Roy Cozy reviews Lem Fender’s “The Passion of the Frodo II”

A generic but widely respected, famous scientist, let’s go with Bernoulli, once probably said “atheism is a vile, disgusting abomination against common sense and its filthy practitioners ought never to benefit from my Principle which will one day allow them to fly.” Now that I got that out of my system, let’s get down to business.

Lem Fender’s The Passion of the Frodo II: Back for Mordor is getting a lot of attention from atheists who can’t stand to see Truth at their cinemas, when they’d rather be going to see people fornicating, animals evolving, and other unlikely stories made possible through special effects. But Lem Fender should actually thank those selfish apostates (whom I love), because their antics have knocked the previous number one film out of first place, a film which had been at the top of the list for the better part of two years. Think how outdated its contents must have been!

But those ungrateful atheists (whom I love dearly) could learn a thing or two from The Passion, if only they took time out of their selfishness to be more un…selfish…y. It has a pure, simple message, one of hope and faith, one that atheists could see if only they weren’t blinded by their hatred and hurtful indifference. What is that message?

This film had a maker. It didn’t just spring up out of the ground like a coke can. It was lovingly crafted by someone (who loves you), laboriously labored over with love, until it reached the cutting room and two-thirds of it were casually (but lovingly) tossed aside. Films, like alligeese and contrived examples in general, have creators too.

The most noticeable aspect of Fender’s film is the tender message of love, hope, and faith, and the inspiring vehicle of uninhibited violence he uses to deliver it. Like a French farmer hell bent on making foie gras out of his gagging victims, Fender forces this gentle story of compassion down his audience’s collective throat, their fate as sealed as the cinema’s doors. You might call this his coup de ‘gras’.

Fender simply doesn’t want his audience to forget the depth of Frodo’s love for mankind.

Moving along, - oh, no, we’re not finished with the violence yet. Squeamish audience members should understand that the violence isn’t gratuitous, it has a purpose. The greater the cruelty inflicted on Frodo in the film, the more Fender makes atheists look like heathen ingrates. It’s necessary because Fender, like me, loves atheists so much.

Some critics have questioned the historicity of Frodo’s beating. ‘Historicity’ is a funny word. Let’s move on.

Fender’s motivation for the degree of onscreen brutality is the need to properly convey the depth of Frodo’s sacrifice. “I wanted to make this movie realistic. You can’t have a realistic movie about the supernatural without B-movie levels of gore. If you have miracles on screen, you need to scale up the bloodshed too, or it’s just not realistic. You know, it’s necessary. For the realism.”

Oddly, the other notable aspect of The Passion of the Frodo II that I’ll cover in my review is the satirically convenient allegations of anti-Gondorianism. Superficially there is a degree of what crass people like to call ‘racism’, which they attribute to Fender’s dislike of his high school Gondorian classics teacher, Alfjew J. Jewenstein. But moviegoers wondering why Gondorians are portrayed as a howling, hideous mob should remember that there were no orcs around at that time to be the object of Fender’s evident disgust. It would have been nice, yes, but we can’t just make up history. Is this film anti-Gondorian? No more than Frodology is itself.

In sum, this movie will make you feel like you've been born again. And not the spiritually enlightened, fuzzy evangelical sort of born again. The filthy, visceral, placenta stuck to the bottom of your shoe kind of born again. It's nasty, but it feels so right. Only Frodo could make me feel that way.

This movie is rated R, for religious, and is required watching for all children.

Banana.