What did you think of The Passion of the Christ?

[tomspug]

I'll save my own thoughts until a couple of people have posted. I saw the movie originally in a private screening before it was released and didn't (or perhaps couldn't) see the movie until yesterday. So many years later, I think I have decided what the movie accomplishes and where it comes up short.

P.S. PLEASE don't respond to this topic unless you've actually seen the movie.

 

[blackout]

I remember when I was still a christian
(but no longer roman catholic)
coming to the conclusion that it was sick and warped,
in the same way that portraying/watching/and rewinding ad nauseum
the brutal death of any of my loved ones would be.

The movie in no way focused on any of the "kingdom teachings".
It did not impart any valuable "mysticisms" at all.
So to me...
(and I say this still, as a non christian "admirer" of the Y'shua character)
what would be the point?

 

[Somkid]

I couldn't get through the first 10 minutes of it, I down right hated it and think it has to be on my top 5 worst movies of all time.

 

[Kungfuzed]

Totally brutal. Mary is hot, same actress from the Matrix, really the movie's only redeeming quality.

 

[BucephalusBB]

It must have been the most boring movie I ever saw..

 

[Ringer]

I haven't seen it for quit a while so not sure how accurately I can comment on it. I have seen quit a bit of the ending though on HBO. It's not something I'd like to watch over and over again because it is pretty graphic and doesn't leave you in the best of moods. However, I think many times we forget what the crucifixion and scourging entailed so even if it's not 100% historically accurate, it does its job in that regard. Not really sure if it's useful for anything but that since everything else is speculation. Didn't think it was a terrible movie by any means though.

 

[Magic Man]

I think it accomplished what it was meant to. To me it's like seeing Disney's "Pocahontas" as a kid and then reading about the real version when you're an adult. One is a nice, naive story with a happy ending, the other's brutal and realistic with no real happy ending. I think it made things more real, and put things into perspecive. I think it would have been really powerful. if I had still been a Catholic. It's definitely not a movie for everybody.

 

[EtuMalku]

One of my favorite soundtracks of all time.

 

[Smoke]

Three hours of flagellation. Is that really what's important about Jesus? It was an excellent movie for what it was trying to do, but what it was trying to do was revolting.

And I didn't get the symbolism. Honestly, I thought Satan was Eve until a week or so after I saw the movie. Satan struck me as more of a brooding figure than an evil figure. And by the way -- a female Satan? I guess the surprising part is that Christians didn't think of that hundreds of years ago.

 

[Melancholy]

Three hours of flagellation. Is that really what's important about Jesus? It was an excellent movie for what it was trying to do, but what it was trying to do was revolting.

And I didn't get the symbolism. Honestly, I thought Satan was Eve until a week or so after I saw the movie. Satan struck me as more of a brooding figure than an evil figure. And by the way -- a female Satan? I guess the surprising part is that Christians didn't think of that hundreds of years ago.

I agree.
I realise that it was supposed to tell the story of Jesus' last 12 hours, but I came away feeling a complete and emotional wreck. So I suppose it did do it's purpose.

As to Satan being portrayed as a woman, that was not the intention, Satan was supposed to be completly androgynes(typo) and portray neither male or female.

 

[tomspug]

One of my favorite soundtracks of all time.

I have to admit that the soundtrack was really good.

I think that one of the movies biggest "flaws" (if you can really call it a flaw) is that it doesn't pander to the audience. It just jumps right into it and there is very little dialogue (I think the original concept was to not have subtitles, but that just would have been brutal for the uninformed audience member).

I think that a lot of people really don't understand what the movie was trying to accomplish, which was not to convert people or to try and make a historical narrative. Mel Gibson wanted to communicate as clearly as he could (and upon a second viewing, it's pretty obvious that he's hammering this home) that Jesus clearly CHOSE to go through everything and that at several major turns he could have chosen to escape, but didn't. (Which is ironic, considering that if this was his intent it completely negates the idea that either the Jews, the Sanhedrin, or Rome were responsible for his death at all.)

The reason he chose to call it The Passion of the Christ, was to focus on why these kinds of movies are called "passion plays" in the first place, because the story itself is driven by one man's passion to refuse to 'rest' until it was 'finished'. You don't have to believe in Jesus Christ to understand this. Perhaps the man was delusional, believing to be the Son of God, but he clearly chose to die FOR that belief. This, I think, was Mel Gibson's reason for making the movie.

There are many criticisms I would like to explore as well, but I think I've said enough about it for now.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I think it was needlessly brutal; I also noticed Gibson's usual practice of making the villains very one-dimensional: other than the Disciples, I noticed that there wasn't a good Jew in the movie.

At the time, I didn't think that this was necessarily anti-Semitic, since I noticed the same thing in his other movies: you won't find a redeeming quality in an Englishman in Braveheart, or in a Loyalist in the Patriot either.

 

[tomspug]

I think it was needlessly brutal; I also noticed Gibson's usual practice of making the villains very one-dimensional: other than the Disciples, I noticed that there wasn't a good Jew in the movie.

At the time, I didn't think that this was necessarily anti-Semitic, since I noticed the same thing in his other movies: you won't find a redeeming quality in an Englishman in Braveheart, or in a Loyalist in the Patriot either.

Yeah, because those two members of the Sanhedrin who protested the secret trial don't count as Jews, or about half of the mob that were obviously saddened and frustrated by Jesus's trial being overpowered.

Edit: Although, he really went over the top with the Roman guards that flogged him, IMO. They were just nuts! Mel Gibson likes violence a LITTLE too much.

 

[kadzbiz]

I remember that I liked it. I cried a little seeing Mary watching her son carrying the cross. Y'know, the parent/child thing. I can't recall the soundtrack. I might have to watch it again now. How do we know if Gibson went over the top with the flogging? Perhaps it wasn't enough. We weren't there to see. I don't think Gibson likes violence.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Yeah, because those two members of the Sanhedrin who protested the secret trial don't count as Jews, or about half of the mob that were obviously saddened and frustrated by Jesus's trial being overpowered.

Hmm. Maybe I'm mistaken. It's been quite a while since I saw the movie.

 

[tomspug]

I remember that I liked it. I cried a little seeing Mary watching her son carrying the cross. Y'know, the parent/child thing. I can't recall the soundtrack. I might have to watch it again now. How do we know if Gibson went over the top with the flogging? Perhaps it wasn't enough. We weren't there to see. I don't think Gibson likes violence.

No, I understand. I was referring to the over-acting of the Roman Guards. Although perhaps having that kind of job, maybe that was what it was like. All I know is that this movie is REALLY hard to watch because of it.

 

[Magic Man]

Three hours of flagellation. Is that really what's important about Jesus? It was an excellent movie for what it was trying to do, but what it was trying to do was revolting.

Actually I would say that that is a very important thing about Jesus. The idea is that he came to Earth to show us how to live, and he was the greatest sacrifice imaginable. People say that he suffered more than anyone else in history for us. It makes it a lot harder to scoff at his suffering, and say it wasn't that bad, when you can see it like in the movie. It's like telling someone what you went through to get something for them, so that they will appreciate the thing even more.

 

[Smoke]

Well, first, I don't believe he went through it for us, so that whole aspect of it is meaningless to me.

Second, it's ludicrous to say that Jesus suffered more than anyone else in history. His suffering was horrific, and I wouldn't want to minimize it in any way, but he was hardly the first or the last person to be tortured to death, and it was at least over in a day. I've seen people die of Alzheimer's; I've seen people die of lung cancer. I've seen a mother bury her only son. Jesus has no monopoly on suffering.

 

[Magic Man]

Well, first, I don't believe he went through it for us, so that whole aspect of it is meaningless to me.

Second, it's ludicrous to say that Jesus suffered more than anyone else in history. His suffering was horrific, and I wouldn't want to minimize it in any way, but he was hardly the first or the last person to be tortured to death, and it was at least over in a day. I've seen people die of Alzheimer's; I've seen people die of lung cancer. I've seen a mother bury her only son. I think any of them would have traded places with Jesus.

No, no, I agree with you. I don't believe he went through it for us either. I am an atheist, after all. I also don't think he suffered more than anyone else, but some people do. I think it also has to do with "taking on the suffering of the entire world" which definitely requires belief in him as the savior.

All I'm saying is that it was meant to show just how much Jesus willingly went through to save mankind in terms that any human being could understand. I even said myself right afterwards that it would have been much better, had I been Christian. I think it was directed towards Christians, as you would expect any Jesus movie to be.

 

[tomspug]

Well, first, I don't believe he went through it for us, so that whole aspect of it is meaningless to me.

Second, it's ludicrous to say that Jesus suffered more than anyone else in history. His suffering was horrific, and I wouldn't want to minimize it in any way, but he was hardly the first or the last person to be tortured to death, and it was at least over in a day. I've seen people die of Alzheimer's; I've seen people die of lung cancer. I've seen a mother bury her only son. Jesus has no monopoly on suffering.

There's no need to make comparisons. Although I'm pretty sure that crucifixion is quite possibly the most painful way to die. Physical pain isn't something that's as easy to comprehend these days, but I have to say that that is a LOT of physical pain that Jesus went through. I don't see how Jesus suffering more than anyone in any way diminishes the pain of others.