The Passion of the Christ

[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.

No, no! stop confusing the people, if there's one thing worse than a surprise ending, its disinformation about the ending! Its

Spoiler

JUDAS who comes at the end after realising how wrong he was to betray his leader (and lover? its ambiguous.) more like Braveheart than rambo, I think thats where he got the idea... And while they look like bazookas, they are made out of giant bamboo by the budda character who acts as a 13th apostle....

Get it right!

Kahuna Burger

 

[Krieg]

50-odd years earlier, during the rebellion of Spartacus, hundreds were crucified, if not thousands.

Roman records state that 6,000+ slaves who rebelled under Spartacus were crucified & lined the Via Appia (Appian Way) from Capua to Rome.

After Tyre fell to Alexander the Great crucified 2,000 of the surviving
defenders.

Crucifixation was not uniquely Roman & was common among Mediteranean states for upwards of a thousand years.

Ironically enough crucifixation was rare for Jews as they typically handled their own judicial punishments and stoning was the most common form of capital punishment. However 800 or so Pharisies were crucified in Jerusalem around 250 AD.

 

[talinthas]

frankly i adored the movie, but for completely different reasons than virtually everyone else. as a linguaphile, hearing spoken dialog in latin and aramaic filled me with such glee that i actually sat and watched the whole film twice, once with a notebook in hand to take down cool phrases.

the whole jesus story i could take or leave, since i've read the bible in a bunch of languages already, and find that my own hinduism has much more interesting takes on the saviour/ressurection thing =)

 

[Endur]

When I was in grade school, I was taught to read a book before I write a book review about it. Yes, you could write a book review by looking at Cliff Notes and never opening the book. But its not the same thing as writing the book review after reading the book.

If you comment on a movie without viewing it, you are doing the same thing as writing a book review without reading the book.

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.

 

[Mistwell]

If you comment on a movie without viewing it, you are doing the same thing as writing a book review without reading the book.

Woah, wait a sec. Earlier it was an issue of BASHING a film without seeing it, not merely commenting on it. What is wrong with simply commenting on a film without every seeing it? I comment on LOTS of things I have never read or experienced, and I see nothing wrong with it. In fact, it's pretty much required that you comment on things before experiencing them....

 

[Ashwyn]

I hope noone thought I was trashing the movie. I just don't like movies like that, violence does not attract me.

 

[johnsemlak]

If you comment on a movie without viewing it, you are doing the same thing as writing a book review without reading the book.

If we took that rule to an extreme, then only dead people would write obituaries.

 

[Kahuna Burger]

When I was in grade school, I was taught to read a book before I write a book review about it. Yes, you could write a book review by looking at Cliff Notes and never opening the book. But its not the same thing as writing the book review after reading the book.

If you comment on a movie without viewing it, you are doing the same thing as writing a book review without reading the book.

No, not at all. A review of a book is by definition a comprehensive, fully informed look at it. A review cannot be complete without at least considering, if not directly discussing, every aspect of the book's makeup. To compare this with commenting on a Single Aspect of a movie, and limiting your comments explicitly to that aspect is rediculous. Its almost exactly the same as saying that I cannot comment on a politicians unambiguous position on a single topic without reading his complete autobiography and shadowing him for a day. Guess what, I can, and its nothing like "reviewing" a book without reading it.

If I know a politician supports a gas tax, I'll say what I think about that possition without reading his 25 page senior thesis on it that set his opinion back in undergrad. If I know a book was written to explore the artisitc yearnings of Adolph Hitler, I'll comment on the appropriateness of the advertising I see before I read it. And if I hear about a film about 5 or 10 minutes of intro and the rest is torture and death, I'll say how I feel about it before I see it. No big whoop.

Kahuna Burger

 

[spider_minion]

What's the point in seeing it? I mean, you already know how the movie ends. And then they bring the guy back to life. C'mon Hollywood, you can do better than that!

 

[Negative Zero]

What's the point in seeing it? I mean, you already know how the movie ends. And then they bring the guy back to life. C'mon Hollywood, you can do better than that!

well apparently the big surprise is

Spoiler

they've researched a "so called" better version of True Resurrection, coz he comes back a higher character lvl then when he died.

obviously munchkin if you ask me.

~NegZ