Jump to content

The Passion


Recommended Posts

I saw it.

It was an excellent movie, and I recommend it to all. Even those who aren't Christian, but you'd have a lot less interest in the subject (well presumably).

Yeah all I can say, it was really good.

And I didn't think it was anti-semetic at all. When other people see it, you can probably agree that the Jewish mob who is ultimately responsible for his death, but in actuality, that's what happened. Jesus may have been killed by people who were Jews, but he was a Jew too, and so were his best friends. So come on... people are always looking for something to complain about. Well once some guys see it, tell what you think on the matter.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

you can probably agree that the Jewish mob who is ultimately responsible for his death, but in actuality, that's what happened.

I've heard that Mel based this movie on the Bible very closely (I'm not gonna bring up any debate here (y) )

I've also heard that the Passion is an endless, bloody torture that shows almost none of the love that Jesus normally stand for. I haven't actually seen it though, so maybe comments from those who have? I have no interest in seeing this movie though, here's a decent review.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have no interest in seeing this movie though, here's a decent review.

Decent to AK_Thug AMish (y)

The Passion was an Excellent movie. Even if you stripped it of Christianity, Judism, and politics it was a great movie. The acting was amazing, cinimitography was beatuifully done, and the score was very good also. If the Hollywood doesn't blackball Gibson for making his art 'his art', then look for the movie at next years Oscars.

I've read scores of reviews of the film, the fact is everyone comes away with a different interpritation of what the movie means for them. My advice, don't trust anyone elses advice (not even mine) :D Go watch the movie for yourself and then decide if "The Passion" was a good movie or not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've also heard that the Passion is an endless, bloody torture that shows almost none of the love that Jesus normally stand for.

It actually does have many flashbacks to his teachings. But not surprisingly, the movie is not "the life of Jesus", it's the "passion of Jesus" so it deals with the bloody end of his life, not his peaceful teachings throughout. So one can't expect to go to see a movie about the teachings of Jesus when it's called "The Passion" and is about just that (y).

Oh a note on the score, it was not jawdropping, it had some good parts, but it wasn't a movie destined to be remembered by it's score.

Oh i heard also that when the composer was writing music for the score, he said that many times everything would freeze and his screen would turn to the clip of Satan. He said he got really mad eventually.

Kinda weird... just htought I'd say.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh i heard also that when the composer was writing music for the score, he said that many times everything would freeze and his screen would turn to the clip of Satan. He said he got really mad eventually.

Thats just something they spread around to promote the movie.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It won't be in the Oscars, maybe one or two but not a major contender for two reasons:

Too early, as early as you can get (Sebicuit did it, but that was only 7 months), this is a whole year.

Independant film making concept is not liked in the Oscars, they want big... though they are softing up.

Too contraversial, it might work in its favor (then I expect a lot of Nods) or against it - my bet - and that would mean it gets very few oscars if any.

Of course, it all depends on competition!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

(y)

I've heard that Mel based this movie on the Bible very closely (I'm not gonna bring up any debate here  )

Well, to be precise, apparently it is based on one Gospel, which is said to be the harshest ... but I will search over the week-end and tell you tomorrow or so....

Its a good movie, but a little too violent to be respectful, don't you think?

Well, to me I think it must have been a lot more violent than it was ... People at the time were not bothering about Human Rights! ;)

but apart from that, it was a good film :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I haven't seen the movie, but one comment I'd like to make (as a Christian) is that IMHO the gore is over done. The clip I saw had the part where Pilate says "Here is the man!" and Jesus is standing next to him beaten to a bloody mess. When I saw that the first thing that went through my head was "You only have 6 litres of blood in you!" When I heard that Mel Gibson was doing the movie I thought "Get ready for some blood and guts." Now obviously I've never seen a cruscifixion, but from what I've read and heard about I don't think it would be nearly as bloody as Mel made it.

That is not to detract from anything, and like I said I haven't seen the movie.

But that's my thought (y)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sometimes, and this is defending Mel, aspects in a movie are over exagerated to target the audience. Basically seeing someone die in a movie is a lot less tragic than seeing someone dying in real life, so movies often overexagerate the aspects of death (such as blood) in order to get the overall picture of death (or torture in this case) to resemble the real thing in real life.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Acutally, in my opinion, the amount of blood was not over done. Recall that 40 scourges is enough to kill a man, and if they were all given to his back, he would be destroyed basically. Also, the crown of thorns. As you probably all know, any cut you have on your head bleeds a whole lot more than a cut in most anywhere else on your body. Now imagine you were punctures all around your head... by thorns. I vaguely recall that it was revealed in a vision to some saint just how much blood Jesus lost in his passion. Of course, most people aren't Catholic here, so that's a statistic that is kind of "out there".

Most crucifictions were a whole lot less bloody than Jesus's. While he was beaten, scourged, cut all around his body, then carried his cross for who knows how long, tripping a bunch along the way, he was pretty much dead by the time they nailed his hands to the cross and put it up. However, usually you're hands were just tied, and I think just your feet were nailed, and you'd die of asphixiation (sp?) because, well, you cant breath when you're hanging from your arms and to "stand up" you'd have put all the weight on the nails going through your ankles and once you couldn't stand the pain, you'd suffocate. Note that cruified people could be on the cross for days, Jesus died in three hours.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This might be what your refering to Erik?

http://www.holytrinity.ok.goarch.org/Inter...%20Picture.html

That is a pretty good account behind the science, history, and physiology of a crusifixion.

From what I have read, Gibson's portrayal was mild in comparisons to the practices of the day. But, that isn't really the question, the question would be - is it appropriate for audiences now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know that in many cases they wrists and heels were nailed, either on a traditional T-cross or an X-cross. In one book I read it told of how archaeologists found the remains of a man who had been crucified. Instead of just breaking his legs, the Romans actually cut his feet off (y)

*agrees with ElfTheHunter*

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...