The Passion

[SaiyanPrincessX]

Opening tomarrow, the soundtrack came out today.

This movie has been making quite a buzz lately in media. I've seen several trailers and a few reviews on tv, with people walking out of the theater crying. The cast includes the following:

[SIZE=1]James Caviezel - Jesus
Monica Bellucci - Magdalen
Claudia Gerini - Claudia Procles
Maia Morgenstern - Mary
Sergio Rubini - Dismas
Toni Bertorelli - Annas
Roberto Bestazzoni - Malchus
Francesco Cabras - Gesmas
Rosalinda Celentano - Satan
Emilio De Marchi - Scournful Roman
Francesco De Vito - Peter
Lello Giulivo - Brutish Roman
Abel Jefry - Second Temple Officer (as Abel Jafry)
Hristo Jivkov - John
Luca Lionello - Judas[/SIZE]
Among others.

I'm curious to everyones response to this movie since it has caused such an uproar and is indefinetely a very emotional movie. I'm sure James can make a much better review on this movie than I.

Anyhow, I'll probebly end up seeing it with my mom, but not for awhile to avoid the crowds.

[Guest Skycat]

[COLOR=DarkRed]undefined[/COLOR][FONT=Book Antiqua]undefined[/FONT] I going to this movie later tonight I heard it's very graghic

[Raiha]

[COLOR=SeaGreen]Graphic yes, morbid detail yes, quarts of blood used? YES! Don't see this film if you're under 12, don't see it if you don't like violence, and don't see it if you don't want to be freaked out by the nature of crucifixion.

Satan: The female/male is in my avatar now, but she's alot freakier in the movie itself. Did a very good job of making me writhe with fear and disgust. I highly reccomend it, saw it last night, and wailed and screamed through several parts of it. Including the 40 minute flogging scene and the half hour they spent crucifying Jesus.

A better review is at myotaku.[/COLOR]

[Charles]

[QUOTE=Raiha][color=seagreen]Satan: The female/male is in my avatar now, but she's alot freakier in the movie itself. Did a very good job of making me writhe with fear and disgust. I highly reccomend it, saw it last night, and wailed and screamed through several parts of it. Including the 40 minute flogging scene and the half hour they spent crucifying Jesus.

A better review is at myotaku.[/color][/QUOTE]I writhed with disgust that's for sure; this concept of Satan ruined the film. The movie itself wasn't bad. It's heart wrenching and as a human being, you just want to get up and help. That was my immediate emotional response. But, you know, for every wonderful scene in the film that had me captivated, my attention was lost by some Hollywood distraction.

Satan should have been a metaphysical idea. There shouldn't be a humanized realization of the concept of evil. It's just terrible filmmaking. [i]Terrible.[/i] The ghouls they show are so out of place it isn't even funny. On second thought, it [i]is[/i] funny and that's what's sad. I shouldn't be laughing cynically as Jesus is flogged because a Hellraiser reject that's supposed to represent Lucifer is suckling some twisted infant. This isn't [b]Jeepers Creepers [/b]or [b]Darkness Falls.[/b] It's as if we [i]had[/i] to have these fantasy elements included within the film. Otherwise our limited attention spans wouldn't allow us to enjoy a theological tale driven on raw human emotion (and faith) rather than state-of-the-art special effects. Right?

[b]The Passion of The Christ[/b] is worth seeing, but it didn't quite trigger the response from me I hoped it would. It's probably too violent. The brutality is overly exaggerated in some cases. Being exposed to such troubling imagery didn't make me feel uplifted. That's for sure.

There were a select few memorable scenes that'll be plastered into my memory. I also liked how they didn't use subtitles the entire time--only to define critical plot devices. Otherwise, this is a Hollywood infused product for the Bennifer generation.

Why hast thou forsaken me, indeed. :rolleyes:

[Semjaza]

I think that's a really extreme opinion over one stupid aspect of the film. Whether or not you liked the humanization of Satan is one thing, but it hardly makes this film comparable to anything from the so-called "Bennifer". Just using that term deserves a punch in and of itself lol. Do you work for Extra or Celebrity Justice? Ugh heh.

I agree the use of a humanized Satan really didn't always have the desired effect. However, I don't really see how the thoughts of Jesus or Mary's temptations could have been shown much better. The only other device that comes to mind would be giving them flashes of hypothetical situations that really just wouldn't have fit in with the film. If you're familiar with the Bible there are actually parts where Jesus pretty much does converse or see the devil "in the flesh" so to speak. Therefore I don't find what they did to be pandering to some idiotic audience.

However, I do agree in some senses because I don't really see the point in making them look ridiculous to the point of being almost humorous. I think the use of the goofy looking children was a bit over-used... It had the desirable effect that it was going for on me, but that's mostly because I knew what it was trying to get at. In and of itself, the children were rather comical. Comparing that to Darkness Falls is rather ridiculous.

As for the brutality, really what was exaggerated about it? Any weapons they used on Jesus would have had those same effects in reality. Jesus's cross would have been about that size in reality. Obviously his overcoming things most anyone else couldn't is slightly exaggerated, but it's not much different in the Bible -- I always thought that was part of the point. Afterall, he isn't exactly a normal person lol.

The only thing I think might be thought to be extreme would be the level to which the Roman's enjoyed attacking Jesus... however, in reading other things and studying their culture in Latin class, I find no reason to believe why there wouldn't be people who loved doing that sort of thing to that degree. This is a culture that had people kill eachother on a regular basis for the sheer fun of it all.

The brutality is all part of the point, I think. People of the Christian religion have the idea of "Jesus died for your sins" beaten into their brains so often that it loses all meaning. What you're supposed to get from this film is really how much Jesus went through for what amounts to totally selfless reasons. That's the "uplifting" message. That the son of God would care for the people of this earth so much that he'd be willing to go to these lengths. It's the core of the whole Christian belief system.

I'm not religious whatsoever. I don't even believe in Jesus as a religious figure, really... but if you can't put the ideas of the religion along with the reasoning as to why i happened, I think you're just going to miss the point of the film and look at it as just another simple movie.

Anyway, I thought this was very well done in terms of costume design, acting and cinematography at the least.

[Raiha]

[COLOR=MediumTurquoise]I recall being told that the brutality was there because nobody except historians in this century know exactly what a crucifixion entails. Back when the Bible was passed about in the early church, every one knew exactly what a crucifixion was, they knew how brutal it was, they knew how much a criminal suffered while hanging from a cross. In the eighteenth century, people knew what a hanging was like, they knew it was a gruesome death as well. But in our modern society of painless lethal injections and comfort zones, we've blocked that idea out of our minds. The vast majority of our population doesn't know just how much someone suffers when they're hung on a cross. That, I think, is why Mel Gibson went over the death of Christ in such morbid and violent detail.

BTW, those children were all in Judas's head.....dissapearing hell-children. Took me awhile to understand that bit.[/COLOR]

[Charles]

[quote name='Semjaza Azazel']I think that's a really extreme opinion over one stupid aspect of the film. Whether or not you liked the humanization of Satan is one thing, but it hardly makes this film comparable to anything from the so-called "Bennifer". Just using that term deserves a punch in and of itself lol. Do you work for Extra or Celebrity Justice? Ugh heh.[/quote]
What? I don't think I hold an extreme opinion at all. I believe the movie was [i]good[/i] but had the potential to be fantastic. I may have pursued my dissatisfaction towards some aspects of the film in an aggressive manner, but these are [i]critical [/i]flaws. It's as if I'm nitpicking just for the sake of doing so. If that makes me a radical, well, what can I say? :wigout:

The "Bennifer" term is suited to the vast majority of today's audiences. Whether you like it or not, these people only invest themselves heavily in the idea of Hollywood more so than good filmmaking. They have short attention spans and have to see conventional distractions onscreen to kindle an interest. [b]The Passion of Christ[/b] achieved these diversions with rubber suited monsters and cartoon violence.

[quoteI agree the use of a humanized Satan really didn't always have the desired effect. However, I don't really see how the thoughts of Jesus or Mary's temptations could have been shown much better. The only other device that comes to mind would be giving them flashes of hypothetical situations that really just wouldn't have fit in with the film. If you're familiar with the Bible there are actually parts where Jesus pretty much does converse or see the devil "in the flesh" so to speak. Therefore I don't find what they did to be pandering to some idiotic audience.[/quote]
Over the course of the movie, they reiterated the idea of truth or what exactly truth is. With this in mind, I find it incredibly ironic that a film based on faith wouldn't let us arrive at our own sense of truth instead of blatantly hitting us over the head with their idea of honesty.

Your biblical references don't hold water here either. Most of the scenes depicting Satan were superfluous. Nor do they excuse Boogieman-like apparitions haunting Judas.

For me, the mysticism was sacrificed because of these symbolic, albeit pointless gestures.

[quote]However, I do agree in some senses because I don't really see the point in making them look ridiculous to the point of being almost humorous. I think the use of the goofy looking children was a bit over-used... It had the desirable effect that it was going for on me, but that's mostly because I knew what it was trying to get at. In and of itself, the children were rather comical. Comparing that to Darkness Falls is rather ridiculous.[/quote]
I was comparing the demon that screamed at Judas to [b]Darkness Falls.[/b] The children reminded me of a parade of [b][b]Leprechaun[/b][/b] miscasts. Again, I know why they were there, but does that excuse their needless presence?

We know that Judas is cursed. Hell, anyone who's had the benefit of reading Dante's Inferno knows that he's forced to suffer in Hell for eternity.

[quote]As for the brutality, really what was exaggerated about it? Any weapons they used on Jesus would have had those same effects in reality. Jesus's cross would have been about that size in reality. Obviously his overcoming things most anyone else couldn't is slightly exaggerated, but it's not much different in the Bible -- I always thought that was part of the point. Afterall, he isn't exactly a normal person lol.

The only thing I think might be thought to be extreme would be the level to which the Roman's enjoyed attacking Jesus... however, in reading other things and studying their culture in Latin class, I find no reason to believe why there wouldn't be people who loved doing that sort of thing to that degree. This is a culture that had people kill eachother on a regular basis for the sheer fun of it all.

The brutality is all part of the point, I think. People of the Christian religion have the idea of "Jesus died for your sins" beaten into their brains so often that it loses all meaning. What you're supposed to get from this film is really how much Jesus went through for what amounts to totally selfless reasons. That's the "uplifting" message. That the son of God would care for the people of this earth so much that he'd be willing to go to these lengths. It's the core of the whole Christian belief system.

I'm not religious whatsoever. I don't even believe in Jesus as a religious figure, really... but if you can't put the ideas of the religion along with the reasoning as to why i happened, I think you're just going to miss the point of the film and look at it as just another simple movie.

Anyway, I thought this was very well done in terms of costume design, acting and cinematography at the least.[/QUOTE]
I'm running out of time, so I can't address these points in as much depth as I'd like. At least, not at the moment. If Jesus actually received the amount of punishment dished out in this film though, he would have died three times over before being crucified.

The violence was almost something I had to bear. It was just excruciating stuff in general. As the New York Times review keenly pointed out, the film concentrates too heavily on the savagery of Jesus's final hours and captures the feeling of wrath instead of love. In effect, it assaults the audience instead of uplifting it.

[Semjaza]

In any case, I personally don't see an issue with the personification of it. I am sure there were better ways to go about it, but it hardly added to the breakdown of the film for me. Jesus and Mary are given issues of tempation in the Bible and while I don't really think that some bald guy with a baby looking like it's 40 really add to the story in any way and actually do end being a little comical... I just don't feel that strongly against it.

As for the brutality, this is the story of Jesus. Not Bob from down the corner. There's obviously a difference between them on many levels. Having him endure all these things, while exaggerated, is kind of the point. How can you bring pure logic into a story that involves things that are written in the Bible concerning him? Should I also dislike the movie because of the resurrection? Afterall, no real person could do that either [spoiler](I do think the wounds in his hands in that scene was lame though)[/spoiler].

It's by no means the best movie I've ever seen or even the saw recently... but I can't say I agree with you overall either. Obviously the wrath involved against Jesus is a key point of the whole thing. If was obviously killed for real justifiable reason as it was. If you want to walk away from that feeling nothing only the negative impact of it, then okay. I can't say I walked away thinking the same things.

I can't really say I walked away in amazement though... there were people in there crying the whole film, but they all looked to have come from Ash Wednesday services, so I'm sure they'd feel more strongly about whatever it is they thought of the film heh.

[Charles]

[quote name='Semjaza Azazel]As for the brutality, this is the story of Jesus. Not Bob from down the corner. There's obviously a difference between them on many levels. Having him endure all these things, while exaggerated, is kind of the point. How can you bring pure logic into a story that involves things that are written in the Bible concerning him? Should I also dislike the movie because of the resurrection? Afterall, no real person could do that either [spoiler](I do think the wounds in his hands in that scene was lame though)[/spoiler'].[/quote]
I understand that the figure represented isn't "Joe Average" and I knew that because I didn't define my point more clearly you'd easily find some measure of fault in it. My basis of conflict is [i]how [/i]it was done and what it didn't achieve. The scourging of Christ triggered a powerful emotional response, there's no doubt about that. It's an effective scene if ever there was one. [i]But, what was it really[/i]? If you examine it, it can be dissected into gruesome, sadistic, stomach-turning and hard core graphically violent torture detached from any background information save for mostly clumsy flashbacks. Unless one has prior knowledge to this material, they're just not getting the full symbolism or the attachment of the characters.

Going into a movie, I expect the introduction of characters, I expect them to be developed and I should see their stories pay off by the end of the film. None of these expectations are met here. Hell, many of the supporting characters felt out of place and irrelevant to me.

I don't know. Maybe such ambitious scope is just too limited for one film to handle. Perhaps the story should have been more robust, spread across multiple films to achieve its purpose. It's just disheartening to say the least, to see such ineptitude in how everything was pieced together. This is a film made with evident and abundant religious conviction that is at the same time just [i]utterly[/i] lacking in grace.

I've always felt that there should be a certain degree of beauty to the story itself. We saw some of that. [spoiler]When Mary rushed to Jesus's side with the flashbacks spliced in and Jesus said "See mother, I make all things new again,"[/spoiler] I was just in awe. If more time had been concentrated on defining the relationships of the characters like that, I would have been enraptured with the film. As it stands now, I was simply pleased.

[quote]]It's by no means the best movie I've ever seen or even the saw recently... but I can't say I agree with you overall either. Obviously the wrath involved against Jesus is a key point of the whole thing. If was obviously killed for real justifiable reason as it was. If you want to walk away from that feeling nothing only the negative impact of it, then okay. I can't say I walked away thinking the same things.[/QUOTE]
I don't expect everyone to agree with me; I love seeing opinions different than my own. So, I'm not arguing with you here or trying to sway your take on the film. I just enjoy discussing the intricacies of complex movies. Hopefully even more people will partake in the conversation.

I also want to make it clear that I didn't come away only feeling the negative impact of [b]The Passion of Christ[/b]. I just fell into a situation here where it's what I ended up discussing the most. Overall, I enjoyed it and am obivously willing to make some concessions of other people's points. I'm not saying that I don't agree with you. I just don't fall into agreement entirely. After all, We've only discussed two aspects of the movie here in-depth.

[Semjaza]

I know you're not arguing with me. Don't worry about that lol. Thinking about it... the final scene with that Satan creature was rather bizarre and I feel less needed than pretty much every other one in the movie.

In any case, the Bible is basically the most successful book in history. I'd think most everyone who went would be familiar with the characters, especially because it concentrated on a select few and not every last person that could have been. As such, I personally didn't really feel a need for the reasons of "why?" and "what's the importance of this guy?" because it was already there on some level. I'm sure most people who go and see this wouldn't be completely unknowledgable about the story. Obviously this isn't a normal route to take on films though, so I don't know. I can understand not liking that approach.

Anyway, getting off of that... I think there were a lot of things done really well. The cinematography was excellent. Everything was shot really well; the enviroments in particular. I also think the acting was quite good. Everyone in it seemed pretty believable, overall.

I agree with your subtitle comment too. It was nice that it wasn't used for every last thing. I assume this was some sort of compromise since the film was set to have no subtitles at all, originally. You really don't need to know what anyone is saying when Jesus is being punished behind the gate. It would have been useless information for the most part.

It was kind of weird hearing people speak fluid Latin too. I took it for almost four years and, while I could understand some of it, it's just flows a lot better than one would expect. That's mostly because we basically could just speak broken Latin in that class though heh.

[Hinata]

[COLOR=SeaGreen][SIZE=1]
Well well well a loyal topic about the Passtion...which I am sorry that I have not yet soon but tha effect shall hopefully be rectified either on Friday or Satureday...He he

Then here I will post a critical review fof what I thought of the movies. Can't wait to see if I agree with you guys...

But I just wished to bring up a reasonable disscusion about the pretenses of the movie. Through much debate by Jewish around the country many have been absolutely appauled by the movie, stating it supports Anti- Semist view( PLEASE Forgive me if I misspelled that).

Now forgive me if Im wrong but in the Bible it states that the Jews rejected Jesus Christ when he presented himself as the Sn of God. Then they turn around to judge him and send him to be crucified.

Now I havent seen the movie so I can't say that I've gained that view. But I'll ask those who saw it...

Did you come out having a prejudice against the Jewish community?[/SIZE][/COLOR]

[AniSmith]

as a person who doesnt care about many things and as a TRUE NON-Believer, i dont care much for this movie, moreover, i think that its toooo much for a movie that i've [B]ONLY[/B] heard about since MOnday!!! its as if no one knew about it, but then in a few days, the whole world knows :eek: , but i'm still unafected :rolleyes:

[wrist cutter]

[QUOTE=Charles]Unless one has prior knowledge to this material, they're just not getting the full symbolism or the attachment of the characters.

Going into a movie, I expect the introduction of characters, I expect them to be developed and I should see their stories pay off by the end of the film. None of these expectations are met here. Hell, many of the supporting characters felt out of place and irrelevant to me. [/QUOTE]

No wonder you didn't enjoy the movie.

If you haven't figured it out already this isn't a typical movie. It's plot was given away thousands of years ago, and people have been caring about the characters for an equal amount of time. It's not trying to be a movie for everyone - it's not going to have little "side plots" to bring out the characters or whatever. It would be completely irrelevant to anyone who has already read the Bible.

That being said I really don't see why non-Christians are going to see this movie. It's not meant to "entertain" you. It's not meant to just give you something to do for a few hours. It's to help you better understand what really happened to Jesus and what He went through for us, by providing a visual aid. It's meant to hit you hard, because sometimes the text just isn't enough to fully understand.

So don't expect it to be a sound "movie" because it really isn't. Side characters may seem irrelevant, but they're in the Bible and that's what matters. This isn't going to create some fictional account to make it more entertaining.

I'll add in that I haven't seen this movie yet. But I will have as of this Saturday.

[Raiha]

[quote name='AniSmith]as a person who doesnt care about many things and as a TRUE NON-Believer, i dont care much for this movie, moreover, i think that its toooo much for a movie that i've [B]ONLY[/B'] heard about since MOnday!!! its as if no one knew about it, but then in a few days, the whole world knows :eek: , but i'm still unafected :rolleyes:[/quote][COLOR=MediumTurquoise]Going in with an attitude like that, naturally you wouldn't be. And a lot of people besides us "believers" knew about it before, you weren't paying attention. It's attracted more than just a little press from the media, figureheads, and other special interest groups.[/COLOR]

[OlgaTheDwarf]

[QUOTE=wrist cutter]
That being said I really don't see why non-Christians are going to see this movie.[/QUOTE]

Well, what if a non-Christian wants to know more? I see your point, however, I do not think Mel Gibson wants it to just be seen by Christians. Apparently he's a christian, and believes in the events in this movie. If that is true, he then should want other people (non-christians) to know about it also. A non-Christian may not fully understand it, but if it gets them to ask question, and search it out, I think Mel Gibson's got his point across.

[wrist cutter]

[quote name='OlgaTheDwarf']Well, what if a non-Christian wants to know more? I see your point, however, I do not think Mel Gibson wants it to just be seen by Christians. Apparently he's a christian, and believes in the events in this movie. If that is true, he then should want other people (non-christians) to know about it also. A non-Christian may not fully understand it, but if it gets them to ask question, and search it out, I think Mel Gibson's got his point across.[/quote]

That's a good point, and I agree. If someone is seriously considering learning more about Christianity, then this is a fine movie I'm sure. But I doubt many people are really considering that when they go to watch it.

But really, my point was that this isn't Star Wars or something. It's not really about entertainment, or a movie you go to just to watch a movie. I think you'd be disappointed with it in that way anyway.

[SaiyanPrincessX]

I feel the same way, wrist cutter. This movie was not men't for mere entertainment, but for a better understanding of Christ's death. I myself still haven't seen it but I plan to sometime this weekend. Once I do I'll be able to have a more profound discussion on it overall.

[Charles]

[QUOTE=wrist cutter]No wonder you didn't enjoy the movie.

If you haven't figured it out already this isn't a typical movie. It's plot was given away thousands of years ago, and people have been caring about the characters for an equal amount of time. It's not trying to be a movie for everyone - it's not going to have little "side plots" to bring out the characters or whatever. It would be completely irrelevant to anyone who has already read the Bible.

That being said I really don't see why non-Christians are going to see this movie. It's not meant to "entertain" you. It's not meant to just give you something to do for a few hours. It's to help you better understand what really happened to Jesus and what He went through for us, by providing a visual aid. It's meant to hit you hard, because sometimes the text just isn't enough to fully understand.

So don't expect it to be a sound "movie" because it really isn't. Side characters may seem irrelevant, but they're in the Bible and that's what matters. This isn't going to create some fictional account to make it more entertaining.

I'll add in that I haven't seen this movie yet. But I will have as of this Saturday.[/QUOTE]
I love theological stories; they're very captivating. I've read both the Old and New Testaments and the characters here aren't represented as well as they could have been. You're not able to invest yourself in them as much as you'd like. Their relationships are defined only through brief snippets in flashback segments. You'll see what I mean once you see it. It's as if they're trying to rush everything in because of the limited time they're working with.

Also, I don't think it's irrelevant to realize the Bible thoroughly on-screen. How is this different than something like [b]The Lord of The Rings[/b] where massive novels were translated accurately to film? Fans of the books obviously wanted to see the stories portrayed accurately.

But, anyway, as I said, I [i]did [/i]enjoy the movie. This quote of yours really sums up one of my main faults with it:

[quote]But really, my point was that this isn't Star Wars or something. It's not really about entertainment, or a movie you go to just to watch a movie. I think you'd be disappointed with it in that way anyway.[/quote]
It was derivative that they [i]did[/i] try to make it about entertainment by introducing strange, largely unnecessary elements like ghouls.

In any case, the cinematography is excellent. It's well documented that it tries to replicate the look of Italian Baroque paintings of Caravaggi. Before [b]The Passion of Christ[/b], disturbing imagery never looked so beautiful. The raw emotion etched on the character's faces goes a long way in delivering an [b]intense[/b] experience. There will be many acting nominations for this one.

[SasukeUchiha]

Although I am not Catholic, and do not belive in anything related with this film, I did see it. I actaully thought it was well done, you actually feel sorry for this man for what is happening to him. The gore and violence I think is meant to make you appreciate what he went though to "die for your sins" as Catholics say he did. Yes some of it was super hollywood, but people that are not of the Catholic faith need a reason to see it. Lol, without those special effects and cheesy moments, which alot of people like apparently, this movie probably would have drawn in a much smaller crowd.

[Brasil]

[size=2]I haven't seen Passion yet, but I have been reading up on it.[/size]

[size=2]I think my favorite quote from any review I've read of the movie was from a local paper, actually:[/size]
[size=2]"If you go to see this movie, see it with your Pastor. Don't see it alone."[/size]

[size=2]Where have we heard variations of that before? Horror movies. "Don't see it alone."[/size]

[size=2]Interesting...there might be something to all those criticisms of the campy horror aspect of Passion...[/size]

[size=2]From what I've read/heard/seen, it looks like Gibson was trying to pull a Saving Private Ryan with the story of Christ.[/size]

[size=2]Now, he's certainly no Spielberg. I gather that he was...inspired...by Spielberg's work. I read an interview with Gibson where he mentioned Schindler's List.[/size]

[size=2]I suppose Gibson had Saving Private Ryan in mind, then. It makes sense, too. The extreme level of violence, the gore, the maiming and the heart-wrenching. But where Gibson seemed to fail is with the story.[/size]

[size=2]People can flame me all they want, lol, but there really is no story to Passion. It's really just two straight hours of violence, right? That's an Aesthetic film...one that relies on the image, on the feeling that the imagery elicits. Considering also, that it's done entirely in Latin, Aramaic, and Hebew (right?), with subtitles only in plot sensitive scenes, it places the emphasis on the aesthetic quality. The audience is to just sit there and absorb the entire thing...almost turn themselves off. I don't mean to sound hypercritical here, because I'd get in trouble, but Passion does not look to be about the messages of Christ. Not that I value Christ at all, being an Atheist--I make my own message and form my own beliefs about what is right and wrong.[/size]

[size=2]My mind is kind of scattered right now, so sorry if I sound fragmented.[/size]

[size=2]Basically, I don't think Gibson had authentic motivations for making this movie. I've been reading about all these churches going nuts about the release, renting out theatres, setting up tables outside of the theatres...it really gives the impression of being a giant marketing tactic.[/size]

[size=2]Then I see news reports on MSNBC of Official Passion Merchandise being produced. No lie. They're making stake pendant neklaces, a Scripture quote card set that has an eerie similarity to Poker cards, official Passion crosses...[/size]

[size=2]I don't mean to cry conspiracy or anything like that, but I must admit, this is rather suspicious.[/size]

[size=2]Passion looks to be made for shock value and...as much as I don't want to say it...religious propaganda.[/size]

[size=2]I could be wrong, of course, but the cynic in me is going wild.[/size]

[wrist cutter]

[QUOTE=PoisonTongue] But where Gibson seemed to fail is with the story.[/size]

People can flame me all they want, lol, but there really is no story to Passion. It's really just two straight hours of violence, right?[/QUOTE]

Two straight hours of violence? Neither of us have seen it, so I wouldn't jump to such a conclusion yet. I would have went today but it was sold out.

Gibson didn't write the story and therefore he doesn't fail with it. These events occured thousands of years ago (2004 to be precise). So everyone knows what's going to happen. There's no need to build suspense or anything; we KNOW He's going to be crucified. The story has already been told millions of times. But now it's in visual form.

The movie is based on a historical account and from what I have heard, Gibson is sticking to what actually happened. He's not going to add things in that would make it more entertaining if they didn't happen. If characters are undeveloped, maybe it's because there isn't a lot of actual historical information on them. He could fill in the blanks with his imagination I'm sure, but then that wouldn't be historically correct. That's what he's going for (from a religious perspective).

[SaiyanPrincessX]

I've finally saw it today. My mom and I went to the 12:30pm showing but got there about 25 minutes early. It was already pretty full too. By the time the movie started it was sold out.

I was very impressed by this movie. Its so emotional and accurate. The majority of the people were crying throughout the movie. I don't usually get brought to tears often for movies, and definetely not as much as I did either, but this I did. Tissues were everywhere when the lights came back on, and people just sat the staring at the screen in awe; literally.

As for the violence; yes the whole movie consists of it. But that is the point. This movie is to show people what is said in the bible. It gives you a better understanding of what happened. Its hard for people to imagine how it really was for Jesus from reading, this gives you a better sense of how much pain was put upon him and the how it affected others.

I reccomend seeing it if you haven't already done so, whether your religious or not. Its definetely worth it.

I'm probebly going to see it again because my dad wants me to see it with him, and his birthday is wednsday.

[The_Ghost]

I just saw this movie about two hours ago, so these are my first impressions.

[quote name='Charles]Also, I don't think it's irrelevant to realize the Bible thoroughly on-screen. How is this different than something like [b]The Lord of The Rings[/b'] where massive novels were translated accurately to film? Fans of the books obviously wanted to see the stories portrayed accurately.[/quote]

Uhm, in my opinion, it was portrayed pretty accurately. Considering Mel Gibson was a devout Catholic, I'm pretty sure he checked the plot out from the source.

[b]The Lord of The Rings[/b] was quite different from [b]The Passion[/b], and I'm almost offended that you compare them. LOTR was an epic film, trying to engage the viewer mentally. Sure, it had it's visual effects, but it's main point was in it's story. [b]The Passion[/b] is more of an emotional film, trying to show the viewer the pain and suffering that Jesus went through. Maybe that's not the "high art" that LOTR was, but I still think it's worth seeing.

[quote name='PoisonTongue']People can flame me all they want, lol, but there really is no story to Passion. It's really just two straight hours of violence, right? That's an Aesthetic film...one that relies on the image, on the feeling that the imagery elicits. Considering also, that it's done entirely in Latin, Aramaic, and Hebrew (right?), with subtitles only in plot sensitive scenes, it places the emphasis on the aesthetic quality. The audience is to just sit there and absorb the entire thing...almost turn themselves off. I don't mean to sound hypercritical here, because I'd get in trouble, but Passion does not look to be about the messages of Christ. Not that I value Christ at all, being an Atheist--I make my own message and form my own beliefs about what is right and wrong.[/quote]

As I previously stated-who cares if it's an Aesthetic film? I?m personally not a very touchy-feely person, but I still thought it was cool. [spoiler]I freaked out when they were flogging him and the whip got caught in his side. When they pulled it out, flesh came flying to the camera?ehh[/spoiler] I personal thought the different languages gave it a more mystic feeling. I have a question(no sarcasm intended): If its purpose is to make people feel based on imagery, how can they turn themselves off?

Also, If I were you I would've waited until you saw the movie before you gave it such a terrible review (that's one of my pet peeves-how can you judge something based on other people's judgements?) It does, in fact, mention some of Jesus' teachings in flashbacks (parts of the Sermon on the Mount, and the Last Supper). I personally would've preferred more, but the movie was already pressed for time.

I didn't really like the devil thing either, but I respect Mel's vision. Basically, this is his movie, the way he feels about the passion of Christ. I find it interesting to see what he did with it. I personally didn?t think it had much anti-Semitism, but that?s because I believe that this is what happened. They Jews may have wanted him dead at the time, but really, they were only a vessel for His death. He had to die for our sins. And that?s all I have to say about that.

[Charles]

[QUOTE=The_Ghost]I just saw this movie about two hours ago, so these are my first impressions.



Uhm, in my opinion, it was portrayed pretty accurately. Considering Mel Gibson was a devout Catholic, I'm pretty sure he checked the plot out from the source.

[b]The Lord of The Rings[/b] was quite different from [b]The Passion[/b], and I'm almost offended that you compare them. LOTR was an epic film, trying to engage the viewer mentally. Sure, it had it's visual effects, but it's main point was in it's story. [b]The Passion[/b] is more of an emotional film, trying to show the viewer the pain and suffering that Jesus went through. Maybe that's not the "high art" that LOTR was, but I still think it's worth seeing.[/QUOTE]
Well, I'm almost offended that you totally misinterpreted the point I was trying to make. What I meant to illustrate in my comparison with [b]The Lord of The Rings[/b] was that it's not an unpopular idea to translate an older piece of writing accurately, despite factors like age or mass. Those books are quite old and it's not a stretch of the imagination to say that fans have a strong affiliation to the characters. The attachment to the characters themselves transcends the events themselves.

I'm sure LoTR fans would have considered it blasphemy if only one defining moment was pulled from the entire series. Obviously people [i]still[/i] went to see the movies, knowing full well how they were going to end.

So, you took my point out of context. My comparisons are generalized at best, not made for the purpose of comparing the intricacies of the films directly--they're only there to demonstrate that it is indeed possible to remain accurate to a source material in such a way that you're getting emotions across, but not in a constrained way.

You should also know that, although my quote wasn't putting the accuracy of [b]The Passion [/b]in question, Gibson's research was shaky in certain areas; he did fall back on his own opinions for some of the more objectionable parts of the film.

[Subversive]

[quote name='wrist cutter']These events occured thousands of years ago (2004 to be precise). [/quote]

Actually....2004 years ago Jesus was born, not killed. If you were speaking of his whole life span, then you're right...

As for the movie I have not seen it...I think I want to, but then again maybe I don't.