This is probably opening a big can of worms, but what did everyone think of this controversial movie?
It did absolutely nothing for me. Im not particularly spiritual, and I did appreciate the visuals of the film, but I felt absoltely nothing at the end of the film other than I had been witness to probably the most graphically violent film to only be rated MA in Australia. You can do better Mel.
Posts: 335 | Location: Sydney, Australia | Registered: 14 May 2004
Originally posted by mark f: (I hate to break this to you, but Christians don't believe in revenge.)
Well, in this country, that's debatable... a lot of the "conservative christians" are all for the death penalty... what's the difference between that and revenge?
Sorry I took so long to respond..."Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves" (Matthew 7:15).
This message has been edited. Last edited by: mark f,
I can't use the word "like" when it comes to this movie. I believe the intent of this movie was not to entertain, but for Gibson to convey on film his understanding of the Bible's (along with texts that are not in the Protestant Bible; since Gibson is Catholic he must be allowed the freedom to use the texts acceptable to his faith) description of "only one event" in the life of Christ: the passion. The resurrection which is the crowning moment that gives the crucifixion its full meaning is given about 15 seconds. I just have a hard time seeing its "entertainment value." It is not entertaining. And, I can't believe he needed the money. I really think he felt a sense of "mission" about this movie. Every one needs to feel as though when death comes they will be remembered for doing something that transcends human life as we know it. I think this was his attempt to do that. (okay, I'm preachy at this point, but I am a clergyman so cut me some slack here) Only Gibson knows why he made the movie.If the film was created to "evangelize" then Gibson left out important information the audience needed: if the viewer is not acquainted with Christianity then they will leave the theater knowing Jesus went through agony, but with no understanding as to why. Furthermore, they are not given enough insight as to how Jesus' teachings led to this horrendous event. I know a movie can only be so long; however, there were some violent scenes that could have been omitted. In their place he could have created some way to explain the "whys." Gibson, I think (and that is what this is, opinion) believed if he could expose people to the reality of the violence associated with the crucifixion, that, in and of itself, would create a response to the claims of Christianity. Whether that worked is still being debated. Consequently, though it is not entertaining, and not a movie that allows one to use the term "like", it should be placed in a category that might be called "culturally significant."
Boy, you got to carry that weight a long time!
Posts: 363 | Location: Georgia | Registered: 14 October 2005
As I said at another site, Christ was supposed to be leading everyone away from the animal sacrifices which are throughout the old testament. The ritualistic spilling of blood on an altar of sacrifice was the only way primitive man could express any devotion to God. Spiritual concepts were beyond the brute, violent reality of these early "worshippers", but they could get behind killing some animals and offering sacrifices.
Christ was meant to usher in a new era of worship through the spirit and without violent, bloody sacrifices, but to get to that era, he was meant to be sacrificed himself in a horrible, bloody way. Gibson even used foreshadowing, where Christ builds the "table", which is actually an altar of sacrifice; in this case, a figurative altar for his own sacrifice to cleanse us of our sins and bring us closer to God.
I can understand that the violence seems too much, but it actually is the point, at least of this particular twelve hours of Christ's life. Also, the violence certainly affects people because they swear that it is there all the time and that they saw Christ scourged ON SCREEN, his flesh ripped off for ten or more minutes. The violence is pervasive but not nearly as "in your face" for as long a time as people "remember."
"Naked Woman, Naked Man Where did you get that nice sun tan?"
Posts: 12865 | Location: Behind the Orange Curtain | Registered: 14 May 2004
Myself, I AM the middle ground. It was mentioned above that there wasn't any. Well, hello. I will explain why (this should be easy enough to follow):
The message was simple, Christ went through a lot of sh*t for all of us. Well, I think Gibson sincerely believes that, but he was too caught up trying to make the AUDIENCE believe that. He should've stopped violently portraying it and find another resource that could express the pain and anguish that was Christ. Simply enough, using emotional builds and characters could've acheived this. However, it seemed sloppy to throw so much blood and violence in when all you want us to do is feel respect for someone. I think Gibson took the easy route, but his efforts are noble. Its like seeing an animal tortured, you feel nothing (except the forknowledge that that IS Christ) and you see him beaten until you want to say "stop please, don't hurt the poor guy anymore"
THATS my feeling, I did feel Gibson's sarrow in there a bit, but we never really saw what we should've or could've
Glad to see a board on this...it was absolutely amazing to me to see the comments from the Non-Critics. Everyone seemed to give it a 10 or a 0...there was no middle ground.
Personally, I really liked it very much. I just thought it was really well-done. After I saw the movie, I read the parts in the Gospels that dealt with the time frame of the movie, and it seems Mel got it right. An earlier post by someone who didn't like it said that he didn't care that it was historically accurate...he just wanted to be entertained. Well, I can assure you that if this wasn't historically accurate, Gibson would have been (figuratively, of course) crucified.
One other thing...I'm Jewish, and did NOT find this film to be anti-semitic, and I am embarrassed by a number of Jews who criticize it as being anti-semitic, and haven't even seen it.
Posts: 177 | Location: Mercer County, NJ | Registered: 22 May 2004
Mark F, regardless of whether or not I agree with your opinions, I always tend to appreciate what your saying. Thanks for backing me up here I guess! Minor complaints indeed!
"If it were beneficial, their father would produce children already circumcised from their mother. Rather, the true circumcision in spirit has become profitable in every respect." -Jesus, from the Gospel Of Thomas
At this late point, this is probably worthless, or utter BS. First off, there were no angry children tormenting Judas in this movie. Maybe if it was directed by David Lynch (talk about a fetishist) it would be easier to grasp that the "children" are part of Judas' guilt-trip. Also, Satan was obviously present in the New Testament, even though technically not in the sections which would deal with Christ's final 12 hours as a human. Although if you believe, in truth or for dramatic effect, that Satan was trying to usurp Jesus, then He/The Eunuch (pretty good-looking for a eunuch) would have to make an appearance or two, and if one of her minions/mini-mes, was there to help Satan get through it (nobody but Jesus, or maybe a heartfelt apostle or the two Marys would notice), then I think it's a minor complaint.
"Naked Woman, Naked Man Where did you get that nice sun tan?"
Posts: 12865 | Location: Behind the Orange Curtain | Registered: 14 May 2004
quote:Originally posted by Albert: Sounds like you have more of a problem with Gibson's message than his ability as a filmmaker. No significant future? He already picked up an Oscar for Braveheart, he has massive box office appeal in the Lethal Weapons, Mad Max films, etc., but you don't get it?? Oh well... I'd like to hear some more specific criticisms.
No significant future in aesthetics. Yes, he has a great talent for making money and winning Oscars. Unfortunately, neither money nor Oscars are a very good gauge of fine art.
Certainly, I should be more specific: My main beef with this movie is its failed vision. Is it a realistic reenactment of the passion? Only when it depicts violence. So then, is it a Hollywood drama based on a true story? Kind of, but not a very good one. We get very little story, and we get a whole lot of violence. So what we're left with is a hybrid of Hollywood storytelling and dignified dramatization. The dramatization aspects were fantastic! (I found the whipping scene refreshingly disturbing) The Hollywood storytelling, however, was weak. We have fine acting jobs across the board, but they're mucked up by Gibson's poor taste in drama (not to mention some of the most trite movie music since, well, Braveheart--"Trust me, you're gonna want that panpipe in there." ). The flashbacks don't carry enough meaning to justify their existence. They simply provide sentiment to break up the violence. The visual effects were stunning, but some of them were so silly. I actually giggled when Satan was struck by lightning (I think that's what happened; I only saw it once). I mean, what's the point of an effect like that? I say this movie is dramatic and technological masturbation. We're all the receptors of Mel Gibson's holy money shot. Okay, jokes aside. This movie is not terrible. But when it comes to high art, how does this work compare to Bach's St. Matthew Passion? Penderecki's St. Luke Passion? Hell, Zeffirelli's Jesus of Nazareth? The Passion of the Christ is not in the same league.
ps- I absolutely LOVE the Mad Max movies! The first Lethal Weapon is a fine movie as well.
Posts: 14 | Location: Harrisonburg, VA | Registered: 28 May 2004
quote:I can't bring myself to like this movie. I certainly do not acknowledge Mel Gibson's talent as a film maker-- I haven't been completely impressed with a Gibson opus yet. I doubt he has any significant future in aesthetics. Wouldn't he make a great politician instead?
Sounds like you have more of a problem with Gibson's message than his ability as a filmmaker. No significant future? He already picked up an Oscar for Braveheart, he has massive box office appeal in the Lethal Weapons, Mad Max films, etc., but you don't get it?? Oh well... I'd like to hear some more specific criticisms.
Posts: 28 | Location: Virginia | Registered: 15 May 2004
First, The Last Temptation of Christ is a classic film not only because of its historical importance (like the Passion) but because of its high artistic quality (even though Keitel's Judas is flawed).
Is the Passion an entertaining movie? Yes! It's ultra-violent, it's emotional, and it's a huge achievement for special effects.
Is the Passion an accurate portrayal of the suffering of Christ? Who gives a damn? We pay horrendous prices for tickets and popcorn to be entertained, not educated.
Does the Passion have a high artistic quality? No way. Contrived drama, distracting and unimportant special effects, tacky music (horrible horrible horrible music, like every other Gibson epic)... ...
Although I think it's wonderful that many Americans finally saw their first subtitled film, I can't bring myself to like this movie. I certainly do not acknowledge Mel Gibson's talent as a film maker-- I haven't been completely impressed with a Gibson opus yet. I doubt he has any significant future in aesthetics. Wouldn't he make a great politician instead?
Posts: 14 | Location: Harrisonburg, VA | Registered: 28 May 2004
quote:Originally posted by Smenkharon: There were a few flaws in this film but nothing wrong whatsoever with plot or story content. If you have a problem with this movie, you have a problem with the Bible.
_Excuse me?_ Would you please like to cite the portions of the gospel where Judas is chased by angry children? Would you also please like to cite the portions of the gospel where Satan is a woman, present at the whipping of Jesus, holding some sort of Gollum-like creature in her hands?
What do you want Satan to look like? The point is to show the prescence of Satan, and that had to be done in some way for the movie to work. I thought the character was androgynous and otherworldly enough to be seen as an outsider from the crowd. Also the Gospels are pretty short so they had to fill some time with a little artistic license. That applies to the children chasing Judas as well, Mel was subtly catering to people who may not have read the Bible. I didn't think that would be something that would offend people! Children chasing Judas! Oh no! How awful. Sure the gollum-like creature was a little too much insight into Mel's world and I could have done without it too. I'll definately give you that!
"If it were beneficial, their father would produce children already circumcised from their mother. Rather, the true circumcision in spirit has become profitable in every respect." -Jesus, from the Gospel Of Thomas
quote:Originally posted by Smenkharon: There were a few flaws in this film but nothing wrong whatsoever with plot or story content. If you have a problem with this movie, you have a problem with the Bible.
Excuse me? Would you please like to cite the portions of the gospel where Judas is chased by angry children? Would you also please like to cite the portions of the gospel where Satan is a woman, present at the whipping of Jesus, holding some sort of Gollum-like creature in her hands?
Best wishes, ~V
Posts: 570 | Location: Boston | Registered: 17 May 2004
I know I should shut up since all you gators hate me anyway, but every single criticism that Mel Gibson gets for this very-personal film is similar to what he got for winning Best Director at the Academy Awards: the violence is in slow-motion , there's homophobia, the "truth" has been distorted, it's some sorta revenge flick (I hate to break this to you, but Christians don't believe in revenge.) Anyhow, that's all I have to say, except that somehow I saw two versions of this flick. I saw it the first day and Pilate excused himself and talked to the crowd and Caiphus responded, even though there were no subtitles, and then the other version had no Caiphus and no Pilate. Am I completely suffering from Alzheimer's or can someone rescue me?
"Naked Woman, Naked Man Where did you get that nice sun tan?"
Posts: 12865 | Location: Behind the Orange Curtain | Registered: 14 May 2004
quote: If you have a problem with this movie, you have a problem with the Bible.
I liked the movie despite all the negative buzz. But, what I didnt like, was not only Mel Gibson's tie-in products (A nail necklace? Hey Mel, how about a Jesus pinata--yeah that'd go over well at toga parties), but also the fact that audiences came out of the movie theatre feeling spiritually revitalized.
This message has been edited. Last edited by: EccentricSam,
I enjoyed this film quite a lot. Violence does not disturb me and I think the concept of monotheism is ridiculous and counter-intuitive to everything ever written previous to the Bible, so there was no way this movie could offend or bother me. I loved that Mel did an incredibly accurate portrayal of the historical events of the Bible, right down to Pilate's washing his hands of the responsibilty of Jesus' death. It was great for once to see someone doing a literal adaption of a written story instead of adapting it. This movie was so much better than Scorcese's absurd The Last temptation of Christ. In that movie I kept waiting for someone to say(with an Italian-American stereotyped accent) "Yo, Jesus, watch your back, Judas is gonna get you whacked!" There were a few flaws in this film but nothing wrong whatsoever with plot or story content. If you have a problem with this movie, you have a problem with the Bible.
"If it were beneficial, their father would produce children already circumcised from their mother. Rather, the true circumcision in spirit has become profitable in every respect." -Jesus, from the Gospel Of Thomas
quote:Originally posted by Member 27: There is plenty of things to enjoy about the film. The set design, costumes and make up are just fantastic. It is really quite something unique to be pushed as far as the Passion pushes you. It just is badly paced I thought, and didnt do anything that really needed to be done. I mean, everyone knows the story of the Bible, even the film assumes this as it doesnt bother explaining the events, so why just tell it as the Bible does. I think the story of Christ needs a treatment in a film that will shed some new light or present an original POV, like Scorceses "Last Temptation of Christ" did.
I agree, there was much to enjoy. I'm a spiritual person and had been looking forward to seeing the film for quite a while. I was very disappointed. Some scenes were incredible, but on a whole it wasn't as gripping as it could have been. I imagine those people not familiar with the story probably had the hardest time liking it.
Posts: 25 | Location: Wisconsin, USA | Registered: 20 May 2004
I liked this film, simply because it was so different from other Christ films. I love the human connections established in this movie. Over the top, yes, but it has emotional depth that I rarely see in big movies.
"When chickens get a taste of your meat."
Posts: 29 | Location: Manila | Registered: 13 May 2004
). The flashbacks don't carry enough meaning to justify their existence. They simply provide sentiment to break up the violence. The visual effects were stunning, but some of them were so silly. I actually giggled when Satan was struck by lightning (I think that's what happened; I only saw it once). I mean, what's the point of an effect like that? I say this movie is dramatic and technological masturbation. We're all the receptors of Mel Gibson's holy money shot.
