Roger Friedman at Fox gleefully quotes The Hollywood Reporter's blasting of Mel's movie:
The Hollywood Reporter didn't like it, and they like most everything. Their reviewer wrote:
"People will see what they want to see in a movie shorn of any point of view not in literal accord with the gospels. True believers will bear witness to holy writ. Others — nonbelievers or even less literal-minded Christians — will be troubled by the film's staunch adherence to a story line and characters that have been used by bigots to fuel hatred for centuries."
The Reporter also says that the movie's violence is so intense and more important than character development that audiences may have trouble with that.
Did Martin Scorcese show any view not in accord with denigration and blaspphemy in "The Last Temptation of Christ"? Was he ever criticized
by Hollywood for that? Every message is welcome in Hollywood except one brought by "the believers" who wish to adhere to the Gospel story's literal rendering of "holy writ".
And just when was the last time Hollywood was troubled by violence in any movie? Yeah, that's what I thought--never! Suddenly they're concerned that violence supplants character development?! Excuse me while I laugh at that one.
And finally, I can assure you that those who have adhered to the literal rendering of the Gospel message--"turn the other cheek"; "bless those who hate you"; "love your neighbor as yourself"--have done far more to civilize the world than Hollywood ever has.