What did you think of The Passion of the Christ?

[tomspug]

I think it was directed towards Christians, as you would expect any Jesus movie to be.

I strongly disagree.

 

[Smoke]

There's no need to make comparisons.

I wasn't the one who brought up comparisons.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

I loved Mel Gibson's Passion. Fantastic. I'd like to know what his inspiration was for the children portraying demons and the androgynous Satan... right on the money IMHO. Very good.

 

[Magic Man]

I strongly disagree.

Toward whom do you think it was directed, then?

 

[angellous_evangellous]

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.

Have you seen Apocalypto? It's a million times more brutal.

As for the good Jew bit, it's been a while since I've seen the movie... but I do believe that his mother and other women were in it too, being good Jews, and several Jews had compassion or empathy for Christ... didn't someone help him carry his cross in the movie? We should keep in mind that this is Jew on Jew violence, using the Roman Empire and Pilate as means, it's not Jew on European, etc.

 

[dawny0826]

I love the movie for what it is...a reminder of what Christ took upon Himself for our benefit. I find it beautiful.

 

[Magic Man]

Have you seen Apocalypto? It's a million times more brutal.

I wouldn't make that comparison, though. "Apocalypto" was horrible, and seemed rather pointless. Then again, maybe that's how man people saw "The Passion".

 

[cardero]

On the radio, the DJ’s were explaining that there is a legend that during filming, the actor who played Jesus was on the cross and it was struck by lightening. I tried to verify this on YouTube to see if there was any footage (it was supposedly a botched take so there must have been footage of this) but I couldn’t find any information. Apparently the actor was left on the cross for another take. Now I do not know about anyone on RF but if I was the actor who was playing Jesus and the cross and it was struck by lightening, I would have climbed down and wrapped up the whole project.

 

[Katzpur]

From a technical perspective, I thought it was excellent. The set designs, the cinematography, the film editing, the costume design -- all of those things were just about perfect. I really had to gear myself up to see it because I have a very hard time watching violent movies, but I wanted to see it and was able to watch it from beginning to end without having to close my eyes (which is what I expected to happen). I found the symbolism fascinating, even though I recognized much of it as coming from a medieval perspective, and not exactly in keeping with my own beliefs. I loved the flashbacks, especially those showing the Savior's relationship to His mother, and I loved her prominent role in the way Christ's final days were depicted (regardless of the fact that I don't believe it was particularly accurate in that regard). The final scene where Satan is destroyed was powerful! It was absolutely over-the-top powerful. The main thing I didn't like was the fact that the Resurrection was only given less than one minute coverage. I know the point of the movie was to show Christ's passion, but I think five or ten minutes on the Resurrection would have left me with more of a feeling that it (the passion) was worth it, after all. As it was, the entire movie just left me depressed. Somehow, I think Christ would want us to feel more hope than the movie seemed to inspire.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Have you seen Apocalypto? It's a million times more brutal.

Yeah, I have. I agree that Apocalypto's worse, but still...

As for the good Jew bit, it's been a while since I've seen the movie... but I do believe that his mother and other women were in it too, being good Jews, and several Jews had compassion or empathy for Christ...

Yeah, tomspug corrected me. I guess I went away from it with an incorrect impression.

didn't someone help him carry his cross in the movie?

Assuming that's Simon of Cyrene, I don't think he's supposed to be Jewish, but my memory is hazy and I don't remember if the Gospels are clear on the point.

 

[Father Heathen]

It came off as a sadomasochistic snuff flick, lacking any real depth or substance. Didn't Jesus have some teachings and messages beyond gore porn and cheap emotional manipulation?

 

[Smoke]

It came off as a sadomasochistic snuff flick, lacking any real depth or substance. Didn't Jesus have some teachings and messages beyond gore porn and cheap emotional manipulation?

Exactly. The movie was like the worst of 19th-century Roman Catholicism. Disregard the teachings of Jesus, and wallow in the gore and the pathos.

 

[blackout]

Toward whom do you think it was directed, then?

Typical Gibson fans?
Brutality flick fans?

Other than that I agree with Matt.
It was a christian film.
Who else could find redemption in such a thing?

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Disregard the teachings of Jesus, and wallow in the gore and the pathos.

Isn't that what Hollywood is for?

 

[Magic Man]

It came off as a sadomasochistic snuff flick, lacking any real depth or substance. Didn't Jesus have some teachings and messages beyond gore porn and cheap emotional manipulation?

Yes, and we've seen plenty of movies, among other things, with those teachings and message. If you were looking for that here, then I can see why you wouldn't appreciate it as much. Why can't someone stress a certain part of a story that's been told over and over for 2,000 years? Most World War II movies leave out a lot of the major details, and focus on smaller, more nuanced parts of the story these days, because the main ideas of it have been done to death already. Gibson could have made just another telling of the Passion, but that would have been boring to many. He wanted to tell it in a way that had never been done before. It didn't strike you as interesting, but that doesn't mean he failed, or that it was a sadomasochistic snuff flick, lacking any real depth or substance.

And, by the way, I didn't love it either, but I can appreciate it for what it was.

 

[Ringer]

Yes, and we've seen plenty of movies, among other things, with those teachings and message. If you were looking for that here, then I can see why you wouldn't appreciate it as much. Why can't someone stress a certain part of a story that's been told over and over for 2,000 years? Most World War II movies leave out a lot of the major details, and focus on smaller, more nuanced parts of the story these days, because the main ideas of it have been done to death already. Gibson could have made just another telling of the Passion, but that would have been boring to many. He wanted to tell it in a way that had never been done before. It didn't strike you as interesting, but that doesn't mean he failed, or that it was a sadomasochistic snuff flick, lacking any real depth or substance.

And, by the way, I didn't love it either, but I can appreciate it for what it was.

I agree. Obviously the movie wasn't intended to focus on anything else besides this aspect of Jesus' life. Why is that such a big deal and why criticize the whole movie for it? Just goes to show people will always find something to complain about. Creating a movie that had the same cinematic qualities as the Passion that depicts the ministries of Jesus would be a lengthy and laborious project to say the least.

 

[tomspug]

It came off as a sadomasochistic snuff flick, lacking any real depth or substance. Didn't Jesus have some teachings and messages beyond gore porn and cheap emotional manipulation?

If you actually saw the movie, you'd know that there were actually about 10 or 15 of Jesus's messages and teachings in the film portrayed in flashbacks, interwoven into the purpose of the film. Something tells me you haven't actually seen it.

 

[tomspug]

Toward whom do you think it was directed, then?

While the film was heavily marketed towards Christians before it opened, that's exactly what it was: marketing. It was a grass-roots effort and not unique to The Passion of the Christ in its effectiveness.

But if Gibson was really making a film for Christians or even at Christians for profit, than why was this his only film marketed in such a way, and why does he have no presence in the "Christian media"? Christians loved the film, but that doesn't mean that Gibson himself made the film for Christians. I think it was much more for himself and people like himself. He has said as much.

 

[Magic Man]

While the film was heavily marketed towards Christians before it opened, that's exactly what it was: marketing. It was a grass-roots effort and not unique to The Passion of the Christ in its effectiveness.

But if Gibson was really making a film for Christians or even at Christians for profit, than why was this his only film marketed in such a way, and why does he have no presence in the "Christian media"? Christians loved the film, but that doesn't mean that Gibson himself made the film for Christians. I think it was much more for himself and people like himself. He has said as much.

If I made a movie about Wolverine, wouldn't that be directed at a very particular audience? I wouldn't be making it for 80-year-old grandmothers, I'd be making it for comic-book enthusiasts.

If I make a movie about Jesus, I'm making it for Christians mainly.

 

[kai]

well i thought it was good, thought provoking to me and showed what that kind of death was all about , it made me understand the "passion" that christians talk about