Terrible acting, screenplay and direction.

Highly Overrated But Still Good

if their story seems completely bonkers, almost like a feverish work of fiction, you ain't heard nothing yet.

I enjoyed watching this film and would recommend other to give it a try , (as I am) but this movie, although enjoyable to watch due to the better than average acting fails to add anything new to its storyline that is all too familiar to these types of movies.

This is the most repulsive, idiotic and absurd documentary I've ever seen. How many people starved to death under Kim-Jong Il, 2 or 3 million? Mao's policies led directly to the starvation of 18 to 48 MILLION! THIS IS NOT FUNNY! Even if you were trying to be funny about Mao the professor's "jokes" mostly take the form of infantile mockery of Chinese accents.This is a fan letter from an idiot who for some reason has a job teaching somewhere. I WOULD LOVE TO KNOW WHERE! Did you know Mao was in favor of democratic elections every 4 years? The professor takes Mao's statement of this totally at face value. Mao was a great democrat! Wow, where did I ever get the impression he wasn't? Maybe his entire history in power. I don't know if I was more offended as a screenwriter, as an MA in Political Science. I think just as a human being. Hitler could only be so lucky to have a hagiographer as sycophantic, dishonest and immoral as the fool that made this.

"The Passion of the Mao" starts out promisingly enough. Its cute cartoon scenes cause chuckles, and the overt comparison to Jesus is both a welcome mockery of Mel Gibson's film of a similar name and an indication that the subject matter will be treated lightheartedly. A little cheeky irreverence, especially with controversial topics, is always welcome. And yet the joking tone conceals some egregious conclusions. From Mao's victory in 1949 through to his death in 1976, this film would have you believe that everything is roses. Industrial output is up, agricultural output is up, life expectancy is up, education is up. Even famine and social unrest get a positive spin. That Mao was eccentric but harmless, and more importantly, blameless, is the byline. Numerous Chinese scholars at American universities are interviewed to that effect too, and viewers will have a fun time trying to spot a single negative word. "Westerners lapped up the idea that Chinese citizens in the 60s and 70s were victims," criticises one. Well, dear, that's because many of them were. And so it goes on. Finally, the filmmakers chose a narrator with abysmal Chinese pronunciation, and didn't include subtitles for some of their interviewees' whose English was a chore to follow. But as finishing touches on a flawed film, I suppose it's fitting.

History is a subject that I found boring as a youngster. Before watching this movie I felt decidedly ignorant of twentieth century Chinese history.I highly recommend Feigon's documentary to anyone who has a desire to learn world history, tempered by an instinctive distaste for its traditional presentation. He livens up a comprehensive account of Mao's political life with various sordid details of his personal life. For example, I enjoyed learning that Chairman Mao did not brush his teeth.In the first viewing, the amount of material covered made me feel somewhat overwhelmed, which is why I want to watch it a second time.

My father is from China. My whole life he's been lecturing me about the greatness of Chairman Mao. But the way my Dad explained Mao, it was boring. And who wants to be lectured about history by their father? Finally, Director Lee (who is not even Chinese) has told Mao's story in a funny irreverent way that is a gas to watch. He has told the story that Chinese like my father, who lived through the Cultural Revolution, have always wanted to tell. And he has told it in an American idiom that appeals both to Chinese and to Western audiences. Mao is not the villain that my white liberal friends. who know a little about China but not too much, are always trying to make him out to be. Sure, Mao made mistakes, some very big ones as Feigon is very clear to note. And Mao's personal life was definitely kinky. My father never told me about this side of Chairman Mao's life. But in a way it made the old guy more human.I had tears in my eyes towards the end of this film, though it's not at all a tear-jerker type film. Why can't all documentaries be like this? Why couldn't my father have told Mao's story like this?