"The Passion Of The Christ "

[maria paula]

does anybody around seen "The Passion Of The Christ ", i dont know what to do, many people tells me its good but too cruel and, some other people tells me that its too cruel and really  bad , so whats your opinion?? if i would decide watch it first of all i should quit my  personal distaste for mel gibson, even i know he doesnt appear there, he is the director and thast more than  enough.

[The Burgomaster]

It is a good movie . . . but not a great movie.

[Brother Ragnarok]

I like it because I'm a gorehound.  I'm not a Christian, so the movie held no emotional value for me.  I like to call it Grand Guignol Jesus.  Lots of fun.  See you in hell, everyone!

Brother R

[-=NiGHTS=-]

It's a snuff film, essentially.

Man, I think Kevin Smith wrote it best when he said that Christians don't celebrate their faith, they mourn it.

[dirtcreature]

Damn right, Nights!

[Neville]

I found it interesting to watch, but mostly because of the pretensions of realism (Mel Gibson's Palestine looks completely different than the one featured in all those 60s bible films) and the Latin / Arameic dialogues. However, the rest of the film is a complete failure. It's not only that the focus is put on the violence, it is that there's nothing else in the film. I think the problem is that they just focused on Jesus' final 12 hours and ignored everything else, such as characters' development or motivations, historical background or even Jesus' teachings.

[lester1/2jr]

It seems like one f those chick tracts   www.chick.com  like where people get abused and accept christ at the end. they're comics and there's always some ugly fat hrrible person who goes "haw hawhaw!" who represnts you and me basically.

[AndyC]

I think Neville hit it on the head. The only character with any depth is Pilate. The disciples are practically interchangeable. Jesus is really more of a prop than a character. He's an object to be beaten, whipped, spit on. The most he does is to fall down like a dead fish every few steps on his way to the cross (a scene that is painfully long and slow).

A lot of clichees too. No scene would be complete without some cackling weirdo in the crowd, with missing teeth or a milky eye.

King Herod was ripped off from Jesus Christ Superstar. I half expected him to start singing.

The politics, the relationships, the reasons for everything are not considered important. Even Jesus' teachings are just glossed over. The last supper only warranted a flashback. To do the story right, you'd at least have to go back to Jesus' arrival in Jerusalem, but I guess all that stuff was irrelevant.

No room for details, yet things were added that just aren't in the story - Judas tormented by deformed children, an androgynous devil suckling a hairy midget, some kind of weird monster that appears briefly, and a baffling flashback in which Jesus invents the dining room set. Seriously. Strangely, the Romans also went to a lot of extra trouble to hang Jesus on a full Christian cross, while everybody else just carried the crossbar and got hoisted onto a pole. No apparent reason for this.

And a lot of it was just overdone. This is a story that should be able to move people on its own, yet we get beaten over the head with emotional cues. The scourging scene (sensitive viewers should take care), while I'm sure it is meant to evoke suitable horror in a jaded crowd, is really overdone. Really, if they'd scourged him as much as the movie implies (thankfully we only hear a lot of it), I doubt there'd be any meat left on him.

Theologically, the movie has a lot of flaws, not the least of which is the idea of a vengeful God who demands blood sacrifice. Spiteful too. Seems like everybody who looks sideways at Jesus gets some kind of instant payback. The criminal who mocks him on the cross gets his eye pecked out by a crow. So much for love your enemy and turn the other cheek. Really, this movie is full of the kind of whacko evangelistic nonsense that makes mainstream Christians cringe.

This thing is far from the accurate telling or the great movie it's made out to be. Then again, that's classic Mel.

[Chris K.]

I guess I'm "one of the few" who really didn't like THE PASSION OF THE CHRIST. I personally felt that it was both the controversy and the hype that ruined it for me. When I hear "greatest film ever" I do challenge that claim, and THE PASSION OF THE CHIRST turned out to be more of a boring 2 hours of my time.

On a technical level, for a film made on a moderate budget of $25 million it should have been more technically sound. Mel uses the slo-mo effects way too often, employs garishy horrid cinematography, deadpan "acting" (though James Clavezel was good; good but not great) that makes the acting in Fred Olen Ray's SCALPS look better by comparison, over-the-top 40 minutes of Jesus getting whipped on-screen while little backstory of Jesus' teachings are revealed, and Mel's lack of telling a film via a visual context. However, the usage of Aramaic and Latin was a good touch, but then again that is all that's going for the film and not much else. As I said in an older post about the film, it would have been better if say Dario Argento would have directed the film instead of Mel. Dario would have at least added in some style and substance. Or maybe if Mario Bava were alive today...

Oh and yes, as lester1/2jr mentions I too have read those "Chick Publications" of religious dribble. I may be a Christian and respect peoples Christian beliefs and such, but I also know religious propoganda when I see it and "Chick Publications" delivers it on very thick.

Oh well, I recommend THE LAST TEMPTATION OF CHRIST or even THE LIFE OF BRAIN over THE PASSION OF THE CHRIST any day of the week. At least these two films are more "thought provoking" and have some meaning behind them than Mel's film.

[Chopper]

LoL!

[WyreWizard]

I am antichristian.  Such a film would offend me.

[jmc]

I would think you would enjoy it.....all it appears to be is Jesus getting beaten up for two hours, and being killed at the end.   If someone loves Jesus, why would they want to watch that?   As a Christian, I choose *not* to see the film...I don't need Mel Gibson to tell me about Christ's sacrifice, because I already know how great it was.  The movie doesn't have any of Christ's message or teachings in it so far as I can tell, so I think it really does Christianity a disservice.

I've also heard that the film is based more on the "visions" of some nun than it is from the Bible, so that doesn't pass the smell test for me either.

[lester1/2jr]

Chris- if you get a chance you should check out chick.com if you haven't already. It's got all the tracts,  like "Where's rabbi Waxman", the one about the band, and f curse "Somebdy loves me" still makes me cry.  Mel Gibson should have called it "The Passion of the Christ?" with the question mark lke Jack chick.

[Fluffy CatFood]

f**kin jack chick, I friggen hate that guy, his tracts are total histerical bulls**t, not to mention his artwork is f**king terrible.

You notice how all his characters are terrible stereotypes, jews have a big noses, muslims are hot tempered and violent, christians are nicely dressed in suits with a polite attitude, Adulterers get Aids, homosexuals are lusty and violent. He seems to think there is some war going on in america and the powers that be "hate christ and his perfect message". as far as I'm concered the guy is a total paranoid delusional, I hope he steps out in front of a bus and dies.
    Dont forget to read the articles on the dangers of Harry Potter and playing dungeons and dragons

[Dunners]

its called the passion of the christ because "passion' in ye olden launguage meant 'suffering'.

So if you're one of those wankers walking in to see a movie about jesus lust for life yer gonna be in for one hell of a shock.