Badmovies.org Forum

The Passion of the Christ


   It’s late, and I have to get up early, so this review isn’t going to be terribly structured, but I don’t imagine you don’t need a plot synopsis.  Here, then are my thoughts on The Passion of the Christ in no particular order.
   I can’t figure out why this movie is so controversial, perhaps excepting the extreme violence.  I’ve heard it said that the movie is under attack for being anti-Semitic.  Well, no, not really.  Not unless you think the New Testament is anti-Semitic too.  I mean, the Pharisees are represented as drooling lunatics, but they were.  Religious zealots of any kind are raving madmen.  It’s to be expected.  The Roman soldiers are far more repulsive and barbaric than the Jews in the film, so I don’t know what everyone is complaining about.
   Mel Gibson likes to watch people fall down.  A lot.  Perhaps a little too much.  I understand that religious epics are long movies for a reason, but we really don’t need to see Jesus walking through the streets of the city getting spat on and falling down for 30 minutes straight.  I understand that it’s his (Mel’s, not Jesus’) money and his movie and he can do what he wants, but in some scenes he got Metallica syndrome and got a little too self indulgent.  Everything doesn’t need to be really long and drawn out for the audience to get it, when you essentially have the same three things happening over and over again.
   The film is subtitled, and the dialogue is in Hebrew, Aramaic, and Latin.  However, 2000 years ago, the Middle East was populated by Saxons, Jutes, Celts, and three or four Africans who just happened to be fluent in ancient mid-eastern languages.
   Gibson could be a great horror director.  Watching this film is a test of endurance.  Imagine if The Texas Chainsaw Massacre were three hours long.  It’s kinda like that, watching and the whole time wondering just how much torture one person can be put through.  The answer:  a lot.  Passion puts a lot of horror movies to shame in the gore department.  When Jesus gets whipped by the Roman soldiers, the skin is completely flayed off his body in places so that his bones protrude.  It’s pretty intense.  And the one shot that I had for whatever reason predicted would be there, was there - a money shot of a hammer striking down a nail and having a jet of blood squirt into the soldier’s face.  There’s even a nice little gratuitous gore scene where one of the thieves Jesus is being crucified with gets his eyes pecked out by a crow.  Unnecessary, but kinda cool.
   Then there are the demons.  Judas is pursued by a host of demonic creatures, from a beast made of shadow, to children with fangs and amorphous faces, to Satan himself.  And Satan looks a bit like Eddie Izzard.  Satan wanders through the background of the movie being all androgynous and staring at Jesus from under his eyebrows with an “I told you so” look on his face.
   It’s apparent that Gibson has a good eye behind the camera, there are some really cool shots in the movie.  My favorite is what I dubbed “the raindrop shot,” where the storm that follows Jesus’ death is preceded by a single raindrop, which frames a birds-eye view of the crucifixion scene for just a moment before splashing to earth.
   That being said, here come the complaints about inaccuracies.  First, they’re all white, but I already covered that.  Next, they hammered the nails through his hands.  I know it was stated somewhere that they just couldn’t get the through-the-wrist approach to look real on film, but still.  Half the time the Romans didn’t even bother to use nails because it was more expensive anyway.  Then there’s Gibson’s “I have complete creative control and I’m going to hit the audience over the head with really bad and obvious symbolism no matter how much it undercuts the power of the scene of Jesus’ death” shot.  After the body is taken down from the cross, we briefly cut to the crown of thorns sitting next to a hammer and the three nails.  Except the ends of the nails were pounded down to make sure they held in the wood when the crucifix was raised.  And they didn’t have claw hammers, so they never would have gotten the nails back out, and even had they managed to pull them out somehow instead of cutting them or just ripping his hands off them, they wouldn’t have come out that straight again.  Then back to dead Jesus being cradled by Mary and dramatic music, but whoops!  that goofy and pointless shot killed the dramatic tension.  Bad Mel, bad!  Don’t worry, I’ve only got two more complaints, and I’ll let everyone else fill in the gaps I missed when they see the movie.  The three women who show up to wash Jesus with their tears are absent, and the soldier who stabs Jesus in the side with the lance is not named Cassius, as the movie has it, but Longinus.  I know it’s just one man’s interpretation of the story, but why bother changing little details like that when they don’t effect the film if they’re left as they were in the source documents?  It just makes the filmmakers look ignorant.
   So there you have it, my two cents.  I’m sure there are those of you more well-versed in the mythology than I, I’ll let you handle the more technical stuff.
   To close, a buddy of mine who was sitting right next to me blacked out and fell out of his chair during the whipping scene.  To my knowledge he’s not squeamish, nor intensely religious.  It was, no doubt, some medical difficulty.  He was taken to the hospital.  I’m afraid, however, that this will now be passed around campus and become legend of how “I was at Passion, and the Holy Ghost touched someone and he passed out!  God is so AMAZING."  To those people I say, shut up.



Post Edited (02-25-04 04:09)

Dude, thanks for the review!  I'm trying to talk my wife into going to see the flick, but I doubt it'll work.

Jesus dies in the end?!  Auuggghhhh!  Well, you did say spoilers. .

A nice little review, Brother Ragnarok. I haven't seen the film yet, but I hope to this week. And I also hope it's playing at my theatre as well, so I might have a review on hand as well.

Brother Ragnarok wrote:


  And Satan
> looks a bit like Eddie Izzard.


Did he threaten Judas with "Cake or Death"?

Deej wrote:

> Brother Ragnarok wrote:
>
>
>   And Satan
> > looks a bit like Eddie Izzard.
>
>
> Did he threaten Judas with "Cake or Death"?
>



Heh, great stuff!

As an addendum, after my buddy got back from the hospital he told me the doctors discovered that he had a potassium deficiency and hadn't eaten enough that day.  Also, his mother has an hereditary disease that causes seizures, and he thinks that this is a sign that it's been passed to him.  So God didn't do it.

Brother R

Dare you challenge my power Brother R!?!?


(One ticket to hell please)

I've heard that all tickets are sold out for some time, so maybe we'll see it next week. I've read that all the churches have bought up all the tickets and ministers are helping people as they leave the theater.

SPOILER:................................................................................................... ................................
................................................................................................... ....................................................
................................................................................................... .....................................................
................................................................................................... .....................................................
................................................................................................... ....................................................


I hear that Jesus rises at the end of the film.

Scott wrote:


> SPOILER:................................................................................................... ................................
> ................................................................................................... ....................................................
> ................................................................................................... .....................................................
> ................................................................................................... .....................................................
> ................................................................................................... ....................................................
>
>
> I hear that Jesus rises at the end of the film.


Apologies in advance:

Does this mean there's going to be a sequel?

Brother Ragnarok, your friend isn't the only one who has passed out at the movie. I heard that once person even died inthe theater. I'm sure some people will say it is some kind of sign. However, a lot of what I've heard sounds similar to what I've heard about The Exorcist after it opened up.

Nice review.

I assume you read my little addendum that told what the problem was, Dr. D.  It obviously wasn't God, and I have a hard time believing someone actually died while watching the movie.  If they did, then it must be a relatively common thing to happen, that it happens in lots of movies.  But since it's this movie, well, everyone's gonna make a big deal about it.  Even though it probably happened to some poor shmuck watching "The Core," too.  But I'll bet he died from laughing so hard his heart exploded, not divine intervention.

Brother R

I read that. I wasn't trying to say it was caused by God. I was agreeing that whenever anything happens a group of peoople will claim that.
The death was something I saw on the news this evening with interviews with people there, so it probably happened. And I'm sure people have died in theaters before, but no one would think to mention it. When a movie like this comes out, a death will make the news. I apologize for not making myself clear before.

>>I hear that Jesus rises at the end of the film.<<

Do I smell a sequel? ;-)
I wonder if after seeing this movie everyone will rush out to buy the book...

Susan wrote:
> I wonder if after seeing this movie everyone will rush out to
> buy the book...
>

I heard the book was better.

I dig.  No harm, no foul, my good man.

Brother R

Dunkenstein was correct, it seems that someone did die while watching the film.  Seems that a woman in her late 50s  passed out while watching the crucifixion (sp?) scene in Kansas.  She was sent to the hospital where she died soon after.

I have seen this confirmed too.  Heart attack, if memory serves.  Bummer.  Here come the fundies.

Brother R

I have seen this confirmed too. Heart attack, if memory serves. Bummer. Here come the fundies.

*****  Must have been that damn movie popcorn.  Widowmaker in a bucket it is.

Of course the condescending notion that Christians will come along and make some laughable attempt to read anything into the death is a little much too.

Of course the condescending notion that Christians will come along and make some laughable attempt to read anything into the death is a little much too.

Amen

Ok, who wants to take bets on how long it will be until the first claim of a "miracle" is attributed to the movie?

I am very much a fundy in the Christian belief. I don't really want to watch it because the ads seem to focus on the death. Which the story really was about. Also I have a question Kill Bill vol. 1 or The Passion which is more violent?

>>Ok, who wants to take bets on how long it will be until the first claim of a "miracle" is attributed to the movie?
<<

You mean Gibson donating every penny and not taking any profit?
Now that WOULD be a miracle!

Haven't seen the movie yet, but have read many POTC posts on the IMDB board and some news boards. Here's what I've gathered.

If you DON'T like the film.....You're going to HELL!!

If you DO like the film.......You're going to HELL!!!

So far, haven't seen anything that states that by skipping the film you go to hell, so...I'm gonna give it a  miss, just to be on the safe side. However, my girlfriend wants to see it, so I'll just ask that she go alone, or with the kids, and then tell me about it later. If she wants to go to hell....that's her look out!

Also, I've found that when people are discussing any thing Biblical or Religion-based, their speech starts to take on the characteristics of the source material.

Example: people use "Let us".."Let us NOT"..."Are We Not..."..."Shall"..."Thou, Shalt"..."Smite/Smote".....etc. I'm not judging, I do the same thing when discussing Sling Blade.

I suppose it says something about my frame of reference that "Are we not..." doesn't make me think of the Bible so much as Devo. ;)

Susan wrote:

> You mean Gibson donating every penny and not taking any profit?
> Now that WOULD be a miracle!
>

If only this could be true, Susan then yes it would be a miracle. At this time, Mel hasn't said what he is going to do with the profits. After all, he said he made this film to clean his soul (i.e., he says he was depressed for 13 years and lived a "sinful" lifestyle) and get closer to religion, so it would be a good thing to donate his profits towards his church and such. And yet, Mel hasn't said anything about his share of the bread.

I wonder...

Deej wrote:

> Haven't seen the movie yet, but have read many POTC posts on
> the IMDB board and some news boards. Here's what I've gathered.
>
> If you DON'T like the film.....You're going to HELL!!
>
> If you DO like the film.......You're going to HELL!!!

First off, Deej you have to take into account that the IMDB message boards are not as open-minded as say this forum. I have seen some of the posts on IMDB and they basically come off as "If you DON'T like the film...You're going to HELL!!" rather than "If you DO like the film...You're going to HELL!!". Not only that, but find one person there who has a negative comment on that board and you can expect the so-called "religious Christians" to start an argument. This is one of the reasons why I never attend the IMDB message boards; they are full of uptight asses who get p**sed if you like/dislike a film they like/dislike. When I had expressed my disappointmnet in THE MATRIX on the IMDB board, one guy claims that my opinion "was not vaild". This was obviously a guy who couldn't take a different viewpoint at all.

As for the film, I'm just going to judge it as a MOVIE! Movies can mean alot of things, but this particluar one has more to do with hype than meaning.

Also for another thought: It amazes me that church groups are handing out tickets to see this film, despite the large amount of bloodshed violence on Jesus, and yet THE LAST TEMPTATION OF CHRIST get's backlashed by these groups for the same reason. Hypocracy, or just personal taste issues?

Vermin Boy wrote:

> I suppose it says something about my frame of reference that
> "Are we not..." doesn't make me think of the Bible so much as
> Devo. ;)
>


Thanks Vermin Boy. I'll have that song in my head all day. hmmmhmmm D-E-V-O..DAMMITT!!

I'm wondering to myself, I remember seeing THE LAST TEMPTATION OF CHRIST a while back and just loved it. Now I haven't seen THE PASSION OF THE CHRIST yet (I'm trying to get tickets), but I have a strange personal feeling that THE LAST TEMPTATION OF CHRIST will turn out to be better than THE PASSION OF THE CNRIST.

Am I alone on this? I could be.

I keep imagining that the violence is going to be rather tame, mainly because I'm so used to watching violent movies.   I'm not really surprised that some lady died of a heart attack, this movie is obviously going to attract alot of people who are sheltered from this kind of movie violence, I mean a 50 year old woman, probably religious, no wonder it was so much for her to take. I imagine a lot of the viewers of this movie will be like that, I guess thats why it gets such controversy. I plan on seeing this because I read a review that says its pretty average and is really just Mel gibson being a pretentious Wanker.

Robin Quivers (from the Howard Stern show) said she fell asleep twice and when she woke up they were still beating on him.  and they show all the jews in prfile so yu can see the nose hahaha.  "What maks big daddy happy, what makes the buzzard buzz?"- Guided by Voices

I saw this movie today and I thought it was excellent . . . not quite a classic, but very close.

Two noteworthy things about my viewing experience:

1.  The running time of over 2 hours passed VERY quickly . . . there wasn't a single dull scene in the movie.

2.  After about 15 minutes, I wasn't really aware of the subtitles anymore.  I think that by the end of the movie I was actually understanding some of the spoken dialogue.  Odd.  (Although, I did take 2 years of Latin in high school, plus my wife speaks Portuguese, so maybe I have an ear for foreign languages).

As for the "controversial" aspects:

* Anti-semitism?  I didn't see any.  I think this is just another example of certain people protesting a movie that they probably haven't even seen.

* Violence?  Yes . . . plenty of pain and suffering.  But I suspect that if Jesus died for the sins of the world, he must have suffered at LEAST as much as shown in the movie.

I give this movie 3 1/2 stars out of 4.  I can't put my finger on any specific element that made me like it, but it did completely draw me in for a couple of hours and make me forget that I was watching a movie.  I guess that says something special about this film.

>I plan on seeing this because I read a review that says its pretty average and is
>really just Mel gibson being a pretentious Wanker.

What was the review called? The Arrogance of the Gibson? :)

Well, I just got back from seeing THE PASSION OF THE CHRIST and all I can say was that I was MORTIFIED beyond belief. And that's not a good thing.

First off, THE PASSION OF THE CHRIST is indeed about Jesus’ last 12 hours on earth before his crucifixion and yes he is brutally tortured and beaten so do expect some on-screen gore. Yet, the film completely leaves out Jesus’ teachings. Jesus died for the sins of mankind, true. Now it’s common knowledge that we know what Jesus taught, but without his teachings (i.e., love, faith, hope, etc.) used as part of an efficient back story within the film to help convey who Jesus is and what he was doing, then the scenes of him being tortured and beaten to a bloody pulp don’t really come across too well. But during the torture scenes, I was so upset and so angered that I felt like going on a rampage in the theatre. They go on for so long that it’s pretty much a litmus test, and a test that I couldn’t pass! It was like the film was assaulting me with its gallons of kyro syrup stage blood; and this is a religious picture!

And Gibson’s direction wasn’t exactly breathtaking to begin with, either. Long slooooow-motion sequences are used to capture the dramatic elements, but all it does is stretch the painful 2 hour plus running time and the slow motion becomes overused and horribly cheap. Beautiful the film is not; the cinematography gives an ugly image and doesn’t capture anything beautiful within the celluloid frame. As for the gore, there is plenty of it and it flows like a river; quite unnecessary and very horrible. And the acting was just too over-the-top, complete with mugging taking place all over the camera. However, James Clavezel did a nice job as Jesus, so I’ll give credit where credit is due. And also, if my late-night memory serves me right, what in the hell was that flashback scene in THE PASSION OF THE CHRIST of Jesus making a desktop table and claiming that it would be the world’s greatest invention? Ha, ha, ha! Give me a break, Mel! And I don't believe for a moment that the Holy Spirt was "within" Mel when he made the film.

I am certain that some of my fellow posters here will comment back to me addressing that I might be too harsh on the film. But, I have to be honest with myself and to everybody here when I express my opinions of certain films that I like/dislike. Maybe I just didn’t “get it” when I saw the film, or maybe it was the hype surrounding it that ruined it for me. All I know is that I went into the theatre with an open mind, putting past waht differences I had on the films creator Mel Gibson, and in return I just felt disgusted and angered at such a horrible picture. I’m sure somebody who saw the film got its “message” and that’s fine by me; I certainly didn’t as I saw no message. THE PASSION OF THE CHRIST was just an art-less (yes, I said art-less), crass, utterly pretentious film with nothing to offer. To me, it was just another movie and I treated it just as it was during the mid-section of the fourth reel: a MOVIE. As for the religious groups supporting this film, their hypocrisy knows no bounds. Back in 1988, religious groups tried to ban THE LAST TEMPTATION OF CHRIST due to being “vulgar” and “violent”. And yet, these are the same religious groups who went out and bought advanced tickets of THE PASSION OF THE CHRIST so as to hand them out to people in the streets despite the film being “violent” as well. Different times maybe? Possibly. Compared to Mel’s film, THE LAST TEMPTATION OF CHRIST was a much better film and had a meaning behind it than THE PASSION OF THE CHRIST.

Mel Gibson pretty much financed the film with his own money and it seems he is going to make every penny back. That’s fine; my $7.50 will never return back to me. Even so, THE PASSION OF THE CHRIST was just a tormented experience that just had me upset. In the end, I apologize for this negative review. I just couldn’t find the film acceptable. Sigh, I await for my demise from my fellow posters.

So does this movie actually show any of christ's passion? I ask because so far it sounds like this movie is an extended arse kicking scene.

Chris - no one's gonna spaz on you for not liking the movie, dude.  This isn't Jerry Falwell's message board.
Fluffy CatFood (great name, by the way) - yeah, it's pretty much an extended arse kicking scene.  It's best to go in not thinking about the fact that some of the motives behind the flick may not be pure (i.e. Gibson's pretensiousness).  Just look at it like you'd look at the Ten Commandments:  a movie about a story in the Bible.  I think most of the people going in understand the "died for our sins" concept, so it's really not necessary to beat people over the head with that.  There are still lots of Jesus' teachings talked about, some in flashbacks, some by other people as he's being beaten, but they're not real prevalent.
And yes, the table thing is really silly.  Jesus shouldn't be a comic relief figure.  I can't believe I forgot to mention that.

Brother R

Chris K:

In response to your comments I will say this:

While we definitely have opposing views on this movie, I can certainly understand why you feel the way you do.  This is one of those movies where peoples opinions will be all over the place and I can clearly see why someone would be mortified by it.

One of the strongest points that you make is that the movie doesn't spend much time dealing with Jesus' teachings.  You are correct.  There are only a few brief flashbacks that deal with this.  However, in Gibson's defense, this movie is not about the life and teachings of Jesus . . . it is about his suffering and death.  I can understand how leaving out his teachings would make someone feel a bit "empty" while watching all of the violence.  But it didn't affect me that way.  I guess I have seen enough movies about Jesus' life that I didn't need to see a retelling of it here.  Other people will disagree with me, but that's okay.

In my opinion, all Mel was trying to say was:  "Being crucified is more than just hanging from a cross while heavenly music plays (as depicted in so many other movies).  There is a trmrndous amount of physical suffering and humiliation that goes along with it."  This movie gave me MUCH more of a sense of the tremendous sacrifice that Jesus made than any other movie I have seen.  

Chris, you had a hard time just WATCHING those scenes.  To that end, Gibson succeeded in his message.  Because if you had a hard time watching those things, imagine what it would be like to actually have someone DOING those things to you.  That would be quite a sacrifice.

The Burgomaster wrote:

> Chris K:
>
> One of the strongest points that you make is that the movie
> doesn't spend much time dealing with Jesus' teachings.  You are
> correct.  There are only a few brief flashbacks that deal with
> this.  However, in Gibson's defense, this movie is not about
> the life and teachings of Jesus . . . it is about his suffering
> and death.  I can understand how leaving out his teachings
> would make someone feel a bit "empty" while watching all of the
> violence.  But it didn't affect me that way.  I guess I have
> seen enough movies about Jesus' life that I didn't need to see
> a retelling of it here.  Other people will disagree with me,
> but that's okay.

Okay now, indeed that the film is not about the teachings of Jesus and is about his suffering and death. I have seen some Passion Plays, but even those that I have seen do in fact give an insight to Jesus' teachings and are not left out. But without any more insight of his teachings and beliefs conveyed within THE PASSION OF THE CHRIST, then it makes his death, and I hate to say it in this way so please don't be offended here, come across on the film as meaningless in it's display of brutal torture of Christ. Now I personally don't believe that his death was meaningless at all, so let's just get that straight here for a moment. Yet every single frame of film featuring Christ being whipped, beaten, etc. without any full inisght on why he is there, what he has taught, and why is he being treated so barbariclly by his oppressors doesn't communicate very well towards some viewers.

So while I do understand Gibson's intentions, to me it seemed as though the translation didn't make it from book to film very successfully as a result. If you don't agree with me on this and what else I have said, I understand the different viewpoints. Yet I am speaking of all of this through a personal feeling and not just pulling this all out of the clear-blue sky.

> Chris, you had a hard time just WATCHING those scenes.  To that
> end, Gibson succeeded in his message.  Because if you had a
> hard time watching those things, imagine what it would be like
> to actually have someone DOING those things to you.  That would
> be quite a sacrifice.

I agree with you on this one. It would be quite a sacrifice and I will admit that I did understand this point within the film. Jesus' crucifixion isn't supposed to be very pleasent at all, so it did hit me in the heart pretty hard. But it takes 2 hours and 15 minutes to convey this message with looooong torture sequences and over-the-top violence, especially when Mel said his original cut would be around 90 minutes (and I'm not joking when I say this, 90 minutes was the original planned cut)! I can see where you are getting at with this Burgo, it's a point that Mel is trying to prove. But it's a point that so much as pushes the door too wide open with it's unnerving violent streak. Maybe I'm getting to sensitive on this issue of the violence portrayed in the film, but it all just left me cold and the violence really looked passed the message.

Even so, because of the bloodshed and less focus on the message (and one that I really coudn't see-I thought it worked better in JESUS OF NAZARETH and THE GREATEST STORY EVER TOLD), it just makes me dislike Mel and his film even more. And in the end, I really have to recommend the Good Book of the 4 Gospels over the film, and I am serious when I say this. And at this time, I am in search for a copy of the Italian film THE GOSEPEL ACCORDING TO ST. MATTHEW, which was made way before Gibson's film and I am told it's quite better. I'll have to see.

Oh, and to add a much more lighter moment towards this discussion, I just recently heard that Mel is in fact donating the proceeds of the film  large box office intake towards charity. And it's definately a wise move, so Mel isn't as naieve as I thought he was.

.  .  .  .  "Tea and cake or death!  Little red cookbook, Little red cookbook."  "Tastes of human, sir."  
.  .  .  .  Sorry, I was remembering "Dress to Kill," thanks.
.  .  .  .  I wanted to see it eventually cause all the controversy, but then I rented the NC-17 version of "Crash" on Thursday, and realized, yet again, that just because there is a controversy, doesn't mean that I'll like the film.
.  .  .  .  If they do a sequal for an Easter release in the future, remember that a basket (the kind that children get little chocolate Jesus' from [Not the ones that Belial lives in]) actually does relate to Moses (I think that's who it relates to, someone brought it up once).

from "Crash" (James Spader as James Bellard):
"It's all very satisfying.  I'm not sure I understand why."



Post Edited (02-29-04 13:50)

Am i imagining things or did Chris have chinese symbols throughout his message?

I won't use the word "hypocrisy," but I do think it is interesting that some of the people, and I have no body in particular, protesting the protests against this film, no doubt protested against "The Last Temptation of Christ," "The Life of Brian," etc. It is as if "Freedom of Speech" has become "Freedom of Speech for Me, But Not for You."

As for the violence, I know some people said the same thing about the violence in Mel Gibson's "Braveheart," but, as they took it to be an anti-government film, then the violence was okay in that context. Of course, those people are usually more concerned about the language and the sex in a film, then the violence.

As for whether "The Last Temptation of Christ" or "The Passion" is a better film, while I do have plans to see "The Passion," as I would see anything reportedly to be historical, and I have seen "The Last Temptation of Christ," but not all of it, I can't make that judgment. The judgment I can make is that of the two directors--Mel Gibson and Martin Scorsese--I like Scorsese better.

I went and saw this movie today with my family and damn was this a powerful movie.Despite what you think about Mel Gibson he is diffenatly showing that he is a very good director and has a great visual eye. The movie is very dark and moody and while watching it I couldn't help but think that Mel should make a horror movie next.
Ive heard alot of complaints that the movie did not show enough about the teachings of Jesus, are you people deaf and blind? Its filled with his teachings, mostly about love and forgivenes. It clearly shows that despite the torture he recived he never onced cursed his tortuers and persecuters, instead he asked God to forgive them.
But it is true that the movie is largly focused on Jesus suffering and death on the cross. Its something that Im actually glad to see because until now the only images we have about is crucifiction are the nice little holy cards with Jesus on the cross and a few blood drops on his body.I think that this is something that all of us need to see to truly realise how he suffered and died.
I came out of the theater with a deep sense of devotion and understanding for my lord.
The movie is as bloody and savage as every review has said, and I feel that most of the negative responses to the movie was made out of very close minded view of what happened to Jesus. Its the same way people will support war and then turn away when they see the death and devestation caused by it. They are unable to face the brutal reality of it.
I do have my doubts that Jesus was tortured really as bad as what was shown in the movie simply because he would have died long before he ever got to the crucifiction, let alone carry a 200 to 300 lb wooden cross as far as he did. But I can let these things slide as sometimes we have to be hit in the face buy some harsh imagry to wake us up.
This is a movie that believers and non believers must see. And if you don't find your self moved by it then you need some serious help.
Also on one last note if James Caviezel is not at least nominated for the Academy Award for his rule as Jesus, I am perssonally going to hunt the judges down and beat the holy s**t out of them.
Say what you want about that but even though I know Jesus was here to teach love and forgiveness, I am still driven by anger and revenge.

Susan wrote:

> Am i imagining things or did Chris have chinese symbols
> throughout his message?

Chinese symbols? I don't understand what you mean by that, Susan? Any insight as to why you felt I had Chinese symbols in my message. Would really like to know.

Nick you hit the nail right on the head when you said,"This is a movie that believers and non-believers must see." It is not an easy movie to watch but it isn't meant to be. The girl sitting next to me litterally broke down crying several times. A very well made and powerful movie. It gets a big recommendation from me.

Chris K. wrote:

> Chinese symbols? I don't understand what you mean by that,
> Susan? Any insight as to why you felt I had Chinese symbols in
> my message. Would really like to know.
>

I have no insight, I just see em. I never seen em before in a msg, not that i remember so it can't be my computer. Weird



Post Edited (03-01-04 22:06)

"And yet, Mel hasn't said anything about his share of the bread."

In the Bible, Jesus specifically says that donations to charity should always be made in complete secrecy (this is the passage where we get the phrase: "the left hand should not know what the right is doing.").  If Gibson wants to really follow the faith, he won't publicize any donations he makes like all the self-serving image-conscious celebrity "humanitarians" out there.  He'll also do his best to keep you from finding out what donations he made.  

Of course if Gibson did make a public donation somewhere, all the snide people talking about the profits he made would then be sneering about how his donations were only made to help his image.  He's pretty much damned if he does and damned if he doesn't.  I hope he tells the press it's none of their business what he does with his profit from the film.

I still don't plan on seeing this movie, but the level of venom for Gibson just because he made it is absolutely baffling.  I mean jeez, don't go and see it if you don't like religious stuff.

"I won't use the word "hypocrisy," but I do think it is interesting that some of the people, and I have no body in particular, protesting the protests against this film, no doubt protested against "The Last Temptation of Christ," "The Life of Brian," etc. It is as if "Freedom of Speech" has become "Freedom of Speech for Me, But Not for You.""

I think it's curious that you should equate protestors with enemies of free speech.  I don't recall one person - not ONE - who protested Last Temptation by saying it should be banned and the government should confiscate all the reels.  As I recall, the protestors said that because they didn't like the movie they were going to boycott the studio's other movies.  How exactly is this anything but an exercise in their own free speech and organized consumerism.  Seems to me that if Paramount made a pro-Pedophilia movie, or a pro-Nazi movie, it would be okay for people to boycott all of Paramount's movies in protest.  So what's the problem with religious people boycotting a studio that made a movie that offended them?  If there's any hypocrisy in the case of POTC, it's from the people who protested the movie and are now whining that some people don't agree with their point of view.

Eirik wrote:

> In the Bible, Jesus specifically says that donations to charity
> should always be made in complete secrecy (this is the passage
> where we get the phrase: "the left hand should not know what
> the right is doing.").  If Gibson wants to really follow the
> faith, he won't publicize any donations he makes like all the
> self-serving image-conscious celebrity "humanitarians" out
> there.  He'll also do his best to keep you from finding out
> what donations he made.  
>
> Of course if Gibson did make a public donation somewhere, all
> the snide people talking about the profits he made would then
> be sneering about how his donations were only made to help his
> image.  He's pretty much damned if he does and damned if he
> doesn't.  I hope he tells the press it's none of their business
> what he does with his profit from the film.

Well thank you for the insight on this one, Eirik. Damned if you do, damned if you don't is the situation that he is in. However, as I mentioned on a later post, I recently heard that Mel is donating his share of the profits to charity. If true, so much for the complete secrecy. And you know what, if Mel is donating his money then I wouldn't consider him to be a self-serving image-conscious celebrity "humanitarian"; rather I would feel that he is living up to his religious beliefes that he has expressed to the public and I would give him credit for it. As for being none of our business what he does with the profits, we can only wonder, can't we?


> I still don't plan on seeing this movie, but the level of venom
> for Gibson just because he made it is absolutely baffling.  I
> mean jeez, don't go and see it if you don't like religious
> stuff.

Well Eirik, I hope you are not aiming this comment at me because I already saw the film and, watching it with an open mind and ignoring the issues with Gibson, I'm sorry but I just didn't think it was any good. If anybody else liked it, I have no problem with that. It's a film that has some merrits, but otherwise I just wanted to tear the whole theatre down during the whipping and crucufixion scene. I'll just end it right here for now.

And yes, for the record, I do admire religious pictures such as THE TEN COMMANDMENTS and THE GREATEST STORY EVER TOLD and LIFE OF BRIAN (sorry, just HAD to add this one in the mix). And at this time, I am trying to locate a good copy of THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO ST. MATTHEW so if anybody has some insight.

It was like 2 hours of brutal torture. Well, I don't know how significant this is as a film or religious experience. I know that any film that involves pain as a essential ingredient in their film will never surpass this one. You'll be watching some other film and an important scene were someone takes a beating and you'll be saying to yourself "that wasn't so bad". We may have just become totally desensitized to any violent act portrayed in any movie to come due to THE PASSION OF THE CHRIST.

The main thing I liked about this movie is that I heard that Mel Gibson financed the whole film and it explains how he was able to have such freedom in putting it together. If only people could find such freedom to make films without the money problems.

My main question is how will anyone ever top the pure violence of this film?

"As for being none of our business what he does with the profits, we can only wonder, can't we?"

You can wonder all you like, Chris, but I am firmly of the opinion that what other people do with the money that they earn themselves through their own hard work is none of my damn business whatsoever - as long as they pay their taxes.  If Gibson made an announcement that he's donating his money to charity - that's a lapse in religious practice if you ask me.  If some reporter dug that up and reported it with no announcement from Gibson - well, what are you gonna do?

"Well Eirik, I hope you are not aiming this comment at me because I already saw the film and, watching it with an open mind and ignoring the issues with Gibson, I'm sorry but I just didn't think it was any good."

Oh I don't care if people like or dislike the movie.  As someone who doesn't plan on seeing it anyway, I have no stake in that whatsoever.  What bothers me is the condescending guffawing about Christians crediting miracles to the film as if we're a bunch of unsophisticated fanatics (by the way, I haven't heard anything like that in the press) and the implication that Gibson is a hypocrite if he makes any money for his year or so of hard work on a movie.  It seems a lot of people have a real agenda against this movie, be they people who bashed its content before seeing it or people who find it necessary to question the director's motives, and I'm curious as to why that is.

PS - why apologize for liking Life of Brian??

Eirik wrote:

> You can wonder all you like, Chris, but I am firmly of the
> opinion that what other people do with the money that they earn
> themselves through their own hard work is none of my damn
> business whatsoever - as long as they pay their taxes. If
> Gibson made an announcement that he's donating his money to
> charity - that's a lapse in religious practice if you ask me.
> If some reporter dug that up and reported it with no
> announcement from Gibson - well, what are you gonna do?

Well now, not to sound as if I'm trying to go back down from my own words, but I do agree with you that it is none of my damn business what somebody does with their own money. Hell, I'm rarely concered at how much my associates make at my workplace; I'm there just to work and make money so as to survive. I just thought that, considering Gibson's faith, that he would consider donating his own money. As I said, if Gibson did so I would not find it to be an act of self-satisfication of his celebrity-image unlike some would consider. In fact, if he did so it would change my personal outlook on him a bit. Just my personal interpretation of the subject at hand. I will admit that I wonder, but it's out of curiosity considering how the film is turning out in the box office (100.7 million, as I can recall. But I am sure it's risen higher than that now).

And if some reporter dug up info on Gibson's claim to donate his money, well then that just does prove your statement that Gibson should make it clear about his business and that it's his business only. But like you said, this is the media-what are you gonna' do?


> Oh I don't care if people like or dislike the movie.  As
> someone who doesn't plan on seeing it anyway, I have no stake
> in that whatsoever.  What bothers me is the condescending
> guffawing about Christians crediting miracles to the film as if
> we're a bunch of unsophisticated fanatics (by the way, I
> haven't heard anything like that in the press) and the
> implication that Gibson is a hypocrite if he makes any money
> for his year or so of hard work on a movie.  It seems a lot of
> people have a real agenda against this movie, be the people
> who bashed its content before seeing it or people who find it
> necessary to question the director's motives, and I'm curious
> as to why that is.

Well, I pretty much question the director's motives, as well as what he has delivered "on film" and his skills. Hell, I question Tarantino's motives, and I like his films! Right now, at this time, the issue of his personal lifestyle and such is something that I will not bring into criticising the film. I honestly feel that Gibson's direction/visual style is dry and unoriginal; I really felt that the film would have been better if say Dario Argento would have been behind the camera (maybe even Mario Bava, that is if he were alive). Argento has a flare for visual storytelling, Mel is...well, kinda weak at it and overplays his most "dramatic" moments (i.e., the overuse of super slo-mo is one example). But I digress, the real issue is why is the film under fire? I can only shed som slight insight on what I know about the subject matter.

For the people who have a "personal agenda" against the film, the only ones that I can think of are the Jewish community who are deadly afraid of the film having anti-Semitisim propoganda. Yet, their only connections to this belief is surrounded by Mel's father, Hutton Gibson, who has written numerous thesis and documents about the non-existance of the Holocaust (that and his father is a spokesman for the film, another clue that must be taken into account). That and back during the Middle Ages the Jews were under constant threats from crazed Christians who would go nuts over a Passion Play, and thus attack and beat up whatever Jewish community that was in their wake. Plus add that Mel was "inspired" by the works of a nun Anne Emerich (hope this is correct), who is also known for her anti-Semetic remarks as well. Their are a few other instances, but these three are the most common items on the list.

Despite the paranoia from the Jewish community, I must confess that I can see where they are getting at. The Jewish community has been the most mis-understood religious group and have been under attack throughout the years via Christian groups due to different outlooks of their differing religion and customs. But is Mel Gibson anti-Semietic? As much as I disliked the film, I can honestly say their really is no anti-Semitisim in the film at all. Their is the belief system that Mel is "Like father, like son." However, this is something that I really don't believe in at all. His father is, let's admit it, a conspiracy theory nut who combines religion into the mix as well, and that's not a good sign. While I find Mel to be very pretencious and lacking some common sense, I don't think for a minute that his film was meant to cause Jewish hate.

Another issue is Mel's religious background: he is a Roman Catholic and is part of the Vatican 1, which is somewhat of a small group who practices the old style traditions of the Catholic Church. The issue of this is that Vatican 1 does not obsolve the Jews for crucifing Christ; Vatican 2 does obsolve the Jews for any wrongdoing as well as breaking some of the traditions. This too has another connection to Mel's father: Hutton, a devowed Roman Catholic, has written criticisims saying that the recent Catholic Pope is a nothing but a man who sucks-up to the Jews. Not exactly high praise for the Pope.

This is, of course, what I know so far about the controversy and have read about it. If you do have anything to add Eirik, please feel free to shed some insight. But the "personal agenda" by those who are against the film (i.e., Jewish community) is not that of vengence, in my eyes. It is more of a personal fear that they feel will erupt from the heavy Christian community, which I personally don't think will happen. However,as the old saying goes, "You never know..."


> PS - why apologize for liking Life of Brian??

Uh, I'm not so sure why I apologized for liking LIFE OF BRIAN. Maybe because the film is literally considered to be a "joke version" of the story of Jesus Christ and some would consider it horrible to laugh at it. But hey, it was funny and had something to think about.

 "I honestly feel that Gibson's direction/visual style is dry and unoriginal; "

Having sat through both Braveheart and the Patriot, I couldn't possibly agree with that statement more.  It's actually one of the reasons I won't see POTC.

I think that Jews have a lot more to fear from atheistic belief systems (Nazism/Communism) and Radical Islam than they do from the Christians, but not being Jewish I won't try to tell them how to feel.  I kind of get the impression that a lot of the "agenda" against this movie is not from Jews fearing some massive pogrom that obviously isn't going to happen, but rather from people who don't like religion and don't want to see it take center stage in the public arena - especially in an election year.  That's just my take on it.

"Maybe because the film is literally considered to be a "joke version" of the story of Jesus Christ and some would consider it horrible to laugh at it."

Well, only those Christians who don't think God has a sense of humor would think that's horrible...

Historically, Jews have suffered more from Christians than from other groups of people, but that's more or less changed during the last century.  I guess people are worried that this movie might somehow open old wounds.  

I agree, my big problem with the film is that it's in the hands of Mel Gibson, who has never done it for me as a director.  

But some of the critics who hate the film go way overboard...there was this guy on National Public Radio who was practically foaming at the mouth and said that Gibson was some kind of sadomasochist.    I liked Ebert's review, though it also made me decide I didn't really want to see this, at least not anytime soon.

Ebert pretty much claims that's THE PASSION OF THE CHRIST is one of the most violent movies ever made. I can challenge that: has he ever seen DEAD ALIVE or KILL BILL? Maybe he was supposed to mean "the most violent religious picture ever made"?

I agree that some of the reviews are becoming a bit towards the foaming of the mouth territory, one saying that the film was a new kind of "religious-art-slasher film" (what was this dude smoking?) and another said that it should be called "The Jerusalem Chainsaw Massacre"!

One critic actually refered to this as an action movie. According to him it's an action movie because there's alot of violence in it. That makes no sense.

>What bothers me is the condescending guffawing about Christians crediting
>miracles to the film as if we're a bunch of unsophisticated fanatics (by the way, I
>haven't heard anything like that in the press)

I suppose I'm to blame for that since I made the comment a while ago about how people would start attributing miracles to the film. Maybe you see it as making fun of Christians, but you can't deny that some people do some silly things where religion is concerned. Several years ago in this area, people from miles away were making a pilgrimage to see a tree in someone's yard because the owner had cut off some limbs and one of them left a shape that vaguely resembled the outline of Jesus or the Virgin Mary (I forget which). The paper ran pictures of people crowding around the tree holding candles.

>and the implication that Gibson is a hypocrite if he makes any money for his year
>or so of hard work on a movie.

Maybe that's because he emphasized how this wasn't just a movie, but an important story that people needed to see. If someone came up with a cure for the common cold, which would give you a higher opinion of them; If they gave the cure away for free to anyone who needed it or if they charged $20 a pop for it?

"Maybe that's because he emphasized how this wasn't just a movie, but an important story that people needed to see."

Spielberg says the same thing about every movie he makes - do all of his profits go to the families of holocaust survivors, WWII vets, and shark hunters?  Is he a hypocrite for not making such donations?  I sense a double standard.

"If someone came up with a cure for the common cold, which would give you a higher opinion of them; If they gave the cure away for free to anyone who needed it or if they charged $20 a pop for it?"

I sure as hell wouldn't fault the person for charging $20 a pop (I'd pay more to get over a cold, frankly) since it was his or her hard work that resulted in me being able to fell better.  And frankly if they gave me the cure free, I'd probably be a little suspicious.

No argument that people do wacky things in the name of religion... but people do wacky things in the name of EVERYTHING.  Last week, a few hundred people got together in Chicago and exploded a baseball because some guy deflected it away from their left fielder.  Okay - maybe I'm being a little thin-skinned here.  It's just tiresome hearing about the fringe wacko element every time the word religion comes up in a public foum.  It'd be like if every time you mentioned you were a film enthusiast people looked at you funny and started talking about Gigli and Glitter.  (That analogy is a stretch, but does it make sense?)

JohnL wrote:

> Maybe that's because he emphasized how this wasn't just a
> movie, but an important story that people needed to see. If
> someone came up with a cure for the common cold, which would
> give you a higher opinion of them; If they gave the cure away
> for free to anyone who needed it or if they charged $20 a pop
> for it?

I'd have a higher opinion if they charged $20.  I'm not going to invest in a company that gives its products away for free.  But then, I am a capitalist.

Mel gambled $25 mil of his own money on this (and it could have tanked very easily, being blasted for anti-semitism on the left and blasted for violence on the right).  It is quite fitting that if it succeeds, he makes back that and then some.

In other news...

Some teacher in New York is in trouble for showing his 6th grade class a bootleg copy of TPotC. Not for having a bootleg copy, not for bringing religion into the school, but for showing such a violent movie to kids. Parents are said to be outraged.