• ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️



    Film & Television

    Welcome Guest


    ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️
  • ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️
    Forum Rules Film Chit-Chat
    Recently Watched Best Documentaries
    ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️
  • Film & TV Moderators: ghostfreak

film: the passion of the christ

rate this movie

  • [IMG]http://i1.bluelight.nu/pi/16.gif[/IMG]

    Votes: 1 9.1%
  • [IMG]http://i1.bluelight.nu/pi/16.gif[/IMG][IMG]http://i1.bluelight.nu/pi/16.gif[/IMG]

    Votes: 2 18.2%
  • [IMG]http://i1.bluelight.nu/pi/16.gif[/IMG][IMG]http://i1.bluelight.nu/pi/16.gif[/IMG][IMG]http://i1

    Votes: 2 18.2%
  • [IMG]http://i1.bluelight.nu/pi/16.gif[/IMG][IMG]http://i1.bluelight.nu/pi/16.gif[/IMG][IMG]http://i1

    Votes: 6 54.5%

  • Total voters
    11
I have no idea how this plays out in the new testament as I am not that familiar with it. I do know this. The Official current church doctrine (Which Mel Gibson rejects) does not blame the jews. Mel Gibsons father was an admitted holocaust denier so I'll admit I think the guy is an anti-semetic asshole who puts on an act when in public and this movie (while alone may not be enough to come to that conclusion-just bolsters my opinion of him)


I also know that this version of the story makes ZERO sense because as I said, if the jews wanted him dead (and there is no doubt that many of them were not (and still are not, for that matter) happy that he claimed to be god and/or the messiah, they would have (and could have) put him to death in a Jewish court. The movie makes no attempt to explain this obvious flaw.

above^^^^ said this is how it plays out in the bible, does the bible explain why, the Jews needed the Romans when they clearly, if they wanted to could have put him to death themselves. I cant imagine that this obvious issue was ignored by the part of Christianity taht accepts mel gibson's interpretation, there must be an answer-does anyone know what it is?
 
Caine said:
Is it true that Jesus was scourged to such an extent that the whip marks left his body resembling a bloody pulp?

...


If his clothes were blood-soaked and torn they would have been of no value to the soldiers. The author of John writes:


The soldiers therefore, when they had crucified Jesus, took his outer garments [imatia] and made four parts to every soldier and also the inner garment [khitona]; now the inner garment was seamless, woven in one piece. They said therefore to one another, "Let us not tear it, but cast lots for it, to decide whose it shall be;" that the Scripture might be fulfilled, "They divided my outer garments among them, and for my clothing they cast lots." (John 19:23-24; see also Matthew 27:35, Mark 15:24, Luke 23:34)
If Jesus wore clothing on a scourged ripped-raw body the clothing removed from him would be shredded and soaked in blood. For what purpose would the soldiers divide up such bloodied and torn clothing? The presumption must be that the clothing he wore to the execution site were in good, usable condition.

I don't really dispute what you wrote, however, an alternative assumption about the bloodied garmets being divied up among the Roman soldiers relates to the belief that touching the blood of a matyr or saint may confer special powers. This belief is paralelled in cannabilistic societies which (rather than dividing clothes soaked in blood) often will divide the flesh of a feared enemy or powerful sorcerer for consumption among a multitude, the idea being that this supernatural power will be dispersed rather than remaining in a singular, potent form beyond death.

When MLK Jr. was assassinated many of those present did not wash the blood from their clothes but kept them in that state. Also, Jackie Kennedy kept the blood splattered clothes she was wearing when her husband was shot, as well. (Source of these facts "Under God" by Gary Wills, which is an excellent book about the intersection between religion and politics in America).

As for the inaccuracies of the film, I think that is partly dramatization for the big screen and partly disputes in canonical "fact" between various sects of Christianity.
 
miamistu said:
Second, and really why I am ranting: some have said that the jews were not portrayed too poorly. They obviously were not watching the same movie I was.

In this movie:

The Jews turn over Jesus to the Romans and insist that he must be crucified.

The Romans initially refuse but, fear a jewish uprising so they agree to crucify him.

...


Mel Gibson is free to spew whatever hatred he wishes, but thats what this movie is.

Its a shame, because take out the extreme gore and the jew bashing (which I suppose most normal ppl wont focus on), and it actually was pretty moving.

I guess the thing is that most people who see this movie accept that the popular opinion among Jews 2000 years ago was that Jesus was a threat to their order and ought to be dealt with. But, this isn't 2000 years ago and the "facts" of the story have little bearing on Jews today.

The picture of Jesus that I find most compelling (mainly coming from Matthew and some non-canonical Gospels such as Thomas and Mary) is of an anti-authoritarian religious radical calling for a new conception of the relation of humanity and divinity that called into question the need for mediation that was provided by the socially, politically and economically powerful rabbis, scribes, pharisees, etc. For this reason alone he was seen as an enemy of the status quo of both the Jewish and Roman establishment.

The divinity or semi-divinity of Jesus was not part of the belief structure of the earliest Christians (when they were another Jewish sect and not a separate religion) and did not become a core belief until the establishment of Christianity as the state religion of Rome. The Council of Niceae(sp?) was what established this belief as an aspect of orthodoxy in an effort to create a unified state religion rather than a mishmash of Jewish, pagan and "new" beliefs and practices. Some people believe this is the point when Christianity went off track and began to decay spiritually even as it flourished politically and economically.
 
you raise valid points stu, I'm not trying to start a holy war, All I was saying is thats how it plays out in the gospels if you wanted to read it. I came away with a feeling of man killed jesus not the jews. but mankind as a whole. thats me though. And why should Mel Gibson get blamed for what his father believes. If that was the case I would be a racist bigot because my father is that way as was his father. I don't think sons should get blamed for fathers ignorance. I feel that Mel is far from Anti Semetic. again this just me not trying to rile anyones feathers
 
just read this only furthers the point that Gibson is an ass-and I don't know if its true because it was on a message board and I while I am fluent in Hebrew, I do not know latin and Aramaic-while close to Hebrew is not the same so I spent most of the movie reading and not listening.

I do know that there were brief parts of the movie where the subtitles vanished, and this would explain why.

Gibson deleted from the subtitles—but not from the spoken lines—the declaration of the Jews that the responsibility for killing Jesus was theirs and their offspring's for all time, but what will happen with the Arabic subtitles, or the French?
 
RABBI STEVEN E. FOSTER, senior rabbi at Congregation Emanuel in Denver


One of the great freedoms we have in America, and indeed one for which we are willing to fight and die, is the freedom of religious expression. Only in America could a movie like Mel Gibson's "The Passion of the Christ" be produced and shown in 3,000 theaters, and at the same time be a lightning rod for criticism and concern.

At the outset, I understand that believing Christians and Jews will see this movie differently and that is part of our ability to live in this wonderful country.

As a Jew, I see this film through the eyes of my own religious and cultural history. This movie is not the first passion presented in modern or even in medieval times, only the latest. Because of modern technology and the large audiences that will view this movie, it may be seen as the "real" events surrounding the death of Jesus. In reality, none of us could possibly know for sure what happened during a 12-hour period some 2,000 years ago. In Gibson's own words, this is his vision of what happened. Over the centuries, there have been many visions, and many have resulted in vicious attacks against Jews. For this there is no vision, there is only history.

So as a Jew, when viewing this movie I saw the death and destruction of my people that followed such attempts to place these events in a historical format. That is my concern. There are many who need no help in finding reasons to be anti-Semitic.

My concern is for the vast majority of Christians who will see this movie. I hope that they will see in it the vision of one man, Gibson, who has rejected the challenge of Vatican II. If people follow his vision, then they are saying that Pope John XXIII, the architect of modern dialogue, was wrong.

In the end, I believe that good Christians will see in this movie a vision of compassion that was Jesus, and will not hold future generations or this generation or even the generation of the first century responsible for the suffering of Jesus.

The Gospels, while not especially clear, do point to the fact that it was the Romans through the cruelty of Pontius Pilate who crucified Jesus. In Gibson's passion, Pilate is seen as compassionate and caring, when the Gospels make clear he was neither. To be sure, Jesus was a part of a Jewish community. The Gospels themselves, if read in historical context, did not blame "the Jews" for Jesus' death. The complexity of the first century was not a part of this passion.

Perhaps what this movie will do is to help all of us to reassert our need to dialogue and understand not only our similarities but our profound differences. I hope that "The Passion" will inspire us all to real study of that first century and the complexities of that time. Lastly, I hope that our viewing this movie will remind us of the great freedom to believe and to help bring about a better society for all people.
 
RABBI STEVEN E. FOSTER, senior rabbi at Congregation Emanuel in Denver


One of the great freedoms we have in America, and indeed one for which we are willing to fight and die, is the freedom of religious expression. Only in America could a movie like Mel Gibson's "The Passion of the Christ" be produced and shown in 3,000 theaters, and at the same time be a lightning rod for criticism and concern.

At the outset, I understand that believing Christians and Jews will see this movie differently and that is part of our ability to live in this wonderful country.

As a Jew, I see this film through the eyes of my own religious and cultural history. This movie is not the first passion presented in modern or even in medieval times, only the latest. Because of modern technology and the large audiences that will view this movie, it may be seen as the "real" events surrounding the death of Jesus. In reality, none of us could possibly know for sure what happened during a 12-hour period some 2,000 years ago. In Gibson's own words, this is his vision of what happened. Over the centuries, there have been many visions, and many have resulted in vicious attacks against Jews. For this there is no vision, there is only history.

So as a Jew, when viewing this movie I saw the death and destruction of my people that followed such attempts to place these events in a historical format. That is my concern. There are many who need no help in finding reasons to be anti-Semitic.

My concern is for the vast majority of Christians who will see this movie. I hope that they will see in it the vision of one man, Gibson, who has rejected the challenge of Vatican II. If people follow his vision, then they are saying that Pope John XXIII, the architect of modern dialogue, was wrong.

In the end, I believe that good Christians will see in this movie a vision of compassion that was Jesus, and will not hold future generations or this generation or even the generation of the first century responsible for the suffering of Jesus.

The Gospels, while not especially clear, do point to the fact that it was the Romans through the cruelty of Pontius Pilate who crucified Jesus. In Gibson's passion, Pilate is seen as compassionate and caring, when the Gospels make clear he was neither. To be sure, Jesus was a part of a Jewish community. The Gospels themselves, if read in historical context, did not blame "the Jews" for Jesus' death. The complexity of the first century was not a part of this passion.

Perhaps what this movie will do is to help all of us to reassert our need to dialogue and understand not only our similarities but our profound differences. I hope that "The Passion" will inspire us all to real study of that first century and the complexities of that time. Lastly, I hope that our viewing this movie will remind us of the great freedom to believe and to help bring about a better society for all people.
 
Does Passion live up to the high standards of historical accuracy set by Braveheart and The Patriot?
 
In the movie it stated that the reason they turned him over to the romans is because the jews at that time didnt have the death penelty in their courts, and so they wanted the romans to give him a trial as the romans had the death penalty.
 
Goodspeed said:
you raise valid points stu, I'm not trying to start a holy war, All I was saying is thats how it plays out in the gospels if you wanted to read it. I came away with a feeling of man killed jesus not the jews. but mankind as a whole. thats me though. And why should Mel Gibson get blamed for what his father believes. If that was the case I would be a racist bigot because my father is that way as was his father. I don't think sons should get blamed for fathers ignorance. I feel that Mel is far from Anti Semetic. again this just me not trying to rile anyones feathers

I dont want to seem like a hysterical crazy either. As Ive already said, the fact that these plays were used to incite jewish anti-semitism in the past combined with the fact that its gibson- certainly influence my opinion. And as I said, the movie was moving although I am having a hard time getting some of the graphic violence out of my head.

Ive done some quick internet gospel/ evangelical reading (from places that appear to be reliable christian sources) and while many do tell a similar story- there are key nuances ignored and or contradicted in this film (the most obviousl that many have pointed to is the portrayal of pilate as a saint who only gave into to the jews thirst for jesus' blood).

(also, the gospel is subject to interpretation since it is written by different writers and they are not always consistent. Therefore, any interpretation of the gospel is necessarily just that-an interpretation.

None of the gospels delineate how many ppl yelled crucify him-whether the crowd was all jewish (or even mostly jewish) - and in fact the gospels differ as to what Jesus' last words were so Mel decides to have him (in almost Friday the 13th fashion) say one of the lines, appear to die, come back to life, say another, and then another. (intended to show how interpretation is needed- not intended as a criticism of the Gospels, I am sure there are good explanations for the difference in language and maybe one is that he died several times before actually dying-I do not know.)


The main problem with these type of films (i.e JFK, the Passion etc..) is that many ppl do not realize what is true (or in this case true as seen by the Gospels) and what is Hollywood's additions/interpretations.

Also, I would never judge anyone by their father. Human nature assumes that the aple does not fall far from the tree, but I know tghis is wrong in many cases. I guess the comment about his father was a cheap shot, but I think its fair to say that denying the holocause would be political suicide in hollywood so who knows what his real opinion is (plus my understanding is that he has said things like....many died in the holocause including jews...as if we were not the central focus of the slaughter.)

I just really do not like him. I wish someone else would have seen fit to make this movie.

Nevertheless, I dont doubt that a large majority of Americans will take this movie as Gibson claims it is intended. My fear is that many in parts of Europe will not.


Void said:
In the movie it stated that the reason they turned him over to the romans is because the jews at that time didnt have the death penelty in their courts, and so they wanted the romans to give him a trial as the romans had the death penalty.

I do not remember hearing this explanation in the film, although I have seen it given elsewhere on the Web. I do not think it is historically accurate as the Jews caried out death penalties during that time.

(Even if you assume that 1) Jews were not permitted to carry out the death penalty and 2) a corrupt Jewish court (as depicted in the movie) would actually abide by this rule, wouldnt pilate (who was depicted as merciful to Jesus) simply release jesus to the jews who would either have to kill him in accordance with jewish laws-which while not pleasurable- are a day at the beach compared to being crucified or if they faced to much opposition let him live.

Anyway, I think ive rambled enough about this movie. I'm retiring from this thread.
 
Roger Ebert gave it 4 stars, that's a good enough reason for me to see go see it. He makes some good comments on the film, here is the review:

THE PASSION OF THE CHRIST / **** (R)

BY ROGER EBERT FILM CRITIC



If ever there was a film with the correct title, that film is Mel Gibson's "The Passion of the Christ." Although the word passion has become mixed up with romance, its Latin origins refer to suffering and pain; later Christian theology broadened that to include Christ's love for mankind, which made him willing to suffer and die for us.

The movie is 126 minutes long, and I would guess that at least 100 of those minutes, maybe more, are concerned specifically and graphically with the details of the torture and death of Jesus. This is the most violent film I have ever seen.

I prefer to evaluate a film on the basis of what it intends to do, not on what I think it should have done. It is clear that Mel Gibson wanted to make graphic and inescapable the price that Jesus paid (as Christians believe) when he died for our sins. Anyone raised as a Catholic will be familiar with the stops along the way; the screenplay is inspired not so much by the Gospels as by the 14 Stations of the Cross. As an altar boy, serving during the Stations on Friday nights in Lent, I was encouraged to meditate on Christ's suffering, and I remember the chants as the priest led the way from one station to another:


At the Cross, her station keeping ...

Stood the mournful Mother weeping ...

Close to Jesus to the last.


For we altar boys, this was not necessarily a deep spiritual experience. Christ suffered, Christ died, Christ rose again, we were redeemed, and let's hope we can get home in time to watch the Illinois basketball game on TV. What Gibson has provided for me, for the first time in my life, is a visceral idea of what the Passion consisted of. That his film is superficial in terms of the surrounding message -- that we get only a few passing references to the teachings of Jesus -- is, I suppose, not the point. This is not a sermon or a homily, but a visualization of the central event in the Christian religion. Take it or leave it.

David Ansen, a critic I respect, finds in Newsweek that Gibson has gone too far. "The relentless gore is self-defeating," he writes. "Instead of being moved by Christ's suffering or awed by his sacrifice, I felt abused by a filmmaker intent on punishing an audience, for who knows what sins."

This is a completely valid response to the film, and I quote Ansen because I suspect he speaks for many audience members, who will enter the theater in a devout or spiritual mood and emerge deeply disturbed. You must be prepared for whippings, flayings, beatings, the crunch of bones, the agony of screams, the cruelty of the sadistic centurions, the rivulets of blood that crisscross every inch of Jesus' body. Some will leave before the end.

This is not a Passion like any other ever filmed. Perhaps that is the best reason for it. I grew up on those pious Hollywood biblical epics of the 1950s, which looked like holy cards brought to life. I remember my grin when Time magazine noted that Jeffrey Hunter, starring as Christ in "King of Kings" (1961), had shaved his armpits. (Not Hunter's fault; the film's Crucifixion scene had to be re-shot because preview audiences objected to Jesus' hairy chest.)

If it does nothing else, Gibson's film will break the tradition of turning Jesus and his disciples into neat, clean, well-barbered middle-class businessmen. They were poor men in a poor land. I debated Martin Scorsese's "The Last Temptation of Christ" with commentator Michael Medved before an audience from a Christian college, and was told by an audience member that the characters were filthy and needed haircuts.

The Middle East in biblical times was a Jewish community occupied against its will by the Roman Empire, and the message of Jesus was equally threatening to both sides: to the Romans, because he was a revolutionary, and to the establishment of Jewish priests, because he preached a new covenant and threatened the status quo.

In the movie's scenes showing Jesus being condemned to death, the two main players are Pontius Pilate, the Roman governor, and Caiaphas, the Jewish high priest. Both men want to keep the lid on, and while neither is especially eager to see Jesus crucified, they live in a harsh time when such a man is dangerous.

Pilate is seen going through his well-known doubts before finally washing his hands of the matter and turning Jesus over to the priests, but Caiaphas, who also had doubts, is not seen as sympathetically. The critic Steven D. Greydanus, in a useful analysis of the film, writes: "The film omits the canonical line from John's gospel in which Caiaphas argues that it is better for one man to die for the people [so] that the nation be saved.

"Had Gibson retained this line, perhaps giving Caiaphas a measure of the inner conflict he gave to Pilate, it could have underscored the similarities between Caiaphas and Pilate and helped defuse the issue of anti-Semitism."

This scene and others might justifiably be cited by anyone concerned that the movie contains anti-Semitism. My own feeling is that Gibson's film is not anti-Semitic, but reflects a range of behavior on the part of its Jewish characters, on balance favorably. The Jews who seem to desire Jesus' death are in the priesthood, and have political as well as theological reasons for acting; like today's Catholic bishops who were slow to condemn abusive priests, Protestant TV preachers who confuse religion with politics, or Muslim clerics who are silent on terrorism, they have an investment in their positions and authority. The other Jews seen in the film are viewed positively; Simon helps Jesus to carry the cross, Veronica brings a cloth to wipe his face, Jews in the crowd cry out against his torture.

A reasonable person, I believe, will reflect that in this story set in a Jewish land, there are many characters with many motives, some good, some not, each one representing himself, none representing his religion. The story involves a Jew who tried no less than to replace the established religion and set himself up as the Messiah. He was understandably greeted with a jaundiced eye by the Jewish establishment while at the same time finding his support, his disciples and the founders of his church entirely among his fellow Jews. The libel that the Jews "killed Christ" involves a willful misreading of testament and teaching: Jesus was made man and came to Earth in order to suffer and die in reparation for our sins. No race, no man, no priest, no governor, no executioner killed Jesus; he died by God's will to fulfill his purpose, and with our sins we all killed him. That some Christian churches have historically been guilty of the sin of anti-Semitism is undeniable, but in committing it they violated their own beliefs.

This discussion will seem beside the point for readers who want to know about the movie, not the theology. But "The Passion of the Christ," more than any other film I can recall, depends upon theological considerations. Gibson has not made a movie that anyone would call "commercial," and if it grosses millions, that will not be because anyone was entertained. It is a personal message movie of the most radical kind, attempting to re-create events of personal urgency to Gibson. The filmmaker has put his artistry and fortune at the service of his conviction and belief, and that doesn't happen often.

Is the film "good" or "great?" I imagine each person's reaction (visceral, theological, artistic) will differ. I was moved by the depth of feeling, by the skill of the actors and technicians, by their desire to see this project through no matter what. To discuss individual performances, such as James Caviezel's heroic depiction of the ordeal, is almost beside the point. This isn't a movie about performances, although it has powerful ones, or about technique, although it is awesome, or about cinematography (although Caleb Deschanel paints with an artist's eye), or music (although John Debney supports the content without distracting from it).

It is a film about an idea. An idea that it is necessary to fully comprehend the Passion if Christianity is to make any sense. Gibson has communicated his idea with a singleminded urgency. Many will disagree. Some will agree, but be horrified by the graphic treatment. I myself am no longer religious in the sense that a long-ago altar boy thought he should be, but I can respond to the power of belief whether I agree or not, and when I find it in a film, I must respect it.



Note: I said the film is the most violent I have ever seen. It will probably be the most violent you have ever seen. This is not a criticism but an observation; the film is unsuitable for younger viewers, but works powerfully for those who can endure it. The MPAA's R rating is definitive proof that the organization either will never give the NC-17 rating for violence alone, or was intimidated by the subject matter. If it had been anyone other than Jesus up on that cross, I have a feeling that NC-17 would have been automatic.
 
I didn't have any intention of seeing this movie before all the controversy started about it, but now it's a must. I can't stand on the sidelines of a good debate.

Since I haven't seen the film yet I can't say weather or not its anti semantic or unfair in the amount of blame it lays on the Jews. However I have read quite a bit about the Jewish role in the crucifixion, and I know that statements like,

- Jesus was killed by the Jews. End of story. That is "fact".

are not true.

To start with the number of "facts" about this event are weak. Even the gospels themselves tell varying accounts, and as someone else said they were written long after the event occurred.

Beyond that the crucifixion story stresses how NO ONE supported Jesus, and everyone had a part in his death.

Judas betrays him, and Peter denies him.
http://bible.gospelcom.net/bible?passage=JOHN+13&language=english&version=NIV&showfn=on&showxref=on They were Jews, but they were also the first Christians.

Although Pontius Pilate side step his responsibility, and passed the guilt to the mob, he could have stopped the crucifixion. Pilate was not a Jew.

Roman guards performed the actual act, and at the time it's not likely they were Jewish.

Jewish priests made accusations in an effort to stop his new teachings. This is where the Jews come in.

In Jesus's final words (according to Mark, and Mathew) he says "46About the ninth hour Jesus cried out in a loud voice, "Eloi, Eloi,[3] lama sabachthani?"--which means, "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?"[4]" So it sounds like the man himself (God) wasn't even helping a brother out. He might be a Jew I don't know.

The number of people on the side of Jesus weren't many. The women of Galilee stood by him, but considering they were sinners, and Jesus died for everyone’s sins. I think they could be partly implicated as well. Jesus didn't have the most comforting message for them either.

Luke: "Daughters of Jerusalem do not weep for me; weep for yourselves and for your children. 29For the time will come when you will say, 'Blessed are the barren women, the wombs that never bore and the breasts that never nursed!' 30Then
" 'they will say to the mountains, "Fall on us!"

Note that he refers to them as the "Daughters of Jerusalem" meaning they were Jewish women, and some of Jesus's only supporters.

This is just a sort list of the people who did Jesus in. The Jews are just a single element.


This article touches on another very important issue. During the early days of Christianity there was a lot of animosity between Jews and Christians. This of course is the same time the gospels where written, so it's likely that the role of the Jews was exaggerated.

Where's SoHi? he's got to have an opinion on this.
 
Last edited:
My friend went and saw it the other day and said there were children in there. A LOT of children. YOUNG children, like 5 years olds!

What kind of parents ARE these?????

There is no way a 5 year old child can comprehend the true meaning of that movie or the story of what happened to Jesus. I think it is unbelievable that the theaters would allow a child of that age in to see that movie. They should be ashamed of themselves and so should the parents. I remember being scared of the intense scenes in DISNEY movies when I was 5, I can't even imagine what a movie like this would have done to me. I'm scared to see it even at MY age!
 
luckily,

i have little interest in seeing the story of christ or monsterous gore. so that pretty much rules this film out for me :)

just wondering - do we actually have a holocaust denier on bluelight? *giggles* what a fuck
 
Being an open minded agnostic, i did my best to remain unbiased as i watched this film.

From a sheer cinema perspective, the story flows in logical order and the cast give a good performance. The cinematography and choice of colours complemented the mood well.

From a philosophical viewpoint, i thought this movie did little to promote the religious ideals of christians and catholics other than to highlight the suffering of christ. The focus of the movie seemed to be an infatuation with the extreme suffering of jesus. And thats where any possible enjoyment to be gained from the movie goes. Although not rediculous, there really is a LOT of pain in this movie. Graphic lacerations, flesh ripping and plenty of blood made for one of the bloodiest and realistic gorefests i have ever seen. Not good for a romantic date.

However i did notice that all the suffering didnt really seem to have any purpose in a religious sense. There was never any definitive link between the suffering of jesus and his alleged divinity, other than his own claims and ambiguous symbolism

Although i didnt really enjoy this movie, i am kinda glad that i saw it. I think. See it anyway...
 
^^^ perhaps, and also being a somewhat uninformed agnostic/atheist myself (and thus maybe not being entirely fit to read too much into it), gibson's entire point was only to highlight the suffering.

i haven't read much from his point of view apart from the constant "it's just supposed to be like the testament" comments, but it wouldn't surprise me if gibson's entire point was to portray the depressing reality of a) the world back then and just what our "saviour" (supposedly) went through for us, and just how little we have changed as a society.

are there many allegorical references made to our present day society?
 
im going to it is either this week or next with my crew. im a bit afraid to go because i know i'll cry (i cried during freddy vs. jason...). in a way im excitied to see it because i do believe in a lot of things that the christian (protestant) religion talks about (the Jesus stuff, love, grace, faith, etc). on the other hand im very afraid that ill feel "guilty" and ill be crying like a little child.

everyone i know who has seen it really liked it, but said after its like walking out of a funeral.
 
Top