The Passion of Christ (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter gray
- Start date
I even wont bother to try to watch it, considering last movies made by Mel 
That guy became some religious-patriotic maniac.
Look at those movies: The patriot, The signs, We were soldiers...
Crap, crap, crap...
And that stupid pathos in The patriot and We were soldiers...
Somehow I'm sure, that he didnt get rid of that annoying manner in this movie either.
That guy became some religious-patriotic maniac.
Look at those movies: The patriot, The signs, We were soldiers...
Crap, crap, crap...
And that stupid pathos in The patriot and We were soldiers...
Somehow I'm sure, that he didnt get rid of that annoying manner in this movie either.
So I went and saw it with a bunch of people from my church last night, and I guess it was what I expected.
When I bought the ticket from the box office, I was told "We have to warn you, it's very violent", but I was thinking "Well, what do you expect?" Indeed, the movie does depict graphics violence, but it doesn't seem gratuitous or exhaggerated at any time, simply what was needed to properly depict Christ's suffering as told in Scripture.
Mel Gibson did add his own spin to certain parts, including the decision to include a 'devil' character, who is seen only by the audience, while the cast are completely unaware of her presence. Despite this, the movie stays faithful to the Gospel, and the crux of the story is well portrayed.
By the end of the movie, most of the people in the theatre were either crying or sitting in awe. Nobody left the cinema until about 2 minues into the credits. Needless to say, it's not light-hearted viewing by any means.
The movie being spoken in Aramaic and Latin added to the authenticity, as I was pondering how realistic some of the scenes would have been, had they been spoken in English, and it just wouldn't have felt real.
From what I saw, the movie didn't try to preach beyond simply telling the story how it was, and I'd say it's the best movie about Jesus that I've ever seen.
Excellent performances by Jim Caviezel, Monica Bellucci and little-known Romanian actress Maia Morgenstern, as Mary.
When I bought the ticket from the box office, I was told "We have to warn you, it's very violent", but I was thinking "Well, what do you expect?" Indeed, the movie does depict graphics violence, but it doesn't seem gratuitous or exhaggerated at any time, simply what was needed to properly depict Christ's suffering as told in Scripture.
Mel Gibson did add his own spin to certain parts, including the decision to include a 'devil' character, who is seen only by the audience, while the cast are completely unaware of her presence. Despite this, the movie stays faithful to the Gospel, and the crux of the story is well portrayed.
By the end of the movie, most of the people in the theatre were either crying or sitting in awe. Nobody left the cinema until about 2 minues into the credits. Needless to say, it's not light-hearted viewing by any means.
The movie being spoken in Aramaic and Latin added to the authenticity, as I was pondering how realistic some of the scenes would have been, had they been spoken in English, and it just wouldn't have felt real.
From what I saw, the movie didn't try to preach beyond simply telling the story how it was, and I'd say it's the best movie about Jesus that I've ever seen.
Excellent performances by Jim Caviezel, Monica Bellucci and little-known Romanian actress Maia Morgenstern, as Mary.
don't u read dude? 
I saw it a couple of days ago. It was pretty graphic, but then again it had to be. It'd be completely undermining the suffering Christ went through if he just got a slap on the wrist and a pat on the back. I think previous movies have been too sentimental and mild, but this meant that they didn't depict to a great enough extent Christ's suffering.
Went to an interesting screening of the passion earlier this week.
It was the most diverse screening ive been to, with the normal clutter of critics and press
but also representatives of every religion i can think of as well as a small number of the public.
A wide ranging audience of religious people of all ilks and athiests alike.
Going in to the film there was much talk about the violence, anti-semeticism, and gibsons contrived view of christianity.
I put aside thoughts of violence straight away as the film should be violent and things are never as bad as the hype anyway..
especially in this context.
As for the anti-semetism and mels spin on the gospels, I also was not to worried as at the end of the day, this is a story
based on the gospels, not on historical fact...
the gospels are open to interpretation and there is very little real evidence any of this actually occurred...
unlike mels prevous re-writing of history in the likes of braveheart where he told a very small part of
the story and made alot of it up to purposefully only tell one side of a story and make his chosen hero out to be beyond reproach... something factually incorrect to say the least... as he did with the patriot and we were soldiers to name jus a couple.
So putting those issues aside til later the film itself.
The film was pretty good.
Caviezel I found somewhat stale
Calebs cinematography was fantastic and he really made the film.
Gibsons direction was disjointed and at times real dir by numbers stuff.But overall a reasonable job.
Dissapointed by the poor pronouciation of latin and the innapprpriate use of latin at certain points as well
The major downpoint of this film is the complete lack of charectoristion, there is none, besides one scene with jesus and his mother
there is not one part of this film to make you connect with jesus, now thats fine for christian viewers but for non christians
or non religious people it takes a massive amount from a story with a powerful message... Many people there could not care
about jesus in the slightest when watching this film, many jus feelin he was treated harshly... but no more.. a real shame
Mel definately takes liberties with the gospels and puts his spin on events but not to any particurly harmful level. It definately wasnt the story we were taught by our minister
However... before seeing the film i could not understand anyone who knows the story saying it was anti-semetic.. I do now.
This for me is the worrying part of the film, the violence has been over hyped and is neither particurly bad or over done, it fits the context of the film perfectly.
But the film I feel is definately anti- semetic..
Now i know there is some question of pilates actions in the gospels , but if you look to roman historical fact you will find a very different version of this man,
The gospels themselves have many references to jewish sympathy but mel decides to not mention these things and only show the
hatred.. this is where i can fully understand the feelings of some people towards this film.(and telling half a story is afterall mels strongpoint)
Overall a pretty good film, that slightly fails in its lack of character, Could have been great and very powerful but ends slightly
incapable of delivering such a powerful message.
Those looking for controversy , go see Last Temptation of Christ
On leaving I spoke with many religious people who in the main felt the film was damaging... The christians i spoke to were mainly moved... The non-religious it had very little impact on...
Reactions were exactly as i expected whilst watching.
I was also surprised by how many people didnt understand the meaning of the word passion in the title after the film... Maybe this jus shows how the film failed at important levels.
Anyway I will give a better review once ive watched it again later in the week.
It was the most diverse screening ive been to, with the normal clutter of critics and press
but also representatives of every religion i can think of as well as a small number of the public.
A wide ranging audience of religious people of all ilks and athiests alike.
Going in to the film there was much talk about the violence, anti-semeticism, and gibsons contrived view of christianity.
I put aside thoughts of violence straight away as the film should be violent and things are never as bad as the hype anyway..
especially in this context.
As for the anti-semetism and mels spin on the gospels, I also was not to worried as at the end of the day, this is a story
based on the gospels, not on historical fact...
the gospels are open to interpretation and there is very little real evidence any of this actually occurred...
unlike mels prevous re-writing of history in the likes of braveheart where he told a very small part of
the story and made alot of it up to purposefully only tell one side of a story and make his chosen hero out to be beyond reproach... something factually incorrect to say the least... as he did with the patriot and we were soldiers to name jus a couple.
So putting those issues aside til later the film itself.
The film was pretty good.
Caviezel I found somewhat stale
Calebs cinematography was fantastic and he really made the film.
Gibsons direction was disjointed and at times real dir by numbers stuff.But overall a reasonable job.
Dissapointed by the poor pronouciation of latin and the innapprpriate use of latin at certain points as well
The major downpoint of this film is the complete lack of charectoristion, there is none, besides one scene with jesus and his mother
there is not one part of this film to make you connect with jesus, now thats fine for christian viewers but for non christians
or non religious people it takes a massive amount from a story with a powerful message... Many people there could not care
about jesus in the slightest when watching this film, many jus feelin he was treated harshly... but no more.. a real shame
Mel definately takes liberties with the gospels and puts his spin on events but not to any particurly harmful level. It definately wasnt the story we were taught by our minister
However... before seeing the film i could not understand anyone who knows the story saying it was anti-semetic.. I do now.
This for me is the worrying part of the film, the violence has been over hyped and is neither particurly bad or over done, it fits the context of the film perfectly.
But the film I feel is definately anti- semetic..
Now i know there is some question of pilates actions in the gospels , but if you look to roman historical fact you will find a very different version of this man,
The gospels themselves have many references to jewish sympathy but mel decides to not mention these things and only show the
hatred.. this is where i can fully understand the feelings of some people towards this film.(and telling half a story is afterall mels strongpoint)
Overall a pretty good film, that slightly fails in its lack of character, Could have been great and very powerful but ends slightly
incapable of delivering such a powerful message.
Those looking for controversy , go see Last Temptation of Christ
On leaving I spoke with many religious people who in the main felt the film was damaging... The christians i spoke to were mainly moved... The non-religious it had very little impact on...
Reactions were exactly as i expected whilst watching.
I was also surprised by how many people didnt understand the meaning of the word passion in the title after the film... Maybe this jus shows how the film failed at important levels.
Anyway I will give a better review once ive watched it again later in the week.
Thanks for the review Paul
:groan: I shan't bother starting with this argument (again) though
That's true, there was only one scene where he was shown as a 'normal person'. Though it can be argued that there are no such events mentioned in the Bible, which may be the reason Mel was wary of adding too many such scenes. I think the dialogue and relationship between them was quite effective in making Jesus look more human, though a little more would have also helped as you said.
Where are the references to sympathy in the story of the passion? Even the fact that some of the people were crying "someone stop this!" was more credit than seemingly deserved. The movie was pretty much taken straight out of the gospels, with only 'artistic expression' added. You don't see movies about Nazi mistreatment of Jews being called anti-German, do you?
The Pharisees themselves didn't have sympathy for Christ, and I think their portrayal is what people were mainly concerned about, but I don't see how they've been made to look any worse than they actually were. They had a choice between freeing Jesus or Barrabas, and they picked Barrabas. I don't see why there's so many calls of anti-semitism about this movie, seeing that so many films have been made depicting the exact same story. Maybe it's because it's a Hollywood release. Maybe it's because Mel Gibson directed it.
I wouldn't say that there's no sympathy portrayed on the part of the Jews. I think that one of the audience's favourite characters must have been the man who helped Jesus carry the cross and felt compassion for him.
btw, if Mel Gibson didn't like Jews, why would he be a Christian? Why would he have made this movie? The movie clearly portrays that his disciples were Jewish. Jesus was a Jew. His brother, His mother and her husband were Jews.
He also wouldn't have casted a Jewish actress to play the mother of the hero. In an interview, Maia Morgenstern she said that not only was the movie not anti-Semitic, but Mel Gibson actively sought out her input in making the movie
:groan: I shan't bother starting with this argument (again) though
That's true, there was only one scene where he was shown as a 'normal person'. Though it can be argued that there are no such events mentioned in the Bible, which may be the reason Mel was wary of adding too many such scenes. I think the dialogue and relationship between them was quite effective in making Jesus look more human, though a little more would have also helped as you said.
Where are the references to sympathy in the story of the passion? Even the fact that some of the people were crying "someone stop this!" was more credit than seemingly deserved. The movie was pretty much taken straight out of the gospels, with only 'artistic expression' added. You don't see movies about Nazi mistreatment of Jews being called anti-German, do you?
The Pharisees themselves didn't have sympathy for Christ, and I think their portrayal is what people were mainly concerned about, but I don't see how they've been made to look any worse than they actually were. They had a choice between freeing Jesus or Barrabas, and they picked Barrabas. I don't see why there's so many calls of anti-semitism about this movie, seeing that so many films have been made depicting the exact same story. Maybe it's because it's a Hollywood release. Maybe it's because Mel Gibson directed it.
I wouldn't say that there's no sympathy portrayed on the part of the Jews. I think that one of the audience's favourite characters must have been the man who helped Jesus carry the cross and felt compassion for him.
btw, if Mel Gibson didn't like Jews, why would he be a Christian? Why would he have made this movie? The movie clearly portrays that his disciples were Jewish. Jesus was a Jew. His brother, His mother and her husband were Jews.
He also wouldn't have casted a Jewish actress to play the mother of the hero. In an interview, Maia Morgenstern she said that not only was the movie not anti-Semitic, but Mel Gibson actively sought out her input in making the movie
Why... dont get that at all... what has the muslim faith got to do with this story?? ... now if it was moses id id understand, but jesus? jus doesnt make sense... Please explain
Maybe you need to see it before you pass judgement...
As i said earlier... I didnt see why it would be anti semitic until id seen it... now i have i think it is... even the catholic minister sitting in front of me felt it was anti-semitic
Maybe you need to see it before you pass judgement...
As i said earlier... I didnt see why it would be anti semitic until id seen it... now i have i think it is... even the catholic minister sitting in front of me felt it was anti-semitic