"Passion" by Mel Gibson

[Halo]

I haven't seen this and I won't be going either. From clips I've seen, it looks very well made, but the subject matter is not something I want to see. My interest in all things religious goes as far as Father Ted and The Life of Brian.

 

[hobitten]

I haven't seen it, and I am not planning to.

For very much the same reasons as Halo.

Hobitten

 

[Ashlea]

I hear they are re-releasing the Life of Brian in the states.

 

[Jonzey]

I went and saw The Passion of the Christ last night. I hadnt seen it yet 'cos I couldnt find anyone else who wanted to. Then my neighbour came around for a visit, and said he was interested, so we went.

It wasnt really what I was expecting (oddly enough) and I'm not religious in any way. As we drove home I came to the conclusion that I didnt like it.

But, I'm glad I saw it. Although the devil dude was kinda odd. I had tears down my cheeks once in the film, and it wasnt at the end. It was a scene with the mother and that...(dunno her name) girl who followed her around (It was just before that spoiler scene that third man girl posted).

I rate it 2/5. I wasnt as moved as I thought I would be.

 

[murphyz]

I didn't enjoy it, but I thought it was an excellent film what with the way it was done. The Mother and Mary Magdelene (the former prostitute who Jesus stopped from being stoned in one scene), was a very touching scene.

Oh, and the devil 'dude' was played by a woman

Glad you went to see it...my housemate annoys me in that he rants about things such as this and 'arry 'otter when he hasn't seen/read them. pft!

Mxx

p.s. Does this thread warrant spoilers? I'm not sure that mentioning things would spoil the film/bible in any way. Surely it's like making a spoiler thread about the Titanic saying it sinks at the end? (oopsy)

 

[Stewart]

I saw it last Thursday and wasn't too impressed. Although I enjoyed it, I think that 2 hours of such linear and repetitive stuff could have been broken down. The flashbacks could have been worked in better to provide two extreme storylines - the tranquility to betrayal of the Last Supper and the beating to the optimistic Resurrection. I'd recommend it to people but I found that a lot of it wasn't very memorable. It wasn't as gory or disturbing as I'd hoped. Maybe all the critics and reviewers who said that it was hadn't seen Pasolini's Salo.

 

[Stella Leanna]

I've seen it, and the scene which made me tear up was the one where Jesus fell down and Mary came running to him, with a flashback of him falling as a kid. The movie... maybe life-changing for some, or just another rendition of Jesus' crucifixion.

 

[Kaz]

Today I went to see this film. It was good, not brilliant. It's worth to watching.

 

[Martin]

Well, I've seen it. Impressive stuff, but not really movie-material. Quite boring actually. I agree with Mile, they should have put more effort making the story a little less linear.

Impressive scenes, not an impressive film.

Cheers, Martin

 

[M&O]

I just saw it and didn't read this thread ahead of time, so it gives me 4 pages of stuff I want to comment on!

Someone several pages ago wondered if the violence were that brutal back then. I understand that the practice of scourging was even *more* violent than we saw-- that flesh would be ripped away exposing bones and organs underneath. Considering the topic, I think it *had* to be violent and brutal (although I think there was too much dripping blood).

There was some "creative license," but I think it was in the spirit (no pun intended!) of the original. Gibson, being Catholic, also drew on Catholic tradition, which is not 100% based on the Bible.

I think Satan appearing in the Garden of Gethsemane was an example of license that tried to be "in the spirit". The Bible *does* say after Jesus is tempted in the wilderness, Satan left "for a more opportune time." What would be a more opportune time, after all?

Buying crucifixion nails to wear isn't necessarily a sick thing-- it can be a religious thing for those who believe Jesus died for them to be reminded of that.

 

[Ashlea]

Thought about going to see a movie today, but realized that Easter Sunday when the Passion is out in theaters would probably be a good day to stay at home.

 

[hobitten]

I just saw it and didn't read this thread ahead of time, so it gives me 4 pages of stuff I want to comment on!

Someone several pages ago wondered if the violence were that brutal back then. I understand that the practice of scourging was even *more* violent than we saw-- that flesh would be ripped away exposing bones and organs underneath. Considering the topic, I think it *had* to be violent and brutal (although I think there was too much dripping blood).

There was some "creative license," but I think it was in the spirit (no pun intended!) of the original. Gibson, being Catholic, also drew on Catholic tradition, which is not 100% based on the Bible.

I think Satan appearing in the Garden of Gethsemane was an example of license that tried to be "in the spirit". The Bible *does* say after Jesus is tempted in the wilderness, Satan left "for a more opportune time." What would be a more opportune time, after all?

Buying crucifixion nails to wear isn't necessarily a sick thing-- it can be a religious thing for those who believe Jesus died for them to be reminded of that.

I can only repeat.

I am not going to see it. I do not need to see this kind of thing.

How about a fifth option on the poll?

"I haven't seen it, and I am not going to."

Hobitten

 

[Cassandra]

Apparently the acctual Easter part of it wasn't too good.

 

[Elysium]

I have watched the film and now having had time to reflect I have weighed up the pros and cons in my mind and decided that I didn't like it. IMO there was an unnecessary amount of gore and it was quite frankly repulsive to watch in parts. I also feel that certain scenes were inappropriately light hearted and designed to please a 'hollywood' audience. Something that should never have even enter Mel Gibson's head when he made this film.

In short I wouldn't recommend this film and would only suggest that people go to see it if they have a particular desire to do so.

 

[Rosie]

I have watched the film and now having had time to reflect I have weighed up the pros and cons in my mind and decided that I didn't like it. IMO there was an unnecessary amount of gore and it was quite frankly repulsive to watch in parts. I also feel that certain scenes were inappropriately light hearted and designed to please a 'hollywood' audience. Something that should never have even enter Mel Gibson's head when he made this film.

In short I wouldn't recommend this film and would only suggest that people go to see it if they have a particular desire to do so.

Quite accurate, the violence. I think it would have been offensive if it had been dulled down. For example, Schindler's List is full of mind numbing horrors. But I think they were perfectly necessary to be true to the event that was being dealt with. To dull it down would have done dishonor to the circumstance. I feel the same way about The Passion. To make what Christ went through anything but brutally accurate would have been wrong. Yes, I realize Gibson took some lisence, but I don't think it was dramatic or out of character with the story.

The simple fact is that the last 12 hours of Christs life was chock full of violence! And the film was meant to put into action exactly what the Bible said. I think thats a good goal and was accomplished very well.

 

[Elysium]

Quite accurate, the violence. I think it would have been offensive if it had been dulled down. For example, Schindler's List is full of mind numbing horrors. But I think they were perfectly necessary to be true to the event that was being dealt with. To dull it down would have done dishonor to the circumstance. I feel the same way about The Passion. To make what Christ went through anything but brutally accurate would have been wrong. Yes, I realize Gibson took some lisence, but I don't think it was dramatic or out of character with the story.

The simple fact is that the last 12 hours of Christs life was chock full of violence! And the film was meant to put into action exactly what the Bible said. I think thats a good goal and was accomplished very well.

The last 12 hours of Christ's life was violent, sure. But I didn't think that the Bible went into enough detail about what happened for anyone to be sure that the amount of violence depicted in the film is accurate.

 

[M&O]

passion

The last 12 hours of Christ's life was violent, sure. But I didn't think that the Bible went into enough detail about what happened for anyone to be sure that the amount of violence depicted in the film is accurate.

No, but other historical sources have given detailed information about scourging and crucifixion to give us the idea. This movie made me think, for those who believe in the Bible, that the Bible's level of detail (kind of scant, as you said) makes it easy for one to gloss over the violence at the end of Christ's life. For example, I have heard for as long as I can remember that Jesus said, "Forgive them, Father," but watching the movie made it that much more incredible to me that Jesus could pray for their forgiveness.

 

[member 737]

The last 12 hours of Christ's life was violent, sure. But I didn't think that the Bible went into enough detail about what happened for anyone to be sure that the amount of violence depicted in the film is accurate.

In fact, the film is not an adaptation of the Bible, but a book which describes revelations of a German mystic Ann Catherine Emmerich. These are really cruel and detailed descriptions of tortures, which start in Getsemani, not, as it's said in the Bible, from whipping.

 

[member 737]

I also feel that certain scenes were inappropriately light hearted and designed to please a 'hollywood' audience.

Maybe it was a try to show Jesus in a more human way, or to let people rest from bloodiness and sufferings.

 

[Blade]

I saw this film a couple of weeks ago and I bawled my eyes out. Fantastic!

*just my opinion, though.I'm no film critic *