The Passion of the Christ

[Firestarter 0]

But using that theory, why would anyone ever see a film portraying a single historical or written event

Because art isn't supposed to be slavishly accurate to the point of madness. Art is about taking an account of events or some perspective on reality and reflecting it back to the viewer in order to show the deeper (or at least different) aspects or truths underlying it.

 

Showing chunks of skin and flesh flying off a scourge and spurts of blood gushing from a man's body isn't art. It's merely grotesque, perverse, and sickening crudity.

[Guest Agent of Oblivion]

I disagree. I'm going to go watch this on the promise of a bloodbath. Is it worth my money, folks? I didn't read the thread because I don't want to deal with the religious banter since I've already made my mind up about that.

 

If I'm going for blood, I will think this movie is _____?

[Ripper 0]

Well, maybe Gibson felt that the other portrayals of the cruxifiction have been pussified and therefore took away from the message. You agree or disagree, but calling it pornographic for being accurate is a bit strong, don't you think? What has been described IS what happens when you are whipped in the severity that people were whipped back then.

[dubq 0]

Saw it Saturday. Very draining. Regardless of whether you think it's fact or fiction, I mean, two hours of seeing a man having the living shit kicked out of him is a bit of an assault on the senses.

 

Movie-wise. I thought it was very well done.

[Guest Cerebus]

I disagree. I'm going to go watch this on the promise of a bloodbath. Is it worth my money, folks? I didn't read the thread because I don't want to deal with the religious banter since I've already made my mind up about that.

 

If I'm going for blood, I will think this movie is _____?

Let me put it this way. Roger Ebert was right when he said that this movie WOULD have got an NC-17 rating for violence if anyone but Jesus had been the victim.

[dubq 0]

I disagree. I'm going to go watch this on the promise of a bloodbath. Is it worth my money, folks? I didn't read the thread because I don't want to deal with the religious banter since I've already made my mind up about that.

 

If I'm going for blood, I will think this movie is _____?

Let me put it this way. Roger Ebert was right when he said that this movie WOULD have got an NC-17 rating for violence if anyone but Jesus had been the victim.

Yeah, I found it a little disturbing that people are bringing their children to see this film.

[Guest Agent of Oblivion]

Right, I'm going tomorrow.

[NoCalMike 0]

I disagree. I'm going to go watch this on the promise of a bloodbath. Is it worth my money, folks? I didn't read the thread because I don't want to deal with the religious banter since I've already made my mind up about that.

 

If I'm going for blood, I will think this movie is _____?

Let me put it this way. Roger Ebert was right when he said that this movie WOULD have got an NC-17 rating for violence if anyone but Jesus had been the victim.

Yeah, I found it a little disturbing that people are bringing their children to see this film.

well see if the violence and gore's source is from the magical book, then it is quite ok. I am not interested on Mel Gibson's interpretation of the bible.

[chaosrage 0]

I disagree. I'm going to go watch this on the promise of a bloodbath. Is it worth my money, folks? I didn't read the thread because I don't want to deal with the religious banter since I've already made my mind up about that.

 

If I'm going for blood, I will think this movie is _____?

Let me put it this way. Roger Ebert was right when he said that this movie WOULD have got an NC-17 rating for violence if anyone but Jesus had been the victim.

Yeah, I found it a little disturbing that people are bringing their children to see this film.

well see if the violence and gore's source is from the magical book, then it is quite ok.

this is true. just look how fundies like SP equate suffering and torture with love simply because it's in the bible. (therefore it automatically MUST be good) it's kind of sick.

[justsoyouknow 0]

I am not interested on Mel Gibson's interpretation of the bible.

If by "his interpretation", you mean the TWO creative liberties he took in the entire film, then rock on. The rest of the movie is straight from the Bible, and it actually follows the story pretty well. The only things that he added were a scene with Judas and Satan that lasted all of five seconds and a scene during the crucifixion where one of the theif who doubts Jesus is punished.

 

But to claim that this is his "interpretation of the bible" is just asinine. This isn't his take on the events, this movie is based on the events. As they are written.

[Downhome 0]

I saw the film Saturday night btw, with a huge church group (we rented an entire screen), and I already want to see it again.

[ANKLELOCK 0]

I saw it last night and will see it again Friday. It is very draining no matter what you believe about the Bible. I happen to be a Christian and know a lot about Christ's life, and, minus a couple of extra creative things such as God's tear causing the massive earthquake, it was very accurate. I was in tears at the end seeing Jesus howl in pain. Very touching. I suggest seeing this movie even if you are an atheist. James Caveizel should get a nomination for Best Actor and Maia Morgenstern should get some type of award. Maybe best Supporting Actress. Very emotionally draining movie, but the day after I feel ready to see it again.

[Downhome 0]

(AP) - After opening with an astonishing $125.2 million over five days, Mel Gibson's "The Passion of the Christ" is positioned to get even bigger as the Roman Catholic season of Lent leads up to Easter on April 11. The box-office total announced Monday by distributor Newmarket Films pushed "The Passion" past "The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King" ($124.1 million) for biggest debut ever by a film opening on a Wednesday.

[Edwin MacPhisto 0]

Saw the movie tonight. It was, unfortunately, pretty disappointing. The devil was ridiculous in almost all incarnations. Audience was worse - how can you get mad at someone for laughing when there's a fucking Uruk-Hai reject popping out of the bushes and scaring Judas? The general interchangeability/compatability of the Aramaic and Latin was confusing. The slo-mo was cheap-looking, overdone, and manipulative to the point of excess. Same with the score - swelling and "dramatic" like it wanted to be Braveheart, but without the well-executed themes. Don't get me started on the "Christ's viewpoint" shots, which were almost as bad as the slo-mo and sometimes had the misfortune to coincide with them. Caviezel was pretty good, Mary was quite expressive, and the film was well-shot when not engaging in all the gimmickry. Oh, and I liked the shot of the nail going through the cross, with the blood running down after it came through. Clever.

 

I was pretty much unmoved and unimpressed throughout, despite the buckets of blood. With the exception of rare shots - the aforementioned shot of the nail, or the overhead almost-still after the scourging - the film barely engaged me at all. It was a really basic film that, aside from the heroic make-up job on Caviezel, didn't seem like it had a lot of substantive effort supporting it.