Passion, The (2003) Mel Gibson Director/Producer

Even if you don't believe the Gospels are legitimate history, I fail to see the problem with basing a movie off of them. Show me a movie based off a completely legitimate history. All movies are biased in some way. This one happens to be biased in favor of Christianity's version of the events. Where's the crime in that?

 

Oh, for goodness' sake. The story of Jesus is true. You don't have to believe any of the theology behind it and you don't have to be a Christian, but the accounts of the major points of the man's life and death are extraordinarily consistent. It happened. The governing council of the Jews found themselves faced with a theological and secular power play and they acted as men in power have always done. They used whatever means at their disposal to secure their position. They paid a man in Jesus' retinue to betray him to the Romans and they manufactured a case against him that was implausible. They used their influence to stir the Jews into a mob and they used that mob to intimidate the Roman Governor of Jerusalem into condemning an obviously innocent man to death. These things are documented in official Roman correspondence and in personal journals found in dozens of tombs from the period. It's verifiable history.

 

NO ONE denies that Jesus of Nazarath was a real person, and NO ONE denies that he was hung on a cross. In addition to the bible, we have tons and tons of other acounts, records and documents of the times which proves conclusivly that Jesus was a real man who preached controversial teachings, and was crucified.

no matter how much you capitalize that, it's simply not true. there's a lot of serious, reputable scholarship debunking the myth of the historical Jesus, and no, we don't have tons and tons of accounts, records, etc, as you assert. it's by no means a given that Jesus was a historical person.

And its an intresting note that so much archeological evidence of the bible has been proved accurate, that many archeologists actualy use it as a source to look for things.

not in the way that i think you mean, they don't, no. there's a certain number of Christian Biblical "archeologists" who do that sort of thing, but their methods and conclusions are pretty much universally rejected by reputable archeologists.

anyway, can we get back to the movie?

 

i'm sorry, i'm going to stop my part in this argument here. i don't want to either start or continue this argument. can we just move on and discuss the movie, and not debate the historical value of the Gospels? i just don't think that's going to get anyone anywhere, and it's kind of off-topic.

Thank you Diz, i get tired of almost all the threads that mention the word G-d being turned into a "Im right your logic sucks, personal attacks thread" by both sides. I think that both sides of that issue can still discuss the actual film and just agree to disagree about the historicity of it all.

THanks again...

edit: if you want to discuss the historicity of Jesus, kindly do it in the senate...

 

Saw it yesterday afternoon, and my thoughts are still a jumble, but I'll do my best.


The film is moving, to the point that no words can do it justice. It is simultaneously gruesome and beautiful -- gruesome in the unrelenting cruelty and violence, beautiful in the depiction of my Lord's behavior.

I'm reminded of a U2 song called "Grace," a reference -- as interviews indicate -- to God's grace, that is, His undeserved love. There's a line in the song:

"Grace makes beauty out of ugly things."

The treatment of Jesus is at least among (and possibly tops) humanity's greatest crimes. But Jesus' reaction to that, the determination to love and to forgive...

...the film became more beautiful as it became harder to watch.


It is truly difficult to watch, but if my Lord suffered through something like that for a full day, I could force myself to watch a two-hour depiction of it.


There is no racism, nor is their sexism. Indeed, the Jewish Sandhedrin were the most committed to seeing Jesus executed, but there were detractors within their group, not even Caiphas could bear to watch the sadism of the Roman torturers, and countering the evil of the religious leadership were the goodness of John, Mary, and Simone the Cyrene -- all Jews, albeit Jews who were not part of the establishment. Yes, Satan is portrayed by an androgynous woman, but countering her is the suffering of Mary and the evil perpetrated by men like Judas, Caiphus, and Pilate.

If one finds racism or sexism, it is because one is looking for it. One finds what he brought into the theater with him.


Some reviewers seem to think that the context of the Gospels is lost or severely abbreviated. Where are the good works? Where is the teaching to love each other? They are there, written in letters almost too large to see. The crucifixion and resurrection, those are The Good Work, the ultimate purpose for which Christ came, not some footnote or unexpected tragedy, but the focus of the Incarnation, of His stepping into history.

Indeed, it is the focus of all history.

And the teaching of love is there in Jesus' own actions during the most trying of circumstances. Jesus not only taught to turn the other cheek; here, He does so, time and time again.

(Consider what miracles Jesus performed in the Gospels. Even in the film, He healed the soldier's ear, and He who has such power to heal surely has power to kill. At any moment, Jesus could have lashed out in anger and destroyed every human being near Him, in spectacular wrath-of-God fashion. Instead, He kept returning to the punishment He never deserved and asking God to forgive those who were beating Him so severely.)


A friend who saw it with me seems to think that the violence was too much, too over-the-top; and that the Satanic elements were superfluous. Of that, I'm not sure. It doesn't seem out of the realm of possibility that the actual suffering was this physically demanding and nearly unbearable.

The truth is, the Passion (the story, not the film) is a story of both physical and spiritual suffering, and that must be hard to portray on film. Gibson did his best, and I'm not sure how it could be done better.

It's a comforting thought, in its own way, that the life of Christ was so utterly real that no single medium can completely convey it.


It shows the wide scope of evil. Those who conspired to shed innocent blood, they were guilty. But he who merely allowed that shedding of blood, his hands too were stained with that blood, no matter how many times he would end up washing them. Sadistic brutality, mocking words, betrayal, denial.

What's worse is that not everyone who committed an evil act in the conspiracy was purely evil. Judas was tormented by the consequences of his decision. Caiphas couldn't stand to watch the actual scourging. Pilate was only trying to keep the peace, save his career and his own neck.

Even Peter, who would be one of the first and greatest Christian leaders, betrayed Him.

What does that tell us? It tells us

 

Thanks so much for posting your review, Bubba. I really appreciated your reflections.

Even in the film, He healed the soldier's ear, and He who has such power to heal surely has power to kill. At any moment, Jesus could have lashed out in anger and destroyed every human being near Him, in spectacular wrath-of-God fashion. Instead, He kept returning to the punishment He never deserved and asking God to forgive those who were beating Him so severely.

Profound point that is deceptively easy to overlook. Christ could, at any moment, have put an end to all of it, but he endured it for our sake. I haven't even seen the movie yet, and I've been going to church every Sunday since birth, pretty much, but this film is already causing me to think in new ways about Christ's sacrifice for us. It's only a movie - truth comes to us all the time, and reflection and study about Christianity are (or should be) regular parts of our lives - but it is good to be reminded, sometimes, in stark fashion. I hope this is a wake-up call to complacent American Christians: Remember! He did this for you.

 

Saw it yesterday, some of my thoughts:


This film is definitely the most accurate presentation of the last few hours of Christ's life I have ever seen. It is so disgustingly beautiful to watch the scourging of Christ (which for me was almost unbearable), and the nailing of him to the cross.

One of the things about the film that just jump out at me is the Garden of Gesthemane. Jim Caviezel is simply briliiant as an agonized Jesus, so apprehnesive about his fate and yet ready to do his Father's will. This is probably a very overlooked part of the Gospel. Christ did not want to suffer like that. Yet he knew that was what it was going to take. That is the definitoon of sacrifice, and of love.
The trial before the Sandhedrin is terrific. The film points out several illegalities about that particualr trial, including its prescence at night and also the tearing of Caiphas' clothes. It was also intriguing to note how many religious leaders actually protested the hearing.It was definitely not something I had ever thought in earnest about before.

The presentaion to Pilate/Herod/Pilate is done very well, and sets the stage wonderfully for some of the most intense material ever put into film.

From there on, its nothing but brutality. In one of the most horrific displays of hate ever concieved, the Romans take to their sport quite well as they scourge Jesus. The scene borders on the unwatchable, as whip after whip continue to bear into the skin. By the end of it all, the ground is so wet with blood that one can barely stand up on it.

Those are pretty much thoughts for the rest of the film. It was indeed gruesome, and more oppressive than I would have liked. But you cannot get the images out of your mind. And that, I presume, was the meaning of it all.

 

I saw it last night. Good movie, very powerful, and very brutal. I don't think that I'll be seeing it again. I'm not religious, but it was moving, and hard to watch at times.

 

Just a thought...

As violent as this film may be, i dont know yet cause i havent seen it. It was still toned down a bit. I was watching an interview with Jim Caviezal last night and he brought up a verse concerning the great disfigurement of Christ during His torture and crucifixion. Originally it was the goal to make this movie as real as possible includeing this disfiguring of Christ. But during the actual filming of the movie Mel decided against this. So in fact the movie could have been more wiolent, and more offsetting...

 

Bubba,

Excellent post. I couldn't agree with you more.

While watching the film last night, I was reminded of my own sinfulness. When Jesus died for all of humanity, he took on the sins of every person that has ever lived, and ever will live. In this fashion, the sins that I commit today were already known in the mind of God. This is the meaning, and reason behind Christ's death, and our salvation. This is also the reason why his suffering was so intense.

Walking out of the theater, I felt a need to be a better person. It certainly made me more aware of the enormity of Christ's suffering and death, and the reality of His resurrection even more powerful.

The images in this film have struck a chord in me, and will be on my mind for quite some time.

 

Here is the updated tally for the day. This definitely exceeds expectations.

Box Office Mojo


Forgive the blasphemous pun in the title.


'Passion' Nails $26.6 Million on First Day
by Brandon Gray
February 26, 2004



HOLLYWOOD (Box Office Mojo) ? Perhaps Ash Wednesday should be renamed Fat Wednesday.

Fueled by an unprecedented media frenzy and religious fervor, Mel Gibson's The Passion of the Christ has delivered on the hype.

Playing on 4,643 screens at 3,006 theaters, the $30 million production took in a whopping $26,556,573 on Wednesday ? ironically prompting most in the industry to use the Lord's name in vain out of sheer amazement.

In the process, The Passion burned onto the record books, notching the biggest opening day for a movie released outside the summer (May-August) and holiday (November-December) seasons. Hannibal was the previous title holder with $19.8 million posted in February 2001. Even if one subtracts the $3 million from private church group screenings on Monday and Tuesday that were folded in to the Wednesday gross, The Passion is still comfortably on top.

Among all opening days, The Passion land at No. 9, but it reached No. 3 among all Wednesday bows, behind only The Return of the King's $34.5 million and Star Wars: Episode I - The Phantom Menace's $28.5 million and ahead of The Two Towers's $26.2 million and The Matrix Revolutions' $24.3 million.

The Passion's opening day far exceeded Newmarket's and Box Office Mojo's Wednesday projections that it would come in at around $20 million, based on matinee grosses from around 28% of theaters. That shows that projecting so early can be as inaccurate as if the news called the winner of a political primary with only a fraction of precincts reporting.

With less than 900 theaters reporting mid-Wednesday, The Passion had rung up over $7 million from matinees alone. That was about 18% behind what The Return of the King had at the same point on its opening day, and around 4% behind The Matrix Reloaded. The Passion ultimately followed a similar pattern to Return of the King.

In just one day, The Passion has become the highest-grossing Christian-themed movie of recent memory. It's a genre that's been ghettoized as a niche market up until now ? former champ Jonah: A VeggieTales Movie grossed a modest $25.6 million in its entire run.

 

I saw the Passion on Tuesday night, and I admit that I'm a bit against the grain of the opinion.

Frankly, I *was* disturbed by the violence, and rather than feeling upset or moved (for instance, the whipping scene in Glory, I felt, was more effective), because I was left with a general feeling of disgust instead of empathy.

Although I did go through years of Sunday School, I'm more of an Agnostic now, and I had a hard time following everything in the film...I went with a group of friends--one Protestant, one Catholic, and two atheists, and my atheist friends were completely lost.

The Passion, I felt, was a better film for devout Christians. The long sequences of violence were accurate, but I found them somewhat superfluous--I don't want to see over half an hour of non stop torture and blood, no matter how realistic it is. While I admit I'm a fan of SPR, I think there's more 'relief' in that, because, quite frankly, it's not ONE continuous image. The whipping scene felt long and tedious, and while Gibson clearly wants us to be moved by the horrors, it seemed like overkill to me, to the point where it almost desensitized any emotion.

I also didn't care for the demon images, although the Satan portrayal is enough to creep me out for a while...I'll be perfectly honest, although I'm sure I'll take a lot of flack for it--the one character I had a hard time really empathizing with was Jesus. I felt bad for the Marys, Peter, even Pilate, but again, I think it has something to do with the violence...

I don't think Gibson is Anti-Semitic either, but the portrayal of the Jews was so flat, so base, that it seems hard not to wonder "This can't be right, no person can do that to another person and that's all there is to their character."

I don't know. It just didn't make the impact on me that it might have hoped to.

 

Did anybody doubt the movie would open big? At the very least Mel knows how to sell a movie and he has done a beautiful job here. Box office shouldn't have any relevance anyway. After all the controversy there was no way this film could bomb. However, one person apparently dropped dead during a screening at the climax of the film. That's interesting--by no means that the person died but in the way things can affect people.

 

But the film also makes clear that Jesus is not just worthy of admiration, but also of worship.

From a totally non-religious view point the movie does no such thing. If you take away the name "Jesus" and replace it with 'cult member,' the movie does not make Jesus admirable, nor worship-worthy.

The most important part of this movie to me was that we must not condemn those who think different to us or have different beliefs to our own.

Acceptance. Tolerance. Compassion.

A universal message not hindered by, nor hidden behind, religion.

 

I saw the Passion on Tuesday night, and I admit that I'm a bit against the grain of the opinion.

Excellent! Thus begins the seeds of good discussion!

Frankly, I *was* disturbed by the violence, and rather than feeling upset or moved (for instance, the whipping scene in Glory, I felt, was more effective), because I was left with a general feeling of disgust instead of empathy.

We all react to the horrors we can inflict on one another with a variety of feelings. Your feeling of disgust is just as valid as someone crying over what they see. Torture is just that: long, anguishing and seemingly never ending. Gibson wants the audience to be uncomfortable spectators with this film, not a detached audience. Indeed, Caiaphas (the high priest of the Sanhedrin) is shown walking away, presumably in disgust, from Christ's scourging.

That said, I have heard that others have felt the violence was too much.

Although I did go through years of Sunday School, I'm more of an Agnostic now, and I had a hard time following everything in the film...I went with a group of friends--one Protestant, one Catholic, and two atheists, and my atheist friends were completely lost.

This raises a question: what did your PRotestant and Cathoic friends think? In a way, I can empathize. I am devout Catholic, and have studied these events for years. However, without more devoted (in the film) to Christ's ministry, the film looks like more senseless brutality for almost no reason (unless of course you understand the historical implications surrounding the events of the film).

In that light, you can look at this film as a representation of senseless brutality, inflicted upon a man who preached love, and claimed to be the Son of God. This is essentially what the film presents, at it's most fundamental level. Knowing the teachings of Christ, the political situation with the Sanhedrin, the Jews and the Romans, makes the film much easier to understand and Christ's Passion all the more traumatic.

The Passion, I felt, was a better film for devout Christians. The long sequences of violence were accurate, but I found them somewhat superfluous--I don't want to see over half an hour of non stop torture and blood, no matter how realistic it is. While I admit I'm a fan of SPR, I think there's more 'relief' in that, because, quite frankly, it's not ONE continuous image. The whipping scene felt long and tedious, and while Gibson clearly wants us to be moved by the horrors, it seemed like overkill to me, to the point where it almost desensitized any emotion.

A point to make here is to realize the enormity of what Christ was going through. Particularly with the Agony in the Garden (the beginning of the film). At that time, Christ is realizing, and FULLY understanding the weight of human sin that he is carrying, but also that he has to die for us. The burdens that he carries during his passion are the sins of ALL mankind for ALL time: past, present and future. Imagine for a second if Christ were to receive one lashing for a single sin committed by each member of all of humanity. Indeed, at the end of that punishment, there would literally be no Jesus at the pillar anymore. He'd be completely ripped apart.

The carrying of his own cross and his falls and his are symbolic of our own life journey. As humans, we are all sinners. We try our best to lead good lives, but we are also subject to temptation and sin through our own human frailty. However, Christ gets back up again, continues carrying the cross to Golgotha (with the help of Simon of Cyrene), and fulfills his promise of our salvation by being crucified. In much the same way, we too get back up when we fall, dust ourselves off and continue living. He died for all of our sins. In this fashion, we are all responsible for the death of Jesus. Yet, because God loves us in an amount and fashion that we can't possibly fathom, he opens the door to Heaven through the sacrifce of his Son.

I also didn't care for the demon images, although the Satan portrayal is eno

 

From a totally non-religious view point the movie does no such thing. If you take away the name "Jesus" and replace it with 'cult member,' the movie does not make Jesus admirable, nor worship-worthy.

Okay, in the film, "cult member" clearly has the power to heal. Not only does this person have such a miraculous power, he uses it to heal the ear of a soldier who's attempting to arrest him and drag him to a kangaroo court where justice will most assuredly be perverted.

If "cult member" has the power to heal, it's at least possible that he also has the power to destroy, and despite all the brutality he suffered, he did not use that power. He followed his own teaching to love one's neighbor, a teaching that we saw in a flashback in his painful trip to the place of the crucifixion.

In front of both the religious leaders and the imperial governor, "cult member" asserted himself to be equal to God. If his power to heal did not persuade, heaven and earth seemed to cry out when he died, and -- on top of all that -- he came back from the dead, fully healed save for a rather noticeable scar in his hand.

Nothing admirable? Nothing worthy of worship?

Preposterous.

If you want to say, "well, I don't believe in miracles," that's your perogative, but we're talking about what the movie presented, and it presented a person of great power and love -- miraculous power over nature and even death, and unfathomable love to restrain himself in the presence of his enemies.

If Jesus really was as He was presented in the Gospels and, yes, in this movie, then He is truly worthy of admiration and worship. Your rejection of Christianity should not blind you to the clear content of the film.

 

I don't agree. Schindler's List was no where near as powerful as this movie. SL was nothing more than a movie glorifying a NAZI with a bad self conscience.

Watch that film again, it makes no judgement on Oskar Schindler as a person, only shows his actions and how he saved the lives of the Jews working for him. The film is about a conflicted person, an enigma, yet the film itself is NOT conflicted about what it is or the story it wants to tell; Gibson's "Passion" is. Simply because Gibson's film is about the suffering of Christ doesn't make it a powerful (or good) film. It expected that most people going into this film knew the story and characters and didn't bother to make them compelling in any way; why make a film only for a certain audience and forget that some people seeing this film will not be familiar with this man's story? The fact that the main character in this film is Jesus shouldn't be an excuse for lazy filmmaking.

I don't have a problem with a film focusing on a certain part of a much larger story, but when it is done as poorly as it is in "The Passion of the Christ," why bother? Idon't know about you, but I think the son of God deserved a better, more focused, film.

 

With all due respect, I think most people should have been clued in when the title was announced.

"Passion" plays usually begin with the Last Supper and follow the events through the Resurrection. Gibson made an artistic choice and started in the Garden, and from what I've heard (not seen, yet) flashes back to the Last Supper for metaphoric and symbolic purposes.

From my own personal experience, this IS the way a Passion play should be done. If my parish had $25 million to throw around, we could have given a pretty good effort in reconstructing the the last few hours of His life.

The decision to play Jesus is always frought with danger because you must walk in His path. I've seen people in high school take lashes from ropes wielded by inexperienced centurions, and draw large welts from the blows. I've seen them struggle and sweat to stay on the makeshift cross that was provided. And I've seen men and women weep year after year after witnessing these very amateur productions.

Believe me, Gibson has only done what any Catholic would have done if they had some spare change and talent and vision. They would make a devout meditation on the suffering, death, and resurrection of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.

Yes it was cruel and inhuman what was done to Jesus. I'm glad some people have finally come to that realization. But as TadjiStation said above, that was the effect of the total weight of human sin.

I hope it gives me the strength to continue to live by God's Word.

 

Watch that film again, it makes no judgement on Oskar Schindler as a person, only shows his actions and how he saved the lives of the Jews working for him. The film is about a conflicted person, an enigma, yet the film itself is NOT conflicted about what it is or the story it wants to tell; Gibson's "Passion" is.

In your view, it is. In mine, it's perfectly clear about it's intentions, and delivers on those intentions in spades.

Simply because Gibson's film is about the suffering of Christ doesn't make it a powerful (or good) film. It expected that most people going into this film knew the story and characters and didn't bother to make them compelling in any way; why make a film only for a certain audience and forget that some people seeing this film will not be familiar with this man's story? The fact that the main character in this film is Jesus shouldn't be an excuse for lazy filmmaking.

And yet I've specific evidence that points to the contrary, with regards to the people that this film is connecting with. At the end of my screening, two people (a young couple) were conversing behind me. The man said to the woman: "You know I don't consider myself a religious person, and I don't know a lot about Jesus. But watching that movie makes me want to learn more about that man." I'd say, in his case, the film did just fine, and was certainly not lazy in it's delivery. Further, I've read a number of reviews which have said essentially the same thing.

As to your point about compelling characters, that has everything to do with your personal view of Jesus. To me, as I've read the gospels and learned his teachings, I see Christ as an extremely compelling character. Not because he was dramatic in a Hollywood or theatrical sense, but because he preached love and forgiveness to a world that had all but forgotten about those virtues.

When looking at the film, it's almost impossible to separate what I know of Jesus from what I saw on the screen. For the sake of those who aren't familiar, the film goes to great lengths to say Christ was killed for what he preached and was a threat to the "power" of the Sanhedrin. Further, the amount of suffering he endured at the hands of the Romans was nothing short of remarkable. If that representation of a scourging was ANYTHING like Christ's real torture, and the crucifixion ANYTHING like His real death, then I can only kneal in awe at the enormity of His sacrifice.

I don't have a problem with a film focusing on a certain part of a much larger story, but when it is done as poorly as it is in "The Passion of the Christ," why bother? Idon't know about you, but I think the son of God deserved a better, more focused, film.

Funny you should say "more focused", when the title of the film is "The Passion of the Christ", and it focuses on the Passion of Jesus Christ. In what ways can the film be more focused?

As to poor filmmaking, I can only say we saw two different films. I'm a filmmaker, and what I saw on the screen was like no other filmic experience I've EVER had in my life. In my opinion, this film was beautifully done on EVERY level, and for the sake of comparison, makes the travesty that was "The Last Tempation of Christ" look like child's play.

Mind you, that's just my opinion.

 

With all due respect, I think most people should have been clued in when the title was announced.

"Passion" plays usually begin with the Last Supper and follow the events through the Resurrection. Gibson made an artistic choice and started in the Garden, and from what I've heard (not seen, yet) flashes back to the Last Supper for metaphoric and symbolic purposes.

From my own personal experience, this IS the way a Passion play should be done. If my parish had $25 million to throw around, we could have given a pretty good effort in reconstructing the the last few hours of His life.

Look, I don't have a problem with a film showing the last few hours of Christ's life, showing what he suffered through so that we may be saved. I do have a problem with it when it is done as poorly as it is in "The Passion of the Christ." It's just a bad, unfocused film about a person who deserves better cinematic treatment than "The Passion of the Christ." Thank God for the other, truly heartfelt (and far better) films about Christ that have been made over the years.

If Gibson truly wanted to pay homage to Passion plays, then why not film one being performed live and release that as a film? (And if anyone says that the fact that he shot it using elaborate sets and exteriors made the film all the more "real" is just covering up for the shortcomings with the storytelling in "The Passion of the Christ.")

 

Look, I don't have a problem with a film showing the last few hours of Christ's life, showing what he suffered through so that we may be saved. I do have a problem with it when it is done as poorly as it is in "The Passion of the Christ." It's just a bad, unfocused film about a person who deserves better cinematic treatment than "The Passion of the Christ." Thank God for the other, truly heartfelt (and far better) films about Christ that have been made over the years.

As someone who thought quite the opposite, I'm striving for understanding of your position. Would you mind going into greater detail about why you thought the film was so unfocused? Were there certain filmic techniques used that didn't appeal to you? What was it specifically about the film that was so below par, in your opinion?

EDIT: I will be happy to continue this tomorrow morning, as I must now head off to bed. Keep the discussion going!

Goodnight, all!

 

kay, in the film, "cult member" clearly has the power to heal. Not only does this person have such a miraculous power, he uses it to heal the ear of a soldier who's attempting to arrest him and drag him to a kangaroo court where justice will most assuredly be perverted.

You argument rests on a story and only belief confirms it. I don't believe in what you believe. So my viewing of the movie differs greatly from yours. You look for meaning whereas I don't.

If "cult member" has the power to heal, it's at least possible that he also has the power to destroy, and despite all the brutality he suffered, he did not use that power. He followed his own teaching to love one's neighbor, a teaching that we saw in a flashback in his painful trip to the place of the crucifixion.

You can't prove to me that he can heal. Nobody can. A one thousand year old Chinese-whisper of a story proves nothing.

Nothing admirable? Nothing worthy of worship?

Preposterous.

In your religious beliefs, maybe...

If you want to say, "well, I don't believe in miracles," that's your perogative, but we're talking about what the movie presented, and it presented a person of great power and love -- miraculous power over nature and even death, and unfathomable love to restrain himself in the presence of his enemies.

Great love? Um..which part? I saw a man who was devout in what he believed...for sure. But of great love? No way - not in what was presented.

All I saw was a man tortured by politics and the cruelty of man.

If Jesus really was as He was presented in the Gospels and, yes, in this movie, then He is truly worthy of admiration and worship. Your rejection of Christianity should not blind you to the clear content of the film.

Your religious devotion blinds you. And I don't reject Christianity so stop preaching to me Mr.Fanatic. I can bring religious meaning into anything, I choose not to.

 

And yet I've specific evidence that points to the contrary, with regards to the people that this film is connecting with. At the end of my screening, two people (a young couple) were conversing behind me. The man said to the woman: "You know I don't consider myself a religious person, and I don't know a lot about Jesus. But watching that movie makes me want to learn more about that man." I'd say, in his case, the film did just fine, and was certainly not lazy in it's delivery. Further, I've read a number of reviews which have said essentially the same thing.

If a filmmaker has done his or her job right, then audiences should walk away feeling that they know the characters in a film, that they have shared an experience with these people. If some audience members desire to learn more about the characters they have just seen on screen, then that should be a result of feeling an emotional connection with the characters through the storytelling and not because the filmmakers only give you a hint of what this person was all about. It's easy to walk out of a film like "The Passion of the Christ" wanting to know more about Jesus if you aren't a religious person seeing as the film really didn't tell you much about who this man was.

As to your point about compelling characters, that has everything to do with your personal view of Jesus. To me, as I've read the gospels and learned his teachings, I see Christ as an extremely compelling character. Not because he was dramatic in a Hollywood or theatrical sense, but because he preached love and forgiveness to a world that had all but forgotten about those virtues.

When looking at the film, it's almost impossible to separate what I know of Jesus from what I saw on the screen. For the sake of those who aren't familiar, the film goes to great lengths to say Christ was killed for what he preached and was a threat to the "power" of the Sanhedrin. Further, the amount of suffering he endured at the hands of the Romans was nothing short of remarkable. If that representation of a scourging was ANYTHING like Christ's real torture, and the crucifixion ANYTHING like His real death, then I can only kneal in awe at the enormity of His sacrifice.

Christ was a compelling person, but the character of Christ presented to us in this film is not compelling. Yes, Caviezel's performance is quite powerful, but the Christ he is portraying is never given time to develop. We are automatically supposed to feel for this man as he is being beaten to a pulp and then crucified simply because his name is Jesus. That just shouldn't be enough for a film whose main character is the son of God.

Funny you should say "more focused", when the title of the film is "The Passion of the Christ", and it focuses on the Passion of Jesus Christ. In what ways can the film be more focused?

It was focused in reagrds to portaying "The Passion" (the suffering), but missed the mark completely with "the Christ," the man, who he was, why his death was so important; why not include something for those that are not Christian, and who may have never picked up a bible? The film didn't have to include hours of backstory and could have accomplished this throughout the course of the story.

As someone who thought quite the opposite, I'm striving for understanding of your position. Would you mind going into greater detail about why you thought the film was so unfocused? Were there certain filmic techniques used that didn't appeal to you? What was it specifically about the film that was so below par, in your opinion?

To me, Gibson really undermined the effort he made to remain faithful to the scriptures and take a gritty, realistic approach to the material with the cheesy slow-mo effects used throughout the film, and the sentimental score which so desperately tried to reach the heights of Peter Gabriel's brilliant score for "The Last Temptation of Christ" (not to mention that way over the top scene featuring Satan crying out to the Heavens when Jesus finally succum

 

Since most people are doing this, preceding their reviews with a caveat, so shall I. There is blood and violence in amounts that most people wouldn?t see outside of an R movie. This is an R movie, so you have no excuse.

Go see The Passion. I don't care what your religious beliefs are. It is powerful, beautiful; taxing, but more than worth it. It isn?t anti-Semitic, too violent or fluff, but a film of such quality and substance that few of the last two decades can be considered its equal. There?s the quick review; read on for the full dissection.

I am a Christian, Lutheran to be precise, and though I am not a Bible Belt kind of guy, a holy roller or fundamentalist, I still consider my personal faith strong and a large influence in my work and creative writing. Now that you know that, let me say that I saw this movie tonight to see it, to observe it as a critic would, not a Christian or atheist or Buddhist or Jew. I didn?t go in wearing my religion on my sleeve (rather, on my forehead; I did see it after the Ash Wednesday service); I saw it this first time as a moviegoer, movie buff and movie reviewer/blowhard. I am drained from it ? physically and emotionally (though I did not sob or cry; I wanted to watch the movie clearly, not through a swimming pool of tears). Some movies have clench moments, where you sort of tense and inhale at the imagery and strength of a particular scene or segment. This film is roughly 70% clench moment, but how can it be any other way when depicting the last, painful twelve hours of the life of Jesus of Nazareth, the Christ?

Before going tonight I?ve read and seen much about this movie simply because there is much being written and said. Not only are religious channels having specials on Jesus, The Passion, and the controversy; mainstream networks and cable channels are getting in line with specials and interview segments. Probably no standalone movie has received this much in-depth examination since Schindler?s List and before that ? who knows! It is at the center of a maelstrom of controversy and conversation. Does it deserve this? Is this a triumph or failure? What does it say, in relation to Christianity, the world, anti-Semitism, et al? What of the violence?

Personally, I see this as a triumph of (hah) Biblical proportions. It doesn?t matter if you are religious when you see this film or not. If you are Christian, it forces you to think about the founding sacrifice of the religion. If you are not, it shows you the suffering Jesus endured, his dedication, his resolve and love. Though physically he maybe pained and pushed beyond what the average could stand, emotionally he knows his purpose and, as he has been known to say, that those crucifying him ?know not what they do.? He asks for their forgiveness; he prays. It is a movie that juxtaposes images of brutality with the love and hope and grace that contain more power than a thousand scourgings. The actors do their jobs admirably, some better than others and those that are great (Jim Caviezel as Jesus, Maia Morgenstern as Mary, Mother of Jesus, Jarreth Merz as Simon who helps Jesus to carry the cross, Hristo Shopov as Pontius Pilate) are truly great. There is a depth to their performances that makes them utterly believable. The technical production is also stellar, the equal to any movie out right now, if not one of the most controlled and beautiful films currently in theaters. Gibson does what he has to do, and while he breaks no boundaries, certainly he is a director at the top of his form, and his cinematographer captures the story and vision with moving paintings.

Let?s look at some of those other questions. I answered one out of order. Now, does it deserve the media scrutiny? Well, certainly. It is a controversial subject. If everyone believed what happened in the movie as true ? events and religious subtext ? there simply would not be any fuss over it. It would be one more crucifixion movie, albeit a more accurate one in its technical details (setting, clothing, the torture endured). But because the subject matter is n

 

I saw it last night with my grandmother and as a Christian I will never watch it again, I had fled the theatre during the whipping