|
|
Post by darkelastic on Apr 10, 2007 11:50:32 GMT 1
I listened to all the hype about this film at the time of its release, but stayed away as I'm not religious, and I know the story of Jesus Christ from when I was a child. Anyway, I finally caught it this weekend (Easter weekend) on channel 4.
I thought this film was visually disturbing (this from the man who loves violence in movies) and hard to watch in places. But also utterly compelling. I had to watch it all.
As a non religious man I don't know what people's problems are with this. That is the story I remember being told, exactly. Someone has finally added realism to this story. If Jesus did exist and if he was crucified in this manner then it would be as horrible as the footage shows. Death that way is not quick an easy!!!
The main downsides to this film are the fact it only focuses on the last part of his life and therefore there is no, and I mean no, positives to take from it. It brings you down. Also, you couldn't watch it again.
Overall, a fantastic film. I take my hat off to Mel Gibson who is rapidly becoming a great director.
|
|
|
|
Post by richardburton on Apr 10, 2007 13:00:16 GMT 1
Totally agree with everything you've said. It was disturbing but I was rivetted by it - couldn't take my eyes away from the screen. Mel Gibson did a fantastic job. Haven't seen Apocalypto yet, but am looking forward to it.
|
|
|
|
Post by krakatoa on Apr 10, 2007 18:23:12 GMT 1
I have the film in my small collection, i had it for only 5 cdn dollars about a year ago. It was the last copy, but i had already seing it at the movies, when it came out. This film is fantastic, either for the believer or not, As a believer i saw his strenght. I am a beliver but i do it my way, i dont go to church, listens from time to time 700 clubs, take only what i like from the show hihi, and read some words from the bible from time to time. This is real, but i consider myself as a Christian anyway. Chantale. ;D    looking forward for Apocalypto!!! |
|
|
|
Post by Lensman on Apr 16, 2007 22:04:20 GMT 1
Here is why I dislike the film: 1. It is a spectacle, not a true drama. The bits with the devil (who appears nowhere in Gospel accounts of events leading up to Jesus' crucifixion) and the weird little homunculus on his shoulder, in addition to the extreme bloody violence, are completely out of place in what was represented as a historically authentic film. However, I'll give Gibson credit for this: The film is labeled correctly. "The Passion of the Christ" is a passion play, not a drama. Passion plays are about spectacle. 2. The beating Jesus receives, the "forty lashes" are not given with a whip, but with a chain which has metal hooks and barbs fastened to it. The movie shows Jesus' lifeless body being dragged away afterward. That's realistic-- that's what would happen if anyone were actually beaten that badly. Even if someone could have survived such a horrific beating, there's no way he could have gotten up shortly after that and dragged a heavy cross for miles. After that beating-- if it wouldn't have killed him outright-- such things as the crown of thorns wouldn't have even been noticeable because he would already have been in severe pain and shock. Even the pain of crucifixion would have paled beside that beating. This totally ruined the rest of the movie for me. It made the actual crucifixion an anti-climax. 3. The movie went far out of its way to absolve the Roman authorities (Pontious Pilate et al) of any responsibility for Jesus' death. The gospels gave equal blame to Pilate and to the Jewish religious authorities. In shifting the blame almost 100% onto the Jews, Gibson is showing the anti-Semite bias of his upbringing. This is not just my opinion. The movie's script was party based on the writings of Anne Catherine Emmerich. You can read about her and the anti-Semitic theme of her writings here: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anne_Catherine_Emmerich#Anti-Semitism_and_The_Dolorous_PassionAnd in case you're wondering-- no, I'm not a Jew, I was raised Protestant. I got the info about Emmerich from reading various reviews of the film. |
|
|
|
Post by rustisstrikesagain on Jun 11, 2007 13:07:10 GMT 1
Gibson is a knob. A Brit hating, Bible bashing, Jew baiting tw*t.
His movies are overblown, arrogant, ignorant pieces of dire Hollywood trash that relies of dubious views of historical events to fuel his egomania.
|
|
|
|
Post by richardburton on Jun 11, 2007 14:05:19 GMT 1
Don't hold back there, Rusti  I thought Passion was very well made and stuck pretty close to the 'biblical facts' as most people accept as a fairly accurate account of events. Yes, it was a dramatisation, so it sensationalised certain areas to a degree and also threw in a little bit of the devil there too for a bit of semi-horror, but overall a very good and shocking film. I don't think Gibson is a brit hater or a bible basher or a jew hater for that matter. Yes, he made the Patriot and Braveheart and completely mashed a load of the facts, but that's no less than Hollywood has been doing since Hollywood first started. Hollywood has always thrown facts out of the window in favour of making a more exciting/interesting story. Yes, he was brought up by a father who was pretty anti-jew and he's made a couple of dodgy comments himself on the matter which he quickly apologised for and said it was heat of the moment/drink talking. Which, I think most people are guilty of spouting off things they didn't necessarily believe in temper at some point. I don't think he's particularly arrogant either. Without the drink, he always seems to come across fairly quiet and friendly in interviews. He's made or been part of some good films in my opinion. The Singing Detective (a very good adaption of Potter's original work), We Were Soldiers (a very accurate telling of the first major encounter between US and NVA troops in Vietnam), What Women Want (quite a quirky comedy), Signs (I thought it was a good spin on the alien invasion genre), Invincible (that little known hero film with Billy Zane that I actually thought was good), Forever Young (bit of a chick flick, but ok), The Man without a face (another chick flick, but touching). So to single him out for what the whole of Hollywood are doing and have done for decades (many far worse than Gibson's) and for a couple of stupid drunken comments harbouring from being brought up by a hard-liner father is pretty harsh. |
|
|
|
Post by rustisstrikesagain on Jun 11, 2007 14:18:07 GMT 1
|
|
|
|
Post by richardburton on Jun 11, 2007 15:43:05 GMT 1
Oh dear lol
|
|
