claim this woman is a hateful Jew who's out to get Mel Gibson, and to further support you're argument, you show us that Apocalypto is turning out to be a box office smash. How does that prove anything? Lots of successful movies are given terrible reviews by critics. I fail to see how that makes the critic wrong. It just means the movie-going public has crappy taste too. Look at your first post. You alluded to the fact that Pirates of the Carribean II was a crappy film, but it was also highly successful. Are you an idiot for having an opinion that differs from box office sales? Are you a mean-spirited anti-Pirate?