Has anyone else seen The Passion of the Christ?

optimusprime

optimusprime

CAGiversary!
I saw it Wednesday night, and I have to say I thought it was a great movie. I could definitely see non-catholics getting significantly less out of it, though. My opinions on a couple of its controversial points:

Violence - While it was extremely violent (almost from beginning to end), it was by far not the most violent movie I've seen. Also, for those who are familiar with the subject matter, the violence/suffering was necessary to get the point across......that's really what it was all about....defiinitely not for kids, though (as with all R rated movies).

Anti-Semitism - This one is touchy, so I won't say too much, other than that I can see Jews not being receptive to how some of the characters were portrayed (some of the high priests were shown as power hungry and exceedingly cruel, and the mob was blood-thirsty and unrelenting). In all fairness, the Roman soldiers were made to look like savages too, however, although Pontious kind of got a free pass.


Anyone else have an opinion?
 
I wanted to see it Wednesday, but have not had the chance yet. Have you ever seen IRREVERSIBLE or Romper Stomper? was it as violent as that?
 
I went and saw the movie yesterday with my Dad and my wife.
In my opinion - The movie accomplished its stated goals. It was about the suffering of Christ, and it covered that. There is nothing that any Protestant or Catholic could say is wrong with the movie. There is a lot of church history included - (Mary is only mentioned at the foot of the cross in the gospels - But there is nothing wrong with her being with Christ through the Walk to the Cross.)

It is extremely heavy. Most movies you can step away from and say this does not affect me - this was a fictional story or this happened "to" or "for" someone else.) But for Protestants - they can't do that with this movie. Christ suffered and died for our sins. So that we can be with Christ in heaven. So it is very personal to us.

As I have let the movie sit in for about 24 hours, a couple of things come to a head:
1. I will never be able to read about the cross dispassionately again. It is real.
2. Singing about the cross is hard. There is a soberness that may never leave me about this.
3. This movie is brutal. (Realistic, but very very brutal.)

Just my 2 cents. Hope that everyone has a good time,
Take Care,
Matthew
 
In regards to Theeternal's post:

I don't know what either of those are. I'd put it on par with Braveheart or Saving Private Ryan.
 
I haven't seen this movie, nor am I one that you would call very "religious", but I find that this movie is more of an extremely capitalistic venture, rather than a religious experience. I find that the release of this to coincide with what I would guess would be considers a "high holiday" added to the hype of a movie targeted towards a specific group, which added to the grossing of this picture. Also, there are people in the target audience who haven't been to a theatrical movie in many years.

This just makes me loose any respect that I might have had for Icon, New Market, Mel Gibson, or anyone else involved with the film.
 
I just think it's odd that they would release this with intent of making money. If it's intended to be a religious experience moreso than an entertainment experience why charge the money? Also I'm assuming they still showed previews before the movie. Don't be fooled into thinking that this movie transcends other movies, it still is in theaters, they're still charging the same price as a normal ticket and they are still making money hand over fist. I'm not saying the people who made the movie aren't passionate about the subject, I'm just thinking if this movie is "more than a movie", why is it still being distributed and marketed as a movie. Also as a raised Catholic I know the story and know the suffering that occurred, I don't need Mel Gibson to explain that to me.
 
I'm gonna go check this movie out later today. It seems that it would be pretty interesting to see from what I have heard about it.
 
[quote name='BigDirty']I haven't seen this movie, nor am I one that you would call very "religious", but I find that this movie is more of an extremely capitalistic venture, rather than a religious experience. I find that the release of this to coincide with what I would guess would be considers a "high holiday" added to the hype of a movie targeted towards a specific group, which added to the grossing of this picture. Also, there are people in the target audience who haven't been to a theatrical movie in many years.

This just makes me loose any respect that I might have had for Icon, New Market, Mel Gibson, or anyone else involved with the film.[/quote]

I don't understand. From what I read, Gibson funded the project with $30 million of his own money after being turned down by several larger production houses. He'll make this back easily, as the film turned out to be great, but there was no guarantee of this when he started (it was a big risk). If he just wanted money, he probably could have gotten paid $20 million to just film a new Lethal Weapon, and risked nothing. My point is, it seems like an awlfully difficult and potentially risky way for a guy like Gibson to make money if thats all he wanted.

Also, it seems as if you're saying the film is exploitive just because its relegious. There have been a ton of relegious movies over the years (too many to count, really). Do you feel the same way about all of them? It also makes no sense to criticize the timing....Christmas movies all come out at Christmas time, scary movies come out at Halloween.....thats how the industry works. You're entitled to your opinion, but I don't understand it.


p.s. I'm not trying to get all up in your kitchen or anything, Dirty....I'm just in a debating kind of mood today. No offense intended on any of this. :D
 
[quote name='zzl365']I just think it's odd that they would release this with intent of making money. If it's intended to be a religious experience moreso than an entertainment experience why charge the money? Also I'm assuming they still showed previews before the movie. Don't be fooled into thinking that this movie transcends other movies, it still is in theaters, they're still charging the same price as a normal ticket and they are still making money hand over fist. I'm not saying the people who made the movie aren't passionate about the subject, I'm just thinking if this movie is "more than a movie", why is it still being distributed and marketed as a movie. Also as a raised Catholic I know the story and know the suffering that occurred, I don't need Mel Gibson to explain that to me.[/quote]

There were no previews or any other kind of promotions.
 
[quote name='optimusprime'][quote name='zzl365']I just think it's odd that they would release this with intent of making money. If it's intended to be a religious experience moreso than an entertainment experience why charge the money? Also I'm assuming they still showed previews before the movie. Don't be fooled into thinking that this movie transcends other movies, it still is in theaters, they're still charging the same price as a normal ticket and they are still making money hand over fist. I'm not saying the people who made the movie aren't passionate about the subject, I'm just thinking if this movie is "more than a movie", why is it still being distributed and marketed as a movie. Also as a raised Catholic I know the story and know the suffering that occurred, I don't need Mel Gibson to explain that to me.[/quote]

There were no previews or any other kind of promotions.[/quote]

Well, thats good, I was hoping that they wouldn't show any previews, I just didn't trust the movie theaters to not try and capitalize on the big audiences they were getting.
 
[quote name='zzl365']I just think it's odd that they would release this with intent of making money. If it's intended to be a religious experience moreso than an entertainment experience why charge the money? Also I'm assuming they still showed previews before the movie. Don't be fooled into thinking that this movie transcends other movies, it still is in theaters, they're still charging the same price as a normal ticket and they are still making money hand over fist. I'm not saying the people who made the movie aren't passionate about the subject, I'm just thinking if this movie is "more than a movie", why is it still being distributed and marketed as a movie. Also as a raised Catholic I know the story and know the suffering that occurred, I don't need Mel Gibson to explain that to me.[/quote]

Because it actually took money to make it and distribute it. I saw this movie and I would say I would have paid more if need be to see it. Not only is this the greatest teaching tool besides the Bible I can think of, it is also realistic. I have been to Israel and have walked the via de la Rosa (the path Jesus walked to the cross), I have seen most of the tools they would have used and the games the soldiers would have played. When I was viewing this movie I cried it was hard to watch this and know that it actually happened. This movie is extremely realistic to what I have been tought and have wanted to learn my entire life.
 
Well it is hard to judge a movie like this, because it was produced well (beautiful), but is otherwise historically and biblically crap.

Mel Gibson says it is pure gospel -- bullshit. And he should be ashamed for putting a Hollywood spin to the whole thing.

1) What the hell is Herod doing in Judah? Herod has no authority in Judah. No mention of this in the Bible. You wouldn't invite Osama to judge one of the 9-11 terrorist in America would you?

2) Jesus speaking Latin? Scholars all around the world would agree this is not plausible. Hebrew most definitely, Aramaic strong probably, enough Greek to buy something at market yeah. But Latin is out of the question. Latin is definitely a "Traditionalist Catholic" point of view -- remember mass use to be all in Latin. If you want to say he is god and knows everything, including Latin go for it.

3) Pontius being the kindly guy. Nope not buying it. Even Roman record states that he was let go because he was too cruel. Too cruel for ROMANS. The man loved killing Jews and there were plently of people claiming to be Messiahs around then, so why the special attention?

4) Exaggeration of the pain of Jesus. Doesn't one of the gospels say he recieved around 32 whips. In the movie it is 71 or 72 -- I counted. Oh but wait you could argue that some of those where with cats tails and others with sticks so it doesn't count. Bull, Mel Gibson exaggerated everywhere, and it is very plain when you see the other two people on crosses looking like almost nothing happened to them in comparision. BTW, there were plenty of other more painful ways to die. Including on a cross upside down or hanging from a wooden pike shoved from your anus through your back. Infact dying on a cross commonly took serveral days, not hours, so he got off lucky.

I could go on and on, but I thought the point of the whole gospels was that he lived after he died. Anyone can die, and many did as Jesus died. However, I don't know anybody that came back. And if you are a believer wouldn't it be more positive to focus on that instead of this guilt trip of a movie.

I'm sure the movie will make him a chunk of cash, at the expense of ignorant believers who are too lazy to read about the man they so admire. But that really doesn't matter because what everyone wants, is to believe they are better than others for feeling bad about Jesus.

P.S. -- About it being anti-semetic, it was antisemtic. Placing all the blame on Judah, which means "the jew", and none on the Roman Empire. Or how about leaving in the line about the blood being on the Jews for there generations. It isn't in the subtitles, but if you speak Hebrew and Arabic, it is easy to make out.
 
[quote name='optimusprime']
I don't understand. From what I read, Gibson funded the project with $30 million of his own money after being turned down by several larger production houses. He'll make this back easily, as the film turned out to be great, but there was no guarantee of this when he started (it was a big risk). If he just wanted money, he probably could have gotten paid $20 million to just film a new Lethal Weapon, and risked nothing. My point is, it seems like an awlfully difficult and potentially risky way for a guy like Gibson to make money if thats all he wanted.

Also, it seems as if you're saying the film is exploitive just because its relegious. There have been a ton of relegious movies over the years (too many to count, really). Do you feel the same way about all of them? It also makes no sense to criticize the timing....Christmas movies all come out at Christmas time, scary movies come out at Halloween.....thats how the industry works. You're entitled to your opinion, but I don't understand it.[/quote]

As far as other religious movies coming out, I pretty much see them all the same way, that they are exploiting the christian/catholic audience. Look at how long ABC has played the 10 Commandments around Easter/Passover; they've done it for as long as I can remember, which is about 20 or so years, and they continue. During the airing, they fill it with commercials for everything under the sun (with the exception of tobacco), and it's not because it's the "good/right thing to do", it's because they can make a fistfull of dollars doing so.

As far as timing is concerned, this was a more than a little excessive, to go right out on Ash Wednesday, which I guess would be considered a "High Holiday", just screams profiteering. They have a couple weeks before easter, where it could have been released, and while it really would have been better suited for release on good friday, they would have lost out on about 6 weeks of revenue.

Gibson could swing the money, and the reward part of the risk/reward equation was much in his favor. ~$20million may seem like a lot to Average Joe, those who are big in Hollywood can swing it, especially if the return is expected to be double or triple that.

As far as other holiday movies and releases are concerned, the overwhelming majority are purely entertainment films that are geared to coincide with the holidays they surround, but more importantly, don't prey on specific people to see them, like no one would expect Mrs. Biblethumper from Alabama to go see Bad Santa.
 
[quote name='BigDirty'][quote name='optimusprime']
I don't understand. From what I read, Gibson funded the project with $30 million of his own money after being turned down by several larger production houses. He'll make this back easily, as the film turned out to be great, but there was no guarantee of this when he started (it was a big risk). If he just wanted money, he probably could have gotten paid $20 million to just film a new Lethal Weapon, and risked nothing. My point is, it seems like an awlfully difficult and potentially risky way for a guy like Gibson to make money if thats all he wanted.

Also, it seems as if you're saying the film is exploitive just because its relegious. There have been a ton of relegious movies over the years (too many to count, really). Do you feel the same way about all of them? It also makes no sense to criticize the timing....Christmas movies all come out at Christmas time, scary movies come out at Halloween.....thats how the industry works. You're entitled to your opinion, but I don't understand it.[/quote]

As far as other religious movies coming out, I pretty much see them all the same way, that they are exploiting the christian/catholic audience. Look at how long ABC has played the 10 Commandments around Easter/Passover; they've done it for as long as I can remember, which is about 20 or so years, and they continue. During the airing, they fill it with commercials for everything under the sun (with the exception of tobacco), and it's not because it's the "good/right thing to do", it's because they can make a fistfull of dollars doing so.

As far as timing is concerned, this was a more than a little excessive, to go right out on Ash Wednesday, which I guess would be considered a "High Holiday", just screams profiteering. They have a couple weeks before easter, where it could have been released, and while it really would have been better suited for release on good friday, they would have lost out on about 6 weeks of revenue.

Gibson could swing the money, and the reward part of the risk/reward equation was much in his favor. ~$20million may seem like a lot to Average Joe, those who are big in Hollywood can swing it, especially if the return is expected to be double or triple that.

As far as other holiday movies and releases are concerned, the overwhelming majority are purely entertainment films that are geared to coincide with the holidays they surround, but more importantly, don't prey on specific people to see them, like no one would expect Mrs. Biblethumper from Alabama to go see Bad Santa.[/quote]

I'll take this paragraph by paragraph:

1. I don't follow you here at all. So no movie/tv show/publication relating to relegion is entitled to make any profit? If that were the case, no entertainment projects involving relegion would ever be undertaken. I personally feel the ones doing the exploiting are the companies who use sex, drugs, profanity to reel in their (primarily young) audiences. I applaud companies that undertake projects with decent/wholesome subject matter (relegious and otherwise)....again...you're saying its exploitive just because its relegious.

2. Its not as if Christians are more vulnerable to marketing on Ash Wednesday. How would they lose revenues by opening it later. Do Christians only go to see movies during lent? As I see it, they would make the same amount of money regardless of when it opened.

3. How could he have possibly "expected" what his profits would be before he even began filming. In hind-sight, it looks like a good move, but it could have just as easily failed, as many other movies do (then, he would have lost money). Nobody is saying that he didn't try his best to make a good movie, and that it wasn't partly a business decision, but again, there are easier and less risky ways for Gibson to make money. Also, you're not factoring in what he stands to lose in the future now that he's basically black-balled in Hollywood.

4. Again.....its exploitive just because its relegious? How is he preying on Christians? They aren't compelled to see his movie, after all. Its not like he's eliminating the aspect of free will, or saying "God wants you to see my movie". If anything, the huge demand for this movie illustrates that there haven't been enough pictures geared to this audience.
 
4) Exaggeration of the pain of Jesus. Doesn't one of the gospels say he recieved around 32 whips. In the movie it is 71 or 72 -- I counted. Oh but wait you could argue that some of those where with cats tails and others with sticks so it doesn't count. Bull, Mel Gibson exaggerated everywhere, and it is very plain when you see the other two people on crosses looking like almost nothing happened to them in comparision. BTW, there were plenty of other more painful ways to die. Including on a cross upside down or hanging from a wooden pike shoved from your anus through your back. Infact dying on a cross commonly took serveral days, not hours, so he got off lucky.
Click to expand...

Wow....its pretty bold to make light of something like Jesus' suffering. He got off lucky? You make your statement like the whole thing is no big deal. Considering that its basis for a lot of peoples' faith, your statement might be considered offensive by some. Gibson is fair play, but leave the relegion alone. I'm not a zealot or anything, but sheesh.
 
Even though the movie would be slightly interesting to see, it also happens to be very false(when it comes to the Jews), and violent. As far as the case of anti-semitism(i am jewish), the story tries to stay true to the gospels which were written 200 years after christ's death by anti-simetic writers who didnt witness it at all. Also when the gospels were written, they went hard on the jews b/c the romans would've killed them if they were blamed. So like all other events in history, they altered the story and blamed the jews. What a F*cking surprise
 
[quote name='eros']Well it is hard to judge a movie like this, because it was produced well (beautiful), but is otherwise historically and biblically crap.

Mel Gibson says it is pure gospel -- bullshit. And he should be ashamed for putting a Hollywood spin to the whole thing.

1) What the hell is Herod doing in Judah? Herod has no authority in Judah. No mention of this in the Bible. You wouldn't invite Osama to judge one of the 9-11 terrorist in America would you?

2) Jesus speaking Latin? Scholars all around the world would agree this is not plausible. Hebrew most definitely, Aramaic strong probably, enough Greek to buy something at market yeah. But Latin is out of the question. Latin is definitely a "Traditionalist Catholic" point of view -- remember mass use to be all in Latin. If you want to say he is god and knows everything, including Latin go for it.

3) Pontius being the kindly guy. Nope not buying it. Even Roman record states that he was let go because he was too cruel. Too cruel for ROMANS. The man loved killing Jews and there were plently of people claiming to be Messiahs around then, so why the special attention?

4) Exaggeration of the pain of Jesus. Doesn't one of the gospels say he recieved around 32 whips. In the movie it is 71 or 72 -- I counted. Oh but wait you could argue that some of those where with cats tails and others with sticks so it doesn't count. Bull, Mel Gibson exaggerated everywhere, and it is very plain when you see the other two people on crosses looking like almost nothing happened to them in comparision. BTW, there were plenty of other more painful ways to die. Including on a cross upside down or hanging from a wooden pike shoved from your anus through your back. Infact dying on a cross commonly took serveral days, not hours, so he got off lucky.

I could go on and on, but I thought the point of the whole gospels was that he lived after he died. Anyone can die, and many did as Jesus died. However, I don't know anybody that came back. And if you are a believer wouldn't it be more positive to focus on that instead of this guilt trip of a movie.

I'm sure the movie will make him a chunk of cash, at the expense of ignorant believers who are too lazy to read about the man they so admire. But that really doesn't matter because what everyone wants, is to believe they are better than others for feeling bad about Jesus.

P.S. -- About it being anti-semetic, it was antisemtic. Placing all the blame on Judah, which means "the jew", and none on the Roman Empire. Or how about leaving in the line about the blood being on the Jews for there generations. It isn't in the subtitles, but if you speak Hebrew and Arabic, it is easy to make out.[/quote]

oh man...it's almost like Lord of the Rings again "Jesus was not 6'2! it completely took me out of the picture!"
 
[quote name='optimusprime']
I'll take this paragraph by paragraph:

1. I don't follow you here at all. So no movie/tv show/publication relating to relegion is entitled to make any profit? If that were the case, no entertainment projects involving relegion would ever be undertaken. I personally feel the ones doing the exploiting are the companies who use sex, drugs, profanity to reel in their (primarily young) audiences. I applaud companies that undertake projects with decent/wholesome subject matter (relegious and otherwise)....again...you're saying its exploitive just because its relegious.[/quote]

The companies are exploiting a market that they don't tap often. It's not wrong to make a profit from religious things, like the Veggietales, or Willie Aame's Bibleman, but when a company goes after the religious dollar, that would classify as exploititve. To put it in gaming terminology, it would be like if Take Two/Rockstar just happened to go into the religious game market.

2. Its not as if Christians are more vulnerable to marketing on Ash Wednesday. How would they lose revenues by opening it later. Do Christians only go to see movies during lent? As I see it, they would make the same amount of money regardless of when it opened.
Click to expand...

The movie is capitalizing on the entire lent season. While the events of the film take place on what would be good friday, the movie was released on ash wednesday. While it would make more sense to release it closer to good friday, opening on ash wednesday gave not only the bang of premiering at the start of the holy season, but also gives the greatest number of weekends in theatres before easter (which after easter, I personally expect the film to fizzle out)

3. How could he have possibly "expected" what his profits would be before he even began filming. In hind-sight, it looks like a good move, but it could have just as easily failed, as many other movies do (then, he would have lost money). Nobody is saying that he didn't try his best to make a good movie, and that it wasn't partly a business decision, but again, there are easier and less risky ways for Gibson to make money. Also, you're not factoring in what he stands to lose in the future now that he's basically black-balled in Hollywood.
Click to expand...

Not only is there the box office to think about profit-wise, but more importantly the risiduals that will come in this time every year for the next however long until the next "Great Christian Movie" comes down the pike. There really isn't that much arguing that there were at least SOME business decisions that factored into the making of this picture, how much only a few people may ever know.

Also if Gibson was to be "black-balled" in Hollywood, there really wouldn't be a huge circuit going on to promote this on high profile shows like when he was on Leno the other night.

4. Again.....its exploitive just because its relegious? How is he preying on Christians? They aren't compelled to see his movie, after all. Its not like he's eliminating the aspect of free will, or saying "God wants you to see my movie". If anything, the huge demand for this movie illustrates that there haven't been enough pictures geared to this audience.
Click to expand...

The movie was pumped through the catholic church, shown to priests, bishops, etc pre-release. There's more than one reason parishes are called flocks; if Religious Figure X says "You should see this film", there's going to be a lot of catholics seeing it because of the statement, a lot more than if they all saw a commercial for it, or had Mel Gibson say "see my movie".

And yes, you're right, it is exploitive because it's religious, just like other movies try to get people in the theatre because of race, political ideals, history, and the like.

And I'll finish by posing this question:

Do you think Pearl Harbor would have done as well at the box office as it did if it wasn't released 12/7/01 (60th anniversary of the bombing of the base)?
 
BigDirty, I agree with most of your post...only problem Pearl Harbor was released May 25, 2001, not 12/7/2001 (maybe thats when it was released on dvd, I dunno)
 
im an atheist and im planning on seeing the movie. it looks very well done and has gotten (mostly) good reviews. it will probably be an interesting experience.
 
Come on, Dirty,

Now you're comparing it to Rockstar's games (like Manhunt)? That's ridiculous....especially considering that you haven't even seen it. I couldn't read any further than that. I give up....
 
[quote name='optimusprime']Come on, Dirty,

Now you're comparing it to Rockstar's games (like Manhunt)? That's ridiculous....especially considering that you haven't even seen it. I couldn't read any further than that. I give up....[/quote]

I don't think that's his point, I think his point is there are companies and people that make solely religious work, and then there are companies that release a religious movie once in a blue moon to exploit the market. I'm not saying that's absolutely what's happening here, but I think that was the intent of the post.
 
And I'll finish by posing this question:

Do you think Pearl Harbor would have done as well at the box office as it did if it wasn't released 12/7/01 (60th anniversary of the bombing of the base)?
Click to expand...

They actually didnt relase it in December....and it still did quite well.

The movie is capitalizing on the entire lent season. While the events of the film take place on what would be good friday, the movie was released on ash wednesday. While it would make more sense to release it closer to good friday, opening on ash wednesday gave not only the bang of premiering at the start of the holy season, but also gives the greatest number of weekends in theatres before easter (which after easter, I personally expect the film to fizzle out)
Click to expand...

I don't want to weigh in on such a contorversial topic like the one this film seems to spark. Besides, I haven't seen the film so it would unfair to say anything about the content. However, I feel I should say that of course they released it during lent and early on during lent. Yes, after Easter it will probably have died out in theatres, but it will have been out for nearly 4 weeks and like you said it's the end of the holy season. But this has always been how movies are marketed. You wouldn't release a film like Elf or Miracle on 34th Street on Christmas Eve. They release them usually before Thanksgiving to capitalize on the holiday season so I don't really see a difference.
 
[quote name='zzl365']BigDirty, I agree with most of your post...only problem Pearl Harbor was released May 25, 2001, not 12/7/2001 (maybe thats when it was released on dvd, I dunno)[/quote]

That's right.... I messed up on the date, it was the DVD that was out on exactly the 7th... again, my mistake, but I knew the date positioning drummed up sales. (not to mention, that I try to put bad movies like that well out of my mind, which is better suited for useless trivia).

[quote name='prime']
Come on, Dirty,

Now you're comparing it to Rockstar's games (like Manhunt)? That's ridiculous....especially considering that you haven't even seen it. I couldn't read any further than that. I give up....
[/quote]
[quote name='zzl365']
I don't think that's his point, I think his point is there are companies and people that make solely religious work, and then there are companies that release a religious movie once in a blue moon to exploit the market. I'm not saying that's absolutely what's happening here, but I think that was the intent of the post.
[/quote]

That's exactly right ZZL. In no way am I comparing the passion to manhunt, but the way the companies do business, and the products that they provide. To draw back to the ABC/10 Commmandments well (since I believe most people are familiar it since it's been going on ad nauseum), ABC isn't the "model christian network", especially when they run shows in the vein of NYPD Blue (which was boycotted by affiliates in the bible belt because of style of content) along with Ellen (GASP! Homosexuality on TV!). ABC is using the 10 Commandments to make a "buck".

Now if for some unknown reason, there became a demand for a christian game came along, it would be extremely exploitive of Rockstar to make the game, given their track record. Hopefully you can see where I'm coming from....
 
Oh the last temptation of Defender! I shall not speak on this thread. Must RESIST the urge!

I will make one comment. I am Roman Catholic and this is more than likely the best thing to happen to Christianity for Americans (and maybe the world) in a long time.

Non-Christians don't need to approve or understand. There isnt any sense in arguing points of faith, devotion, and religious sacrifice.
 
[quote name='BigDirty'][quote name='zzl365']BigDirty, I agree with most of your post...only problem Pearl Harbor was released May 25, 2001, not 12/7/2001 (maybe thats when it was released on dvd, I dunno)[/quote]

That's right.... I messed up on the date, it was the DVD that was out on exactly the 7th... again, my mistake, but I knew the date positioning drummed up sales. (not to mention, that I try to put bad movies like that well out of my mind, which is better suited for useless trivia).

[quote name='prime']
Come on, Dirty,

Now you're comparing it to Rockstar's games (like Manhunt)? That's ridiculous....especially considering that you haven't even seen it. I couldn't read any further than that. I give up....
[/quote]
[quote name='zzl365']
I don't think that's his point, I think his point is there are companies and people that make solely religious work, and then there are companies that release a religious movie once in a blue moon to exploit the market. I'm not saying that's absolutely what's happening here, but I think that was the intent of the post.
[/quote]

That's exactly right ZZL. In no way am I comparing the passion to manhunt, but the way the companies do business, and the products that they provide. To draw back to the ABC/10 Commmandments well (since I believe most people are familiar it since it's been going on ad nauseum), ABC isn't the "model christian network", especially when they run shows in the vein of NYPD Blue (which was boycotted by affiliates in the bible belt because of style of content) along with Ellen (GASP! Homosexuality on TV!). ABC is using the 10 Commandments to make a "buck".

Now if for some unknown reason, there became a demand for a christian game came along, it would be extremely exploitive of Rockstar to make the game, given their track record. Hopefully you can see where I'm coming from....[/quote]

As far as ABC airing the Ten Commandments to make a buck, I completely disagree. Don't kill me for this, but I actually work at an ABC affiliate, so I know a few things about this. The ratings for the Ten Commandments are actually lower than regular prime time programming. Since ad rates are based off of ratings, ABC might actually be making less money. I'm not trying to say that they are just doing this out of the goodness of their heart, but it has become a tradition for them. That is their reason for airing it.

Anyway, it just seems like you are being quick to jump to conclusions with some of this. I honestly believe that Mel Gibson just really thought it was an interesting story to tell and wanted to tell it. Why else would he keep pushing to get it made and after every major studio rejected just put up his own money to make it himself. I'm sure he wanted to make money on the project, but I think it was a secondary reason for doing it. To be honest, I think this is a glass half full, half empty kind of argument. None of us know his real reasons.
 
[quote name='optimusprime']
4) Exaggeration of the pain of Jesus. Doesn't one of the gospels say he recieved around 32 whips. In the movie it is 71 or 72 -- I counted. Oh but wait you could argue that some of those where with cats tails and others with sticks so it doesn't count. Bull, Mel Gibson exaggerated everywhere, and it is very plain when you see the other two people on crosses looking like almost nothing happened to them in comparision. BTW, there were plenty of other more painful ways to die. Including on a cross upside down or hanging from a wooden pike shoved from your anus through your back. Infact dying on a cross commonly took serveral days, not hours, so he got off lucky.
Click to expand...

Wow....its pretty bold to make light of something like Jesus' suffering. He got off lucky? You make your statement like the whole thing is no big deal. Considering that its basis for a lot of peoples' faith, your statement might be considered offensive by some. Gibson is fair play, but leave the relegion alone. I'm not a zealot or anything, but sheesh.[/quote]

It is not making light. The statement is simple fact if you believe that he died in a few hours -- the number of hours varies by gospel. Let's say that he spent 8 hours on the cross and that it takes on average 3 days to die on one. His suffering lasted 1/9 the average. If I were on a cross, I would have considered that lucky.

BTW, I haven't attacked the religion, just a trend in the people who practice. Which is to turn off their critical thinking when it comes to something they hold dear just because it agrees with their preset positions. The religion itself is beautiful and in general I see nothing wrong with its teachings.
 
[quote name='Southberm']Even though the movie would be slightly interesting to see, it also happens to be very false(when it comes to the Jews), and violent. As far as the case of anti-semitism(i am jewish), the story tries to stay true to the gospels which were written 200 years after christ's death by anti-simetic writers who didnt witness it at all. Also when the gospels were written, they went hard on the jews b/c the romans would've killed them if they were blamed. So like all other events in history, they altered the story and blamed the jews. What a F*cking surprise[/quote]

Actually the first was written 70 years after the crucifixion.

Also unlike every other message board I have seen this topic on, I want to thank the people who have used good judgement and been respectful enough to not use this as a thread to bash religion and other beliefs. I personally appreciate it and I think it says a lot, especially since a good amount of our members here are in their teenage years.
 
I saw this movie opening night and all I can say in this movie was intense. From start to end, it was intense. The directing, the acting, the movie, was simple perfect. I couldn't believe what I was seeing. I was shocked beyond belief what happened, and to notice that it wasn't only the Jews who did such disguting things to Jesus.

My review:

Historical accurate or not, this movie opened up my eyes into a whole new vision. I am a Christian, but this just showed me that I never knew what happened in the life of Jesus. Sure, I pray at nights, but now I realize what it all really means.

The acting was simply amazing. I was surprised how well a cast Mel Gibson got to take on a movie of this magnitude. From the camera angles, to the lines, to how the devil was integrated into the scenes with excellence. The facial expressions on James Caviezel during the whole film was amazing. Every expression done at the right time with the right amount of joy or pain. Maia Morgenstern also did a very beautiful job performing as Mary, showing mixed emotions during different scenes.

Intense scenes made this movie stand out among what other movies about the subject of religion have failed to do. This movie showed no mercy. It showed what in Mel's view, or I should say in the Gospels views, what happened with as much detail as possible.

The movie didn't make the Jews look bad, but it made people, in general, look at monsters. Not only did Jews do disgusting acts of torture, but you can even see non Jewish people perform such vile acts.

I suggest everyone go see this movie. Not only does it show one view of religion, but it also shows how outrageous humans can actually be, and not be one bit disturbed by it. Mel Gibson did an excellent job, and I thank him for it.

Oh, and did anyone feel like going to church after seeing the movie? My sister and I did.
 
It is not making light. The statement is simple fact if you believe that he died in a few hours -- the number of hours varies by gospel. Let's say that he spent 8 hours on the cross and that it takes on average 3 days to die on one. His suffering lasted 1/9 the average. If I were on a cross, I would have considered that lucky.

BTW, I haven't attacked the religion, just a trend in the people who practice. Which is to turn off their critical thinking when it comes to something they hold dear just because it agrees with their preset positions. The religion itself is beautiful and in general I see nothing wrong with its teachings.
Click to expand...

Stop for a second. If you know anything about the Savior, go back to the Garden of Gethsemane. This is where He suffered the most. Those quiet, excruciating moments where His friends forgot about Him and fell asleep multiple times. Then even His Father had to withdraw His Spirit, because Jesus had to Atone for our sins on His own. "...and his sweat was as it were great drops of blood falling down to the ground." (Luke 22:44). How much pain, really, do you think that is? Remember, He knows everything anyone has ever gone through. He has to, or else the Atonement wouldn't be anything. Then think about the cross. Remember the blood and water that came out of his side when he was stabbed with the spear? The only way that could happen is either if the blood were in a centrifuge (didn't happen) or if it had been setting for many hours and thus separated. Think of what would have had to happen in the Garden. I'm not saying this part is doctrine, but something happened for the blood to separate. Then realize: He is God. No one can kill Him. He literally gave His life. When He had finished all that was required He said, "Father, it is finished, Thy will is done. . . Into thy hands I commend my spirit."
 
I saw this movie and it made me reflect on the way I live, and will probably change the way I think about things for the rest of my life and how I act. Now personally I would have seen this movie anytime of the year, I didn't feel like seeing it just because it was the time of Lent, but I'm not speaking for everybody when I say this though.
 
All controversy aside, this movie was nothing more than a 2 hour brutalization. I am deeply traumatized by this depiction and will probably never embrace any religion because of it. I would have walked out of the theater had it not been so packed with people.

Lesson learned. From now on I either research a movie's plot before I see it or sit at the end of the row in case I want to leave.
 
[quote name='Southberm']Even though the movie would be slightly interesting to see, it also happens to be very false(when it comes to the Jews), and violent. As far as the case of anti-semitism(i am jewish), the story tries to stay true to the gospels which were written 200 years after christ's death by anti-simetic writers who didnt witness it at all. Also when the gospels were written, they went hard on the jews b/c the romans would've killed them if they were blamed. So like all other events in history, they altered the story and blamed the jews. What a F*cking surprise[/quote]
well come on its just a movie. I dont want want to critisize jews. NO one goes into rthe theater hating jews i dont think thats what the movies about. I mean you (jews) just want to sturr up conterversy, i mean who relly cares. The movie wasnt made for people to hate jews or even people that hate jews. So lighten up a little bit. I mean soulth park (your avitar) must affend you more than this movie but you still whach it you hipacrit.
 
Wow,

I am stunned at the amount of criticism. It seems people will criticize anything. What is it inside you people that hates this movie so much? People will never be perfect. Isn't that the whole point of the story of Christ? If we were we wouldn't need Him.

Mel never claimed this was the Bible, just the closest he could get to accurately portraying it. He's not perfect and never claimed to be. I think some people are threatened by the message of the movie and are covering their fear by attacking the movie.

I mean seriously, where were all you critics when "The Last Temptation" came out? Oh, back then it was all about "Freedom of Speech" and everybody having the right to their own interpretation. Now somebody tries to be true to the Gospels and you're ready to put him up there on the cross yourself.

Just ask yourself: Why is it that I am so passionate about this? Like it or not, it's because your flesh fights against God's saving grace. That's why Jesus died, and that's why His story still creates so much controversy. Because it strikes a nerve in all of us. IF you are going to reject His offer, don't kid yourself with silly arguments about whether or not somebody is going to make money or who you think is to blame for Christ's death. Don't let yourself be lied to. The truth is the truth.
 
[quote name='CaptainObviousXl'][quote name='Southberm']Even though the movie would be slightly interesting to see, it also happens to be very false(when it comes to the Jews), and violent. As far as the case of anti-semitism(i am jewish), the story tries to stay true to the gospels which were written 200 years after christ's death by anti-simetic writers who didnt witness it at all. Also when the gospels were written, they went hard on the jews b/c the romans would've killed them if they were blamed. So like all other events in history, they altered the story and blamed the jews. What a F*cking surprise[/quote]
well come on its just a movie. I dont want want to critisize jews. NO one goes into rthe theater hating jews i dont think thats what the movies about. I mean you (jews) just want to sturr up conterversy, i mean who relly cares. The movie wasnt made for people to hate jews or even people that hate jews. So lighten up a little bit. I mean soulth park (your avitar) must affend you more than this movie but you still whach it you hipacrit.[/quote]

Right, because spending 2 hours depicting Jews zealously killing someone who many believe was/is god, while the devil is standing around, isn't controversal at all. By the way, I think the Jews have plenty of reason to be sensitive about anti-semetic on goings. Considering the Romans, Cursades, WWI, WWII, the Arian Nation, the KKK, etc were/are all lead by people who consider themselves good Christians. The worst thing South Park has done is offend some soccer moms. So maybe now you realize how idiotic it is to compare the two and called someone a hipocrit.
 
[quote name='eros'][quote name='CaptainObviousXl'][quote name='Southberm']Even though the movie would be slightly interesting to see, it also happens to be very false(when it comes to the Jews), and violent. As far as the case of anti-semitism(i am jewish), the story tries to stay true to the gospels which were written 200 years after christ's death by anti-simetic writers who didnt witness it at all. Also when the gospels were written, they went hard on the jews b/c the romans would've killed them if they were blamed. So like all other events in history, they altered the story and blamed the jews. What a F*cking surprise[/quote]
well come on its just a movie. I dont want want to critisize jews. NO one goes into rthe theater hating jews i dont think thats what the movies about. I mean you (jews) just want to sturr up conterversy, i mean who relly cares. The movie wasnt made for people to hate jews or even people that hate jews. So lighten up a little bit. I mean soulth park (your avitar) must affend you more than this movie but you still whach it you hipacrit.[/quote]

Right, because spending 2 hours depicting Jews zealously killing someone who many believe was/is god, while the devil is standing around, isn't controversal at all. [/quote]
exacly im glad you see my point
 
chosen1s
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Wow,

I am stunned at the amount of criticism. It seems people will criticize anything. What is it inside you people that hates this movie so much? People will never be perfect. Isn't that the whole point of the story of Christ? If we were we wouldn't need Him.

Mel never claimed this was the Bible, just the closest he could get to accurately portraying it. He's not perfect and never claimed to be. I think some people are threatened by the message of the movie and are covering their fear by attacking the movie.

I mean seriously, where were all you critics when "The Last Temptation" came out? Oh, back then it was all about "Freedom of Speech" and everybody having the right to their own interpretation. Now somebody tries to be true to the Gospels and you're ready to put him up there on the cross yourself.

Just ask yourself: Why is it that I am so passionate about this? Like it or not, it's because your flesh fights against God's saving grace. That's why Jesus died, and that's why His story still creates so much controversy. Because it strikes a nerve in all of us. IF you are going to reject His offer, don't kid yourself with silly arguments about whether or not somebody is going to make money or who you think is to blame for Christ's death. Don't let yourself be lied to. The truth is the truth.
Click to expand...

Amen, brother.

Now, as to all you Anti-Semite Theory Lovers, get over yourselves and your own limited knowledge.The Romans were not Christians. It wasn't until Constantine the Great was Emperor that he created the Catholic church, solely as a political move. The Crusaders were not Christians, they were muderers. On the same token, are you going to call members of Al-Qaeda real Muslims? They haven't the slightest clue about Islam! The same goes for Hitler, the Klan, etc. The Arian Nation doesn't love, they are about hate. They are not Christian. Christ's message was one of love. He himself was a Jew. Do we, as Christians, hate our own Savior? True Christians are Judah's true ally. Read The Bible. The Jews are the Lord's chosen people. That's what Christians believe. When Christ comes again, he will save Israel from destruction, as the whole world is set upon them to destroy them. That's why you call Christianity Anti-Semitic? Sounds like our beliefs are that the Jews will be protected from such. . .
 
[quote name='CaptainObviousXl'][quote name='eros'][quote name='CaptainObviousXl'][quote name='Southberm']Even though the movie would be slightly interesting to see, it also happens to be very false(when it comes to the Jews), and violent. As far as the case of anti-semitism(i am jewish), the story tries to stay true to the gospels which were written 200 years after christ's death by anti-simetic writers who didnt witness it at all. Also when the gospels were written, they went hard on the jews b/c the romans would've killed them if they were blamed. So like all other events in history, they altered the story and blamed the jews. What a F*cking surprise[/quote]
well come on its just a movie. I dont want want to critisize jews. NO one goes into rthe theater hating jews i dont think thats what the movies about. I mean you (jews) just want to sturr up conterversy, i mean who relly cares. The movie wasnt made for people to hate jews or even people that hate jews. So lighten up a little bit. I mean soulth park (your avitar) must affend you more than this movie but you still whach it you hipacrit.[/quote]

Right, because spending 2 hours depicting Jews zealously killing someone who many believe was/is god, while the devil is standing around, isn't controversal at all. [/quote]
exacly im glad you see my point[/quote]

Sarcasm is lost on an idiot like yourself. Glad your true anti-semtic feelings are coming through.
 
[quote name='MorPhiend']
chosen1s
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Wow,

I am stunned at the amount of criticism. It seems people will criticize anything. What is it inside you people that hates this movie so much? People will never be perfect. Isn't that the whole point of the story of Christ? If we were we wouldn't need Him.

Mel never claimed this was the Bible, just the closest he could get to accurately portraying it. He's not perfect and never claimed to be. I think some people are threatened by the message of the movie and are covering their fear by attacking the movie.

I mean seriously, where were all you critics when "The Last Temptation" came out? Oh, back then it was all about "Freedom of Speech" and everybody having the right to their own interpretation. Now somebody tries to be true to the Gospels and you're ready to put him up there on the cross yourself.

Just ask yourself: Why is it that I am so passionate about this? Like it or not, it's because your flesh fights against God's saving grace. That's why Jesus died, and that's why His story still creates so much controversy. Because it strikes a nerve in all of us. IF you are going to reject His offer, don't kid yourself with silly arguments about whether or not somebody is going to make money or who you think is to blame for Christ's death. Don't let yourself be lied to. The truth is the truth.
Click to expand...

Amen, brother.

Now, as to all you Anti-Semite Theory Lovers, get over yourselves and your own limited knowledge.The Romans were not Christians. It wasn't until Constantine the Great was Emperor that he created the Catholic church, solely as a political move. The Crusaders were not Christians, they were muderers. On the same token, are you going to call members of Al-Qaeda real Muslims? They haven't the slightest clue about Islam! The same goes for Hitler, the Klan, etc. The Arian Nation doesn't love, they are about hate. They are not Christian. Christ's message was one of love. He himself was a Jew. Do we, as Christians, hate our own Savior? True Christians are Judah's true ally. Read The Bible. The Jews are the Lord's chosen people. That's what Christians believe. When Christ comes again, he will save Israel from destruction, as the whole world is set upon them to destroy them. That's why you call Christianity Anti-Semitic? Sounds like our beliefs are that the Jews will be protected from such. . .[/quote]

That's right Constantine became Christian because of politics, but nevertheless called himself a Christian and outlawed any other religion. Penalty for other types of worship was death. Thus rounding up, killing, and driving off the last of the Jews and Gnostic Christians in the area. No record of any Apostolic Christians having a problem with this. Not that you probably know the difference.

The Crusaders were most definitely Christians. And common thought at the time was that they were doing the right thing. Just because you are looking through eyes 500 years old after the fact doesn't mean they weren't Christian.

And just because we wouldn't currently call Al-Queda, Hitler, the Klan, or the Arian Nation part of their respective groups doesn't mean they aren't/weren't. They had/have the support of a large enough base of people who call themselves Christians/Muslims to effect change.

Your post is nothing more than self rightous bull. You don't call so and so this, so it isn't. And of course you are always right.

Example, many Christians today would say that slavary is wrong. However during its years of reign in America, the masters were primarily Christians. Slavary was common, accepted, and I'm sure many thought it was as it should be. Are we to say that all those families that had slaves aren't Christian?

As for Christians being the Jews best friends, that is your opinion and I would agree in theory. Except history has shown the reverse.
 
Eros, you're completely missing the point. Just because someone calls themselves something, but then goes against it's teachings, doesn't mean that they are still what they claim. Constantine "called" himself Christian. He didn't practice it as Jesus taught. There were no Apostles left either. They went out to preach the Gospel and were all martyred. There was no time that they had reconvened to pass on the authority. Constantine had zero authority anyway. (Just as Martin Luther, but Luther never wanted a church named after him. He only wanted reform of the existing church). Constantine's motives were completely self-motivated. What he did, then and now, is wrong. Christ never taught to do that.

The Crusaders, I'm sure, had good men among them and did call themselves Christians. I'm not trying to judge them in that. But fact is fact, and Christ never taught by force, coersion or murder. They were wrong. In the 1800's people didn't know about germs and it was common to be operated on with dirty instruments and they would die of infection instead of disease. Was it so that there did not exist germs just because people did not recognize their existence? No, they were wrong in this. Murder and the taking away of one's choice are both wrong, even if someone thinks it is alright. And this they did in the name of Christ. They were wrong.

And yes, said groups are part of their respective groups. But their groups does not include Christianity nor Islam. Their groups are extremism and/or pure hatred. Christ never taught hatred and murder. Muhammed never tauhght hatred and muder. Quite to the contrary in fact. It's not the ability to bring about change that makes one what they claim, but their adherence to the root beliefs taught by God or whatever founding figure of any group may be.

So, it's not me who says this and this is this because I'm always right. Christ taught Christianity. Muhammed taught Islam. God is who taught them. Bin Laden claims things. Has he claimed to be a prophet of God or to be the Son of God? Where's his authority? Where's Hitler's authority to say that Christ believes in Genocide? It's not the fact that our founding fathers practiced slavery. Did they do so in God's name? It was "acceptable" for the time, but still wrong in God's eyes.

And I in turn agree with you that history has shown that "Christians" have not been the friends of the Jews. But take a look at their motives and true beliefs. True Christians, on the other hand, are and will always be the friends and allies of the Jews. For, by their works ye shall know them. Christ said, "Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do." Are we better than Christ, that we also do not have to forgive those who crucified Him?
 
[quote name='eros']
P.S. -- About it being anti-semetic, it was antisemtic. Placing all the blame on Judah, which means "the jew", and none on the Roman Empire. Or how about leaving in the line about the blood being on the Jews for there generations. It isn't in the subtitles, but if you speak Hebrew and Arabic, it is easy to make out.[/quote]

It needed to be in there because it actually happened

You can't criticize the movie for being false in relation to history and then criticize them again for getting it right.

Although, if it makes you feel better, Jesus was a jew -- a big one :)

That means that technically this entire movie revolves around the greatness of a Jewish person and how he remained a great person despite his suffering-- be happy:)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top