Well, I think I agree with you that Gibson is very self gratifying. But as for the taste of his cum, it is very subjective.

For instance, I can see a Jewish person does not like Passion. Or an English doesn't care for Braveheart to say the least (Though I should watch that again, I find my taste of six years ago now shameful at times) To me, being of a Muslim background and brain-washed that it was not Christ who was crucified, and crucifixion to be the crime of Romans anyway; I would watch it very objectively. The story may be flawed and the facts be twisted and self serving. It might anger me as 300 would, if I was not detached from the subject matter. (I've not seen that one just yet.) But all in all, technically, it wasn't as bad as you say it is. It could deliver what it was intended for it, whether we like the taste or not.

But I really don't see your point about the problem of spears going through hearts each and every time. 007 has the worst record for such coincidences and many wouldn't care. It is entertainment and if they didn't have the money, that franchise may as well would've came out as B movies. But it doesn't and no one takes them that seriously, it is British masturbation and we don't credit it any more than that. So why should we credit Apocalypto, Passion or 300 with more than that either?

I think Gibson is being attacked more than he has got merit. He is not that fantastic that you make it out to be, to need the extra bashing to balance the quota. But he is better than many out there making movies. I've not totally disliked anything he has done.

Now as for Spielberg and his Munich, I still think it made the point it wanted successfully at least for me. Muslims and Jews have one thing in common among many other things, and that's the right to vengeance. It is religiously instated in our culture to seek retaliation. Let us see, as graphically as possible, how it never ends. It was about time for an objective and masterful view of Spielberg and I loved it.