The Passion

[The_Ghost]

:blush: I'm sorry Charles, I see your point. I did take the idea out of context.
I still don't agree...but I see your point.

There have been many movies on the birth/life/death of Jesus. Trying to emcompass all three is hard, but not impossible. Just like [B]The Lord of the Rings[/B]. If there had been as many movies based on LOTR as there had been for the life of Jesus, then yea, maybe I would've just want to have seen Helm's Deep in greater detail, or so on and so forth. I think Mel was just trying to show, in the greatest detail possible, how much Jesus suffered and died for our sins.

And yes, he may have taken artistic licencse in some spots, but that's going to happen in any movie. I find it interesting, as a Christian, to see different people beliefs (no matter if they are similar or different to mine). It was close enough for me, I didn't have any major complaints.

If I took your ideas out of context [I]again[/I], I'm sorry in advance.

[wrist cutter]

[quote name='PoisonTongue']there really is no story to Passion. It's really just two straight hours of violence, right?[/quote]

After having seen the movie on Tuesday, I can say that that is entirely incorrect. I wouldn't have been able to watch this movie had it been nothing but two hours of violence. Gibson skillfully broke all the violent scenes up; just when I felt I couldn't take another second of watching Jesus being beaten to death, it would cut away to something else for awhile. Seriously, it was like a reprieve. The timing was excellent to say the least.

About the story, you are pretty much correct. The story can be summed up quickly: Jesus is captured, beaten, and then crucified. There's a bit more to it than that, but that is pretty much the whole movie in a nutshell.

There may not be a lot of story, but there are a lot of messages. Let me say a movie has never moved me in such a personal way as this one has, not even close. I know I have not walked away from this movie the same person as when I walked in. It really brought a lot of things home to me.

About the "don't see it alone" statement, well, that's up to the individual. I didn't see this alone, but I almost would have preferred to. I needed some time to just think about the movie after it was over. But I understand that some people like to discuss these things after a movie instead, so I can see where someone would say such a thing.

[Shwa]

I saw the movie about one week ago and have to say it was awsome and very moving. It portraied so many things listed in the Bibal and was very well acted by the actors. I dont know why people are making a big fuss about it being controversial and pitted against the Jews now. I dont think it has anything to do with that, but as u know the churches wanna make a big fuss over it and stuff. Anyways, i went with my friends and one of them sweared she wans't gonna cry, then she did. A 18 year old girl next to me was crying so badly i just wanted to give her a hug and remind her that it was just a movie, even though it did express what Christ had to go through back then. Overall: 10/10 for me :D

~Laters

[Retribution]

Just my opinion but even though I haven't seen the Passion, I don't think that it should be compared to LoTR.

I mean, I suppose that the director wasn't TRYING to change the story, but it may happen in the editing process, etc.

About the flogging, Even the though Jesus was severly beaten, he wouldn't have died, because in real life, Pontius Pilate DIDNT want to kill Jesus... Not as much as I hear the Passion portrays. He did have the power to save Him, but he didn't, so he might be held responsible....

Also, If you are a Christian, you'd believe that Jesus is the Son of God, so he would be able to survive particularly brutal beatings... if it was His will, to save us from sin I mean...

I hope this touchy topic of faith doesn't get to personal, just remember, I won't accuse or flame ne1 just because of their opinion. It is America (where I live at least)

hasta luego
~Altron

[wrist cutter]

[quote name='Altron']Pontius Pilate DIDNT want to kill Jesus... Not as much as I hear the Passion portrays.[/quote]

Actually, the movie makes this quite clear.

The first time, Pilate refuses to even punish Jesus in anyway. He says to plead their case to King Herod, who also does nothing to Jesus.

So they come back to Pilate, who once again is very reluctant to do anything to Jesus. Eventually, because he wants to keep his own life, he does agree to have Jesus beaten. Then there's the excrutiatingly long scene in which Jesus is nearly whipped to death.

Finally, Pilate tells the crowd that Jesus has been beaten plenty. He thinks surely this will appease them, but they're still yelling for crucifixion. He asks if they'd rather release Jesus or a murderer named Barrabas, and the crowd still pushes for Jesus to be crucified, even if it means the release of Barrabas. Pliate is astonished and asks them again if they really realize what they're saying. The crowd continues to push for crucifixion, and as a riot begins, Pilate finally agrees to the crowd's demands.

So there you go. "The Passion of the Christ" shows exactly how these events unfolded. Pilate clearly does not want to put Jesus on the cross, but does so when he realizes it's the only thing that he could do to protect himself.

[Retribution]

Well, uhh its sort of a grey area. I mean, he had the power to save Jesus and keep his life, he just wanted good PR and an easy area to govern (the kind without riots), so he went with the majority.

Pontius Pilate some times is shown as someone who is equally responsible with Jesus' death, as well as many others.

[Guest Athos]

[QUOTE=Altron]Well, uhh its sort of a grey area. I mean, he had the power to save Jesus and keep his life, he just wanted good PR and an easy area to govern (the kind without riots), so he went with the majority.

Pontius Pilate some times is shown as someone who is equally responsible with Jesus' death, as well as many others.[/QUOTE]
That's not even the point of the movie. Christ came to earth to die for humanity's sins, as He even prophesizes so. Not the Jews, not Pilate are responsible for His death...the fact that made Him come down here in the first place, humanity, is responsible for Christ's death. That is one of the most misinterpreted points of Christianity ever..--;

[Justin]

[i]Well[/i] said, Athos.

-Justin

[Retribution]

I knew that if His will be done, Christ would die, to save us from sin. I only said that about Pontius Pilate because someone made it sound like Pilate was a poor defenseless man.

Oh welll, what happened happened, and thank God it happened that way.

[Artemis]

[FONT=Arial][COLOR=DarkRed]My entire senior class went to a special showing of The Passion of the Christ on Wednesday. I was very impressed with it and cried at several parts. I didn't see it as anti-semitic at all. I think that's a trumped up charge to make it look bad. I'm very proud of what Gibson has done. I didn't see it as cheesy or overdone. People have talked about the demons. I thought it was an interesting take on how we're tempting by them. They're real afterall (and you're all going to call me crazy...). I thought Satan was appropriate. The kids creeped me out, but I thought they worked out just fine.
I talked about the movie more in MyO. I'm gonna see it again tomorrow w/ my youth group. My brother and sister will be seeing it for the first time.[/color][/font]

[Guest jisuseru]

THE MOVIE is good

[COLOR=Red][SIZE=1]This post is WAY below the standards of this site. If you even attempted to read this very thread, you'd see you post isn't even comparable to one of them by a longshot. Please read the rules and improve your post quality. - Semjaza[/SIZE][/COLOR]

[Xander Harris]

I thought the Passion was a good movie by a christian for Christians to show the extent of Jesus sufferings. I don't think it was anything more than that.

It helped me personally to gain a new appreciation of my faith.

Can this movie be used to witness? Maybe. But the lack of context (no one who is not a Christian will understand what half the flashbacks are about), the brief and unbelievable resurrection (reminded me of the end of Godzilla), and the lack of any explanation of what 'sin' and 'atonement' really are, made me really doubt that this film would interest anyone in Christianity who wasn't already part of it (with the exception of sado-masochists).

But people will at least want to know more, right? If you are a Christian, picture yourself in the role of a non-Christian. You go to the theatre and watch two hours of some poor guy being beat on, with brief pauses for flashback scenes and scenes with the devil that make no sense to you. At the end, you get the impression that Mel Gibson thinks this dude rose from the dead, but there are no witnesses shown. No proof. No reason at all to believe that this poor fellow accomplished anything in the real world outside of Gibson's movie. You were never given a chance to get to know this poor guy before a bunch of ancient soldiers started beating on him.

You leave the theatre feeling numb and a little bit sick from the blood. Would that prompt you to want to know more?

Possibly. The holy spirit works in mysterious ways. But if you expect this movie to instantly and magically convert your non-Christian friends, you are in for a surprise.

This movie was intended for audiences that already know of the eyewitness reports surrounding the resurrection. For people who know that those who saw the risen Christ were willing to give up their own lives out of the belief that he was indeed risen and that his sacrifice had accomplished something. For people who grew up with the story of the Passion and are perhaps apathetic to it now, and need a graphic reminder of what their Savior went through. For Christians. As a Christian movie for a Christian audience, it is a good film.

A non-Christian I know walked out of the theatre and said "Wow, isn't it cool how that guy believed in what he was doing so much he was willing to get himself killed over it?" Certainly it's a start for witnessing, but is that really the message we want to send to the masses? How about "isn't it cool that guy died for ME?" "Isn't it cool that we now have access to the creator of the universe?" "Isn't it cool that that guy in the movie is still around, and cares about me?" That Jesus believed in what he was doing enough to die for it is the central message of the film. That's only a tiny slice of the Christian message.

I also am a bit perturbed at the way Christians have elevated a man-made MOVIE to the level of a holy sacrament. "Have you seen the Passion, yet?" is the most asked question among Christian circles. "I'd rather not" or, "I'll wait for the video" is not the correct answer. Certainly it's good to 'send a message to Hollywood', but I think Jesus could really care less whether or not you go see a motion picture about him. He cares if you are living for him. He cares if you believe in what he did on the cross. You are not more or less of a Christian for seeing or not seeing a movie.

The other problem with this attitude is that it makes the movie impossible to critique on an artistic basis. I think there are a lot of thing in the film that were overdone. I think that Gibson would have made a far more powerful film without the Matrix-esque slow motion shots and the Lord Of The Rings style music. I think some of the stuff with Satan and the demons is laughable rather than dramatic. Yet to say so is considered taboo. It's a movie, not the bible!!! :flaming:

Read the book, saw the movie. Liked The Book better.

[DeathBug]

[QUOTE=Xander Harris]
Read the book, saw the movie. Liked The Book better.[/QUOTE]

[color=indigo][size=1][font=comic sans ms]Before I begin, I'd just like to say that the above was the single most clever thing I've read all weekend.

Ahem; I haven't seen [i]The Passion[/i] and have no intention to. I am Christian, but I still don't plan to see it. The simple reason is that a movie is a result of a director's vision. Everyone is talking about how accurate it is, but it's only accurate to how Mel Gibson pictured the events. You're seeing Mel Gibson's version of Christ's death, not the actual event.

Now, this is in no way a slam on Gibson. I like him, and I like his work. I also know that he researched the events and strove for histroical accuracy. However, the fact remains that this is his vision of the events.

His vision of the crucifiction is different from my vision. When I picture Christ dying for my sins, I don't want to have the image replaced by someone else's idea of how it happened. It probably goes back to my basic views on religion, that religion is a personal experience, and you must find personal meaning it its teachings. Christ connects directly to me through His love and His sacrifice; I don't need Mel Gibson to be the middle man.

I'll probably see it at some point, but I'm not going to go out of my way for it. [/color][/size][/font]

[Mitch]

[size=1][color=red] It was an okay movie that excelled in some areas. In the end, I still end up saying that it was just "okay."

I say okay because this movie is an average, maybe a little above average, movie and not much else.

Of course, most people aren't looking at this film in this light. But I am, because I do not believe in the Catholic faith.

I'd come to believe that they overdid the gore in this movie. If you don't think so, then you should at least say the overdid it a little bit, if just that.

The premise of gore in this movie is a given thing. But still, they overdid it in my eyes. I was thinking an average person would most definitely had passed out from being beaten and carrying the cross as Jesus was represented to be doing in the movie. But, I guess Christ wouldn't be classified as an average person. But he is to me, anyway.

Great visual aspects. It was pretty seamless. The addition of Latin and Islamic language was a nice bonus. The subtitles added to the feel that this happened at another time. Jesus was well acted by the actor who acted him.

That's what's good about this movie in a nutshell. I still only found it to be around average, maybe a little higher.

Perhaps it is because I do not believe in Christ and do not see the big deal about the movie. I'm trying to give a better judgement about it than that though.

I found probably the best part was when Jesus was being beaten, and as he was beaten there was counting in Latin. The second best part was when Mary saw Jesus walking by on his way to get crucified, and a flashback to when she'd seen him fall as a child. Mary then ran up to Jesus and wished to hold him in her arms as she had when he was a young boy, but she could not.

Mel Gibson is getting somewhere around $38 Mill for this movie. Anyone surprised? I know I'm not. The guy got the money he used to make the movie back, and then some.

In the end, since I'm looking at this movie in a movie aspect, as I think it should be looked upon if one is to discuss it (because really, if you wanted to hear about Jesus Christ's crucifixion, go to the Bible or go to a stations of the cross at church), I find there's better movies than this one out there that have affected me far more.

This movie didn't really affect me. It was kind of passive care.[/size][/color]

[TheShinje]

[font=Verdana][size=1][color=slategray]I finally saw this movie, and I thought it was a great portrail of christs death and resurrection. (blink and you miss the resurrection though)[/color][/size][/font]

[font=Verdana][size=1][color=#708090]Being a Christian, it held a very emotional theme for me and I even cried in some parts of this movie, It is such a beautiful story, wether you are of the faith or not, that an almighty god can personify as human flesh and be sacrificed by his own creations for their salvation.[/color][/size][/font]

[font=Verdana][size=1][color=#708090]At any point Jesus could have saved himself, yet he chooses to save us instead. It's powerful.[/color][/size][/font]

[font=Verdana][size=1][color=#708090]Mitch, I would disagree the violence was overdone, in terms of accuracy anyway heh. The Bible prophecies indicate in Isaiah that the Messiah would be unrecognisable, and his back like a ploughed field. [/color][/size][/font]

[font=Verdana][size=1][color=#708090]It's definately not the Image of Jesus' death i had held, it was powerful for me for that too, I guess. It wasn't overly catholic either, it seemed to bridge the denominational gap pretty well.[/color][/size][/font]

[font=Verdana][size=1][color=#708090]As for the queries about Satan with a child, I believe this represents Antichrist, called the [b]son[/b] of perdition.[/color][/size][/font]

[font=Verdana][size=1][color=#708090]I'm baffled by the raven pecking out the unrepentant criminals eyes though, it wasn't in the Bible, if anyone wants to know, It was one of the things I found funny in this film. o_O it felt wierd laughing in that movie.[/color][/size][/font]

[Guest BeccaDG]

[QUOTE=DeathBug][color=indigo][size=1][font=comic sans ms]

Ahem; I haven't seen [i]The Passion[/i] and have no intention to. I am Christian, but I still don't plan to see it. The simple reason is that a movie is a result of a director's vision. Everyone is talking about how accurate it is, but it's only accurate to how Mel Gibson pictured the events. You're seeing Mel Gibson's version of Christ's death, not the actual event.[/color][/size][/font][/QUOTE][FONT=Comic Sans MS][COLOR=Navy] I've been wanting to say I'm a Christian with no particular interest in seeing the movie in theaters, renting it maybe. Mel Gibson, who I do like, has said it isn't a documentary. It's been widely reported he used sources besides the Bible for inspiration, and took his share of dramatic license. A non-Catholic Christian friend of mine told me, "There was a bit too much Catholic dogma," for her taste, which is what I'd expect when Mel Gibson describes himself, not just as a Catholic, but a Traditionalist one. Charles' (whose thoughts I've much enjoyed) statement, "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," makes me think of the TIME Magazine reviewer's description of the movie as an art house splatter flick. And, this thread, along with it's box office haul, has given me the impression that calling it "art house" might have been inaccurate. It sounds more like it's a modern equivalent of the old 50's Bible epics complete with the cheese factor. Of course the cheese factor means I will likely rent it sometime. I enjoy a good cheesy movie from time to time.[/COLOR][/FONT]

[sublime2004]

[size=1][b][color=darkred]
For those of you who say that the gore was over done, you are wrong. If anything, it was under done. Jesus' body wasn't even recognizable as being human when they put him on the cross.

People get this image of Jesus' crucificion as being this clean man wearing a thorny hat. Maybe a little blood running down his face. Maybe a cut or two on his back. And a three-inch scratch on his ribcage. Wrong.

His flesh was hamburger. The blood loss alone would have killed him(if he hadn't been the Son of God).

This isn't a movie. It doesn't need a plot. It doesn't need character history. It doesn't even need to be explained, other than that Jesus' love was unconditional. Even if you don't believe in Jesus, go into the movie with this in mind, and nothing will even need to be explained.

And to anyone who compares The Passion of the Christ to The Lord of The Rings: there aren't enough words in my "Colorful Words" dictionary to express my anger at these statements. There is no way in hell that Christ's story could possibly be told, in full, and accurately in a movie theatre. It would take twenty movies to even come close to being completely accurate.

It is said that if anyone were to document all of the miraculous and wonderful things that Jesus accomplished in his time on earth, there wouldn't be enough storage facilities on the face of the planet to house all of that information.

You all are getting confused on one of the biggest points of this movie. It doesn't matter if it is true to the Bible. My faith tells me that it is true to God. And if you don't have any faith in God, I pity you. If you don't want my pity, you're just gonna have to deal with it.

The prayer in the garden of Gethsemane (geth-seh-mah-nee) was all of the introduction this movie needs.

God's tear falling from the sky was all of the closure this movie needs.
[/b][/size][/color]

[Xander Harris]

"This isn't a movie" ???

No offense, but last I checked, the Passion is recorded on a reel of film. It was made by a director and actors. It has special effects. You pay money to go in and see it. People eat popcorn while they watch it (contrary to popular belief). It seems to me that it most certainly is a movie. It drives me nuts the way people try to elevate it to the same level as the Bible.

And it IS important what the Bible says, since it is the source material the movie is based on.

Like it or not, this movie is a cultural phenomenon on par with The Matrix. Many people are seeing it who are not christians. Therefore, I don't think it's true that no context or backstory is needed.

I will agree with you that the comparisons to LOTR are a bit rediculous. And I did sort of like the 'God's tears' thing.

I'm glad the movie touched you, and it touched me as well, but that doesn't change the fact that it is a movie.

[Charles]

[QUOTE=sublime2004][size=1][b][color=darkred][/b]
[b]For those of you who say that the gore was over done, you are wrong. If anything, it was under done. Jesus' body wasn't even recognizable as being human when they put him on the cross.[/b]

[b]People get this image of Jesus' crucificion as being this clean man wearing a thorny hat. Maybe a little blood running down his face. Maybe a cut or two on his back. And a three-inch scratch on his ribcage. Wrong.[/b]

[b]His flesh was hamburger.[/b]
[/color][/size][/QUOTE]I'm glad that you were there so that you could report this. Otherwise, you would be unjustifiably dismissing [b]opinions[/b] as wrong.

[b][size=1][color=#8b0000][quote][b]And to anyone who compares The Passion of the Christ to The Lord of The Rings: there aren't enough words in my "Colorful Words" dictionary to express my anger at these statements. There is no way in hell that Christ's story could possibly be told, in full, and accurately in a movie theatre. It would take twenty movies to even come close to being completely accurate.[/b][/quote][/color][/size][/b]

[size=2]That would be me. If memory serves me correctly, my claims weren't intended to be broad statements. I was addressing someone about one particular issue I pulled from their post. Now please go back and read, really [i]read[/i], my post instead of simply seeing [i]The Lord of The Rings[/i] next to [i]The Passion of the Christ[/i] and you will find that there are no direct comparisons involving content. I wasn't demystifying religion. I was simply illustrating a valid point: It is possible to translate large [older] texts to film in such a way that everything is retained and people will care despite knowing the outcome. [/size]

[size=2]I can see that you, the religious zealot that you are, have become embittered over negative criticisms facing this film and try to combat these opinions by falsly interjecting faith in place of logic. Consequently, your post is laden with religious fervor and all that jazz. But, before you grant anyone your uncompromising pity, I should clarify something: This is a film crafted by a man whose film ventures are far from holy. Review Gibson's film history and you'll see why I find it laughable that religious fanatics are looking at him, all of a sudden, as a reliable source of biblical integrity. [/size]

[size=2]Now, if you'll excuse me, I'm going to go say 3 "Hail Marys" and watch [/size]
3 [i]Lethal Weapons[/i].

[wrist cutter]

[quote name='Charles']This is a film crafted by a man whose film ventures are far from holy. Review Gibson's film history and you'll see why I find it laughable that religious fanatics are looking at him, all of a sudden, as a reliable source of biblical integrity.[/quote]

Nobody is born religious.

[Semjaza]

I don't think the Lethal Weapon reference is even a good comparison. While they obviously have questional subject matter, he didn't direct them. Nothing he has directed would seriously make me question why he has bothered with something like the Passion or his interest in the religion.

Yet he's apparently involved in another Mad Max movie, so I don't know lol.

[Charles]

[quote name='wrist cutter']Nobody is born religious.[/quote]
I'll only say that's the most ironic comment you could possibly make in a thread about Jesus. It's very funny!

More importantly, however, regardless of whether anyone is born religious or not, it sure pays to be when there's a movie to be made.

And, [i]Semjaza Azazel[/i], the point of the Lethal Weapon reference, wasn't to scourge Gibsons' directorial choices, but to merely point out that his supposed ideals haven't guided him in a very religious way in his choice of roles. He's never exactly carried himself as a dedicated religious person--at least from what I can tell. For people to look at his film as if it's fact drawn straight from divinity only makes me raise an eyebrow.

[wrist cutter]

[quote name='Charles']I'll only say that's the most ironic comment you could possibly make in a thread about Jesus. It's very funny! [/quote]

Not really. In an atheist view, Jesus was just another person, was he not? So therefore he wouldn't be born religious either. In a Christian view however I think it's pretty obvious that Jesus would be an exception. My statement wasn't made in jest.

Anyhow, to go back to what I said, Mel Gibson has not always led a religious life, clearly. I don't see what your point is. So, because he starred in Braveheart, it therefore wipes out all ability for him to become religious?

[Xander Harris]

Actually, the story goes something like this. He was at the pinnicle of his career, and rolling in cash, but Gibson was feeling depressed, incomplete and suicidal. He began to meditate on the Passion of Christ, and re-discovered his faith. He decided then to use some of the fortune he had amassed to make a work which would honor God and bring the story of the Passion to movie-goers.

I do think the furvor over the film is overblown.

Thousands of Christians turned out at the theatres hoping to 'send a message to hollywood'. Time magazine ran a short story about how Hollywood is now churning out the 'religious films' in response to the Passion's success. Hollywood got the message, right? Praise the Lord?

Hollywood got the message all right. The producers and big-wigs saw right through the lies of the 'rightous right'. Controversy sells. Religious controversy sells big. And I mean BIG.

Take a look at the new films Hollywood is putting out. There is one about a female Jesus. One about the crusades. One about Judas. The Da Vinci Code. They all have something in common: controversial subject matter. Controversy sells.

I know I'm kind of playing Devil's advocate here, as well as arguing against both Charles and Sublime. Go read my review I posted earlier in the post to see where I'm coming from on this.

[Charles]

[QUOTE=wrist cutter]Not really. In an atheist view, Jesus was just another person, was he not? So therefore he wouldn't be born religious either. In a Christian view however I think it's pretty obvious that Jesus would be an exception. My statement wasn't made in jest.

Anyhow, to go back to what I said, Mel Gibson has not always led a religious life, clearly. I don't see what your point is. So, because he starred in Braveheart, it therefore wipes out all ability for him to become religious?[/QUOTE]
My point is that he's obsessed with violence. Everything he's done has been saturated with graphic content. Just look at the old Simpsons episode he guest starred in, where Homer changed his movie into a bloodbath. It was a brilliant satirical depiction of what one can expect from a Mel Gibson film--over-the-top violence strong enough to disgust people.

The only purpose I had for making this off-hand comment was to reflect on how silly, to me, people like sublime2004 sound coming out of the theater basically saying "See! I don't know how anyone can't believe now," as if it were fact onscreen coming from this man.

Obviously, anyone can parade disturbing violence around onscreen and nothing but, yet I only see that as a way of manipulating the audience instead of moving them in an earnest way. That's simply because it's the easiest way to invoke emotion from people. You know, just like how [i]I Am Sam[/i] used movie shortcuts (i.e. exploiting a handicap and cute kids to move people in a cheap way instead of relying on good writing).

Xander Harris, I don't know what you're disagreeing with me about. I find myself in agreement with many of your opinions.