The Passion of the Christ

[Mistwell]

This topic is highly-charged and I apologize for starting the thread. I'm amazed at how many people who didn't see the movie feel the need to make a post trashing the movie.

On the other hand, I guess that's human nature. The Tolkien family (or most of them) refused to have anything to do with the LOTR movies before even seeing the finished product.

Many gamers have decided they won't even look at D&D2 or Catwoman or Punisher. I'd include myself in this camp, as I have serious doubts on all three of these movies.

For the record...I did see the movie, and I did in general like the movie. However, I had some problems with it, as earlier articulated. I hope you don't think that the only people who had problems with the movie were those who didn't see it. I agree with you that, if people are going to bash somethng, they should at least show enough respect to see what it is they are trashing.

 

[Crothian]

I want to see evidence backing up that 7% decrease claim

I think that was just a South Park reference since they used the exact figure in their episode on this topic.

 

[Negative Zero]

for the record, i do consider myself christian, and even taught confirmation classes in the catholic church during my youth. i'm not religious but i do have strong spiritual beliefs. i mention this not to discuss the religion of the movie, but rather to create perspective and so, on to the movie:

saw it. didn't like it. don't get me wrong, it has emotional weight, but as a movie, little else.

i feel that as a movie, this film fails. the "plot" is very loosely held together by knowledge assumed to be possessed by the viewer. it does not stand on its own. even worse, it is made in an extremely clichéd manner, beating you over the head with excessive slo-motion and extraordinarily cheesy, overly dramatic music, blatantly designed to wrench emotions of sympathy and guilt from the viewer. (and all of this in the opening 10 minutes. )

unfortunately, this really isn't the place to discuss the movie, because its de/merits are found primarily in its religious/spiritual significance and not in its film making prowess. although, i must confess, i did like the "look" of the film. the colours were rich and vivid and the sets and costumes were both visually appealing and did serve to pull you in, in my opinion. sadly, the rest of the filmmaking really undid the good work of the visuals. there was no subtlety to be found.

but, what can anyone say? controversy sells! ... i heard his next pic is going to be about Chanukah ... is this true???

~NegZ

 

[Mistwell]

but, what can anyone say? controversy sells! ... i heard his next pic is going to be about Chanukah ... is this true???

~NegZ

Well, Gibson said recently that he is interested in a film about the Maccabees Knights, a family of jews that led the rebellion to retake the Temple from the romans.

Here is an article about him talking about it:

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/gossip/story/174404p-151891c.html

You can read more about the Maccabees here:

http://www.us-israel.org/jsource/History/Maccabees.html

 

[kingpaul]

I saw this movie last week, and I'll state up front that I am a Christian and the son of ministers (yes, plural, both parents).

For me, it was a moving piece of filmography. Yes, it was bloody and violent, and its a movie that you shouldn't show to young children. I thought that Gibson did an excellent job in showing the pain and suffering that Jesus went through.

 

[Kahuna Burger]

This topic is highly-charged and I apologize for starting the thread. I'm amazed at how many people who didn't see the movie feel the need to make a post trashing the movie.

1) 'trashing' is way too loaded a term and dismisses the criticisms people make. Especially sicne the majority of comments have been about why people personally would not see or did not enjoy the film.

2) This is a argument I've never understood for two reasons. The first is the strange implication that I can't make a decision about whether I want to see a film without seeing the film. this is the purpose of advertising - to make up my mind for me. And if everything slanted to make me want to watch the film does the opposite, I think I have a very good basis for saying that I don't want to see the film and why. The second related point about criticism implies that I have to have seen something played out in the film before I have an opinion of it. The isn't the Crying Game here, there was no surprise ending, nothing the reviewers, the previews or the hundreds of (convient for publicity) 'news' peices didn't lay out for us. I know what the story is about, I know what it isn't about. I know what level of "reaslism" was used, how the various characters from the source text were portrayed, what the 'message' is. More importantly, I've recieved the same information on these facets from those supporting the film as I have from those criticising it. So if I want to weigh in on the artistic or social value of a ten minute close up/slow mo of a sourging, all I have to do it check the timing and focus from two different sources who are commenting on directly seeing the film, and I'm gonna comment on it. Just like if I tell you that the movie KIDS contained an extended scene of an unconsious girl's rape with no followup or shown consequences for the rapist except that he got what he wanted, you can comment on that and what it says about the film to your heart's content and I won't say "hey, you didn't watch the film, don't trash it!"

I'm not gonna say "the constumes were really dumb" or "the music detracted" because those are judgements based on the actual expeirincing of the film. But when there is no one denying that the very point of the film is to show an extended scene of torture and death, I'm gonna comment on that kind of film making, and in another forum I'll happily comment on how I respond to the religious aspects of the film and how it is received.

sorry for the long digression, but the idea that you can't criticise uncontested facts about a movie without seeing the movie has always rubbed me the wrong way. Unless those critisicms include a factual inaccuracy that you can correct from seeing the film, let it ride is my view.

Kahuna Burger

 

[Dimwhit]

Many gamers have decided they won't even look at D&D2 or Catwoman or Punisher. I'd include myself in this camp, as I have serious doubts on all three of these movies.

Really? I think Punisher looks awesome! Of course, I've never heard of, much less read, the comic book (or whatever it's based on).

 

[TracerBullet42]

... if people are going to bash somethng, they should at least show enough respect to see what it is they are trashing.

Oh no...does this mean I need to watch Gigli? Gosh,I hope not. If that's the case, I think I'll just never speak of the film again...

Regarding "The Passion", my take on it was that it was a powerful film, so long as you know the story already. As previously stated, they didn't "set up" things, I think this movie really assumes that the viewer is familiar with the setting and the story coming in. (Which, isn't a BAD assumption, I think many people ARE familiar with it.) But I'm sure some people are alienated by that fact. I think it was an especially moving movie for Christians, just giving a little extra look at how truly horrifying crucifixtion is...

And if I can make just one little comment regarding the "Anti-Semitism" in this film (and if this is inappropriate, mods, I will gladly delete this)... I thought that the film clearly displayed that there was a spiritual battle taking place. I interpreted that the "Satan" character was the one causing the uprisings...He/she was always there in the background when things started heating up. Also, the story of Jesus Christ is that he CAME TO DIE. Nobody's upset that he was killed...that was the plan from the get-go...

Ok, I should stop now. (Sorry if that was too religious, but I think I kept it clean enough...)

 

[Desdichado]

This is difficult to talk about without touching in some regard on religion of beliefs, but I'll try my best here.

I'm not interested in seeing the film, even as a fairly devout Christian. To me, the point of Christ isn't so much that he died, but that he didn't stay dead. A movie focusing on his torture and death is not only morbid, it's missing the point, IMO.

Also, although there's no denying that crucifixion was a really bad way to go, it also wasn't at all unique. People were crucified almost routinely during the Roman Empire. 50-odd years earlier, during the rebellion of Spartacus, hundreds were crucified, if not thousands. The Crucifixtion isn't what made Christ unique or special, according to Christian doctrine, so I don't understand why "the public" for centuries has focused so much on that to begin with.

 

[Particle_Man]

The second related point about criticism implies that I have to have seen something played out in the film before I have an opinion of it. The isn't the Crying Game here, there was no surprise ending,

Kahuna Burger

Well actually,

Spoiler

they Hollywoodized the ending. Mad Max comes in near the end and shoots some of the Romans, and then cuts Jesus down. Then Max and Jesus start blowing the rest of the Romans away with bazookas. Rather reminiscent of Rambo, I thought. Finally there is the extended gay kiss between Max and Jesus, as they walk off into the sunset. I commend the reviewers for doing such a good job at keeping these critical plot twists a secret from those who have not yet seen the film.