No sicker than the snuff film that screen was taken from.
<{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Oh, I see, that makes it alright, doesn't it? Typical. And your comment doesn't surprise me at all, since most people misinterpret that film completely.
<{POST_SNAPBACK}>
No, it doesn't make it "right". I never claimed that.
And how in the hell do you misinterpret THAT. I mean damn, I saw it, and most of the film was the actor playing Jesus either screaming in agony, or unecessary gore.
<{POST_SNAPBACK}>
...
so obviously you admit it was tastless and not alright, so why post it in the first place, especially when people have already taken offense to it? Unless you find it funny in some way?
And I wasn't necessarily referring to you specifically, but I was just referring to how so many people brand the movie's content as mere gratuitous violence, which it isn't. There was a reason why he made it as he did, and it wasn't for shock value (well, not in the slasher film sense).
<{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Actually, I found it funny. In a sick, "WTF!!!!1!!!1!!!111!1!!!" kind of way.
Fake blood, fake cross, all of it fake, nevermind the fact that it actually happened. The pic itself is VERY tasteless, and I'll be the first to admit that, but I got a cheap laugh out of it.
Yes, the film was for shock value. The way he did it couldn't be construed as anything less than that.