Marth Posted March 16, 2004 Share Posted March 16, 2004 My brothers friends he callls "The Drunks" went to see it for a laugh. Originally they were supposed to see starsky and hutch but they were sold out. My brothers said they looked like this when they came out it was that bloody and gorey, even for them: "The Drunks" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pie™ Posted March 16, 2004 Share Posted March 16, 2004 Originally posted by Astrotoy7 *Religion is mankind's creation first, foremost and only. YES!!! "Religion is opium for the people" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike Windu Posted March 17, 2004 Author Share Posted March 17, 2004 I guess that's why many of my friends are atheist/goth. I respect their beliefs... The thing I really want to know is whats after life... what if there is nothing? O.o Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Astrotoy7 Posted March 17, 2004 Share Posted March 17, 2004 Im still waiting for someone to post This movie sucks, it didnt have Danny Glover in it always saying "I'm too old for this s**t" "Religion is opium for the people" Hmm. Yes, Nietzsche called it "metaphysical consolation" mtfbwya Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike Windu Posted March 18, 2004 Author Share Posted March 18, 2004 Well, I feel sorry for the person who wants Danny Glover in a religious movie... He might as well made Jesus a one man demon killing machine if Danny's going to be in the movie. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dark jedi 8 Posted March 19, 2004 Share Posted March 19, 2004 i'm sorta catholic. (by birth) but i'm still questioning the whole life after death (heaven) thing. after 10+ years of catholic school i can say that the movie was pretty well translated from gospels to film. i saw it 2 weeks ago and am going with my high school to go see it again tomorrow. its not really a movie to see more than once, twice if you liked it. but i dont really wanna sit in school tomorrow. i thought it was good, sad, but a well rounded flick. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe© Posted March 19, 2004 Share Posted March 19, 2004 I'm a Catholic, go to church allmost every Sunday, think there is a god and say my Prayers at night and what not, But religion is a insurance policy sort of it gives one hope when you have a problem and the whole life after death thing, I think 100% that there is a heaven and hell so ya thats what i have to say (no I have not seen the passion though I have had the chance) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
-=DarkZero=- Posted March 19, 2004 Share Posted March 19, 2004 I saw the movie when it first came out, but didn't post anything about it >_>, The movie was greeat, and very moving, although somewhere along the line, I felt like Hitler. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ckcsaber Posted March 20, 2004 Share Posted March 20, 2004 Originally posted by Kain AWW!! Cold, ET, cold. So I'm anti-Religion, no biggy. I got invited by my VERY religious neighbor to go see this movie, but I of course refused the offer. Her 'Lord' was in her heart making her think of me (I've had a bit of the bads since about 2 summers ago), so I'm grateful for that, but I'll still ignore religion as a way of guiding my life. Hey Kain, I'm anti-religion as well. The way I look at it is that religion will send people to hell. Jesus will get you to heaven. Regarding the movie, I felt it was very well done, as most of it was truly right out of scripture, and the few tidbits that were added helped the audience get a better picture of the events, such as the scene involving the raven. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
toms Posted April 23, 2004 Share Posted April 23, 2004 sorry to dig up an old thread, but i finally got to see this movie last night. (taken me a month cos i went to tokyo for a holiday ) I have to say i was fairly underwhealmed. I thought it started pretty good (all the stuff in the garden). and i found it pretty interesting and moving for the first half, up until about when they decided to crucify jesus. But from then on it got rather dull. There wasn't a lot of character depth to a lot of the supporting cast. It would have been nice to see WHY it was that that main jewish priest was so anti jesus. The bad guys were portrayed pretty much as stereotypical cardboard cut out bad guys. The flashbacks were used interestingly and sparingly in the 1st half, but they got silly in the second. And the whole walk to the crucifiction just got silly. I'm not sure if i had got desensitised by that point, but the "drunken evil roman soldiers" whipping jesus and him falling over got old pretty quick. By the 3rd or 4th time he fell over in slow motion it was getting funny. By the 5th or 6th time it was just annoying. On the plus side, it looked nice, the language thing was great and (for the first half at least) it was quite moving, and i think a lot of people who call themselves christians could learn a lot from the fact jesus was willing to heal and forgive those who were hurting him. Since he couldn't really talk in the second half and just fell over a lot you didn't really learn anything after that point. Monica Belluci was wasted, by the 100th cut to her looking bedraggled, horrified and crying it was all a bit silly. Glad i watched it, but not really anywhere near as amazing as everyone was making out. 3/5* PS/ I caught the end of The Greatest Story Ever Told on tv last week, and (apart from the violence) there wasn't anything in the Passion that wasn't in that. It was just dragged out a lot longer in the passion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
obi Posted April 23, 2004 Share Posted April 23, 2004 The point of The Passion was not to be entertaining. It wasn't supposed to be like every other movie. Gibson wanted people to be moved by the movie because it had actually happened, not because they wanted somthing to watch while they ate their popcorn. For instance, if you were making a movie about Columbus and his trip to America, you wouldn't put in things that didn't happen. Such as Columbus being attacked by pirates or something. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IG-64 Posted April 23, 2004 Share Posted April 23, 2004 Originally posted by obi-wan13 The point of The Passion was not to be entertaining. It wasn't supposed to be like every other movie. Gibson wanted people to be moved by the movie because it had actually happened, not because they wanted somthing to watch while they ate their popcorn. For instance, if you were making a movie about Columbus and his trip to America, you wouldn't put in things that didn't happen. Such as Columbus being attacked by pirates or something. Or falling over the edge of the earth. G Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Master_Ginn Posted April 23, 2004 Share Posted April 23, 2004 You know i havn't seen it yet. but i really want to see it. I think there is this guy here who thinks that i'm not a good Christian because i havn't seen it yet. Everytime we discuss the movie he gives me this look when i tell him i havn't seen it yet. But i will deffinately see it eventually. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Master_Ginn Posted April 23, 2004 Share Posted April 23, 2004 I think there is this guy here who thinks that i'm not a good Christian because i havn't seen it yet. Let me specify, this guy that goes to me college Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tyrion Posted April 26, 2004 Share Posted April 26, 2004 Originally posted by obi-wan13 The point of The Passion was not to be entertaining. It wasn't supposed to be like every other movie. Gibson wanted people to be moved by the movie because it had actually happened, not because they wanted somthing to watch while they ate their popcorn. No, the point of The Passion was to make grown men cry, and to put little children into shock. (Yeah, I just saw it. And well..I'm emotionally scarred..I want a lollypop) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rccar328 Posted April 27, 2004 Share Posted April 27, 2004 The point of The Passion was not to be entertaining. It wasn't supposed to be like every other movie. Gibson wanted people to be moved by the movie because it had actually happened, not because they wanted somthing to watch while they ate their popcorn. No, the point of The Passion was to make grown men cry, and to put little children into shock. The goal of The Passion was to realistically depict the Crucifiction of Christ according to Biblical accounts. It was meant to be moving, but Mel Gibson said himself that parents shouldn't take young children to the movie. It obviously wasn't made for children - it was made to help people to better understand the sacrifice that Christ undertook. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MennoniteHobbit Posted April 27, 2004 Share Posted April 27, 2004 I would love to see this movie, but my parents won't let me because it's a very violent movie. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sam Fisher Posted April 27, 2004 Share Posted April 27, 2004 Well, its not exactly violent (as in gore, massive amounts of blood, etc..) its just, well, a very graphical depiction of a scourging. It was very intense, and very moving movie to watch. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
toms Posted April 28, 2004 Share Posted April 28, 2004 Originally posted by obi-wan13 The point of The Passion was not to be entertaining. It wasn't supposed to be like every other movie. Gibson wanted people to be moved by the movie because it had actually happened, not because they wanted somthing to watch while they ate their popcorn. Yes it was. The point might not have been to be FUN, but entertaining doesn't mean it has to be fun or cheerful. Some of my favorite movies are quite harrowing. However, they aren't dull or uninteresting or repetetive, as the Passion became once jesus had been sentanced to death. Shot of jesus being whipped > shot of jesus falling in cheesy slow motion into dust > shot of marys looking distressed > repeat times 20. The first part of the film seemed to have a purpose, the second didn't. Showing nothing of the motivations and feelings of the "bad" characters just made it seem unrealistic and turned them into cardboard cut-out baddies from a cheap made-for-tv movie. ----- Actually happened? Its a book. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ET Warrior Posted April 28, 2004 Share Posted April 28, 2004 Originally posted by obi-wan13 For instance, if you were making a movie about Columbus and his trip to America, you wouldn't put in things that didn't happen. Such as Columbus being attacked by pirates or something. I would totally have Columbus get attacked by Pirates! "Arrrr, ye scallywag" And then there'd be a big sword fight, and columbus would turn out to be a ninja. I'd make millions Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kurgan Posted April 29, 2004 Share Posted April 29, 2004 I saw it on Ash Wednesday, quite powerful film (I had a major headache by the end it was so intense). While there were several occasions where I cringed a bit at the historical inaccuracies (though again, most of them were hollywood Jesus movie cliches, like Mary Magdalene being "the woman caught in adultery" and such). But overall, a very good effort by Gibson. I liked the way the film tried to humanize all of principle characters (Pilate, Caiaphas, Jesus, Peter, John, Judas, Mary, Mary Magdalene, etc). Though I would have liked to see a "life of Jesus" I get the point that Gibson was trying to make, that this is "the most intense part" (Christ's sacraficial death for the sins of mankind and his resurrection). The film really is a modern day "Passion Play" in film form. Keep in mind of course, anyone unfamiliar with the Gospel accounts, he took a LOT of liberties with the story, including incidents from visionary nuns centuries later who had their own traditions (I imagine stuff like the demons chasing Judas, certain elements of the beatings, Veronica wiping Jesus's face, etc.). I'm not sure if Mel Gibson actually believes the claims of those two nuns (Anne Catherine Emerich and the other whose name I forget) that they had visions of "actually being there" (which would make their accounts MORE TRUE than even the Biblical stories), I'm more akin to think he put those extra scenes in to fill in the gaps and make the story "different" since obviously there have been a lot of movies about Jesus made, and this makes his effort stand out more. The point is that Jesus went through a lot, yet he forgave his tormenters, and (as Gibson said many times in defense of his film) ALL of humanity was responsible for the death of Jesus. Humankind is capable of such brutality and hate, but also of love and forgiveness. Thus Jesus exemplifies the best that humankind can accomplish with God's help. In the end it was for our sake that he died. You'll note how after Jesus dies even the ones who killed him become confused, afraid, start doubting what they just did, as if they are questioning if it was the right thing to do after all. Stopping to think "What have I done?" It's supposed to make you (the audience) ask yourselves also, "what have I done?" Anyway, the critics hated the film (by and large) but Ebert & Roeper were a major exception. I agree with Ebert that the violence in it is too intense for kids (yet many of us have witnessed parents bringing their little tykes to see it). It's closer to NC-17 really than R, but that's the state of the ratings boards today (politics) I guess. Sex = bad. Violence = good. I am a bit surprised that the film has made so much money though. After all, other Jesus films have been made that didn't get nearly as much revenue at the box office (or skipped the box office and went straight to video). PS: I'm Roman Catholic, though not a member of Mel Gibson's reactionary (as I consider it) sect. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ronbrothers Posted May 3, 2004 Share Posted May 3, 2004 I was very moved by the film. I really don't understand the criticism of the use of gore, unless people simply don't understand Gibson's reason for showing it. Looking back over my lifetime, I recall that every depiction of the crucifixion (no matter how lovingly done) shows an almost sterile elegant death with only a clean trickle of blood. It is shocking to see the ordeal as it was with no candy-coating. Over a lifetime of these sterile images, it is easy to become numb to the idea of the sacrifice and I believe it was a healthy wake up call that it was an excruciating, agonizing ordeal that was lovingly and willingly endured. I recommend that you do not wait to see it on DVD. You will miss the experience of going into the theater as a movie audience and leaving as one body. It is something that has to be experienced to understand. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike Windu Posted May 4, 2004 Author Share Posted May 4, 2004 I concur. See it in the movies. It's a great experience with no interruptions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.