The Passion of the Christ

[Guest cobainwasmurdered]

Exactly, I'd say that almost everyone that goes to see this movie knows the story of Christ. It's not some big secret, you don't need to be told everything in this film.

But that's my whole point. Gibson made a movie that only a relatively narrow audience can appreciate and understand the significance of. Movie reviewers critiquing it as a movie have to point that out as a major flaw, and they're correct to do so.

 

As a spiritual experience, I'm sure it's very powerful. As a movie, however, it's very flawed.

I don't know your issue. I've never met anyone of ANY religion that doesn't know the story of Christ. Just like I've never met anyone who doesn't understand other such things that have been around for so many years and is talked about in just about every culture and any generation.

 

A huge backstory isn't needed with a subject like the story of Christ, it just isn't. If you don't know at least the very basics of Christ, then you must have been living under a rock for the past, oh, thousands of years.

I know a bunch of people that know practically nothing about Jesus.

 

Any movie needs to have a backstory it's part of making a movie. it's stupid and nonsensical not to have a backstory.

 

It's also stupid and arrogant to assume that everyone in the world know's about Jesus.

[Downhome 0]

Any movie needs to have a backstory it's part of making a movie. it's stupid and nonsensical not to have a backstory.

That's your opinion, but there are plenty of great and classic films out there that do not have any sort of backstory. If a film is well enough made, it is able to tell a story from the opening onward, without you knowing anything in depth of any backstory that there could be.

 

It's also stupid and arrogant to assume that everyone in the world know's about Jesus.

 

Once again, your opinion. I've never in my life met anyone who didn't know about Christ. It's not stupid or arrogant to say that most, I said most not EVERYONE, knows Christ and/or his story. Like I said, unless you have lived under a rock, you've heard about it. You can't live in the world, unless it's a place where Christ is 100% absent, and places like that do exist, without hearing something about the story of Christ. The vast majority of people, I assure you, have heard of it.

[Guest Cerebus]

A friend of mine, who before watching the film was somewhat religious, was turned off of christianity as a whole after the film with the simple explanation, that he doesnt want to worship a God who would put his son up to that kind of torture...

 

no opinion here

It's an interesting point. Someone like SP who know the bible can help. Why was Christ's death so brutal. The flogging, the carrying of the cross, being mocked, and ridiculed, things being thrown at him, and being crufixied which is one of the worse means of thed death? Was it so mankind can truly feel the pain, the son of God went through to save them?

Absolutely. While everyone (for the most part) knows the story of Jesus, how many can truthfully say they realized how brutal it was. I was born and raised Catholic and still try to go to church every so often. In the prayers its covered this way:

 

"He suffered, died and was buried."

 

That's it. Not much more. Around Easter they get into details a little more, such as placing the crown of thorns and people throwing stuff at him and such. Even the old movies of Jesus show very little of his suffering. This is the first time its really been addressed visually. Sure you can read about it somewhere I'm sure, but until you see it, its really hard to grasp just how much he suffered. I won't be seeing the movie until the crowds die down (some literally) in a couple of weeks but I have always really enjoyed religeous movies. This is quite different from those, but I'm sure I'll appreciate it nonetheless.

That's just it, Gibson really embellished the physical torture of Jesus in Passion and included so few flashbacks that the story was more about how bloody Gibson could make and get away with it. There was so much, in fact, that it de-emphasized Jesus's spirtual torment in favor of having a lot of sadistic scenes (really, did we need to see a crow peck out a guy's eye or see skin fly from a whipping?) and, overall, makes the movie deeply flawed imo.

[Guest HHH123007]

Anyway, I saw it tonight.

 

It wasn't half as violent as everyone made it out to be. Kill Bill was totally worse(although that was funny-worse). I went in with mixed thoughts about the flick....didn't know if it would stay clear of the "Look at me! I'm making the greatest epic film of all-time!" syndrome that I absolutely hate.

 

I have to say it was very good. It looks terrific, the acting is great(something I don't usually notice in subtitled movies), and the subtitles didn't bother me at all. It was a bit light on story, pretty much expecting you knew what happens in the Bible....but all the flashbacks were fantastic, and really showed you how much some people cared for Jesus despite all the negativity shown towards him on screen.

 

I'm quite the athiest, but I was raised in a church-going environment(w/a grandfather that's a minister).....I love the Bible and think that many more movies could be made from all the stories in it.

 

I would love to see it again, but will probably wait until DVD release because of the theater experience. The woman next to me was sobbing like mad for the last 75 minutes.

 

Oh, and I really think Mel Gibson has become a prick.

 

***1/2 or (7/10) - #1 movie of 2004, thusfar...

[Lord of The Curry 0]

I loved it.

 

One of the hardest movies I've ever had to sit through. The violence was some of the most realistic blood put on film, period. There were times when I turned away. It didn't really hit me how involved I was emotionally until the end, when the lights came up in the theatre, I realized the movie was over and then began to cry.

 

The directing (aside from the overdone Bravehear-esque moments and camerawork) was amazing, the special effects were minimal and well done for what they were. The acting was spot on and hopefully recognition will go to Jim Cavizel and Mai Morgenstern for their work.

 

Visually, one of the best I've ever seen. The shot of Christ on the cross is fucking embedded in my mind.

 

Religiously.........I'm still sorting that one out. I'm seeing it again soon so I'll reply again after that.

[geniusMoment 0]

Both my parents are catholic, but I think religion is for suckers therefore I don't give a fuck about this movie. See you guys in hell.

[Guest SP-1]

A friend of mine, who before watching the film was somewhat religious, was turned off of christianity as a whole after the film with the simple explanation, that he doesnt want to worship a God who would put his son up to that kind of torture...

 

no opinion here

It's an interesting point. Someone like SP who know the bible can help. Why was Christ's death so brutal. The flogging, the carrying of the cross, being mocked, and ridiculed, things being thrown at him, and being crufixied which is one of the worse means of thed death? Was it so mankind can truly feel the pain, the son of God went through to save them?

Absolutely. While everyone (for the most part) knows the story of Jesus, how many can truthfully say they realized how brutal it was. I was born and raised Catholic and still try to go to church every so often. In the prayers its covered this way:

 

"He suffered, died and was buried."

 

That's it. Not much more. Around Easter they get into details a little more, such as placing the crown of thorns and people throwing stuff at him and such. Even the old movies of Jesus show very little of his suffering. This is the first time its really been addressed visually. Sure you can read about it somewhere I'm sure, but until you see it, its really hard to grasp just how much he suffered. I won't be seeing the movie until the crowds die down (some literally) in a couple of weeks but I have always really enjoyed religeous movies. This is quite different from those, but I'm sure I'll appreciate it nonetheless.

That's just it, Gibson really embellished the physical torture of Jesus in Passion and included so few flashbacks that the story was more about how bloody Gibson could make and get away with it. There was so much, in fact, that it de-emphasized Jesus's spirtual torment in favor of having a lot of sadistic scenes (really, did we need to see a crow peck out a guy's eye or see skin fly from a whipping?) and, overall, makes the movie deeply flawed imo.

Considering historians have said the film is historically accurate, I don't see where he embellished it at all. When the Romans beat you, they did it savagely. The Cat of Nine Tails was accurate. And it did exactly what it was shown: ripped you apart. Crucifying someone was a bloody endeavor as well. When the Romans made you carry your cross, you were beaten.

 

Its an accurate film.

 

The point of it wasn't Jesus being spiritually tormented. He wasn't. He knew what was coming. The physical torment and the physical death is the focus because of its theological aspects.

[Vern Gagne 0]

Both my parents are catholic, but I think religion is for suckers therefore I don't give a fuck about this movie. See you guys in hell.

This isn't about religion. It's about having a believe in Jesus. The two aren't one in the same.

[Vern Gagne 0]

Mel Gibson has said he'd be interested in making more biblical stories into movies.

 

Acts would be my first choice. The story of Jesus's apostles, and disciples spreading his gospel after his death.

 

No need for big budget special affects like other stories in the Old Testament would need.

[Guest HHH123007]

Both my parents are catholic, but I think religion is for suckers therefore I don't give a fuck about this movie. See you guys in hell.

Even if you aren't religious in any way you can still find this to be a very entertaining(and moving, in some cases) film.

 

If you're a fan of film it's a good thing to see, whether you end up liking it or not...

[Guest SP-1]

Mel Gibson has said he'd be interested in making more biblical stories into movies.

 

Acts would be my first choice. The story of Jesus's apostles, and disciples spreading his gospel after his death.

 

No need for big budget special affects like other stories in the Old Testament would need.

Yeah. Really, if you wanted to go epic, you could pick up where PASSION ends with the resurrection, and really show the birth of the early church through Paul's death.

 

But then, we'd be looking at a solid 3 hour movie. At least. Seeing Gibson's interpretation of the arrival of the Spirit at Pentecost would be interesting.

 

My only problem with other movies would be whether he remains in a middleground and sticks to the Bible and doesn't mix in too much religious tradition.

[Guest TheMadmanGreg]

I just wish Mel Gibson had made the story entirely accurate. He put is so much effort to make it consistent and credible, but still left big gaping errors.

 

And saying that Jesus invented the modern-day dinner table was silly.

[MooreMark 0]

How is Satan portrayed in the movie?

 

And did any muslims goto see the movie? I want to know what there opinion is on it. I am one but, I don't think I'll be seeing it.

[geniusMoment 0]

Did anyone hear the interview Mel Gipson's father gave about jewish people. That is reportedly who Gipson made this movie for, anyone who feels that way about an entire group of people is disgusting. I will not give my money to this family. I am not even jewish but what he said was a disgrace. He claimed the holocaust did not happen and that Jewish people only look out for themselves and will never work hard. There was much more to the interview, he came across as a total nazi.

[Guest thebigjig]

Did anyone hear the interview Mel Gipson's father gave about jewish people. That is reportedly who Gipson made this movie for, anyone who feels that way about an entire group of people is disgusting. I will not give my money to this family. I am not even jewish but what he said was a disgrace. He claimed the holocaust did not happen and that Jewish people only look out for themselves and will never work hard. There was much more to the interview, he came across as a total nazi.

Not disputing this... but do you have a link or something to this news story? I havent heard about this yet

[Guest SP-1]

Gibson's father is anti-semetic apparently. But Mel isn't. Anything to bash a movie though, eh?

 

And I don't think the intent of the high-table bit was that Christ invented it. It was a joke. A humorous way of pointing out that Jesus knew what lay ahead.

[Guest EQ]

I just wish Mel Gibson had made the story entirely accurate. He put is so much effort to make it consistent and credible, but still left big gaping errors.

 

And saying that Jesus invented the modern-day dinner table was silly.

Shut the fuck up, Madman

[Guest SP-1]

I'd also like to know what errors you speak of, Madman. The film was in Greek, Latin, and Aramaic with a smattering of Hebrew. They pretty much did their own translation. Which is why their verbalizations didn't match up with biblical text in that area.

[Guest Miss Indy Queen]

Here's a link to a news story talking about the radio interview Mel Gibson's father did making those comments.

 

Yahoo News

[Downhome 0]

What exactly does Mel's father have ANYTHING to do with this?

[Edwin MacPhisto 0]

Well, his dad seems like a crazy piece of shit, and the whole run of interviews for this movie has me a bit freaked by Mel, too. I'm a bit unsettled to give him my money.

 

I still haven't decided if I'm getting ripped on Jager tonight and seeing this, or going lighthearted with Club Dread.

[Downhome 0]

I ask again, what exactly does Mel's father have to do with this? He wasn't involved in making the film, he's just some crazy old man off to the side who just happens to be the father of Mel.

 

I'm sure there are tons of moron releatives out in Hollywood and other aspects of the entertainment community who you would hate also.

[Guest TheMadmanGreg]

I'd also like to know what errors you speak of, Madman.  The film was in Greek, Latin, and Aramaic with a smattering of Hebrew.  They pretty much did their own translation.  Which is why their verbalizations didn't match up with biblical text in that area.

Jesus was nailed through the WRISTS... not the hands. Not only is it impossible to hang a person by the hands, it breaks biblical prophesy. Jesus was also hung on a T-cross, much like the other two thieves. The tradition cross Jesus was shown on in this movie wasn't even employed by the Romans until many many years later. I just find it odd that they take all the special attension to have everyone speaking the appropriate action, then they make several historical mistakes, and add a dialogue between Jesus and Satan at Gethsemane... and for some reason have a small child with Satan.

 

And EQ just sucks, so I don't even have to answer him. Either find yourself a dog with a cape, or watch another puppet Angel episode.

[Vern Gagne 0]

I ask again, what exactly does Mel's father have to do with this? He wasn't involved in making the film, he's just some crazy old man off to the side who just happens to be the father of Mel.

 

I'm sure there are tons of moron releatives out in Hollywood and other aspects of the entertainment community who you would hate also.

Gibson's father is like 95 years old. Doesn't excuse his comments, but the reporter should of just left him alone. No need to hear what a crazy old man thinks.

[Downhome 0]

Gibson's father is like 95 years old. Doesn't excuse his comments, but the reporter should of just left him alone. No need to hear what a crazy old man thinks.

I know it doesn't excuse, I'm totally against and appalled by what he said, it's just insane. It sill has nothing to do with Mel's movie, and it shouldn't be a reason why people don't go see it.

 

If anyone doesn't go see it because of his freaking father, then they are just looking for a reason to be against the film.

[NYU 0]

I don't like when people start criticizing Mel over not denouncing his father's comments in public. Obviously, his dad's comments are ridiculous and terribly offensive. But that doesn't change the fact that Mel is STILL his son and it certainly wouldn't be right for him to come out in public and speak out against his own DAD - who he's still friendly with. Those are the foundations of breaking apart a family.

 

My dad isn't exactly the most politically-correct person around. He has been known to say a stupid comment here or there. But I would never denounce him in front of friends and family, and start chastising him for what he just said. It's your parent, and you have to respect his opinion, no matter how wrong or non-PC it may be. I just think it's unreasonable that people expect Mel to trash his father all over the media and say that whatever he said is ridiculously false. Anybody here that says they would do that to their own parent clearly doesn't have a healthy relationship with them.

[Guest HHH123007]

How is Satan portrayed in the movie?

He looks a cross between Scarlett Johansson and Death from Bill & Ted....with a freak baby.

[Vern Gagne 0]

I know it's really early. What kind of Oscar chances do you give the movie? Considering the contreversy, and Hollywood hasn't exactly thrown it's support toward's it.

[Guest croweater]

I saw the movie on Thursday and thought it was great.

I liked the use of satan in the movie (acting more as human temptation) as Jesus was continually tempted to stop his pain and suffering which, as God, would have been easy to do. The theme of the movie is Jesus' refusal of temptation regardless of the pain because it was what needed to be done. As a human he chose to suffer when he could have easily just healed his wounds and he did sow to show his power over death and temptation. That's the story. There is no need for back story because from the start of the movie you know Jesus has healing powers (as he heals the Roman soldier's ear) and throughout he chooses not to use them on himself regardless of his pain.

 

The movie was extremely gorey but it needed to be to make the resistance to temptation that much greater.

 

I don't know why "satan" has a child, but I think it may have been relevant to the demon children who tormented Judas.

 

I did not see an anti-semetic message at all in the movie. It MUST be remembered that jesus was a jew also........ A Jew Killed by Jews .....so what? Of course he'll be killed by Jews as they surround him in his every day life. If anyone would get pissed off with Jesus it would be a Jew........ why? because WHO THE HELL ELSE IS THERE TO PISS OFF? Is a movie anti american because an american kills an american in the middle of america?

[geniusMoment 0]

Mel has been trying to win back his fathers love for years. He has begun building churchs all over the world trying to spread his view of religion. The entire reason he made this movie was to win back his fathers love, a father I do not respect. The entire Mel Gipson story is out there, just do a little research and I am sure most of you will be shocked by what you find. In a nutshell Mel broke away from his fathers wacky religious ideas when he was young, this caused a major problem in their relationship. Over the last couple of years Mel has found religion as a way to get back into the good graces of his father, who for years would not talk to or take money from Mel. I have a major problem seeing this movie knowing the backstory on how it came about.