The Passion Of The Christ

Started by MacGuffin, January 28, 2003, 01:49:48 AM

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Print
Go Down Pages 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 ... 44
User actions

RegularKarate

#30
July 12, 2003, 12:59:01 PM
Yeah, this clip was okay, but seriously, you can't say the movie will be good based on this.

People already know this story and it's just the music and imagery that we've seen all our lives that get you hooked into the trailer.  

This could easily be another Braveheart.  The only plus is that Gibson isn't playing Jesus.

and did I see Bono in that trailer?

Ghostboy

#31
July 12, 2003, 01:12:18 PM
Well, I had an idea of what the movie would be like when I first heard about it...and this trailer suggests that the film will pretty much live up to what I hoped for. But you're right, the reason it's powerful is because it shows images that have been ingrained in our culture -- but at the same time that's what I think is good about this (and Last Temptation). It sort of strips away the comfort and makes you think about what was really going on. No one ever thinks anymore about how the crucifixion was actually a horrible act of violence...the cross has become a comforting image, if it warrants any response at all these days.

And then there's the main reason I think this will be great, which is the language thing...that's what will make this stand out from the other Jesus films.  That and the gore.

Pubrick

#32
July 13, 2003, 01:55:44 AM
Quote from: GhostboyAnd then there's the main reason I think this will be great, which is the language thing...that's what will make this stand out from the other Jesus films.  That and the gore.
yes totally, it'll be a whole new experience. ppl will hopefully get past all the 'now' bullshit like their impressions of christians in the bible belt who will probably cry about the movie anyway. it should refresh ppl's memory of a time and a place that was very real at one point.
under the paving stones.

mindfuck

#33
July 13, 2003, 02:14:57 AM
Pretty ballsy. I'll give him that. It'll sure be interesting to see the response this movie gets. Remember, we are still a country founded in puritism. You don't get much more risky than fucking with people's core beliefs.

But you know, beyond all the religious importance and everything, the Bible tells a pretty decent story.

chainsmoking insomniac

#34
July 13, 2003, 10:08:51 AM
I can't wait for this film to come out.  And I can't wait when those Bible belters get a nice slap in the face.  Sorry, but I just love seeing people who annoy me get their bubbles popped.

I'm hoping that this will help me to take Gibson a little more seriously as a filmmaker too (not that Braveheart wasn't great, but his later attempts were IMO lackluster).
"Ernest Hemingway once wrote: 'The world's a fine place, and worth fighting for.'  I agree with the second part."
    --Morgan Freeman, Se7en

"Have you ever fucking seen that...? Ever seen a mistake in nature?  Have you ever seen an animal make a mistake?"
 --Paul Schneider, All the Real Girls

Ghostboy

#35
July 13, 2003, 10:17:04 AM
Quote from: Ghoulardi GoonSorry, but I just love seeing people who annoy me get their bubbles popped.

Amen, brother, amen.

modage

#36
July 17, 2003, 12:25:35 PM
subtitles? or no subtitles? godamnit...

New Fears for Gibson's 'Passion'
Source: imdb.com

Mel Gibson's biblical epic The Passion is being tipped for box-office failure - because it's too violent. The movie, which charts the last 12 hours in the life of Jesus Christ, has already caused a storm of controversy ahead of it's 2004 release, with critics deriding Gibson's decision to shoot the film in ancient language Aramaic, and religious groups who questioned Gibson's interpretation of the subject matter. But it seems The Passion's lack of subtitles and its storyline are the least of Gibson's worries - according to sources, the film will flop because of its "violent and graphic nature". According to a friend of the movie maker, scenes sure to shock include a "horrific depiction of the crucifixion - worse than the graphic scenes in (Gibson's Oscar-winning film) Braveheart". According to American gossip site The Scoop, Gibson has held several small private screenings - including subtitles he intends to remove from the finished version - for a select group of clerics, and is taking advice only from them. The pal tells The Scoop, "Mel is making notes and small changes on the advice of the bishops and rabbis who have seen it, in order that he can assure accuracy. Mel won't listen to anybody on this. We are hoping he keeps the subtitles in, or there really is no chance for the movie. No one will go see it, especially if they can't understand it. His friends are working on him but so far, nothing can get through to him." But Gibson's friend is quick to dismiss early fears the film would paint an ant-Semitic picture, "In the movie (as in the New Testament), the Romans killed Jesus, not the Jews. It is in no way anti-Semitic."

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

wasnt this supposed to be a made for tv movie? when did it become theatrical release?
Christopher Nolan's directive was clear to everyone in the cast and crew: Use CGI only as a last resort.

SoNowThen

#37
July 17, 2003, 12:35:29 PM
Man, people gotta FUCK OFF about the subtitles thing. Let the man make the movie he wants to make. If it flops -- fine. But shit, it's not like this is gonna be the feel-good popcorn blockbuster of next summer, why does he hafta dumb it down? I had trouble grasping this at first, but it makes sense: everyone pretty much knows the story. What are they gonna say that we need to hear to understand it? At least if it's in the proper tongue, the mood will be preserved. Poor Mel. He's not a favorite of mine or anything, but I feel for the guy right now. Here's to hoping he won't back down -- consequences be damned.
Those who say that the totalitarian state of the Soviet Union was not "real" Marxism also cannot admit that one simple feature of Marxism makes totalitarianism necessary:  the rejection of civil society. Since civil society is the sphere of private activity, its abolition and replacement by political society means that nothing private remains. That is already the essence of totalitarianism; and the moralistic practice of the trendy Left, which regards everything as political and sometimes reveals its hostility to free speech, does nothing to contradict this implication.

When those who hated capital and consumption (and Jews) in the 20th century murdered some hundred million people, and the poster children for the struggle against international capitalism and America are now fanatical Islamic terrorists, this puts recent enthusiasts in an awkward position. Most of them are too dense and shameless to appreciate it, and far too many are taken in by the moralistic and paternalistic rhetoric of the Left.

Pubrick

#38
July 17, 2003, 12:36:45 PM
Quote from: themodernage02wasnt this supposed to be a made for tv movie? when did it become theatrical release?
it's always been a theatrical release.
under the paving stones.

mindfuck

#39
July 17, 2003, 01:29:09 PM
It's make or break time for Mel over here. If he backs down and alters this movie to make it more marketable he'll lose a lot of respect. Sure, the public might ignore him, but it's not like he'll be ruined in Hollywood with one movie. I hope he sacks up and releases the movie he wants to release, 'cause he's probably one of the few who has the leverage to do so.

mutinyco

...
#40
July 19, 2003, 03:51:53 PM
>Very True. I never could figure out why they couldn't cast a Jewish man with dark hair to play the role of Christ.<

How 'bout BEN STILLER as Jesus! Then we could have say Alex from A Clockwork Orange dressed in Roman fashion...
"I believe in this, and it's been tested by research: he who fucks nuns will later join the church."

-St. Joe

jokerspath

#41
July 21, 2003, 10:42:30 AM
If he puts subtitles on this thing, I'm gonna be dissapointed.  I was perfectly willing to sit through a four hour film without subtitles (that's no lie)...

aw
THIS IS NOT AN EXIT

cinemanarchist

#42
July 22, 2003, 07:54:39 PM
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A26264-2003Jul22.html

It is a little creepy that Gibson is screening this for ultra-conservatives only...but to be expected I guess. The film does look amazing, but if we are going for factual...people were not crucified with nails in their hands...it was usually their wrists or arms...nail someone up by their hands and they will fall...or so i hear...and when people were crucified it was not on a cross, but on a "T" shape...and of course jesus would have been nude...but we all know how those conservatives hate to see male "pee-pee's" on screen...keep that behind closed doors please! I wish I could find out but there was an article in the NY Times magazine a while back about Gibson and his father. One point worth noting...try not to laugh...but Gibson's father is not shy about admitting the Holocaust was just a big hoax...oh how far from the tree does the apple far?...please discuss.
My assholeness knows no bounds.

yarsrevenge

^
#43
July 30, 2003, 12:18:06 PM
^

filmcritic

#44
July 30, 2003, 12:23:57 PM
This maybe a good film, but it can't beat "The Last Temptation of Christ". Wait a minute, this film is called "The Passion" and Peter Gabriel's score to "Last Tempation" is called "Passion". Hum...
"You're too kind."
-Richard Roeper

"You're too cruel."
-Roger Ebert
Print
Go Up Pages 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 ... 44
User actions