Will You see Gibson's "The Passion"?

[mburbank]

I know, I know, movies forum.


I had originally intended to see it, because I don't feel as if I can fairly concider the debate. Now, I'm not so sure.

It's not the question of anti-semitism, or the charges that although Gibson says it's 'historically accurate' (a highly debatable claim in the best of circumstances) He's added senes and lines not foound in the Gospels.

It's the level of violence I read about in the reviews. I'm not particulalrly squeamish but the descriptions I've read seem like more of a gore fest than anything I've ever watched, or want to watch.

If the main thrust of the movie is just how awful crucifiction is, I'm not sure I want to watch, any more tan I personally care to watch any execution of an innocent or for that matter guilty party. 45 minutes spent of the scourging seems to me more than a little excessive. The death of Jesus was awful beyond all belief, but the Romans did exactly that to thousands of innocents. I am far more interested in what Jeus did and said in life than a lengthy portrayal of his agony, an agony that has been shared by an untold number of other poor unfortunates throughout human history. This seems like feteshism to me.

But this is the problem. If the violence is as ugly as the reviews I've read suggest, I don't want to see it. But how will I know unless I see it? If the violence is as ugly as the reviews I've read suggest, I think it's pretty scary to be throwing red meat like that around at a time when the world is already awash in religous extremism and needs Jesus message bout Loving your Enemey and turning the other cheek more than ever, but how will I know the theological content of the movie if I don't see it?

What will you all do?

[Cosmo Electrolux]

Mel Gibson is Pat Robertsons new best friend. AS far as I'm concerned, Gibson has lost any credibility he earned as an actor and director by pushing out this pile of shit.....and by saying in public that his wife is going to hell....:/

[theapportioner]

I'll wait a couple weeks, buy a ticket for another movie, see that one, and sneak into "The Passion".

[Brandon]

I'm going to see it, if for nothing more than curiosity.

I think Gibson's gone bat-shit insane, though. He claims to have received "signs" from God, one of which was a person approaching him on the street and saying "Jesus loves you."

Well, you know what they say: God works in mundane ways.

[Perndog]

At least he's not a Scientologist.

I'm going to go see it. In the interest of social harmony (and my date not walking out on me) I'll try not to cheer when Jesus dies.

[AChimp]

I think I'll wait until SolidSnakeASS buys the limited collector's canonized 5-disc DVD box set, becuase it will have, undoubtedly, the best transfer ever.

[Anonymous]

I'll bet the book is better.

[Royal Tenenbaum]

I'm going! It looks to at least be a fairly great film cinematically, even if I don't really care about the whole religious nature of the film. I don't care about the accuaracy, most films play with the details, so it's nothing new. The violence just sounds like realism to me. Either way, the production is very gutsy, since it tackles a very well known story and is in Aramic. I have to go.

[DementedElf]

I will go with no. I don't think any movie about christ is worth seeing, especially one by Mel Gibson.

[Bennett]

my favorite part is going to be when jesus gets his shoulder dislocated, and he has to prop up the cross and bang his shoulder against it, to realign it.

[ranxer]

i hope the critics are wrong that this movie will help spurn a new wave of fundamentalist hatred toward jews, it could possibly get people to transcend the old problems, but i'm definitly NOT going to see it.
i'm soo anti-bandwagon that i'm going to have to rely on reviews till it comes out on rentable media and someone rents it for me..
my wife is going to see it though - she's christian(not the GW kind of christian mind you) and too curious, i'm not that curious.. i go to the big screen for sci-fi only.

[ItalianStereotype]

hence your belief that the Matrix applies to real life.

[Zebra 3]

I know, I know, movies forum.
>: - Sure, you know.

:( - Six years of Catholic schooling is enough for me. - Gibson won't line his pocket with my $10.

[Sethomas]

I'd like to see it, but probably not while I'm abroad.

[Bobo Adobo]

I'm going to go see it. I agree with Royal by it being a good cinematic experience. I'm really not a religious person either, but I think a movie about Jesus could be pretty good. Even if you don't believe in Christianity.

I really don't get these big anti-semetic hollywood whiners. It's a part of history dammit. You can't make a movie about Jesus without the Jews being involved. You don't see Germans whining about all these oscar winning hollocaust movies. People who run Hollywood are such fucking hypocrites, all worried about offending people. There shunning a movie that they haven't even seen yet!

Ranxor - not going to this movie shows just how much you are pro-bandwagon. Critics fucking suck. They are way too biased and are just frustrated because they have no talent so they think thay have to tell everybody else they don't to compensate.

[Immortal Goat]

Dammit, Max, I wanted to make this thread! Oh, well. Yours is probably better than mine would have been.

I'm not going to see it, and it isn't because I am not Christian, it is because we all know the story.

It has been told over and over again, and the true nature of the story is not the graphic violence involved with Jesus' death, it is the glory of the resurrection that the Christians believe in. If they wanted to make a REALLY interesting movie, then they should have done it from the prespective of someone else. They should have done the story of just a random person back in that historical time and show the effects it had on the family, the town, and politics. I would pay to see that, and as Max pointed out, Jesus' death really wasn't that special. Thousands of other people died like that. It was the supposed resurrection that made him special.

[mburbank]

I think the anti semitism stem from the fact that Pilot is given a very sympathetic treatment and tthe crucifiction is laid entirely on the jews. Since Jews didn't crucify people and didn't have the legal authority to do so, that seems a bit much. In addition, Pilot is a hostorical figure written about in a few contemporary histories, and is known to have had other Jewish Chrismtic leaders crucified, so it's highly unlikely he thought Jesus should be spared.

These are the reasons the vatican finallt stated as dcotrine that the Jews are not responsible for the execution of Jesus.

Gibson (and Vinth, by the way) subscribe to a fringe element of catholascism that doesn't recognize Vatican II, and interesting position since Catholic doctrine doesn't give catholics the option of not recognizing papal edicts.

[Bobo Adobo]

Dammit, Max, I wanted to make this thread! Oh, well. Yours is probably better than mine would have been.

I'm not going to see it, and it isn't because I am not Christian, it is because we all know the story.

It has been told over and over again, and the true nature of the story is not the graphic violence involved with Jesus' death, it is the glory of the resurrection that the Christians believe in. If they wanted to make a REALLY interesting movie, then they should have done it from the prespective of someone else. They should have done the story of just a random person back in that historical time and show the effects it had on the family, the town, and politics. I would pay to see that, and as Max pointed out, Jesus' death really wasn't that special. Thousands of other people died like that. It was the supposed resurrection that made him special.

Theres a lot stories that have told over and over again. But it's the way that the movies is done cinimatically done that makes it special. If I chose to not to see movies just because I've heard its story I would have only seen 1 or 2 movies.

I learned a lot about about the hollocaust, does that mean that I shouldn't waste my money on a hollocaust movie? I've read "Short-Timers" does that mean I shouldn't go see Full Metal Jacket?

Plus Jesus's death was just as powerful as his supposed ressurection, concidering that he "Died for our Sins" and so on.

Max - from most of what I've heard the movie really doesn't have to do with the Jews killing Jesus. according to this article http://www.americandaily.com/item/4284 They actually deleted the only scene where it could possibly have supported that fact that it was anti-semetic.

[theapportioner]

I hear the Latin pronunciation is terrible, which should be a riot for my Classics friends.

[El Blanco]

I'm Roman Catholic and I won't see it because I am too damn lazy to read subtitles and I already dealt with those languages in high school. I'll probably rent it on DVD if its dubbed.

And Max, yes many, many people had been crucified by the Romans ( I think quite a few of us have seen Spartacus), but no one has ever really gone into just how agonizing it is.

I think I would like to see someone do a trilogy. His early ministries could be the first one ending with the Sanhedrin(sp?) getting to Judas. The second could be the events of the Passion ending with the Crucifiction. And the the third could be about the Resurection ending with the Ascention. I think they would really work if they did it from a third person perspective like IG said.

As for the whole anti-semetism thing: Its not like Jews weren't involved in the crucifiction.

I think Gibson just likes tweaking people with this stuff. Think about it. Braveheart was very inaccurate when portraying the relationship of the nobles and the role of Robert the Bruce. He also went well out of his way to make the English look bad.

Then there was the whole thing about The Patriot.

Now this.

[mburbank]

"I hear the Latin pronunciation is terrible, which should be a riot for my Classics friends."

Funnier yet is the fact that the Latin is perhaps 5the largest historical innacuracy. While some of the players (pilot certainly) would have known Latin, the common tongue was Greek. The Roman army and the Roman civil service were multicultural, and the language they all had in common and spoke to each other wasn't Latin, it was Greek.

[Zebra 3]

Mel Gibson’s controversial film The Passion of the Christ depicts the suffering of Christ. And that is prompting attacks from some who say that Gibson has been causing the suffering of critters.

People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals is planning to protest Gibson today, descending on his cattle ranch in Columbus, Montana while bearing signs that read: “Thou Shalt Not Kill” and “Honor all of God’s Creations.”

“Anyone who sends cows to slaughter mocks God,” says PETA’s vegan campaign director Bruce Friedrich, who also is a devout Roman Catholic. “Slaughterhouses are the embodiment of violence, bloodshed, and cruelty. If Gibson wants his audience to contemplate the awfulness of inflicting suffering on the innocent, he should show his own animals some mercy.”

Gibson’s rep wasn’t available for comment

[Bobo Adobo]

Fuck PETA. >:

Join the REAL PETA. People for the Eating of Tasty Animals.

[Pee Wee Herman]

...I won't see it because I am too damn lazy to read subtitles...
That's pretty goddamn lazy. I'm not questioning your decision to not see the movie. I'm just saying that is really fucking lazy.

[Matt Harty]

I don't really care for religious stuff, so i'm not interested in seeing it. I do enjoy watching the contoversy though. A bunch of catholics and jews whining about their mixed views on some movie about some book about events that probably never happened.

[El Blanco]

Its just that I don't go to movies for intellectual stimulation. Not that there is anything wrong with it, just that I don't. Not intentionally, anyway. If I want to be intellectually stimulated, I'll read the book.

That and I really am that fucking lazy.

[Bobo Adobo]

I don't really care for religious stuff, so i'm not interested in seeing it. I do enjoy watching the contoversy though. A bunch of catholics and jews whining about their mixed views on some movie about some book about events that probably never happened.

Eventhough a lot of the Bible is BS, archeologists tend to be mostly Christian because there is actuall archeological evidence that a lot of the events in the bible actually happened. But thats a whole other discussion.

[Perndog]

It's awfully hard for archaeological evidence to exist for specific events two thousand years ago on a smaller scale than fires and significant massacres. I'm willing to bet that most if not all "Biblical evidence" is wishful thinking and speculation on the part of the archaeologists and scholars. It seems more likely that they find Biblical evidence because they're Christian, not vice versa.

[Big Papa Goat]

Going back to what Max said about Pilate, in the bible, if I recall, he was depicted as being quite sympathetic towards Jesus. Whether or not that would be historically accurate or not is debatable, but it does seem to be how it is portrayed in the gospel.

btw, which book did they use for this movie?

[Perndog]

My bet is they picked and chose the most Hollywood-friendly bits from each one.

[thebiggameover]

i'm not going. i will never rent this ether. if i wanna hear about jesus, i go to fucking church...

>:

[Bobo Adobo]

Some people just don't admire art these days... :rolleyes

[Ronnie Raygun]

I'm going.

Until I see it, I will have no furthur comment.

[VinceZeb]

It's awfully hard for archaeological evidence to exist for specific events two thousand years ago on a smaller scale than fires and significant massacres. I'm willing to bet that most if not all "Biblical evidence" is wishful thinking and speculation on the part of the archaeologists and scholars. It seems more likely that they find Biblical evidence because they're Christian, not vice versa.

Yes, because the Bible can't possibly be true. Plato's works are 100% fact and accurate, because we have videotaped documentries of Plato's existance.

...It was weird today. I was sitting in my office and I said to myself: "I know this is weird, but it would be funny if Perndog went through incredible pain and suffering in front of his friends and family." I then lurk 'round here and I see where Pern will try not to laugh when Jesus dies.

But I doubt you will get the time to see the movie. You will be way to busy driving your girlfriend... er, "sister" to her 5th grade band gatherings.

[Immortal Goat]

Another very wonderfully Catholic post from our resident Dogmatic, Vinth.

[Emu]

I don't remember anyone mentioning Plato.

[Brandon]

Plato never claimed to be the son of God, either. Apples and oranges.

[Big Papa Goat]

Plato wrote about Atlantis didn't he? In which case he'd be about as accurate as the bible.

[theapportioner]

The NYTimes positively slayed this movie. Basically said it was horrible.

[Perndog]

Yeah, I don't know where he pulled Plato from. But to run with that ball, the proof of Plato's existence is that we have stuff that he wrote, which shows beyond doubt that *someone* existed to write those things, whether they were true or not. This is the only thing that we can know for sure, though; I personally doubt that the stuff leading up to Socrates's death really happened like Plato wrote it.

As far as the Bible goes, the same rule applies: the only sure thing is that its writers existed. Who doesn't believe John and Paul were real people? Anyone? Yeah, that's what I thought.

And Vinthy-poo, unlike yourself, people in my family generally make it past 5th grade by the time they're 16 years old. My sister happens to be busy training for the Junior Olympics right now.

[El Blanco]

The NYTimes positively slayed this movie. Basically said it was horrible.

The Times likes to play to what they think people want. They also have a very anti-Catholic slant.

Besides, when critics tell me how bad a movie is, it only makes me want to see it more.

[KevinTheOmnivore]

The NYTimes positively slayed this movie. Basically said it was horrible.

The Times movie reviews tend to be incredibly pretentious. Other usual suspects, like Roling Stone, Ebert, gave it rave reviews. I'm going to see it Friday I think.

[Brandon]

The Times ... also have a very anti-Catholic slant.
How do you figure?

[El Blanco]

Like whenever a molestation charge is made, it is front page news and they do everything they can to plaster the alleged offender all across their pages and go into all the gory details, but retractions (and there have been a good number) somehow get burried no better than page 12. You figured if you went on a crusade to destroy a man's life and find out it was a fraud, you would have the decency to make a very public apology.

This is not to defend the priests who did commit the atrocities or those who have hidden them, just to speak up for the wrongly accused.

[Brandon]

Like whenever a molestation charge is made, it is front page news and they do everything they can to plaster the alleged offender all across their pages and go into all the gory details, but retractions (and there have been a good number) somehow get burried no better than page 12. You figured if you went on a crusade to destroy a man's life and find out it was a fraud, you would have the decency to make a very public apology.

This is not to defend the priests who did commit the atrocities or those who have hidden them, just to speak up for the wrongly accused.
Hasn't the media in general been doing that, though?

[KevinTheOmnivore]

Like whenever a molestation charge is made, it is front page news and they do everything they can to plaster the alleged offender all across their pages and go into all the gory details, but retractions (and there have been a good number) somehow get burried no better than page 12.

I find this to be common amongst most major newspapers, no?

[El Blanco]

Could be, I just happen to have caught it in the pretentious bullshit daily rag we got here.

I've also wondered why, when the same charges are made against public school teachers here nad the board of ed simply tranfers them to another school, the press never got on it.

But, I digress, I won't see this movie until it hits DVD.

[Dole]

I cannot imagine anything fucking duller than sitting through this movie.

"...It was weird today. I was sitting in my office and I said to myself: "I know this is weird, but it would be funny if Perndog went through incredible pain and suffering in front of his friends and family." I then lurk 'round here and I see where Pern will try not to laugh when Jesus dies. "

-thats weird man, I was thinking the same thing about you.

[Cosmo Electrolux]

we all were

[mburbank]

I don't believe anyone has ever agrued for archelogical evidence of Plato's existance. Maybe Vinth was thinking of Play dough, which when petrified is very hrd to identify as having once been a maleable childs toy, is biodegradeable and hasn't been around very long in any case.

No one was actually arguing against the existance of Jesus, they were saying that archelogical evidence of the speciffics of his life are hrd to find. No biblical or religous scholar I'm aware of argues that the four Gospels are contemporary accounts of the life of Jesus. I think there are two extra biblical references to Jesus in contemporary hostories, both of them brief.

I'm myself don't doubt his factual exitance, I do however doubt his divinity, which people should believe on faith iof they believe it at all, and not go looking for proofs, a sign of very shallow beliefs.

However, with the earliest Gospel being written some seventy years after the death of Jesus, during a time in the early Jesus movement when conversion was a key concern and schisms between various Christian communities were widespread, it is very hard to make speciffic historical claims about speciffic events in his life. I don't see any reason why this would bother anyone with serious religious convictions, and I think Gibsons claims of historical legitmacy are where all of the problems arise.

This, like any interpretation of the life of Jesus is a gospel ACCORDING TO, in this case, according to Mel. I have no problem with him making it, I have no problem with him showing it.

I personally do not want Vinth or Pern to suffer, despite anything either of them might have said. I don't think Jesus would want either of them to suffer either. I always figured tht was part of the reason Christians thought he allowed himself to be crucified, so as to help others suffer less. Me, I'm just a Jew. I don't think he allowed anything. I think those miserable Roman Jesus Killers crucifed him against his will. I don't hold it against their Italian descendants though. I mean, that would be pretty much retarded, right?

[Zhukov]

I'll see it after my mate pirates me a copy.

Blanco: Would a priest molesting a child be a bigger news story than if a teacher molested a child? I don't know, I'm asking.

[AChimp]

http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/ThePassionoftheChrist-1129941/

Rotten.

[Emu]

"If Jesus actually received the amount of punishment dished out in this film, he would have been dead three times over before arriving at Calvary. "
:lol

[Perndog]

Just for the record, Max, I doubt the actual historical existence of Jesus too, because both of the extra-Biblical sources referring to him come from later than the Gospels and referred to Christianity as a movement, not to its founder.

[mesobe]

eat a bag of mushrooms and laugh at jesus being killed


sounds good to me

[Perndog]

Drugs are bad for you.

[mesobe]

so is jesus

[El Blanco]

I'll see it after my mate pirates me a copy.

Blanco: Would a priest molesting a child be a bigger news story than if a teacher molested a child? I don't know, I'm asking.

According to the media in this town, yes.

I'm not saying one is worse than the other, just that one is getting more attention.

[Bobo Adobo]

I think its funny how people think Jesus didn't get this much punishment. How do you know? Who here is 2000 years old?

Besides people back then were disturbingly inhumane. Theives got crucified, thats right THEIVES got crucified!

From what heard the movie is actually pretty good. And you guys should throw your whiny liberal media reviews away and just go see besides being all like "its a movie about Jesus how can possibly be any good." Besides why do you think some untalented fuck needs to tell you what movies to watch, especially since movie critics in past have given bad reviews to some of the greatest movies ever made(example -every Stanley Kubrick movie). Dammit.

[Anonymous]

I'm not going to see it because it's historically inaccurate. Everyone knows that Jesus was black.

[ScruU2wice]

I like that people are going to think that this movie is completely historically accurate, not read up on jesus at all afterwords, and assume that everything that gibson's interpertation of the gospels is the one everyone should believe in.

I think that its not gonna be good movie artistaclly speaking. From the few scenes I saw, i didn't find it very appeasing to the eye. After all it is a movie,

Another thing thats gonna keep my away from the movie is people crying. I find it annoying that people cry over things that happened 2000 years ago, and was for all intesive purposes destined to happen. They remind me of the sheaite(sp?) muslims, that cry over death of muslims hundreds of years ago and are perfectly fine the next second, and weep like crazy at the grave of our prophet. :/

edit: the discovery channel special pretty clearly said that he was brown, boogie :rolleyes

[Bobo Adobo]

I think that its not gonna be good movie artistaclly speaking. From the few scenes I saw, i didn't find it very appeasing to the eye. After all it is a movie,



:lol So a movie can't possibly be an artform? Damn Nazi.

[ScruU2wice]

not one thats about jesus :rolleyes

[Emu]

Isn't that plagairism :eek

[Bobo Adobo]

not one thats about jesus :rolleyes

Yes and you fully understand what art is don't you...

http://i-mockery.net/viewtopic.php?t=10205

very pleasing to the eye.

[Perndog]

Hey, I didn't know the whole movie was in the (more or less) authentic languages. Cool.

[mesobe]

hah hah hah... I just saw on the news that an old lady died of a heart attack while watching this flick.

[Zhukov]

It turns out I am going to see this film now, but by the time I do everyone will be finshed talking about it and Lord of the Rings II will be the talk of the boards.

What is it rated in the US btw? 15+, 18+ etc


I worded that last question wrong, Blanco: wich one is more interesting and more likely to sell papers / get ratings?

[O71394658]

I saw it. Very brutal. First time in a movie the entire crowd actually turned their heads at scenes. Still, I thought the camera's use of angles and tracking shots blocked out much of it.

It's brutal in two ways. Primarily, the one being that the violence isn't "horror movie" violence, and is made to look quite realistic. The other being it actually happened to a real person.

Overall, I thought the movie was good, but it could have been a lot better. Some of the details I didn't particularly like (like Judas being haunted by demons) and I felt detracted from the story a bit. The relationship between Jesus and Mary is played out to be a very strong and intimate one, which I thought really, really helped the movie. The other qualm I had was the sheer humanity of Jesus. He was human, yet was regardless the Son of God. I felt that in points in the movie it took almost a Book of Job-esque approach, placing Jesus into the role of an unknowing, reluctant man punished by an angry God. While I thought the humanity of Jesus would be emphasized, I thought it was done a bit too much. Also, I think Gibson should have focused on historical fact instead of merely improvising scenes. I'm not a Biblical scholar, so I wouldn't know, but there were scenes and anachronisms which I didn't think fit quite well at the time.

I could also see how some would view this as anti-Semetic. The Jewish priests and their followers are a rily, evil, and ugly bunch. They come complete with bad teeth and hideous laughter to boot. They are relentless in their pursuit of Jesus' crucifixtion, even though they have no moral ground to stand on. Apparently Gibson revels in the farce of poking fun at the mob, mercilessly portraying them as a gang of thugs and henchmen. To be fair, however, there are Jewish people within the movie who show sympathy for Jesus, and who go out of their way to help him.

Overall, great film. But be cautious of the violence. It gets pretty bad at parts.

[Perndog]

...historical fact...

The Gospels don't even agree on the "facts," so while Mr. Gibson may have made some stuff up I wouldn't be picking on him for historical accuracy. Pick on him for not following the book, instead.

[Brandon]

...historical fact...

The Gospels don't even agree on the "facts," so while Mr. Gibson may have made some stuff up I wouldn't be picking on him for historical accuracy. Pick on him for not following the book, instead.
Agreed. Nice Samus avatar, BTW.

[Perndog]

Tell me, Brandon, what color is Samus's suit? And why would I have a girl avatar? >:

[Brandon]

Tell me, Brandon, what color is Samus's suit? And why would I have a girl avatar? >:
Whoops. :(

Never mind..

[davinxtk]

I want to see the film.
I shall opine once I have.

[Emu]

What's the blue hunter's name? I saw him in one of the old Nintendo Powers when they were cool and had comics :(

[kellychaos]

I'll bet the book is better.

I'm not going to see it because I've already read the book and know how it ends. There is a bit of a cliffhanger which hints at a revelations sequel but I don't want to give anything away.

[davinxtk]

I'm not going to see it because I've already read the book and know how it ends.




I hate to post a spoiler, but at the end of the last twelve hours of Christ's life... he dies!

Big fucking surprise.

I bet you saw Titanic, knowing full-well how it would end.

[ScruU2wice]

Yes and you fully understand what art is don't you...

http://i-mockery.net/viewtopic.php?t=10205

very pleasing to the eye.

I didn't spend millions of dollars on that sketch to recieve this type of criticism. Also, thats definatly not a sketch or anything that i just made for fun >:

Speaking of art. A girl in my art class said that the movie was very accurate
I bet jesus is sitting somewhere crying :(

I'm definatly gonna rent this movie though...

[davinxtk]

Didn't the actor who plays Christ get struck my lightening twice during filming?
Most people who get struck my lightening get it once IN THEIR ENTIRE LIVES, let alone twice WHILE ON THE SET OF THE SAME MOVIE.
Not to mention the weeeeee percentage of people who actually fall victim to such an event in the first place.

[Perndog]

What's the blue hunter's name? I saw him in one of the old Nintendo Powers when they were cool and had comics :(

His name is Houston, he was a complete dork, and he's also the co-star of the "Maru Mari" comic strip at http://www.metroid2002.com.

[Brandon]

I saw it tonight.

First of all, it's not the movie event of the millenium. Secondly, it's a movie strictly for Christians. Christians will most assuredly be wailing, sobbing, and beating their breasts over this, but to a non-believer (like yours truly) it won't have the same effect. It's a good piece of filmmaking, don't get me wrong, but I wouldn't give it the same kind of praise that I've seen so far in the media. The cinematography is excellent and the musical score is gorgeous, but it's a generally disturbing film (I'm aware that was the intent, by the way) and a few elements even make it border on.. corny.

It's violent. Holy shit is it ever violent. It's the most violent movie I've ever seen, and I say that in all sincerity. It's so gruesome, in fact, that it becomes absurd at times. Jesus, for example, is scourged by the centurions for nearly a half hour. Every time there's a lull in the action, Gibson fills it with a random flogging of either Jesus or a bystander. At one point, the cross lands on top of Jesus, jamming the crown of thorns deep into his skull, complete with sickening sound effect and spurt of blood. With all this abuse, it's remarkable there was anything left of J.C. when he finally made it up to Golgotha. In reality, he would have been dead by the end of the scourging scene, but Gibson doesn't have to pander to paltry things like "medical accuracy." Saint Mel is working from the Gospels, after all.

But then again, the Gospels don't go into tremendous detail about the degree of violence inflicted on Jesus, and a lot of the more gruesome moments, like the aforementioned crown of thorns incident, are Mel's own ideas. Mel's own ideas, by the way, are hit and miss, and he takes some other bizarre liberties in addition to the excess gore. For example, he throws in an omnipresent Satan figure and a gang of demon children that terrorize a guilt-stricken Judas. These little additions in particular were probably intended to be "deep and meaningful," but they just come across as hokey and unnecessary. Gibson also creates a major character out of an obscure line (Matthew 27:19) with Pontius Pilate's wife, Claudia. She's involved in two scenes that are found nowhere in the Gospels, one of which is a discussion with her husband about how Caiaphas is just so darn intimidating to a brutal Roman governor.

And that brings me to the big question: is it anti-semitic? Well.. maybe. Gibson removed the big offending line (Matthew 27:25), but apparently there were still objections even after he did so. Caiaphas and the Sanhedrin, to be sure, do not get sympathetic portrayals, coming across more like Emperor Palpatine (Star Wars) clones with their heavy cloaks, beady eyes, and hideous laughter. Then again, once the centurions come into the picture, they quickly become the most loathsome, sadistic characters in the movie, so it would be hard to say that the blame has been planted squarely on one group of people. Mel's message seems to be more about what pieces shit of we all are. Yeah, it's the feel good movie of the year.

The subtitles may be intimidating, but they really aren't an issue. After a few minutes, you hardly even notice you're reading them. The languages are effective for the most part, though there are a few questionable pronunciations here and there.

Overall it is a good film. However, it is, like I said, a film for Christians. A devout type will most likely think it's the most extraordinary thing he or she has ever seen while others will sit and wonder what Saint Mel was trying to say. Is the audience supposed to be inspired or repulsed? Has he intended for Christians to leave with a feeling of warmth or overwhelming guilt?

Who knows? I don't believe in this shit anyway.

[Perndog]

Yeah, it bothered me that they made so much out of the scourging which occupied less than one full sentence in three of the four gospels and was absent in the fourth.

[Ronnie Raygun]

This was a great movie and I don't think it's only for Christians.

I think everyone should go see it to make their own judgement.

I think to call it anti-semetic is silly.

[Bobo Adobo]

I wouldn't say this movie is for Christians either. Me being more towards atheism and agnostism, I didn't find this film very preachy at all. It basically told the story right from the bible, and was well done cinematically. If you like good movies, go see this movie. Plain and simple.


Not really going to get in depth because there are already MULTIPLE THREADS ABOUT THIS MOVIE! >:

[Brandon]

When I say it's a movie for Christians I don't mean that non-Christians won't think of it as a good movie. What I'm saying is that it has been geared towards current or prospective believers. Why? Because Mel Gibson called it "historically accurate." He doesn't operate under the pretense that he's just following the Gospels, and he never claimed to be doing so. To Saint Mel, everything from the demon kids to the splitting apart of the temple is the naked truth, and the movie reflects that viewpoint.

And guess what? He doesn't even follow the Gospels that well. A great deal of the scenes and portrayals in the movie (particularly the level of violence inflicted on Jesus, Satan's appearance in Gethsemane, and Pilate's wife) came not from the Bible but from the "visions" of Sister Anne Catherine Emmerich, a Catholic nun whose experiences (which were accepted by the Catholic church) are recorded in "The Dolorous Passion."

This isn't a historical account. It's not even literary adaptation. It's theology, and that means Christians (specifically Catholics, it seems) are the target audience.

[Guderian]

I'm not a Christian, but I've decided to see it anyway. If they make a sequel, which I hope they do, I'll see that too.

From the reviews I've read, Brandon is right about Gibson adding things from non-biblical sources. I've also read some Protestant reviews that describe it as having a distinctly Catholic flavour, while I've read others that say it manages to appeal to all Christians without relying too much on Catholic dogma that Protestants would disagree with. I suppose I shall have to wait and see for myself.

[soundtest]

I downloaded this last night. Definitely interesting to see, but the violence was so over the top it was almost ridiculous. I found it to drag on quite a bit... after about an hour in Jesus is basically a bloody pile of moaning ground beef staring blankly into space... I found myself thinking "JUST FUCKING DIE ALREADY" (in all caps). Still worth seeing though, imo.

The relationship between Jesus and Mary is played out to be a very strong and intimate one, which I thought really, really helped the movie.

I couldn't agree more. I'd even go as far to say that it saved it.

[Brandon]

The relationship between Jesus and Mary is played out to be a very strong and intimate one, which I thought really, really helped the movie.

I couldn't agree more. I'd even go as far to say that it saved it.
Agreed. It was the movie's saving grace.

[Perndog]

I thought Jesus was the "saving grace". :lol

[soundtest]

And I had no idea that Jesus invented modern table height :eek

[Vibecrewangel]

Didn't the actor who plays Christ get struck my lightening twice during filming?
Most people who get struck my lightening get it once IN THEIR ENTIRE LIVES, let alone twice WHILE ON THE SET OF THE SAME MOVIE.
Not to mention the weeeeee percentage of people who actually fall victim to such an event in the first place.


The first time he was holding an umbrella that served as a lightning rod.
And freaky as it sounds.....once you have been struck by lightning your chances of being hit again actually go UP.

When I read about this all I kept seeing in my head was the Family Guy episode where Brian the Dog grabs Peter and slaps him back and forth across the face saying "GOD....IS....PISSED"


I will probably see this out of simple curiosity. In high school I bought and read EVERYTHING I could find written by DeSade. I ended up thinking that he made the most atrocious acts sound beautiful. Some people find art and beauty in the strangest places. Clearly.....I'm one of them.

[mburbank]

I bet carrying around the desade books made you a very popular young lady with the literary crowd.

I'm a fan of the grotesque, but I don't care for Desade, or the story of O for that matter, which is like Desade with vaseline on the lens. After the five hundreth anal pillaging I just can't care.

Some fine films have been made about desade, though. I haven't seen Quills, but heard it was good, and both the play and film "The Death of Marat as peformed by the inmates of the whatever insane asylum and direct by the Marquis Desade" are excellent.

I think Desade and Gibson (though neither would care to embrace the other I'm sure) have a shared interest in the beauty of suffering. I'm not put off, but neither doe it do anything for me.

[Vibecrewangel]

Quills was excellent. So was a really strange adaption of Justine that Robert Englund was in. He is so dang creepy.....

The literary crowd thought I was a little off. That pleased me greatly.
These days I'm told I creep out hard core fetishists and real (non hot topic) goths. (what the hell is a real goth?)

The statement "someday I'm going to be interviewed and I'll say 'but she seemed so normal' " has been applied to me. Recently.

When my mother found the books she was a bit miffed, I had to remind her that it was her fetish magazines that had sparked my interest. We didn't have much an argument after that. And my grandmother.....she read them too. She was disturbed and yet enjoyed them in her own way. She still laughs about them when I come to dinner.
No wonder I'm a freak.....

Though I do not find beauty so much in suffering as in how it is presented.
As bad as the movie was, Strangeland had some of the most incredible body alterations in it. And though the plot was subpar, the scenes from inside the head of the killer in The Cell were gorgeous.
I have a feeling that Mels will make me sick. As well it should to be honest.

[mburbank]

Try to remember I'm old. They did an electrocrdiagram on me at my last physical as a mtter of course. Then they did something a lot less pleasant. What were we talking about?

[Vibecrewangel]

Suffering......
And It appears you have done some of that. Recently.

[Vibecrewangel]

Okay so the other Robert Englund DeSade move was about Eugenie and was called Night Terrors. My bad.

[The_Rorschach]

"Funnier yet is the fact that the Latin is perhaps 5the largest historical innacuracy. While some of the players (pilot certainly) would have known Latin, the common tongue was Greek. The Roman army and the Roman civil service were multicultural, and the language they all had in common and spoke to each other wasn't Latin, it was Greek."

That is a debatable point Herr Burbank. See, though Greek was a far more popular language, it was fashionable to be as Roman as possible even outside of the Roman Empire. I mean, just consider the remarkable leverage Paul recieved once he claimed his Roman citizenship - An appearance before Caesar himself in Rome, if memory serves. In a society where every privilege could be bought, from the citizenship to the broad strip on their toga, true cultural currency was covetted - And for good reason.

You say it is innaccurate that they mostly spoke Latin, but from everything I have studied from the period, I would say its a fair representation. Sure, languages mixed promiscuously, but the common tongue of the Roman soldiers, and their sycophants and sympathizers would still have been Latin. I mean, would you say a documentary on 20th Century California filmed a few hundred years from now should be spoken in Spanish because there are large segments of the population that are ignorant of the Queen's English?

[Vibecrewangel]

Spanglish....Californians speak Spanglish

[Abcdxxxx]

It's a film that rejects 2000 years of historical, theological, and even archealogical progress. On top of it, their only marketing plan was to bait Jews into calling it AntiSemetic. That his Dad is heating up into full gear with his Holocaust denial business helps too.

The film takes place during a period that defined antisemetism and Blood Libels against Jews ever since. Jesus was one of MANY Jews who were oppressed for being too Jewy, for studying Torah, and for being "nationalistic" by answering to Jewish Laws above the rule of the land. As a result Jews broke into various factions to deal with the Romans. It was only a specific denomination of Jews that were involved with the crucifixions, and their role was a result of infighting and politics within the religion. None of this makes it into the Gospels, or Gibson's film, because it's too confusing, and less interesting then pornographic gore, and finger pointing. Without any real Jewish characters of substance in the film, it's unlikely this is going to do much good when it plays the Czech Republic, or Syria, or France.

[mburbank]

See, if Abcdxxder and I agree this much on something, I think you should go with it just on the statistical improbability alone.

[The_Rorschach]

Fine! Go ahead and agree! See if I interject into future conversations > : (