Time Magazine article about Mel Gibson's next directing job:
(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fa740.g.akamai.net%2Ff%2F740%2F606%2F1d%2Fimage.pathfinder.com%2Ftime%2Fdaily%2F2003%2F0301%2Fmel0118.jpg&hash=5e97f23581855ab13890726b22edad94c24d4ee4)
Director Mel Gibson on the set of "Passion" with actor Jim Caviezel as Jesus
The Passion of Mel Gibson
His Jesus film is bloody, bold — and in Aramaic.
You may expect a certain tense solemnity when an Academy Award — winning director is shooting a film on the life and death of Jesus Christ. On the sound stage of The Passion in Rome's Cinecitta studio, the famed auteur prepares a scene for Maia Morgenstern, the Romanian actress playing the Virgin Mary. She is to enter the abandoned temple where her son has just been removed in chains on his way to Calvary. The director needs an enshrouding silence, so he shouts down some workmen's chatter. Then he coaxes the actress into a long, slow walk that hits the perfect notes of apprehension and anguish.
But since this director is Mel Gibson (who got his Oscar for Braveheart), the tone isn't always pious. Gibson loves to goof. Playing practical jokes is a way of keeping the crew loose, asserting the primal jester inside the armor of a star's machismo. So to wrap up the temple take, he has a quiet word with Morgenstern and steps back to leave the actress alone — staring dolefully into the camera with a bright-red clown nose he has stuck on her face. Cut. Print. Amen.
Don't look for levity in The Passion, an account of the day Jesus was crucified starring James Caviezel (The Count of Monte Cristo) as Christ and Italian sex diva Monica Bellucci (soon to be seen in Matrix 2 and 3) as Mary Magdalene. Gibson is life-after-deathly serious about the project, which his production company is financing on an estimated budget of $25 million. (He doesn't yet have a distributor.) "This has been germinating inside me for 10 years," he says. "I have a deep need to tell this story. It's part of your upbringing, but it can seem so distant. The Gospels tell you what basically happened; I want to know what really went down."
In the Mad Max and Lethal Weapon series, in Ransom and in Signs, Gibson was the loner battling impossible odds. He seems to feel that way about The Passion, which should be ready for Easter 2004. A conservative in reflexively liberal Hollywood, and a devout Catholic in an industry whose products often mock religion, Gibson senses opposition to his film. The star, who had kept the set closed to the press before allowing TIME to visit this month, was angry that friends and relatives, including his 85-year-old father, had been pestered by an unidentified reporter preparing a story on The Passion. He suspects this is part of a media attack on a Christian testament.
"When you do touch this subject, it does have a lot of enemies," he told Fox News channel host Bill O'Reilly last week. Asked whether The Passion will upset Jews, Gibson replied, "It may. It's not meant to. I think it's meant to just tell the truth." Gibson's company recently signed a lucrative deal with Fox TV's film-studio sibling and has optioned O'Reilly's novel Those Who Trespass. So his TV anger may simply be the latest form of media synergy. Besides, Hollywood likes Gibson; moguls wish him well. "If anyone can pull it off, it's Mel Gibson," says Richard Cook, chairman of the Walt Disney Studios, for which Gibson made the megahit Signs. "The project is fraught with all sorts of issues, but I would never bet against him."
The Passion will be told — boldly, perhaps perversely — in two dead tongues: Latin, used by the Roman occupiers of Palestine, and Aramaic, the language of most Semites at the time of Christ. If it's hard for the actors to speak their lines, it will be a challenge for the audience too: Gibson wants to show the film without subtitles. "The audience will have to focus on the visuals," he says. "But they had silent films before talkies arrived, and people went to see them."
Jesus has been the subject of a hundred or so films, from Edison's The Passion Play at Oberammergau in 1898 to a quartet of Stan Brakhage experimental shorts in 2001. The story has been filmed by Cecil B. DeMille, Nicholas Ray, George Stevens. The Messiah has been portrayed with stolid reverence (in Franco Zeffirelli's Jesus of Nazareth) and Surrealist blasphemy (Luis Bunuel's L'Age d'Or). Often he sings: in Godspell and Jesus Christ Superstar, in a born-again Bollywood musical and in the Canadian kung-fu horror comedy Jesus Christ Vampire Hunter.
Gibson has few kind words for previous Passion films. Mention Pier Paolo Pasolini's The Gospel According to St. Matthew (which, like Gibson's location shots, was filmed in the Italian town of Matera), and he fakes a big yawn. On Martin Scorsese's The Last Temptation of Christ: "You've got Harvey Keitel as Judas saying"--and here Gibson shifts into a Brooklyn accent--"'Hey, you ovah dere.'"
Gibson's film will be Scorsesean in one aspect: its meticulous attention to violence. "It's gonna be hard to take," he says. "When the Romans scourged you, it wasn't a nice thing. Think about the Crucifixion — there's no way to sugarcoat that." Not if you're playing Jesus. Caviezel, a practicing Catholic who met and was blessed by Pope John Paul II, logged 15 shooting days on the Calvary cross — which may have been easier than wearing shackles and getting beaten and whipped. During one trouncing, he separated his left shoulder. "There's an immense amount of suffering on this," the actor says. "Fortunately, God is helping me."
Gibson is a more truculent Catholic. He scorns the Second Vatican Council, which in the 1960s replaced the Latin Mass with the liturgy in the language of the people and lots of perky folk songs. To Gibson, Vatican II "corrupted the institution of the church. Look at the main fruits: dwindling numbers and pedophilia." He might also have noted that Catholicism flourished in those countries where it became a church of liberation — where priests welded traditional doctrine to radical social reform.
It's dodgy to argue theology with an actor-director who seemingly sees a fusion of the movie characters he has played and Christ: feisty, persecuted, able to take whatever punishment the bad guys can dish out. Gibson is determined to walk his own lonely path. But it hardly seems unreasonable that there can be a contemporary film about a Christian hero when there are so many about, say, serial killers. So Gibson pursues his passion to make The Passion.
Got a problem with that? Take it up with your new spiritual counselor: Mad Max.
I've heard of other people being excited about this movie but could care less. I didn't know much of it, but with that article, I am excited because this movie will seem to be a daring one. Thanks Mac!
~rougerum
This will hopefully mean the loss of Gibson's credability in Hollywood. An attempt at an "artistic" movie with a conservative christian message.
I see only a very small handfull of people appreciating this movie too much. How many conservative christians do you know that thirst for a movie in a dead language with no subtitles.
I'm actually a little surprise that egomaniac didn't cast himself as Jesus.
Prediction: Worse than Braveheart
if gibson's so intent on 'the truth', that he's gone to such extremes as filming the whole thing in aramaic and saying he wont include subtitles (which is cool, but i dont think its gonna happen), then how come jesus is being played by some white-boy? JC was down, yo (and i dont mean Jim Cazeviel).
Good point.
Wonder how Gibson will go about including as many inaccuracies as Braveheart did with such an unknown topic.
Quote from: RegularKarate
I see only a very small handfull of people appreciating this movie too much. How many conservative christians do you know that thirst for a movie in a dead language with no subtitles.
True. I grew up in a conservative family in the Bible Belt. My dad has worked for a Baptist-owned company that publishes and distributes Christian literature worldwide for 27 years. He is an artist/designer and does layouts of Sunday School literature for churches (not just Baptist). To say the least, we grew up pretty religious.
Since my dad has an art background, he is very open to other films that most conservatives aren't. My family will definately go see this movie when it comes out. But, like RK said, we are far and in between.
It's a kneejerk reaction for conservatives to protest, and I would expect it mostly from its violence. But, it could surprise me if Gibson stays close to the Gospel, he may have the Christian community on his side. That was the trouble Scorsese unfortunately ran into. They could care less about artistic value, but it better be damn sure it mirrors the Gospel.
Quote from: Lester...then how come jesus is being played by some white-boy? JC was down, yo (and i dont mean Jim Cazeviel).
Very True. I never could figure out why they couldn't cast a Jewish man with dark hair to play the role of Christ. Unfortunately Christ has been immortalized as a blue-eyed, blond-haired caucasion.
Quote from: RegularKarateThis will hopefully mean the loss of Gibson's credability in Hollywood. An attempt at an "artistic" movie with a conservative christian message.
That's probably an accurate prediction, but I love the premise. No subtitles... for some reason I can't get over that. And I liked Braveheart. :(
Quote from: Jeremy Blackman
That's probably an accurate prediction, but I love the premise. No subtitles... for some reason I can't get over that. And I liked Braveheart. :(
I think it's an interesting premise, but only in the hands of a decent director, not Mel Gibson (who doesn't even understand what the word "continuity" means).
and it's okay that you like Braveheart, a lot of people were tricked into liking that movie.
I'm not sure if this movie really will be a statement of anything really full blown conservative. I know Gibson's position and all, but the way he speaks on approaching it, it feels more like the passion that Martin Scorsese had for making the film, because he always had said that his life consisted of two things, religion and movies. It feels like an inner passion for Gibson than a need to represent a side and if he brought it to a very realistic movie, he would have to include a lot of violence, things that really not is fully expressed by people of religion and may not really be looked up to. I think, in the end, it will be a movie with what Gibson believes in but too truthful to really be a conservative filled movie.
I also am a big fan of Braveheart and would have easily put it in my top ten list of that year for the best of the best and think Gibson is a fine director. I just don't associate Braveheart with being the greatest like so many people do.
I think with the potential and the scope that Gibson wants this movie to take on, it could be a great film.
~rougerum
how can anyone call gibson a bad director? hes even got a hat!
(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fa740.g.akamai.net%2Ff%2F740%2F606%2F1d%2Fimage.pathfinder.com%2Ftime%2Fdaily%2F2003%2F0301%2Fmel0118.jpg&hash=5e97f23581855ab13890726b22edad94c24d4ee4)
(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fa740.g.akamai.net%2Ff%2F740%2F606%2F1d%2Fimage.pathfinder.com%2Ftime%2Fdaily%2F2003%2F0301%2Fmel0118.jpg&hash=5e97f23581855ab13890726b22edad94c24d4ee4)
Mel: Okay, you're Jesus okay! I'm gonna say action, then put on my headphones and you're gonna put that look on your face like the one I did in Braveheart... just like I showed you... a hundred times. You got it?
Jesus: is that a helicopter?
Mel: that's what the ninjas jump out of.
I read an article somewhere that Jews arent happy with the protrayal of Jews in the movie. And they have been harrassing Mel and even sent him some death threats.
My advice Mel: Stick it to em'
Mel Gibson won't ever lose his credibility in Hollywood, but this is still VERY risky.
Spending $25 million on a movie that will likely have no audience. He's obviously got the ambition to do it and he knows what he wants. I'm excited to see this, solely out of curiosity. Just to see if he can pull off the no subtitles and the audience will get what's going on.
Quote from: bonanzataz
Spending $25 million on a movie that will likely have no audience.
Its an investment for his ego. Now he can claim how artistic he is, and how risky he is. If it does well, he is a genius, if it fails, its because you didnt understand it and he is still a genius.
Mel Gibson gave an exclusive interview: "Gibson wanted the film accurate "down to the clothes they wear" and "the eating habits of the Jews...", and will digitally re-color Caviezel's eyes. In regards to the business aspect (i.e. spending the money on this) Gibson says he's "gotta do it" it means that much to him. He talked about turning Scorsese down for the role of Christ in 'The Last Temptation of Christ' because he had read the book and didn't think it was his idea of fair or accurate. Talking about potential backlash Gibson said "It won't be boring". It was not an easy shoot; nearly everyone got sick including the flu. The running time would be about 90 minutes as two hours would be overwhelming, he hopes people know the story well enough that subtitles won't be necessary but he will include visual clues as to what's going on".
I think/hope Gibson is setting himself up for a big failure.
I like seeing others fail.
Quote from: Duck Sauce
I like seeing others fail.
thats why youre going straight to hell, bub
I don't understand the hostility towards this film. I'm really excited about it; I love it when big stars use their clout to push challenging material. Gibson is a fine director, historical inaccuracies or not, and while I would have liked to see a non-white star play Jesus, the whole 'dead language' aspect pretty much makes up for it, as far as I'm concerned. I think this could be a really beautiful movie. And I don't think it will play well at all to conservative audiences, either.
Quote from: GhostboyI don't understand the hostility towards this film. I'm really excited about it; I love it when big stars use their clout to push challenging material. Gibson is a fine director, historical inaccuracies or not, and while I would have liked to see a non-white star play Jesus, the whole 'dead language' aspect pretty much makes up for it, as far as I'm concerned. I think this could be a really beautiful movie. And I don't think it will play well at all to conservative audiences, either.
Ditto. I'm going with you on this one.
I will see the film. You know, it very well might fall flat on it's ass, but I give the guy props. He is doing this ONLY because he feels a need too, and that's the most anti-hollywood attitude one can have, god bless him.
Love the no subtitles/emphasis on the visuals thing, but like RK I'm doubtful about Gibson's ability to make it credible. I tried watching Braveheart but it just seemed overblown and clumsy so I gave up. I fear that if he's inserting really 'helpful' visual cues so we all get the terribly important message/depth of Mel's passion for the subject it's gonna be like painting by numbers.
(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.seattlecatholic.com%2Fimages%2Fmisc%2Fpassion01.jpg&hash=c110ee3aaece9a426a2bb666968f0bca8453f52e)
(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.seattlecatholic.com%2Fimages%2Fmisc%2Fpassion02.jpg&hash=3d3fb61b916399532e30cce568984d87209a446b)
(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.seattlecatholic.com%2Fimages%2Fmisc%2Fpassion07.jpg&hash=a90ef8c1bca796c4b32d9be20fe96583c3127b50)
(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.seattlecatholic.com%2Fimages%2Fmisc%2Fpassion08.jpg&hash=39b7ce553c9a5456463b76c3e09705403ccd42f5)
(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.seattlecatholic.com%2Fimages%2Fmisc%2Fpassion09.jpg&hash=e66546813cc076b50282f990fdd4e96d03867233)
Quote from: MacGuffinMel Gibson gave an exclusive interview: "Gibson wanted the film accurate "down to the clothes they wear" and "the eating habits of the Jews...", and will digitally re-color Caviezel's eyes.
...computer guys haven't added the twinkle in my eyes yet....
QuoteIt was not an easy shoot; nearly everyone got sick including the flu.
i didn't know the flu could get sick
those stills look pretty nice. is john toll shooting it?
Quote from: cowboykurtisthose stills look pretty nice. is john toll shooting it?
no, Caleb Deschanel is...http://us.imdb.com/Name?Deschanel,%20Caleb
and Jim Caviezel is a fine actor. I like him best in The Thin Red Line.
AICN premiered the trailer a few minutes ago...check it out at http://www.aintitcool.com/ThePassion.mov
(it's about 23mbs, if that matters to anyone).
I don't know if this will be a theatrical trailer or not, since it mainly seems to consist of footage from the climax (not like it's spoiling anything), but man...it's pretty effective. I'd like to see more of the quiet moments (stuff in the garden in particular), and I still think there are too many white people, but other than that this is a very powerful trailer. I especially love the shots of the women watching him as he carries the cross...the two Mary's, I assume. Monica Belluci is barely recognizable.
I'm anticipating this even more now. It'll be a wonderful companion piece to Last Temptation Of Christ...two view from two different sides of Catholicism.
Thats a really powerful preview. Anyone know the budget on this? It looks huge.
edit: 25 mil, posted earlier
I watched it again this morning, and I really love it. When he cries out on the cross, it's pretty hair raising. Also, the two Mary's are there, but there's a third woman, the eerie looking one, who I'm guessing is Satan, since IMDB says Satan is played by a woman.
I wonder if the film will go past the Passion, to the resurrection of Jesus.
I'm pretty stoked about this flick. At first I furrowed my brow at Gibson and no subtitles, but now that I've had time to wrap my head around it, I think it sounds great.
Nothing will beat Last Temptation for me... unless maybe I make it. But I love the fact that Bellucci's in it. Damn straight -- if Jesus was gonna pick a hooker to hang out with, I'd like to think she'd look like Monica. :-D
Anyway, here's to hoping that more stars use their clout to do risky projects (not including festering shit-sores like Battlefield Earth).
btw, RK, the ninjas comment -- hilarious.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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).
Quote from: Ghoulardi GoonSorry, but I just love seeing people who annoy me get their bubbles popped.
Amen, brother, amen.
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?
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.
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.
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.
>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...
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
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.
^
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...
^
Quote from: yarsrevengehistoricity
that's not a word.
other than that, ur doing fine :yabbse-thumbup: .
^
what i meant to say was, it shouldn't be a word.
Quote from: Pwhat i meant to say was, it shouldn't be a word.
i believe what P meant to say was, it shouldn't be a wordicity.
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=wordicity
Quote from: themodernage02Quote from: Pwhat i meant to say was, it shouldn't be a word.
i believe what P meant to say was, it shouldn't be a wordicity.
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=wordicity
As far as I know, historicity is a perfectly cromulent word...
aw
Quote from: jokerspathQuote from: themodernage02Quote from: Pwhat i meant to say was, it shouldn't be a word.
i believe what P meant to say was, it shouldn't be a wordicity.
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=wordicity
As far as I know, historicity is a perfectly cromulent word...
aw
That's quite a scrumtrillesscent observation of yours.
Quote from: OnomatopoeiaQuote from: jokerspathQuote from: themodernage02Quote from: Pwhat i meant to say was, it shouldn't be a word.
i believe what P meant to say was, it shouldn't be a wordicity.
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=wordicity
As far as I know, historicity is a perfectly cromulent word...
aw
That's quite a scrumtrillesscent observation of yours.
I feel that such observations can embiggen the spirit of even the smallest man...
aw
Quote from: mutinyco>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...
Yeeeaaahh. Seriously though. It'll go something like this.
Fade in. Jesus on a donkey.
Three hours later..
"Surely this was the son of God."
Roll credits.
Over at Harvest.Org, they have some footage that Mel Gibson put together from THE PASSION - longer than the trailer, but echoing some of the exact same imagery.
http://www.harvest.org/special/index.php/1/2/6.html
Quote from: MacGuffinOver at Harvest.Org, they have some footage that Mel Gibson put together from THE PASSION - longer than the trailer, but echoing some of the exact same imagery.
http://www.harvest.org/special/index.php/1/2/6.html
i'm anticipating this one more and more. thanks for the link.
Many have stated that "everyone already knows this story" which is an inaccurate statement. Very few people "Know" this story; what they know, is what they imagine to be the truth. This film, and Mel's intention, is to show the depth of humiliation and degree of phyisical torture that God Himself went through on behalf of those He loves and came to save, which is paramount in telling the story of the Cross, which has heretofore bever been done cinematically. What most people do not understand, and that Mel does, is that its All About The Blood. Yeshua was not a political figure, and was not crucified for being a political extremist. He was crucified because He claimed to be God, the creator of the Universe and all things seen and not seen. To the Pharisees and Scribes, the Jewish religious leaders in those days, this was a form of blaspheme punishable by death. He claimed to be God, and the Jews, before Pontius, as well as most people today, call Him a liar for that claim. Its the decision that each of us come to about that claim, and about the blood that was shed on that cross, that will determine our final destination.
"My sheep recognize my voice; I know them, and they follow me. I give them eternal life, and they will never perish. No one will snatch them away from me, for my Father has given them to me, and he is more powerful than anyone else. So no one can take them from me. The Father and I are one."
Once again the Jewish leaders picked up stones to kill him. Jesus said, "At my Father's direction I have done many things to help the people. For which one of these good deeds are you killing me?"
They replied, "Not for any good work, but for blasphemy, because you, a mere man, have made yourself God."
I am a bible-believing disciple of Jesus, and I too share completely in Mel's vision for this film, and being in a position of leadership myself within the Christian community, in particular within the media, I belive this film will be one of the biggest financial successes in film history.
Very nice. But I'd be spurred to say that most people who go to see this will be quite familiar with the story, hence no need for subtitles. What I mean by that is, what the hell is Mel gonna have them say that's gonna make the story any better? All he can do is show the emotions through the visuals. It's a great idea, simple at the outset, but growing in depth and power by the moment.
hes right, everything i know about jebus i heard around the water cooler. "how was your weekend?"
"oh not too bad."
"hey, you know all about this jebus dude?"
"no, tell me more"
"well they nailed him to a cross 2000 years ago"
"wow, why?"
"i dunno. anyway, better get back to work"
"yeah, old man richardson can be a real dick. get it? richard... dick? get it?"
"i got, it, i got... jebus, give me the strength"
Quote from: Cecil B. Dementedhes right, everything i know about jebus i heard around the water cooler. "how was your weekend?"
"oh not too bad."
"hey, you know all about this jebus dude?"
"no, tell me more"
"well they nailed him to a cross 2000 years ago"
"wow, why?"
"i dunno. anyway, better get back to work"
"yeah, old man richardson can be a real dick. get it? richard... dick? get it?"
"i got, it, i got... jebus, give me the strength"
Classic.
Quote from: Cecil B. Dementedhes right, everything i know about jebus i heard around the water cooler. "how was your weekend?"
"oh not too bad."
"hey, you know all about this jebus dude?"
"no, tell me more"
"well they nailed him to a cross 2000 years ago"
"wow, why?"
"i dunno. anyway, better get back to work"
"yeah, old man richardson can be a real dick. get it? richard... dick? get it?"
"i got, it, i got... jebus, give me the strength"
haha, that's what i was thinking..
anyway, gtr, are u into cars? also, hav u read the Gospel of Thomas?
ur confused about Jesus calling himself one with God. i mean, if u wanna follow the Word then u'd hav to say he's the Son and Father and the pure space connecting them, call it Spirit.. and then say that they're all the same thing. also, ur overzealous, but don't seem to be over-conservative (southern) about it, so ur ok.
Best car ever made, in my humble opinion: 1968 RS/SS Camaro Convertible.
If Jesus were alive, he'd drive that car
If Jesus were alive today, he'd ride the bus and you would shit your pants once he got on because that's the kind of thing that happens when Jesus gets on a bus.
Also, I'd like to restate that Mel Gibson is not the person who should be doing this film. Thank you.
Quote from: RegularKarateIf Jesus were alive today, he'd ride the bus and you would shit your pants once he got on because that's the kind of thing that happens when Jesus gets on a bus.
hahaha, omg, that was seriously one of the funniest fucking things i have heard all day.
Quote from: RegularKarateIf Jesus were alive today, he'd ride the bus and you would shit your pants once he got on because that's the kind of thing that happens when Jesus gets on a bus.
Yeah, yeah, God is great
Yeah, yeah, God is good
yeah, yeah, yeah-yeah-yeah
What if God was one of us?
Just a slob like one of us
Just a stranger on the bus
Tryin' to make his way home?
"i am the way, the truth and the life...no man comes to the father except through me"
jesus christ (0000-present)
Quote from: mejesus christ (0000-present)
jebus was born on year 1, not 0
You mean he's only 2001 years old?
And to think I put 2002 candles on his last cake.
Quote from: Cecil B. DementedQuote from: mejesus christ (0000-present)
jebus was born on year 1, not 0
no no he was born the wonderful year of 4 before christ. it doesn't make any sence but it's a fact.
phil's right, and cecil's logic is sane.. that fact became popular around Y2K time. much like Will2k.
Jesus was a little punk in the Gospel of St. Thomas...
^
Or maybe even St. Thomas.
Greetings All:
Quickly: P Did He - Guess what, I'm originally from Florida; kaint get no mo south than that. I'm now in Russia (Ukraine). :shock:
As for the "Birth" date of Christ, let me give you this to ponder. Jesus was, is , and is to come. John 8:58
Jesus answered, "The truth is, I existed before Abraham was even born!"
Here's a bomb for you: Jesus walked this earth Before He was born of the virgin - in this, He is referred to as the "pre-incarnate" Christ. He had lunch with Abraham, He wrestled with Jacob before naming him Israel. In these incarnations however, He was fully God, not the God/Man He was to be after the virgin birth. Thus, Jeshua (Jesus), is eternal, He has been from the beginnig, and He has no end - its the Alpha and Omega thing.
Peace :wink:
Quote from: gtr81Here's a bomb for you: Jesus walked this earth Before He was born of the virgin - in this, He is referred to as the "pre-incarnate" Christ. He had lunch with Abraham, He wrestled with Jacob before naming him Israel. In these incarnations however, He was fully God, not the God/Man He was to be after the virgin birth. Thus, Jeshua (Jesus), is eternal, He has been from the beginnig, and He has no end - its the Alpha and Omega thing.
Peace :wink:
That's a new interpretation unknown to me. Pastors that I have listened to have always seperated the idea of God and Christ, pingeonholed into a "father-son" relationship. You must not be a Baptist.
From Cal Thomas - one of the few Christians in media that doesn't make all Christians look like utter buffoons. He's not a movie critic, but he's a damn fine guy...
The Greatest Story Ever Filmed by - Cal Thomas
August 5, 2003
Last month in Washington, 50 people attended a private screening of actor
Mel Gibson's new film, "The Passion," about the last 12 hours in the earthly
life of Jesus Christ.
We were required to sign a confidentiality agreement, promising not to write
or speak about the film without permission. That restriction has now been
lifted.
As one who has seen virtually every modern biblical epic - from Cecil B.
DeMille's "The Ten Commandments" to the two-part "Jesus" miniseries on CBS
three years ago - I can say "The Passion" is the most beautiful, profound,
accurate,disturbing, realistic and bloody depiction of this well-known
story that has ever been filmed.
Jim Caviezel, who plays Jesus with tender understatement, may be the best
"Jesus" ever (not counting the original). To those in the Jewish community
who worry that the film, which is scheduled for release next Easter season,
might contain anti-Semitic elements, or encourage people to persecute Jews,
fear not. The film does not indict Jews for the death of Jesus. It is
faithful to the New Testament account. Also, Gibson, a devout Roman
Catholic, does not elevate Mary, Jesus' mother, beyond what Scripture says
of her, which will broaden the film's appeal to Protestants.
A Christian friend whispered to me during the scene in which the mob demands
that the Roman governor, Pontius Pilate, order Jesus (who, after all, was
Jewish) to be crucified: "What disturbs me is that I might have been part of
that crowd." Exactly. Guilt is universal, not particular to the Jews.
There is an important theological point to be made, especially for any
Christian who might wish to blame the Jews as a people for Christ's death.
According to the biblical record, Jesus said He came into the world for the
purpose of sacrificing Himself on behalf of all humanity and that no one
had
the power to take His life from Him. He said He had the power to lay His
life down, and the power to take it up again. That doesn't sound like a
murder victim to me.
Questions had been raised as to whether Gibson can find a distributor. Asked
about it at the screening, Gibson said confidently, "Oh, I'll find a
distributor."
This is not a date film. The rough cut I saw contains graphic scenes,
including the seemingly endless scourging of Jesus. The makeup artist
deserves an Oscar for the way he created the "wounds." The crucifixion
scene
is long, bloody and painful to watch. Several audience members wept. The
film will probably earn an "R" rating for violence.
"The Passion" should not be labeled a "religious" film, or something to be
shown only in church basements. Compared to examples of recent Christian
films ("Left Behind" is one of many very bad ones in this genre), "The
Passion" is a work of high art and great storytelling.
The dialogue is in Aramaic and Latin. English subtitles are provided, and
they are helpful in following the storyline. A decision about using them in
the final version has not been made. Few liberties are taken with the Gospel
account, and the extra dialogue added helps round out the characters without
damaging historical or biblical accuracy.
Satan is cleverly played as an asexual being who at first seems to be an
observer in the Garden of Gethsemane (and in other scenes), but the
appearance of a snake slithering between the character's feet and attempting
to wrap itself around the arm of the prostrate and praying Jesus identifies
him and his evil intent. The film is an intense two hours. It uses unknown
actors, which helps focus attention on the message. By the end of the film
(a unique portrayal of the resurrection), the viewer is exhausted.
Thirteen years ago, actor Mickey Rooney wrote an editorial for Variety in
which he said, "The on-screen depiction of religion is less than flattering,
and, as a Christian, I pray the era of denigrating religion on screen comes
to a screeching halt. And soon."
Rooney's prayer has been answered with "The Passion." It is a soul-stirring
film that deserves wide distribution and viewing. Its message is not just
for Christians, but for everyone. I doubt a better film about Jesus could
be made.
©2003 Tribune Media Services
I am happy, excited, and much much more! Can't wait to see this!!!!
I, personally, can't stand Cal Thomas, but he had interesting things to say about the film are true for me when I see the movie. This quote was stupid and funny:
Quote from: XIXAXJim Caviezel, who plays Jesus with tender understatement, may be the best "Jesus" ever (not counting the original).
~rougerum
i've been looking forward to this for a while, and my excitement has just been elevated.
Major Studios Staying Away from Gibson's Passion
Source: Newsweek
Newsweek reports that it seems no major studio wants to touch Mel Gibson's latest film, The Passion, a controversial movie about Jesus' death that has inspired more hostile attention than any movie in recent history. "It's not worth the aggravation," says a studio head. "Even if it makes money, it's not going to be 'Titanic.'" Studios are worried about protests, hate mail and boycotts. "Even if it doesn't deserve it," says another film executive, "it's going to be used as a political football."
Gibson's company, Icon Productions, did not seek out buyers for the film, but waited to see which suitors came knocking. The studios didn't, apparently. Icon did get interest from small, independent companies without public shareholders or other assets, like music companies and theme parks, that could be hurt by boycotts or protests. Companies "that have nothing to lose," as one executive puts it. The top contender now appears to be Newmarket, which released Memento. They have made a formal bid, but will not confirm if they have seen the film. Two higher-profile independents, Lions Gate and Miramax, have expressed interest in the film and have asked to see it. They have yet to be invited. The film could prove problematic for Miramax, as its parent company, Disney, dislikes controversy.
Some studio executives point to the last controversial movie about Christ as a case in point. In 1988, Universal released Martin Scorsese's The Last Temptation of Christ, which proposed that Christ was plagued with the same doubts and appetites as normal men. The movie was met with outrage. "There were millions of letters written and 25,000 people marched on Universal," says Tom Pollock, then a top exec at the studio. "There were death threats against my chairman, myself and Marty Scorsese. There was security in our lives for years." And the movie made only $8.4 million.
Gibson's camp would not comment about the potential sale, beyond saying it could happen in the "near term." It's possible, though remotely, that Icon, which distributes most of Gibson's films in the U.K. and Australia, may opt to put The Passion in U.S. theaters itself. Meanwhile, the press surrounding the film -- in particular a New Yorker profile that delineated Gibson's rigid religious beliefs-has done some damage to his reputation. While he remains one of the most bankable stars in history, his occasionally strident public statements have not played well in an industry predominantly liberal and significantly Jewish. "People think Mel's crazy now," says one top producer. Adds a studio head, "People feel like his character in 'Lethal Weapon' isn't that far from who he is. It's like, 'Wow, he's way out on a limb'."
Mel Gibson is the last filmmaker on earth I would ever trust with this story, and I would've told you that long before he'd announced his plans to make this film.
I would rather see a filmmaker really engaging with the Jesus mythology in a meaningful way, as Scorsese did, than giving us a rote (if bloody and pretentious) Sunday-School lesson, which is what I would expect from the reactionary, archconservative likes of Mel Gibson. I'm sure it's much less provocative or "offensive" than just dull and shrug-worthy. Mel Gibson is not know for making deep-thinking movies.
Mel Gibson's film THE PASSION, about the depiction of the last 12 hours of Jesus of Nazareth's life, has changed its name. The official title of the movie has changed to "The Passion of Christ". Although the film is still struggling for a distributor, the goal is to release the film in US theaters on February 25, 2004. Also James Horner is not composing the film's soundtrack, instead it is rumored that Dolores O'Riordan, the lead singer of the pop rock group The Cranberries, is singing a song in Latin for the soundtrack.
I'm looking forward to seeing this, but if the film does end up being in english, and Jesus shouts "Freedom!" at the end, I'm going to be pissed right off...
Quote from: godardianMel Gibson is the last filmmaker on earth I would ever trust with this story, and I would've told you that long before he'd announced his plans to make this film.
I would rather see a filmmaker really engaging with the Jesus mythology in a meaningful way, as Scorsese did, than giving us a rote (if bloody and pretentious) Sunday-School lesson, which is what I would expect from the reactionary, archconservative likes of Mel Gibson. I'm sure it's much less provocative or "offensive" than just dull and shrug-worthy. Mel Gibson is not know for making deep-thinking movies.
Oi, let's at least give him a chance. I really wanna enjoy this, but rest assured I will be the loudest person to catcall it if it sucks.
Yep, I've been really interested in this one.
I'm not really sure why Jews are so upset over this one. WWII movies always show demonic Germans and get away with it. It's history.
I think this movie could be really good, but let's just see next year.
I can't wait to cross the picket lines and be yelled at like I was about to enter an abortion clinic. But besides that cheap thrill, I must say I am morbidly curious to see how this all turns out.
Lightning Strikes Gibson's Christ
ROME, Italy -- Actor Jim Caviezel, who plays the son of God in Mel Gibson's controversial film "The Passion of Christ" has been struck by lightning during shooting.
Caviezel was uninjured, but a producer described how he saw smoke coming from the actor's ear.
An assistant director on the film, Jan Michelini, was also hit -- for the second time in a few months.
The first time, a lightning fork struck his umbrella during filming on top of a hill near Matera in Italy, causing light burns to the tips of his fingers, VLife, a supplement to Variety publications said in its October issue.
A few months later the second strike happened, a few hours from Rome.
Michelini was again carrying an umbrella, and standing next to Caviezel on top of a hill, the magazine said.
Both were hit, with the main bolt striking Caviezel while one of its forks hit Michelini's umbrella. Neither were hurt.
The film, which is spoken in Latin and Aramaic, has come in for criticism from some religious leaders. It portrays the last hours of Christ, but some Jewish and Roman Catholic groups are concerned the film will fuel anti-Semitism.
--I can just feel the jokes coming....
MAYBE GOD EXISTS AFTER ALL[/i]
just kidding
Quote from: Pawbloe
I'm not really sure why Jews are so upset over this one. WWII movies always show demonic Germans and get away with it. It's history.
If it's based on a literal interpretation of the bible and no other sources, it's not what can rightly be called history; it falls more under the heading of mythology.
I recall reading somewhere recently about Gibson's religious views, which apparently are so fanatical that he doesn't even agree with the Catholic Church because he's so far to the right of them (to the right! of the Catholic Church!), despite supposedly being Catholic, and is part of some little militant subsect. Anyone else hear anything about that?
I don't really get offended at the content of movies, but as a gay person, I will say that I'm not prone to give the notoriously homophobic Mr. Gibson any support. Fortunately for me, he seems to fall strictly into the same blah category of filmmaking as the "rousing," "heartwarming," "family-friendly," eminently tiresome Steven Spielberg, so I don't really feel like I'm missing out on anything.
He's against Vatican II, which sort of made the Catholic church more friendly and happy. Before the program was instituted, the Mass was still said in Latin, and there weren't any lame inclusions like the 'sign of peace' (in which everyone shakes their neighbors' hands). It started back in the -- well, I'm not sure if it was this Pope or the one before him that started it, but it was sometime in the past thirty or forty years. And on this topic, I agree with Gibson all the way (I'm Catholic, mostly lapsed but still opinionated). A lof of Catholics feel the same way, and there are a lot of churches that still operate old-fashionedly.
As for his homophobia, well -- sucks to be him, in that regard.
Quote from: GhostboyHe's against Vatican II, which sort of made the Catholic church more friendly and happy. Before the program was instituted, the Mass was still said in Latin, and there weren't any lame inclusions like the 'sign of peace' (in which everyone shakes their neighbors' hands). It started back in the -- well, I'm not sure if it was this Pope or the one before him that started it, but it was sometime in the past thirty or forty years. And on this topic, I agree with Gibson all the way (I'm Catholic, mostly lapsed but still opinionated). A lof of Catholics feel the same way, and there are a lot of churches that still operate old-fashionedly.
As for his homophobia, well -- sucks to be him, in that regard.
As far as modernizing all the beauty out of it, I guess I would agree with that, too. However, I get the feeling that Gibson would probably take the church back in other ways- ideologically, for example- to a point I wouldn't be at all in agreement with.
That could very well be true, although I think his father would be more guilty of that than Gibson himself.
I'm only defending him because I enjoy his screen presence -- I'm still stuck on that childhood fantasy that all my favorite movie stars are perfect, damn it!
Quote from: GhostboyThat could very well be true, although I think his father would be more guilty of that than Gibson himself.
I'm only defending him because I enjoy his screen presence -- I'm still stuck on that childhood fantasy that all my favorite movie stars are perfect, damn it!
I understand. I'm equally embarrassed in many ways about Alec Baldwin. :)
Quote from: godardianIf it's based on a literal interpretation of the bible and no other sources, it's not what can rightly be called history; it falls more under the heading of mythology.
Wrong. There are written documents and studies to prove Christ and the act of his crucifiction was real. What you call "mythology" is the belief he was the son of God. More info here (http://www.youdebate.com/cgi-bin/scarecrow/topic.cgi?forum=13&topic=182).
Movie related, here are some clips (http://www.harvest.org/special/index.php/1/2/6.html) from "The Passion of Christ."
Quote from: PawbloeQuote from: godardianIf it's based on a literal interpretation of the bible and no other sources, it's not what can rightly be called history; it falls more under the heading of mythology.
Wrong. There are written documents and studies to prove Christ and the act of his crucifiction was real.
Thank you, I was gonna jump in there, but you got it.
Yeah, but I'm pretty sure that the movie inherently adheres to the stance that he IS the son of God, and so at that point, calling it mythology is fair game. No doubt that it really happened. One of the most interesting things I've ever seen was the (supposed) nails from the cross, among other relics, in Rome.
Quote from: GhostboyYeah, but I'm pretty sure that the movie inherently adheres to the stance that he IS the son of God, and so at that point, calling it mythology is fair game. No doubt that it really happened. One of the most interesting things I've ever seen was the (supposed) nails from the cross, among other relics, in Rome.
Yes, that was quite obviously what I meant, but thanks for clarifying. Some people just like to jump the gun and say "wrong," I guess. :)
I don't have any problem believing:
-In the crucifixion
-In the "Great Flood"
-In the story of David and Goliath
...as historically having "really happened." But though there may be ways to prove (and disprove) that many things in the Bible are historically accurate, there is no way to prove it was written by divine intervention (though we are certain that human hands are 100% possible for writing what's in there, wherever they claim to have gotten the inspiration from), there's no way to prove Jesus Christ was the son of God, and of course there's never any way to prove that anything is guided by mystical, supernatural hands. I expect Mel Gibson is going in with the assumption that Jesus Christ is the Son of God, so there goes any objectivity he may have had, along with any likelihood of the film being truly interesting for anyone not religious.
Quote from: godardianI expect Mel Gibson is going in with the assumption that Jesus Christ is the Son of God, so there goes any objectivity he may have had, along with any likelihood of the film being truly interesting for anyone not religious.
I don't think being religious is a prerequisite for seeing this movie. There are a lot of spiritual movies that others (as well as myself) find interesting.
So you just don't like the
obvious religious overtones? Would you rather them be to be only implied?
People who just hate Mel Gibson have an altogether different argument.
He proved it pretty good by rising from the dead....
8) sheesh, what more does a guy gotta do? Turn water to wine?
oh wait....
Quote from: SoNowThensheesh, what more does a guy gotta do? Turn water to wine?
oh wait....
:lol:
And for the record, I'm not religious at all, yet I'm eagerly anticipating this film. I think it has tons of potential to be a very moving picture no matter where you stand religiously.
Quote from: PawbloeQuote from: godardianI expect Mel Gibson is going in with the assumption that Jesus Christ is the Son of God, so there goes any objectivity he may have had, along with any likelihood of the film being truly interesting for anyone not religious.
I don't think being religious is a prerequisite for seeing this movie. There are a lot of spiritual movies that others (as well as myself) find interesting.
So you just don't like the obvious religious overtones? Would you rather them be to be only implied?
People who just hate Mel Gibson have an altogether different argument.
I, too, really love spiritual movies.
But I have deep and sincere doubts about Mel Gibson being capable of giving us anything on the spiritual level of
Diary of a Country Priest,
The Sacrifice,
Ordet, or even
The Last Temptation of Christ, not to mention
The Passion of Joan of Arc, all of which could be said to be "religious" films, and all of which are profoundly moving and beautiful whether you're religious, agnostic humanist (as I am), or a devout atheist.
I've found his other films to be unacceptably bombastic, one-dimensional affairs, and I don't see any reason that this one will be any different. The combination of his deficiencies as a director and the difficulty of the material do not bode well for this being one for cinephiles who aren't also churchgoers (I'll submit that my most sacred experiences have been in the cinema, but that's another story), or who are but are unwilling to let their religious faith trump their taste.
I will admit to having a strong dislike for Mel Gibson, but that's hardly the only reason for my mistrust of his ability to bring something like this to the screen with the qualities it needs to make it on a cinematic level.
Yeah... I like religious movies... I even liked Prince of Egypt.
But this is shit... almost completely garanteed. I request that people who are really wanting to give thier money to Mel Gibson just to be disapointed just mail it to him directly with a note asking him to release it straight to video so you don't waste theater screen space or shit out the television noise that the resulting "controversy" will cause.
Quote from: SoNowThenHe proved it pretty good by rising from the dead....
Arrrghhh!
Anyways, I'm agnostic, but I'm really looking forward to it.
MEL'S 'PASSION' PUT TO THE TEST
Source: New York Post
November 17, 2003 -- The Post recently obtained a copy of Mel Gibson's controversial, still-unreleased biblical epic, "The Passion of Christ."
Although it has been seen by relatively few people, the film - slated for release on Ash Wednesday, Feb. 25, 2004 - has revived fears of renewed Judeo-Christian discord after years of hard-won harmony.
"The Passion" has been denounced by some Jewish leaders as anti-Semitic and likely to incite violence. They claim it portrays the Jewish people as culpable for Christ's death - contrary to Vatican II's declaration that "what happened in [Christ's] Passion cannot be charged against all the Jews, without distinction, then alive, nor against the Jews of today."
The film has been lauded by most conservative Catholics as a powerful and biblically accurate depiction of the last 12 hours of Christ's life. And they contend that most of those who condemn it haven't even seen it.
Gibson, an ultraconservative Catholic who rejects the reforms of Vatican II, insists he made the film "to inspire, not offend."
To find out how viewers of wide-ranging backgrounds would react to the film, The Post held a private screening for a small panel: a rabbi, a priest, a professor of early Christianity, and a Post reader - a Baptist - picked at random.
Here's what they had to say about the rough-cut version of the film that we screened - with temporary English subtitles, no credits and further editing changes likely.
READ ENTIRE ARTICLE ALONG WITH REVIEWS HERE... http://www.nypost.com/entertainment/10963.htm
have a little faith in gibson...( no pun intended )
Only the post reader enjoyed it... which says something about its audience, I think. I think to make these fair reviews, it would've been nice to get their views on films like "The Last Temptation of Christ."
CHARLOTTE, N.C. (Nov. 29) - The Rev. Billy Graham gave an enthusiastic thumbs-up to Mel Gibson's biblical epic, "The Passion of Christ," after a private screening with the movie star.
The film, which describes the hours before Jesus Christ's crucifixion, has generated complaints from some Jewish leaders, who say it suggests Jews were responsible for Christ's death. Conservative Catholics who have seen the film have called it powerful.
"The film is faithful to the Bible's teaching that we are all responsible for Jesus' death, because we all have sinned," the 85-year-old evangelist said. "It is our sins that caused his death, not any particular group."
In a statement released Tuesday by the Billy Graham Evangelistic Association, the Southern Baptist also said he "was moved to tears" by the film.
Gibson spent a reported $30 million to produce the movie. Set for release Feb. 25, the movie's dialogue is in Latin, Hebrew and Aramaic with English subtitles.
"I doubt if there has been a more graphic and moving presentation of Jesus' death and resurrection, which Christians believe are the most important events in human history," Graham said.
Graham attended a screening a month ago - one of several Gibson has hosted for religious leaders. After one in August, Abraham Foxman of the Anti-Defamation League complained "the film unambiguously portrays Jewish authorities and the Jewish mob as the ones responsible for the decision to crucify Jesus."
Paul Lauer, the film's marketing director in Santa Monica, Calif., called Graham's endorsement "very important." Lauer said the film is faithful to the Gospel text.
"Therefore," he said, "we don't believe the film is anti-Semitic."
Graham apologized last year for disparaging remarks he made about Jews 30 years ago in an Oval Office conversation with President Nixon. The comments were released on audio tapes made by Nixon.
11/29/03 19:59 EST
AP on AOL
I think The Post's review was probably pretty accurate...it's what I was expecting. I hope Gibson takes some of their comments to heart, despite any lawsuits.
However...Billy Graham? Ughhhh. Just my opinion.
subtitles?...grrr...
regardless, im still quite looking forward to this.
Quote from: Pedro el Fascolomissubtitles?...grrr...
No, I think that was the right move.
What concerns me is where Gibson mentioned he would use visual hints to let the audience know what's going on, before subtitles were added. Have they been edited out?
subtitles no good in this case
I was really looking forward to just watching the movie
... well, I guess I still could just ignore the subtitles.
(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.thepassionofthechrist.com%2Fimages%2Fteaserposter.jpg&hash=126df8c72bb63fa512af0a5f336b6a3b29aa0014)
Teaser trailer here. (http://www.thepassionofthechrist.com/splash.html)
"The" christ. That's funny.
Quote from: Jeremy Blackman"The" christ. That's funny.
I'm not big on religion. Why did they put that 'the' there? I remember reading that going, "So, Christ is a job title? Or is 'the' his middle name?"
Well, you could say the same thing about The Last Temptation of Christ. I don't know how this movie's gonna be. I don't know very much about it, but I'm sure it won't top Scorsese's masterpiece!
Quote from: SydneyWell, you could say the same thing about The Last Temptation of Christ. I don't know how this movie's gonna be. I don't know very much about it, but I'm sure it won't top Scorsese's masterpiece!
I think you've misunderstood. We're talking about this 'the': The Passion of
The Christ. It's like making the title you mentioned "The Last Temptation of
The Christ"...sounds stupid to me, is there any reason why they would add this? Some biblical syntax thing or something? Any insight?
Putting a THE in front of it is actually the correct use of the word Christ, which is in fact not a name.
http://xixax.com/viewtopic.php?t=309
i do it again.
Quote from: GhostboyPutting a THE in front of it is actually the correct use of the word Christ, which is in fact not a name.
Yeah, probably. In Paradise Lost, Milton constantly refers to him as "The Son"...
is it just me or is that trailer in exxxxxtraaaa wiiiiiiiiiiiddddeeeeeeeeeeee screeen
terrible teaser. terrible.
Quote from: Pedro the Wombat
terrible teaser. terrible.
agreed... putting aside the fact that when you say "A Mel Gibson Film" it immediatly becomes a joke, it's does nothing more for me than any of those low budget Christspoitation flicks that are hawked late at night by the Bible networks.
Quote from: RegularKarateQuote from: Pedro the Wombat
terrible teaser. terrible.
agreed... putting aside the fact that when you say "A Mel Gibson Film" it immediatly becomes a joke, it's does nothing more for me than any of those low budget Christspoitation flicks that are hawked late at night by the Bible networks.
yeah...it looks of about that caliber. dissapointing, because, unlike so many people here, i really really like braveheart.
Quote from: GhostboyPutting a THE in front of it is actually the correct use of the word Christ, which is in fact not a name.
Ah ok, thanks, interesting. So then, what is Christ if it's not a name. Is Christ hebrew for son of god or something? A 'the' would make sense in that case, or something similar. Sorry to drag this on, but I'm just more curious about this than the actual movie.
Quote from: Gamblor the ManwhoreQuote from: GhostboyIs Christ hebrew for son of god or something?
Basically. It's actually Greek (short for Christus, I believe) and it means The Annointed.
Sorry I misunderstood. You're right, the The before Christ doesn't sound very good. I suppose the Gibson is a very religious person so he wanted to clarify that there is only one Christ.
That new trailer is rubbish compared to the original. It makes a bigger deal out of the flashy 3d titles than it does the actual film. Cheapens the whole damn thing.
Quote from: ®edlumThat new trailer is rubbish compared to the original. It makes a bigger deal out of the flashy 3d titles than it does the actual film. Cheapens the whole damn thing.
Yeah, I remember the teaser (or whatever it was, the original trailer, I guess?) had that great shot of Christ on the cross, gasping or moaning, it was really terrific, but oh well. It's gotten so much free press, this will make bajillions.
The teaser's not terrible, it's just conservative. They had to tone down the violence for it to be more marketable.
I mean, the producers want people to see this movie. It's an important part of the process.
Yeah, but the teaser mainly seems to be a handful of randomly selected (although admittedly beautiful) images that don't build to anything. And the titles are a little too fancy, too, I agree.
Anyway, they screened this at AICN's Butt-Numb-A-Thon over the weekend, and apparently it got a five minute standing ovation. There are a few reviews up on the site now.
An encouraging quote from one of the above-mentioned reviews:
"Okay, before I say anything else about this film, I want to say something. I am an atheist. I do not believe in god, Jesus, or the bible. I am not a Christian, I am not a Jew, I have no religion. I am also a card-carrying member of the ACLU and a supporter of the ARA (Anti-Racist Action, a youth-based anti-racism organization formed in a retaliation to the neo-nazi movement). I have no ill feelings toward any religion, belief, or race. My best friend is Catholic, my girlfriend is Baptist, my soon-to-be roommate is a Deist, one of my close friends is a Wiccan, and two of my ex-girlfriends are Jewish. When you read this review, remember all this.
The first thing I want to say about PASSION is that this is not a religious film. It's a film. It's an amazing, brilliant, incredible film. This is the film that everyone will be talking about in 2004. Unfortunately due to the press, they're going to be talking about the wrong things.
So far, everyone has asked me if I liked this film. I did not like this film, but I did not dislike this film. I did not love this film, and I did not hate it. This film is beyond those type of descriptions. I cannot say I liked this film. But I can say this is probably one of the most important films – if not THE most important film – of this century so far. If anyone wants to make another grand film, this is going to be the yardstick it's measured against. "
What a horseshit review... sorry if you wrote the review and you're reading this.
"I didn't like it or dislike it or hate it or love it, we just kissed a little and then I took it home, but it's one of the most important films about shit you've probably seen a hundred times over... also, I'm not racist"
I can't help but notice you're a little predisposed towards this film. Any reason why? Did Mel Gibson run over your dog?
I will admit that I just think Gibson is a fuckin talentless goober and get a little upset by the amount of undeserved attention he gets.
The only thing this movie had going for it was the no subtitles thing... not that someone like Gibson could pull it off, but now it doesn't even have that.
Also, really, I don't like that review.
I don't usually prejudge a movie this much, but I just really think this is gonna be a big pile of steaming dog shit.
The only thing that really interested me was the idea of Aramaic with no subtitles. If that's out, I can only look forward to a Jesus cartoon.
It would be fun to have a Braveheart-like warrior Christ, like in this medieval poem:
Almighty God ungirded Him,
eager to mount the gallows,
unafraid in the sight of many
"The Dream of The Rood"
Gibson should have got it over with and cast himself as The Christ.
worst comes to worst I figure we get the dvd and just turn the subtitles off...
Quote from: RegularKarateI will admit that I just think Gibson is a fuckin talentless goober and get a little upset by the amount of undeserved attention he gets.
The only thing this movie had going for it was the no subtitles thing... not that someone like Gibson could pull it off, but now it doesn't even have that.
Also, really, I don't like that review.
I don't usually prejudge a movie this much, but I just really think this is gonna be a big pile of steaming dog shit.
I agree 100%.
I assume this movie will be aweful. Gibson is known for his religious fundamentalism. Someone should have told Mel that the Romans did not nail people onto the cross, they tied them to it, for the nails could never carry the weight of a human body.
But this looks like Braveheart in Palestine. I hated that film so much...with a passion, so to say.
About the Aramaic with no subtitles thing: isn't there already a film that is in Latin with no subtitles? Might be older.
Quote from: chriskelvinSomeone should have told Mel that the Romans did not nail people onto the cross, they tied them to it, for the nails could never carry the weight of a human body.
Sometimes rope was used. But sometimes they used 7 1/2 inch spikes driven through the wrist and ankle bones. Those easily held a body onto a cross (which wasn't always in the shape of a "t" either, but sometimes an "x", etc). Lotsa good info on this and other stuff on the Last Temptation Of Christ dvd. They include some research sources that Scorsese used.
Quote from: SoNowThenQuote from: chriskelvinSomeone should have told Mel that the Romans did not nail people onto the cross, they tied them to it, for the nails could never carry the weight of a human body.
Sometimes rope was used. But sometimes they used 7 1/2 inch spikes driven through the wrist and ankle bones. Those easily held a body onto a cross (which wasn't always in the shape of a "t" either, but sometimes an "x", etc). Lotsa good info on this and other stuff on the Last Temptation Of Christ dvd. They include some research sources that Scorsese used.
I'll accept that version. :wink:
Quote from: Jeremy BlackmanThe only thing that really interested me was the idea of Aramaic with no subtitles. If that's out, I can only look forward to a Jesus cartoon.
Really? That's the only thing that interested you in this movie? The
only thing?
So what if they add subtitles back to the movie. Again, the producers want people to go see it. Marketing seems to be a foreign language to some of you.
Quote from: Pawbloe
So what if they add subtitles back to the movie.
So now it will be a shit movie AND we'll be able to read the bad dialogue
Quote from: PawbloeQuote from: Jeremy BlackmanThe only thing that really interested me was the idea of Aramaic with no subtitles. If that's out, I can only look forward to a Jesus cartoon.
Really? That's the only thing that interested you in this movie? The only thing?
Yes. I still think it's a brilliant idea, and if it really was Gibson's idea I'll even admit it was a genius idea and a profound statment, notwithstanding his offensive religious views and how inevitably crappy this movie is going to be.
Quote from: Jeremy BlackmanQuote from: PawbloeQuote from: Jeremy BlackmanThe only thing that really interested me was the idea of Aramaic with no subtitles. If that's out, I can only look forward to a Jesus cartoon.
Really? That's the only thing that interested you in this movie? The only thing?
Yes. I still think it's a brilliant idea, and if it really was Gibson's idea I'll even admit it was a genius idea and a profound statment, notwithstanding his offensive religious views and how inevitably crappy this movie is going to be.
You know who would've been a better director than Gibson for this project?
Anyone.
Seriously, I would love to see Theo Angelopoulus, Terrence Davies, Alexandr Sokurov, Terence Malick, or Tom Tykwer- anyone who has, quite unlike Gibson, demonstrated an ability to project a sense of the sacred from the silver screen- give it a try.
Quote from: godardian
You know who would've been a better director than Gibson for this project?
Anyone.
Xixax quote of the week :-D
Quote from: Jeremy BlackmanYes. I still think it's a brilliant idea, and if it really was Gibson's idea I'll even admit it was a genius idea and a profound statment, notwithstanding his offensive religious views and how inevitably crappy this movie is going to be.
Well,
apparently the idea was to have the movie in Aramic and Latin without subtitles. And
apparently it was the producers that pleaded with Gibson to add subtitles so they would have more than 2 people in the theater.
So... I expect you to dust off your "Mel Gibson is the Coolest" t-shirt and proudly wear it around town before you get pummeled by your Commie friends, you damn Communist.
Quote from: PawbloeWell, apparently the idea was to have the movie in Aramic and Latin without subtitles. And apparently it was the producers that pleaded with Gibson to add subtitles so they would have more than 2 people in the theater.
And Gibson buckled under the pressure and let his own genius idea disintegrate... right?
Quote from: Pawbloebefore you get pummeled by your Commie friends, you damn Communist.
Communists don't pummel.
Quote from: Jeremy Blackman
Communists don't pummel.
Well,
real Communists don't, anyway. I'm sure Stalin did his share of pummelling, but any good Communist knows he was a traitorous fascist who failed the revolution.
I'd be a better director. Ben Stiller would play Jesus and I'd film the entire thing in wideshots to drain the story of importance.
Quote from: Jeremy BlackmanQuote from: PawbloeWell, apparently the idea was to have the movie in Aramic and Latin without subtitles. And apparently it was the producers that pleaded with Gibson to add subtitles so they would have more than 2 people in the theater.
And Gibson buckled under the pressure and let his own genius idea disintegrate... right?
Yeah he did, and I think you'll find it much more succesful at the box office. I can imagine the long hunting period he went through to find a distributor, he just didn't want to be threatend to do it again. What you guys may call "artistic compromise" I call "business smarts."
Quote from: Jeremy BlackmanQuote from: Pawbloebefore you get pummeled by your Commie friends, you damn Communist.
Communists don't pummel.
Yeah, but they're great in bed.
Quote from: Jeremy BlackmanCommunists don't pummel.
Quote from: PawbloeYeah, but they're great in bed.
I'm not a Communist, but I can actually vouch for that. :wink: Ah, youth...
Quote from: PawbloeWhat you guys may call "artistic compromise" I call "business smarts."
An even better term would be "sellout."
Pope gets a sneak at Passion
Variety reports that, Pope John Paul II has been given a private sneak preview of Mel Gibson's "The Passion of the Christ" -- at least that's the word at the Vatican.
The 83-year-old pontiff, a playwright and movie buff, is believed to have seen a rough cut that Icon Prods. and producer Stephen McEveety have been screening in Rome. The ailing pope is said to have seen "The Passion" either on video in his apartment or on film in his private screening room in the Vatican's Pontifical Council for Social Communications.
There was no comment on Monday from Icon CEO Nick Hill, which set up the Rome screenings, or from the Vatican.
Earlier this month Italian distributor Eagle Pictures canceled a screening scheduled during a Vatican confab on Christ after Icon claimed the film about the last 12 hours of Christ's life was "not ready." Yet just two days later, McEveety screened "The Passion" in a basement arthouse cinema in Rome near the Vatican.
"I can see why they might have initially been reluctant," Father Augustine Di Noia, an American theologian who is undersecretary of the Vatican's Doctrinal Congregation, told Daily Variety.
"They were embarrassed, in a way, because they felt the quality was poor."
Di Noia -- according to whom "Gibson's film is going to be a success because of its intrinsic power, both religiously and artistically" -- also said that the music was unfinished and that there were jump cuts in the editing.
Di Noia countered allegations that the film is anti-Semitic, saying that "Jews come out as ordinary human beings who thought that Jesus was dangerous. When you put them (the Jews) in the context of what the Roman soldiers do, it's nothing," he added. While getting the nod from Vatican officials such as Di Noia -- and also from higher-ranking American Archbishop John Foley, who heads the Vatican's social communications office, and Cardinal Castrillon Hoyos, considered a candidate to succeed the pope -- is not an official Vatican endorsement, it can go a long way in marketing Gibson's $25 million pic.
"Getting positive reviews from top Vatican officials is key to the film's success not just in Italy, but in any other Catholic country," said Eagle's head of acquisitions Maria Grazia Vauro.
Some one should screen Happiness for him.
i wasnt too impressed by the trailer
Beautiful photography, I must say.
Nice poster, especially the one on the right (save for the font).
I still believe this movie could be an artistic triumph. I may disagree with Gibson's politics, but I'll judge his films on their own merit.
In the meantime, I'm very amused by this: http://homepages.nyu.edu/~scs273/01.mov
Ha! You saw that too! I think that should be one of the top 10 films of 2003!
That trailer is fucking brilliant.
haha that was great. no matter how good this movie is when we all finally see it, even if it is like the most brilliant fucking thing to come along in years, it still wont be taken seriously. mel gibsons name is to blame i think.
Quote from: Ghostboyhttp://homepages.nyu.edu/~scs273/01.mov
I have to agree, that was brilliant. :yabbse-grin:
Yeah, that's hilarious...where do you find stuff like that?
nyu, where everybody is ridiculously smart and clever... :roll:
Quote from: MacGuffinPope gets a sneak at Passion
Variety reports that, Pope John Paul II has been given a private sneak preview of Mel Gibson's "The Passion of the Christ" -- at least that's the word at the Vatican.
I wonder if they had to prop a stick up under his chin so he could see the film.
New Quicktime Trailer:
Hi-Res (http://mp3content03.bcst.yahoo.com/proot4/PubShare13/yahoomovies/10/5650053.mov)
Med-Res (http://mp3content02.bcst.yahoo.com/proot2/PubShare06/yahoomovies/9/5650050.mov)
Lo-Res (http://mp3content02.bcst.yahoo.com/proot4/PubShare13/yahoomovies/9/5650046.mov)
(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.angelfire.com%2Ffilm%2Fmac_guffin%2Fthepassionofthechrist.jpg&hash=1faee9d61036ae8b94443b6781c704a27987a0e7)
mmmm.
The nose says it all: Jezuz was da king of da Jewz.
Aide: Pope did not endorse Gibson film
ROME, Italy (Reuters) -- In the latest twist in a saga involving the Vatican and Mel Gibson's controversial film about the death of Christ, Pope John Paul II's closest aide has denied reports the pontiff had praised the film's Biblical accuracy.
Archbishop Stanislaw Dziwisz, the pope's long-time private secretary, told the Catholic News Service Monday: "The Holy Father told no one of his opinion of this film."
In the past seven weeks, major world media organizations have written reports based on Church sources saying the pope liked the film and that he told aides that it was an accurate portrayal of Biblical accounts of Christ's final hours.
"The Passion of the Christ" is based on Gospel narratives and contains dialogue only in Latin, Hebrew and Aramaic, the vernacular of ancient Palestine. It opens on Ash Wednesday, February 25.
The movie, which covers the final 12 hours in the life of Jesus Christ, has come under fire from some Jewish groups that fear its story could foment anti-Semitism because it portrays Jewish authorities as largely responsible for Christ's death.
Dziwisz issued his denial after weeks of reports that the pope had told aides after seeing the film: "It is as it was."
Dziwisz told Catholic News Service: "The Holy Father saw the film privately in his apartment, but gave no declaration to anyone. He does not make judgments on art of this kind. He leaves that to others, to experts."
Supporters had seen the words attributed to the pope as an endorsement of the film's Biblical accuracy, but some Jews worried that they could harm Roman Catholic-Jewish relations.
On Sunday, columnist Frank Rich of the New York Times, who is Jewish, accused the film's producers of "roping him (the pope) into a publicity campaign to sell a movie."
Vatican spokesmen have repeatedly declined officially to confirm or deny the numerous reports over the past month.
Some Catholic and other Christian groups have defended the film, saying it sticks closely to accounts of the crucifixion as told in the New Testament.
The film has been shown to a select audience of Catholic officials in several private screenings in recent weeks.
Many Vatican officials have seen it in whole or part and have rejected charges that it is anti-Semitic.
Cardinal Dario Castrillon Hoyos, head of the Vatican department in charge of priests, said in September: "I would gladly trade some of the homilies that I have given about the passion of Christ for even a few of the scenes of his film."
Gibson reportedly paid $20 million to $25 million of his own money to make the movie, but despite his status as a top box office draw and Oscar winner, Hollywood's major studios shied away from distributing it because of the controversy.
Gibson is a member of a traditionalist Roman Catholic group that rejects some of the reforms of the Second Vatican Council and still uses the old-style Latin Mass.
Quote from: Cinephile"The Holy Father saw the film privately in his apartment, but gave no declaration to anyone. He does not make judgments on art of this kind. He leaves that to others, to experts."
well HOLY SHIT! if HE aint an expert on the subject, who is?!!?
Quote from: themodernage02Quote from: Cinephile"The Holy Father saw the film privately in his apartment, but gave no declaration to anyone. He does not make judgments on art of this kind. He leaves that to others, to experts."
well HOLY SHIT! if HE aint an expert on the subject, who is?!!?
i think he meant theologists ,antropologists, historians ...
on the subject, here's a book worth reading (https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Foregonstate.edu%2Fgroups%2Fchronicle%2Fissues%2FFall2001%2FGraphics%2Fbible%2520as%2520history.jpg&hash=10e4fdfc83adf48a85906d8db69c5971f75c2ed5)
I'm guessing he meant cinema experts...
Quote from: SoNowThenI'm guessing he meant cinema experts...
yeah i think he did too. but i was kidding. :?
oh... :roll:
Gibson: 'Worst to come' over 'Passion'
ORLANDO, Florida (Reuters) -- The controversy that has followed Mel Gibson's film about the death of Christ could be persecution or just inspired publicity, but the film-maker himself predicted "the worst is yet to come" on Wednesday at a meeting with 4,500 evangelical Christian pastors.
A day after reports that a high Vatican official denied that Pope John Paul gave a thumbs up to his film, "The Passion of the Christ," Gibson prepared to show it to another hand-picked audience, this time the Global Pastors Network conference meeting in Orlando.
As with past screenings, media were barred, as were Jewish groups worried that the film could incite anti-Semitism if it suggests Jewish authorities in Jerusalem 2,000 years ago were largely responsible for the crucifixion of the man Christians worship as the incarnation of God.
On Tuesday, an aide to the pope denied media reports that the pontiff had praised the film's Biblical accuracy, saying, "The Holy Father told no one of his opinion of this film."
Gibson did not mention the Vatican denial when he addressed the pastors. He thanked them for their prayers, but warned, somewhat ominously, "I anticipate the worst is yet to come. I hope I'm wrong. I hope I'm wrong."
Gibson said the film gestated in his imagination for 12 years as he meditated on the gospel stories of a God who became human so he could pay the price for human sin.
"He could have done it by pricking his finger and shedding a little blood. He didn't; he wanted to go all the way," Gibson said.
While Gibson thanked the pastors for their support, his publicity director, Paul Lauer, urged them to send youth groups to the R-rated flick when it opens on February 25 on 2,000 screens in the United States.
The rating, apparently based on the graphic depiction of the crucifixion, means those under age 17 must be accompanied by a parent or adult guardian.
Lauer predicted that if the film posts good numbers on its opening weekend, "I think there'll be a lot of powerful people in Hollywood saying, 'Somebody get me a Jesus picture.' "
Man, this will either do really well because of the controversy, or do really bad. I kinda hope it does well; Mel seems passionate about it, and that's enough for me to back a movie, assuming it won't be a major piece of shit.
Quote from: Chest RockwellMan, this will either do really well because of the controversy, or do really bad. I kinda hope it does well; Mel seems passionate about it, and that's enough for me to back a movie, assuming it won't be a major piece of shit.
It will make over 100 million.
Much more than that I'm not sure. There is an audience for 100 million though for sure.
I love that new poster. Not so much the trailer, but again it's just commercializing it. I still love the original R-rated trailer from last year.
So you have me and SoNowThen and a few others who have hopes for this movie, and then everyone else who expects it to be terrible. Hopefully there will be some good debates here a month from now...
I wasn't gonna say anything, but I had a chance to see this last week. I turned it down.
Some church folks got a temp print (I think everything was done except opening credits, and music), and invited a whole whack of people to screen it. My parents went. My Dad, whose taste is suspect, but if you keep him talking long enough will usually yield an intelligent discussion, seemed very --- I dunno -- normal with it. He definitely thought it was good. But we talked about it again today, and it seems like he just has nothing to say about it. But he did mention there's nothing cheesy about it, it seems pretty well made, etc etc.
Any any rate, I'm gonna wait to see it in theatres with everyone else. I've had the pain of trying to show people my rough cuts, and all you wanna do is explain "this and this will change, I know it doesn't work", so I gave old Mel the benefit of the doubt, and will see the best version he has to offer.
On a parting note, Pop said he felt the crucifiction in Last Temptation was oddly more effective. I guess in this one, Jesus stays clothed, which is of course, balony. So I dunno, you can show a man getting whipped nearly to death, but no cock shot? But I chalk it up to the fact that, had Mel had 7 years, and infinite amounts of money, he couldn't shoot anything that would come close to the power and grace that Marty could come up with in a day.
So it remains to be seen. I hope it's good...
Quote from: GhostboySo you have me and SoNowThen and a few others who have hopes for this movie, and then everyone else who expects it to be terrible. Hopefully there will be some good debates here a month from now...
I'm with you, Ghostboy
Quote from: GhostboyHopefully there will be some good debates here a month from now...
yeah as long as everyone doesn't subconsciously make it about butt sex again. sheesh.
Quote from: Chest RockwellQuote from: GhostboySo you have me and SoNowThen and a few others who have hopes for this movie, and then everyone else who expects it to be terrible. Hopefully there will be some good debates here a month from now...
I'm with you, Ghostboy
me too
Quote from: ewardQuote from: Chest RockwellQuote from: GhostboySo you have me and SoNowThen and a few others who have hopes for this movie, and then everyone else who expects it to be terrible. Hopefully there will be some good debates here a month from now...
I'm with you, Ghostboy
me too
well, goddamn sonny, me too.
why you gotta say GD?
i'm looking forward to the film.
i still don't understand the controversy with Jews.
whether you believe that Jesus Christ performed miracles, was the son of God or not, he was a historical person put to death by a crowd of Jewish people. it happened nearly 2000 years ago, why would a film cause a riot of any sort? it's not like this is the first film about the Gospels or Christ.
It could be like Braveheart, where I love the movie aesthetically and emotionally, but strongly disagree with its morals.
Quote from: bigideasi'm looking forward to the film.
i still don't understand the controversy with Jews.
whether you believe that Jesus Christ performed miracles, was the son of God or not, he was a historical person put to death by a crowd of Jewish people. it happened nearly 2000 years ago, why would a film cause a riot of any sort? it's not like this is the first film about the Gospels or Christ.
I think it's cause they were the ones who put Jesus to death. I suppose they believe people will blame the Jewish folks today for it, even though the bible's been around for a pretty good while now.
Quote from: Jeremy BlackmanIt could be like Braveheart, where I love the movie aesthetically and emotionally, but strongly disagree with its morals.
Explain???
I think it's bizzare how people say "the Jews killed Jesus" like all Jewish people voted on it...
Quote from: SoNowThenExplain???
Well, William Wallace was not a nice guy... I think it's a character glorification to the point of gratuity. I don't understand how he can be deified like that.
Not to compare him with Jesus...
Quote from: Jeremy BlackmanI think it's bizzare how people say "the Jews killed Jesus" like all Jewish people voted on it...
Reminds me of that line from Dogme in the abortion clinic. Anyway, if you're going by the bible...the Romans crucified Jesus, but Pilate gave the Jewish leaders a choice of who would be crucified (him or another criminal), and they chose Jesus. Historically speaking, though, I don't know if there's anything to back that up.
Quote from: Jeremy BlackmanWell, William Wallace was not a nice guy...
But the movie says... :wink:
Quote from: Jeremy BlackmanI think it's bizzare how people say "the Jews killed Jesus" like all Jewish people voted on it...
Quote from: SoNowThenExplain???
Well, William Wallace was not a nice guy... I think it's a character glorification to the point of gratuity. I don't understand how he can be deified like that.
Not to compare him with Jesus...
Yeah, I definitely agree with you about Wallace. That's probably the reason I didn't like that movie.
Obviously I'll be expecting to see a fairly blameless Christ though. Y'know, son of God and all that...
As to this whole "Jews killed Jesus" thing, I doubt that's what the movie is trying to say. It's just a fact that, as Ghostboy said, the Jewish leaders of that area had a hand in it. If they would've been in another country, the local leaders there would've had to make the decision. Nobody's blaming a specific group with the murder of our Messiah. He was there to die. That was the point.
Quote from: SoNowThenIt's just a fact that, as Ghostboy said,
Wait wait wait, he said "if you're going by the bible"... It may be true, but I'm not going to take for granted that the Bible is fact.
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/01/15/movies/15PASS.html
(registration required)
'Passion' Film Is Scheduled for Big Opening
By SHARON WAXMAN
Published: January 15, 2004
Correction Appended
LOS ANGELES, Jan. 14 — The distributors of Mel Gibson's controversial new movie, "The Passion of the Christ," plan to release the film on 2,000 screens across the nation next month, a decision prompted by an unexpected flood of ticket requests.
"I knew it would start building and building," Bob Berney, the president of New Market Films, said of the demand, "but now it's like a tsunami." Newmarket is distributing the film for Mr. Gibson's company, Icon Productions.
"We've had a flood of calls," Mr. Berney said. "People call and say, 'I want 10,000 tickets.' "
Church groups have been ordering large blocks of tickets, and theater chains have set up toll-free numbers to take advance orders, Mr. Berney said. One multiplex in Plano, Tex., a suburb of Dallas, is planning to reserve all 20 of its screens for "The Passion" and will start showing the movie at 6:30 a.m. on its opening day, Feb. 25, which is Ash Wednesday.
The plans for a wide release are a striking development for a film that just a few months ago was having trouble finding a distributor and that was under fire from Jewish groups concerned that it carried anti-Semitic overtones. The film, in Latin and Aramaic, with subtitles, is reported to include a gory depiction of the crucifixion.
Alan Nierob, a spokesman for Mr. Gibson, said: "This is an amazing evolution. It's one of those cases where demand has completely dictated the release pattern of this film." Mr. Gibson wrote, directed, produced and paid for the $25 million movie. He was completing editing and sound mixing on the film in Los Angeles and was not available for comment on Wednesday, his spokesman said. "The Passion of the Christ" has been stirring interest and controversy for months over its depiction of both the crucifixion and Jews' role in it. Hollywood's major studios all passed on offers to distribute the film; Newmarket agreed to distribute it for a fee, as it did the sleeper hit "My Big Fat Greek Wedding."
The Anti-Defamation League has warned that the film could promote anti-Semitism at a time when it says anti-Israel and anti-Jewish sentiment is on the rise.
For his part, Mr. Gibson, who practices a traditionalist form of Catholicism, has enlisted the support of Christian groups and screened the film for Pope John Paul II and other officials at the Vatican. He has also shown the film to leading conservative figures like the writer Peggy Noonan. A grass-roots campaign among evangelical Protestants and Catholics has also stoked interest in the film.
Mr. Nierob said that the film was not meant to encourage anti-Semitism, and that Mr. Gibson was confident it would not.
"The viewpoint of the filmmaker is that that is not his intent, nor of any interest to him," Mr. Nierob said. "That's contrary to what he feels the film will accomplish."
Correction Tuesday, Jan. 20, 2004
An article on Thursday about plans for a wide release of Mel Gibson's film "The Passion of the Christ" misspelled the name of the distributor at one point and credited it mistakenly with the distribution of another film. The distributor of Mr. Gibson's movie is Newmarket Films, not New Market. "My Big Fat Greek Wedding" was distributed in the United States by IFC Films.
Does R rating really tell the story of 'Passion'?
The graphic violence in Gibson's film raises the issue of what it takes to be labeled NC-17
The body on the screen is beaten to a blood-drenched pulp — flesh ripped by a cat-o'-nine-tails and rising in welts at the force of the blows. Leather sandals splash and soak in puddles of blood. It is an orgy of pain and violence.
Long, brutal scenes such as that one make up much of the yet-to-be-released film "The Passion of the Christ." While early attention has focused on whether Mel Gibson's film has the potential to inspire anti-Semitism, a viewing last week of a still-unfinished version suggests it may raise concerns about the unremitting violence of its images as well.
While not condemning the graphic nature of the film, Brother Charles Jackson, director of vocations with the California Province of the Society of Jesus, said: "It was so graphic and the scourging so long that you almost shut down. Psychologically you just can't handle it."
The issue could take on added urgency because the R-rated film is being broadly marketed to evangelical Christians, including the teen market, although Gibson has emphasized that it is not for young children.
The R designation also may cast renewed attention on the Motion Picture Assn. of America ratings system and raise questions about whether any kind of violence would be sufficient to warrant an NC-17. The rating has largely been applied to movies with explicit sexual content.
Though the Ash Wednesday release date in roughy 2,000 theaters around the country is little more than two weeks away, the film viewed last week clearly remains a work in progress with many sound, musical score and color corrections incomplete. Gibson is expected to lock in a final version of the film later in the week. This version did not include the so-called blood curse, drawn from the Gospel of Matthew, in which Jews cry out, "His blood upon us and upon our children" — a reference that had drawn fire from Abraham Foxman, national director of the Anti-Defamation League.
"The Passion" follows the last 12 hours of Jesus' life, and from the initial beatings to the Crucifixion, Gibson (a member of a conservative religious group) spared little in his effort to create a searing vision of pain and suffering. For some religious conservatives, watching that pain is precisely the point. Others wonder if the brutality is excessive and will turn audiences away.
Paul Hetrick, vice president of media relations with the Christian group Focus on the Family, saw it in June with a group of 30. He said questions were raised about the length of the film's violent scenes as well.
"We suggested that he didn't need to go on that long," Hetrick said. But Gibson told them that he had already cut significant portions and that he wanted to maintain the film's realism.
In the end, audiences should be prepared for the realism, Hetrick suggested: "It's not entertainment. It's a very important film and a significant film."
Still, the graphic nature of the film is likely to raise the question of what it takes to get an NC-17 rating for violence — which means no one younger than 17 may attend. (In 1990, the MPAA revised the X rating to NC-17 to help separate mainstream movies from pornographic films and videos.)
The ratings are applied by a governing body of eight to 13 members who live in Los Angeles whose identities are kept confidential. These people, all of whom are parents, are selected by Jack Valenti, president of the MPAA.
The most recent film to trigger discussions about the application of NC-17 for violence was Quentin Tarantino's "Kill Bill: Vol. 1." In October, the rating board's decision not to give the film an NC-17 outraged some advocacy groups and industry critics who maintained the movie was too bloody to merit an R. Bernardo Bertolucci's film "The Dreamers," due in theaters this weekend, will be the next film to carry an NC-17, in this case for nudity and sexual content.
In America, it seems to Dan Harkins, owner of Harkins Theatres in Arizona, moviegoers are much more comfortable with violent images than sex. He has ordered extra prints of "The Passion" because of the interest it is generating and remains unconcerned about the violence.
"This is going to be a lot of families' first-time exposure to an R-rated movie," he said. "Sexual content has always been more objectionable than violence. There is a polarity between those two with the audiences. Why do the mores of this country follow such a different path than Europe? There is more of a puritanical tendency here."
While Valenti declined to comment on the decision to give an R rating to "The Passion," he speculated that perhaps the film's historical and religious currency made it possible.
"It is unethical for me to comment on this particular movie," Valenti said.
Valenti went on to say the difficulty with any ratings system is: "You are dealing with it subjectively. What is too much violence? That is a good question."
"The Passion" may force the MPAA, if not moviegoers, to grapple with finding an answer. Within Catholic and other Christian communities, there are outreach efforts to families and young people. At the same time leaders within these communities are cautioning that the depiction of Jesus' torture may be too much for some.
"I do not believe that young children under 13 should see this movie. And Mel Gibson agrees with me," said Rick Warren, senior pastor of Saddleback Church in Lake Forest and a national evangelical leader. "This is probably the only R-rated movie I'll ever recommend that you attend. But this time R stands for 'realistic,' not 'raunchy.' "
Some say giving the film an NC-17 would have curtailed a parent's freedom to choose if they should bring their child.
"I would hate to think that the film industry would tell the parents of that child that he couldn't be taken to see it," said Ed Gamble, executive director of the Southern Baptist Assn. of Christian Schools, based in Orlando, Fla.
Gamble, who has not seen the film, says he plans to take his 15-year-old son to see "The Passion" the day it is released. The only R-rated movies he's let his son see — "The Patriot" and "Braveheart" — were also Gibson films. Gamble decided to do so, he said, because the films offered "lessons of valor and integrity."
In the case of "The Passion," it should be up to each parent to determine if a child is mature enough to watch such violence, he said.
"It would be wrong to exclude 12- and 13-year-olds if their parents think they are capable of handling the violence that they see in that movie," Gamble said. "This is not gratuitous violence. This really happened."
Indeed to some supporters of the film, the violence is a needed dose of reality.
"People ask us about the R rating. The Bible is R-rated," said Ric Olsen, senior associate pastor of Harbor Trinity Church in Costa Mesa. "We have so glamorized the cross and gilded it. This was an instrument of torture. With 'The Passion,' we get a look back through time to see that."
Quote from: MacGuffin"I do not believe that young children under 13 should see this movie. And Mel Gibson agrees with me," said Rick Warren, senior pastor of Saddleback Church in Lake Forest and a national evangelical leader. "This is probably the only R-rated movie I'll ever recommend that you attend. But this time R stands for 'realistic,' not 'raunchy.' "[/size]
Now, I've heard a lot of good about Rick Warren. From most accounts he is a pretty stand-up guy, and a respected church leader. But damn, it's stupid comments like this one that give my religion such a bad name. People this IS NOT a view shared by thinking Christians. "The only R movie", gimme a fucking break. Rick, get your head out of your ass. It's fuckers like this one who helped give Last Temptation all the trouble it got -- a movie I consider to be the most important "Christian" film of all time.
Mel Gibson to Delete a Scene in The Passion
Source: The New York Times Tuesday, February 3, 2004
According to The New York Times, director Mel Gibson will delete a controversial scene from The Passion of the Christ before it hits theaters on February 25.
Mel Gibson, responding to focus groups as much as to protests by Jewish critics, has decided to delete a controversial scene about Jews from his film, "The Passion of the Christ," a close associate said today.
A scene in the film, in which the Jewish high priest Caiaphas calls down a kind of curse on the Jewish people by declaring of the Crucifixion, "His blood be on us and on our children," will not be in the movie's final version, said the Gibson associate, who spoke on condition of anonymity.
The passage had been included in some versions of the film that were shown before select groups, mostly of priests and ministers.
"It didn't work in the focus screenings," the associate said. "Maybe it was thought to be too hurtful, or taken not in the way it was intended. It has been used terribly over the years."
Jewish leaders had warned that the passage from Matthew 27:25 was the historic source for many of the charges of deicide and Jews' collective guilt in the death of Jesus.
James Caviezel and Monica Bellucci star in the film, which chronicles the final 12 hours in the life of Jesus Christ.
Quote from: SoNowThen-- a movie I consider to be the most important "Christian" film of all time.
.....until now :twisted:
That will remain to be seen.
A lot of my local churches are buying tickets right now to see this. I know some people who want to start rallies to promote the movie, but I told them to first see the movie. You can't have an opinion on something until you've seen it.
Everybody's been talking about this movie like they're counting down to the end of the world. Almost everybody I know wants to see it really badly. I don't really know why because I know it's gonna be very tough to sit through. It's almost like they can't wait only to run out of the theatres with tears in the eyes.
My uncle saw this movie several months ago. He was invited to a special screening, and they asked for him to show ID and he was sworn to secrecy not to say anything about what he saw on screen. But because we're family, he told me some things about it. He said it was fascinating and very well done, but it was brutal and unrelenting. There's one sequence in particular that seems like it just doesn't end. He's gonna try to find a rough cut of it though and send it to me.
at the theater i work at, several churches and religious groups have all ready rented out entire auditoriums (which is about one thousand dollars) to view the film together as a group. I am actually looking forward to working on these days because when a religious group goes to the movies, they do funny things like stand out in the lobby until the previews are over (they think they might accidentally seem some innuendo or a nipple or something) and they also don't undrstand simple things like how to order concessions or where to wait in line at. Also, all of the girls wear these long skirt/dress things that are just funny to look at.
I would guess that Mel is going to pocket at least 100 million on the coin of religious groups alone.
I really don't get why this film stands to be so controversial, or even so "important." I mean, it's just a reenactment, and it's even a rehashing of what's been done so many times before. What really irks me, though, is the dramatic flare the media gives it (as they always do), and the fact that they're making Gibson out to be some sort of auteur, sitting down with Diane Sawyer, of all people, and postulating, acting like he's stumbled on and created something profound.
I guess I'll have to see it to be sure, but I don't know if I even want to. It looks so boring for it to be this controversial.
From what I've read, the film takes a strong Marian approach, so it's kinda funny that so many protestant churches are so eager to support what is so inherently a Catholic movie. Shouldn't they have bought tickets en masse to the Gospel Of John last fall (did anyone see that, btw? I heard it was actually good, but I've got a big stigma against films produced by religious organizations, although Meggido was freakin' awesome because it was so astoundingly bad)?
it's just violent is all.
u know how u freaks love that shit.
some kid in my class mentioned that Mel said the Pope "is not Catholic enough", has anyone else heard about this?
i watched the Gospel of John, and it was not horribly produced, just agonizingly dull and boring. Over three hours (a few minutes longer than ROTK actually), and about 60% of it was narration. Example: Jesus leaves a room on the screen, followed by a narrator saying "jesus left..." whatever. Also a shit score and there were obviously A LOT of non actors hired. Also half of the beards were fake (I'm talking Cannibal the Musical fake), so I guess it has that going for it. It tanked in my city, but then again, it came out only a few weeks ago and was completely unadvertised. I also just recently saw an add on tv for the DVD (50 bucks...and a bonus disc!) so that might have been part of the reason for the poor ticket sales.
One thing that I do think is interesting is that Mel Gibson's hand appears in the film. In the scene where they're nailing Jesus onto the cross, Gibson said that he wanted to be the one to hold the nail steady while they hammer. So he's taking it personally that Jesus did this for him.
Quote from: QuoyleOne thing that I do think is interesting is that Mel Gibson's hand appears in the film. In the scene where they're nailing Jesus onto the cross, Gibson said that he wanted to be the one to hold the nail steady while they hammer. So he's taking it personally that Jesus did this for him.
Yeah, but it's going into Jim Cazaviel's (the actor) wrist... not Christ's.
Anyway, that sounds a little pretentious. Yay symbolism.
I'm jumping on this thread a little late, but I can't wait to see this film. To me this is what film making is all about. You may not agree with the theme or the much else, but damn it sure is taking a stand.
I'm so sick of filmmakers afraid of offending anyone so they make this one deminsional, pc, flat, emotionless, forgettable drivel that just doesn't carry any emotional or artistic wieght. This is true art...not worrying about box office gross or oscar nods.
Quote from: metroshane
I'm so sick of filmmakers afraid of offending anyone so they make this one deminsional, pc, flat, emotionless, forgettable drivel that just doesn't carry any emotional or artistic wieght. This is true art...not worrying about box office gross or oscar nods.
I agree with you and I'm supporting this movie (and hope that it's worthy of my support), but they unfortunately do care about box office grosses, since they're pushing the film so hard with evangelicals (especially here in the bible belt). And this picture here just makes me sick:
(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fus.news2.yimg.com%2Fus.yimg.com%2Fp%2Fap%2F20040209%2Fcapt.flpc10102091842.racin_and_religion_flpc101.jpg&hash=d928f7959113c2ae053dd86ac0083a0f3952c03f)
Yeah, that is sad, Ghostboy. I had not seen that. Well, we may not be there yet...but at least it's a step in the right direction. :cry:
Well what, you want them to lose money on it so they'll stop making these types of movies?
there is no "stop making these types of movies" to begin with. There is no Biblical epic autuer, it's one of those things that every other catholic filmmaker does precisely ONCE in his lifetime, actually most of them don't even get to make Catholic films. So not promoting the Jesus movie will not mean that much to most people.
The preacher at my church played a trailer and a little special promo DVD yesterday, where Mel Gibson and others beg you into going, 'cause it's for your own good, it's actually, for GOD's own good. And this is kinda funny.
I met "artistic types of movies."
And did Mel Gibson & others REALLY beg you into going to see the movie cause it's for your/God's own good?
What's so bad about begging one to see thier movie? I'm probably going to beg people to watch mine. At least it's honest and he didn't make up or manipulate press lines to put on the poster.
That picture is great, Ghostboy. And not really surprising. The guy that owns Interstate Batteries is a hardcore Born-Again type who gets behind these sort of causes.
I saw Gibson's interview on Dateline last night and I have to say that he was incredibly articulate about his faith and his convictions. That's more than you can say for most Christians in the media. I was impressed and am looking forward to seeing the film.
I saw the interview too and I thought he was being an egocentric dork and I think the movie will suck (evidently God wanted him to put subtitles on this movie), but I think his attackers are being ridiculous and I respect him for a lot of the things he said.
and I'm sure I'll see this movie, as much as I'm convinced it will be a pile of holy horse shit.
That's wierd...a good social studies experiment...as I watched the interview and got something very different. In my perspective, he looked very nervous and very sincere. He looked almost scared that he'd bitten off more than he could chew and was afraid he didn't pay justice to the story.
Gibson in the lion's den
Diane Sawyer's interview with 'The Passion of the Christ' director Mel Gibson is weirdly illuminating. Source: Los Angeles Times
(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimages.calendarlive.com%2Fmedia%2Fphoto%2F2004-02%2F11449836.jpg&hash=54ce2aaed6f6a3099487407d67da925e66ef7cb2)
There's something about the hot glare and blinding toothsomeness of the secular media that makes a religious true believer look a little medieval, possibly demented.
Or maybe it was just Mel Gibson, staring down the barrel of Diane Sawyer's squinty malocchio. Over the course of Monday night's hourlong "Primetime Special Event," a fascinating hour of television during which a cockeyed Sawyer tried gamely to extract a shocking confession of bigotry, indisputable proof of insanity or, failing that, then at least a lurid account of the view from rock bottom from the onetime People magazine Sexiest Man Alive.
Gibson veered uncomfortably between looking like a pious man forced to defend his religious beliefs on national TV (where the camera adds 10 pounds of incredulity), an affable movie star trying — and failing miserably — to make light of a heavy situation, and a paranoid maniac former addict suffering from delusions of persecution.
Sawyer, speaking at times in a canting lilt and, at others, in the kind of tone used by a psychiatric evaluator conducting an intake interview with a potentially violent psychotic, offered the following interrogatory gems:
"What does the evil side want?" (This as a follow-up to Gibson's statement that, "If you believe, you believe that there are big realms of good and evil and they're slugging it out.")
"How bad did it get?" (This, of course, as a follow-up to Gibson's de rigueur confession of past debauchery).
And, "You said the Holy Ghost was working for you.... Do you believe God wrote this film?" (The moment when the interview journalistically jumped the shark; Sawyer couldn't have been serious, could she?)
In terms of sheer strangeness, Gibson didn't disappoint. The interview was peppered with manic effusions and bizarre outbursts — some, to be fair, merely failed attempts at jokes.
Discussing his addictive personality: "Don't I look like a rummy?"
Talking about how he'd like to hide out: "I'm going to pitch my tent near the weapons of mass destruction, that way they'll never find me."
And, perhaps most memorably, describing what happened after he reached the "pinnacle of what secular utopia has to offer," as the period when "I got my proboscis out and dipped it into the fun and sucked it up."
Whoa!
It was indisputably weird. But apparently not weird enough to beat "CSI: Miami" on CBS. At times, it also seemed quite clear that Gibson had not been granted the courtesy cleanup a "get" of his stature can normally expect. Sawyer and the producers of "Primetime" violated the usually sacrosanct cross-promotional compact. All of Gibson's performance glitches — his asides, his mugging for the camera, speaking directly to it — were left in, which only enhanced Gibson's jumpiness.
Jumpy as he appeared, Gibson seemed willing to submit to the ritual celebrity penance — at least until Sawyer pressed him to speak publicly about his father, who has been quoted as scoffing at the extent of the Holocaust. Gibson, who said he believed that millions of Jews died in concentration camps, dug in when Sawyer pressed for more about Dad.
"He's my father. Gotta leave it alone, Diane. Gotta leave it alone."
Not having seen "The Passion of the Christ," I can't say whether Gibson deserves the scrutiny he has received in its advent. But given the pitch, tenor and volume of the criticism leveled against him, I would expect the film to be well beyond simply distasteful, bad or boneheaded.
Yet Abraham Foxman, head of the Anti-Defamation League and one of the movie's leading Jewish critics, told Sawyer that he did not consider the movie nor Gibson himself to be anti-Semitic. Another Jewish scholar interviewed by Sawyer, Amy-Jill Levine, came to the same conclusion.
The biggest concern centers around whether the film could incite people prone to hatred to commit acts of hatred. It's an interesting problem, in part because it puts the onus of having to predict all possible interpretations of the film on Gibson, who has not exactly strained to allay fears.
But there's something creepily interrogatory about the Gibson-centrism of it all, not to mention symbolic.
"That's what people do," Gibson responded to Sawyer asking if he believes the world is full of conspiracies. "They conspire. If you can't get the message, get the man. I think that's what we're engaged in, we're engaged in character assassination."
Granted, in this case, Gibson willingly took the bullet, having agreed to appear on the show and to sit down for numerous other interviews to promote the film and address his critics. But it was "Primetime" that really invited the messianic comparisons. At the very beginning of the show, Sawyer explained that throughout the "Primetime Special Event," "the word 'passion' is used in the original sense of the word. The Greek 'pathos,' which means suffering."
And what did they choose to title the interview? "Mel Gibson's Passion." It is as it was, or it looked like it anyway.
......well guys its time that i reprasent in this thread.....
background:
i am a southern baptist as some may know here......and i'm a spiritual kind of guy....i'll just keep that as that for now...i don't want to get to religous on you peeps b/c some get to freaked out or don't care......but needless to say i'm a Christian who tries to do the right thing and i have a good spiritual upbringing etc.....
.....when i first heard that mel gibson was doing this film ....i was not that entralled as a film goer or a Christian......i though tthat he would cheese this out ....and hollyw$$d-nize it.......bu tthe kind people here on xixax....and through the interview by sawyer...has enilghtened me to really wanting to see this film...as a Christian and filmgoer....so the cycle is complete.....
.......i am glasd that mel is spending his money to do something like this.it's great as an artist....and its great for us Christians......and this news is paramount to the fact that mel is PUTTING THE TRUTH ON CELLULOID.....TRUTH....TRUTH......TRUTH.....TRUTH.....let that sink in a bit....i believe that what mel has put together will be a brilliant film......i think it is necessary to make the events graphic b/c the audience ....NEEDS TO SEE WHAT JESUS CHRIST WENT THROUGH IN ORDER TO SAVE US.AND HOW MUCH HE LOVED US. (and no need to trivialize that comment b/c it makes you look bad).........maybe this film will open eyes....., maybe it will turn around people .....give them an understanding.....maybe help solidify faith ....and the beauty of spirituality.......i cannot wait for this film.......
what i can't wait for is 'The Liberation from Passion by the Buddha'.
I agree with you Neon. This film is important not to convert, but to simply explain why Christians feel the way they do.
Quote from: metroshaneI agree with you Neon. This film is important not to convert, but to simply explain why Christians feel the way they do.
about jews?
That's a cheap shot modernage. I'm sure you laughed to yourself quite heartily when you thought it.
Anyone who takes away the message of "look at how bad jews are" has some serious issues. The message is clearly the suffering for love. I mean did anyone really starting japanese bashing after Pearl Harbor came out?
The only thing I'm bitter about is the fact that this movie is getting the support that Last Temptation deserved, despite its tangents from the Gospels.
Someone may have posted this already, but it doesn't matter who killed Jesus, because the whole point was that he was supposed to be killed.
Hmmm. So technically, Christians should be thanking the Jews or the Romans or whoever did the deed.
And Romans are essentially Italians, aren't they?
So: thank you Italians and Jews. For pasta, pizza, Natalie Portman, and killing Jesus.
Brilliant!
Quote from: ShanghaiOrangeSomeone may have posted this already, but it doesn't matter who killed Jesus, because the whole point was that he was supposed to be killed.
What this movie presupposes is...maybe he wasn't.
Jesus Christ! :(
Furor just before Gibson's 'The Passion' opens
By TRACY CONNOR
DAILY NEWS STAFF WRITER
Hutton Gibson
A week before Mel Gibson's movie about Jesus Christ hits theaters, his father has gone on an explosive rant against Jews - claiming they fabricated the Holocaust and are conspiring to take over the world.
"They're after one world religion and one world government," Hutton Gibson, 85, said in a radio interview that will air Monday night.
"That's why they've attacked the Catholic Church so strongly, to ultimately take control over it by their doctrine."
In the bizarre interview, Gibson also said Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan should be lynched and called for the government to be overthrown.
The movie star's father has made outrageous statements about the Holocaust and Jewish conspiracies before.
But the timing of his latest comments is certain to fuel the uproar over his son's movie, "The Passion of The Christ," which opens Ash Wednesday.
Some critics say the movie blames Jews for the death of Christ and will provoke anti-Semitism, and they question why Mel Gibson hasn't denounced his father's views.
Hutton Gibson spoke Monday to Steve Feuerstein of "Speak Your Piece!" on WSNR (620 AM), a show syndicated by Talkline, the largest syndicator of Jewish programming.
Some of his most outrageous rants focused on the millions of Jews exterminated by Adolf Hitler.
"They claimed that there were 6.2 million in Poland before the war, and they claimed after the war there were 200,000 - therefore he must have killed 6 million of them," he said. "They simply got up and left! They were all over the Bronx and Brooklyn and Sydney, Australia, and Los Angeles."
He said the Germans did not have enough gas to cremate 6 million people and that the concentration camps were just "work camps."
"It's all - maybe not all fiction - but most of it is," he said.
Gibson repeatedly smeared prominent Jews as money-grubbing power-mongers.
"Greenspan tells us what to do. Someone should take him out and hang him."
He even belittled the Pope's reported endorsement of "The Passion," recounting how Mel referred to the pontiff as an "ass."
Gibson reserved most of his vitriol for Judaism, asking: "Is the Jew still actively anti-Christian? He is, for by being a Jew, he is anti-everyone else."
Mel Gibson's spokesman, Alan Nierob, had no comment on the elder Gibson's tirade.
But Abraham Foxman of the Anti-Defamation League said they were the words of a "classical anti-Semite."
"If it wasn't so sad, it would be funny," he said.
He's troubled by Mel Gibson's failure to condemn his father's beliefs, and pointed to a recent interview where Gibson said his dad never lied to him.
"Well, he's been lying to the world, but it sounds like truth to the son? That's strange," Foxman said.
Originally published on February 19, 2004
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/wn_report/story/165923p-145217c.html
Okay.
Gibson Expands 'Passion' Screens
LOS ANGELES - Mel Gibson is adding 800 theaters to the debut of his controversial Crucifixion drama, "The Passion of the Christ," next Wednesday.
The $25 million film, which Gibson co-wrote, directed and financed, had been set to open in about 2,000 locations, but distributor Newmarket Films and Gibson's Icon Productions said new theaters have been added to keep up with demand for advance tickets.
"It's really picked up in the last couple of days," Newmarket chief Bob Berney said in the trade newspaper Variety on Thursday. "A lot of what we've been hearing (from theater chains) is that instead of two prints we want four. They anticipate a much bigger opening, and they want to be able to handle it."
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Five clips about The Making Of here. (http://www.themoviebox.net/movies/2004/NOPQR/Passion_The/TheMakingOf/clip1.html)
More info:
http://www.pax.tv/specials/passion/?cmp=IL4847
Yikes. I wouldn't be surprised if Mel said something now. Unless he shares the beliefs...in which case my support for him ends.
Quote from: GhostboyYikes. I wouldn't be surprised if Mel said something now. Unless he shares the beliefs...in which case my support for him ends.
I believe he sort of responded to/disagreed with his father's beliefs on the Holocaust in the Diane Sawyer interview. If my memory serves me, she asked if he believed the Holocaust happened, Mel said, "yes." She then asked if 6 million Jews were killed, to which he responded, "Sure."
Quote from: ranemaka13She then asked if 6 million Jews were killed, to which he responded, "Sure."
"Sure" is the answer you want to give when you don't want to say "yes," but saying "no" will get you in a lot of trouble.
Yeah, I know, I was leaving that up for Ghostboy to decide. He also seemed rather hesitant at answering her question. I suppose I should've added that to my previous post.
But I don't think Mel's anti-semitic, and I don't believe his movie is intentionally against Jews either.
The "sure" answer is a little suspicious. That's not something you say when you're talking about the holocaust.
Unless he completely denounces all that stuff, I have to suspect that some of his father's beliefs have rubbed off on him.
Quote from: Jeremy BlackmanThe "sure" answer is a little suspicious. That's not something you say when you're talking about the holocaust.
haha, yeah totally. "oh, holocaust, sure...right, when all the jews died, sure, sure" yeah, hahah that doesnt really feel right.
Yeah, I just went back and read that interview...that was not a good answer on Mel's part. And although I understand if he didn't want to say anything bad about his father, that was before his dad's public comments, which will do Gibson no good at all. He needs to make some sincere damage control statements, and fast.
he should renounce his father.
and then at the last second, beg for his forgiveness.
Quote from: Phe should renounce his father.
and then at the last second, beg for his forgiveness.
classic
Quote from: OnomatopoeiaQuote from: ranemaka13She then asked if 6 million Jews were killed, to which he responded, "Sure."
"Sure" is the answer you want to give when you don't want to say "yes," but saying "no" will get you in a lot of trouble.
I'm not too sure, but I remember reading somewhere that historians disagree as to the actually number (like it was closer to a million or something). Maybe Mel subscribes to that idea, that the number of deaths was exaggerated, but he didn't wanna start something, so he just said "sure". Or maybe "sure" as in "murders are murders, and what does it matter if it was 10 000 or 10 million, it's still terrible".
I dunno...
God forbid anyone ever interview my folks. I'm sure some of you feel the same way. In the Diane Sawyer interview Mel shared that he doesn't really share the same views as his father...but it's his pop, what're you gonna do?
I think everyone can understand that to an extent.
"Two Thumbs Way Up!" from Ebert & Roeper
Quote from: SoNowThenQuote from: Phe should renounce his father.
and then at the last second, beg for his forgiveness.
classic
He should also ask why he has forsaken him.
Killed it
That's OK. It will rise again.
It will rise again indeed.
yeah, he just said that
Yeah, he just said that indeed
Quote from: Sebastian HaffThat's OK. It will rise again.
You freak me out, man. :shock:
Quote from: Sebastian HaffThat's OK. It will rise again.
Come on, GDIDM, respond to this!
Does anyone know how long this movie is going to be?
2 hours, and absolutlely NO previews or commercials per Gibson's request. It would be funny if someone put on a Hellboy preview though.
At my theater the mananger is making us take down the Dawn of the Dead and Van Helsing posters.
I thought it would be longer than 2 hours.
Quote from: puddnanners2 hours, and absolutlely NO previews or commercials per Gibson's request. It would be funny if someone put on a Hellboy preview though.
or if they used product placement in the movie.
BAh...Im always the last one to hear the joke.
Quote from: Ghostboy on December 23Nice poster, especially the one on the right (save for the font).
I still believe this movie could be an artistic triumph. I may disagree with Gibson's politics, but I'll judge his films on their own merit.
In the meantime, I'm very amused by this: http://homepages.nyu.edu/~scs273/01.mov
Oh man. The religious groups are eating this flick up! I don't even think it's the actual movie but the hype of the movie. I saw a passion keychain at hastings and I saw a passion nascar on tv, this is insane. But I live fairly close to this church and they had it on their little sign that anyone could sign up for their "Passion of christ field trip" so I went in and checked it out and they said with a $20 donation I get to see the movie and ride in the bus with the other field trip attendees. I calmy left. Crazy.
i saw the movie and it is an exploitation film. Mel Gibson has taken the passion of christ and made it into an exploitative gore picture. This is probably the most pointless piece of cinema ever. I have no clue who Mel made this film for or why he made it, because the religious groups and youth groups that are buying up all the tickets will not be able to watch this (am i right in asuming that a lot of these churchy people have never even seen an R rated film?) And that is another thing, this movie proves that Mel has an AWFUL lot of clout in the industry, because I have no idea how this passed with an R rating. Personally, it wasn't the gore that bothered me at all, it was that scenes dragged on for so long, and the pacing was so unforgiving and relentless, that i felt like this movie beat me up. The only thing positive for me about this movie is that i cannot wait until it opens up so i can see all the shit that will be going down at theaters (my place has sold out like fifteen shows) when people are absolutly disgusted and appaled with this film. This movie did not enlighten, entertain, educate or evoke any emotion out of me at all, it just made me want to get up and leave. I know that I do not post here often (i am a faithful reader though), and that you are probably not sure about my film taste and how i react to certain movies, but have faith in what i say (ha!), that this is a gigantic waste of celluloid, a truely worthless trainwreck of a film. Mel, what was the point??
Quotethe pacing was so unforgiving and relentless, that i felt like this movie beat me up.
Haha. How ironic that is was YOU who was suffering 8) Imagine being crucified. :shock: That's gotta really suck. I don't know why Jesus didn't just get up and leave.
Quote from: metroshaneQuotethe pacing was so unforgiving and relentless, that i felt like this movie beat me up.
Haha. How ironic that is was YOU who was suffering 8) Imagine being crucified. :shock: That's gotta really suck. I don't know why Jesus didn't just get up and leave.
Quote from: JesusNow you tell me.
Rotten tomato watch...
Fresh: 8
Rotten:5
62% Fresh.
EDIT 1: Bad review just added.
Fresh: 8
Rotten:6
57% Rotten
EDIT 2: The count continues.
Fresh: 21
Rotten:19
53% Rotten
metroshane, i think that Gibson wants the audience to feel the crucifiction through the images in the film (which is stupid anyway because i am guessing that the core audience will not be able to handle it), but instead, because of terrible filmmaking, the pain comes from the poor editing and awful pacing, not from whats on the screen. I believe this to be the reason that the film is so bad. I know that jesus felt suffering while being crucified, but i don't think that it was from boredom, like i was while watching the film.
Quote from: puddnannersbut instead, because of terrible filmmaking, the pain comes from the poor editing and awful pacing, not from whats on the screen.
Can you elaborate? Is that part of it just cheesy, or was it convincing but just too over-the-top graphic/disturbing?
I don't really have high hopes for this. most of the people I have talked to that are have seen it and know my tastes tell me I won't like it. But i'm a big fan of two things. 1. jesus. 2. gore
Jesus Sells,
I expect this movie to make big money. Think of all the religious groups who are buy group tickets.
what's the word on monica bellucci, did mel give her character the same amount of graphic realism?
no nudity, i've heard
Quote from: StefenI don't really have high hopes for this. most of the people I have talked to that are have seen it and know my tastes tell me I won't like it. But i'm a big fan of two things. 1. jesus. 2. gore
shit, if you put it like that, this mat turn out to be my favourite film, I like jesus, gore, and monica bellucci
jeremy blackman...technically the film is sound, Gibson got a top notch cinematographer, set designer, costume designer, etc. It's just that the what he shows is way to much, as unnecessary as you could imagine. I am not too sure how to get specific without spoiling, but its just like when watching it, I got the point, but then was forced to keep getting the point over and over again until i didn't care, all while watching a bloody jesus. Maybe I will end up being in the minority, but i just think that the film was really mishandled.
Ebert's review here (http://www.suntimes.com/output/ebert1/cst-ftr-passion24.html)
Quote from: Ebert wroteThe movie is 126 minutes long, and I would guess that at least 100 of those minutes, maybe more, are concerned specifically and graphically with the details of the torture and death of Jesus. This is the most violent film I have ever seen.
:shock: wow.
As a lapsed Catholic with a religious outlook very similar to Ebert's, I expect my opinion may fall in line with his. My sense of trepidation now comes from, as pudnanners points out, the potential deadly combination of excessiveness of the violence with the glossiness of the style -- which could result in unnecessary glorification of the violence, a la Michael Bay. But I'll be back in this thread this time tomorrow with an at least semi-concrete stance.
This looks pretty good, to say the least. I've never seen Ebert so touched by a movie before.
This is what I was expecting to hear:
Quote from: EbertThe MPAA's R rating is definitive proof that the organization either will never give the NC-17 rating for violence alone, or was intimidated by the subject matter. If it had been anyone other than Jesus up on that cross, I have a feeling that NC-17 would have been automatic.
this is what
I was expecting to hear:
Quote from: EbertIt is a film about an idea. An idea that it is necessary to fully comprehend the Passion if Christianity is to make any sense. Gibson has communicated his idea with a singleminded urgency. Many will disagree. Some will agree, but be horrified by the graphic treatment. I myself am no longer religious in the sense that a long-ago altar boy thought he should be, but I can respond to the power of belief whether I agree or not, and when I find it in a film, I must respect it.
Here's all the violence that happens in the movie:
Jesus of Nazareth is chained to a tree stump and two guards begin to flog him with canes for an extended period of time (we see red slashes and welts appear on his skin). Then the guards use straps with hooks (cat-o-nine tails) on the ends and we see the man's skin tearing open: at one point the hooks are stuck in the man's side, the guard yanks and tears his skin away, blood splatters on the feet and faces of the guards, and the man is covered with blood. Also, his skin is open and bleeding everywhere, his face is slashed, and the guards roll him over and begin on his chest and stomach, the ground around him becomes puddles of blood, and the man trembles and moans with every strike. Jesus, trembling, bruised and very bloody, crawls onto a cross, his hand is lashed to one side, a spike is placed in his palm and it is nailed through his flesh: blood sprays, we hear crunching and see his fingers flopping with each blow of the mallet, and the other hand is lashed and stretched to the point of dislocating his shoulder (we hear a loud crunch and pop and he screams). Then the other hand is nailed into the wood in the same manner (we see blood dripping from the back of the cross when the stake is driven through). The man's feet are nailed onto a block of wood, the cross is turned over, the end of the stakes are pounded flat, the cross is turned back over (the man moans in agony with each move), the cross is lifted upright and it slides into a hole in the ground with a loud thud and jolt, blood pours from the man and he moans, and blood runs down the cross to the ground. Guards place a crown of thorns on a Jesus' head, press it into his flesh (blood streams down his forehead), then punch him several times and hit him in the head. A guard stabs Jesus in the side to see if he is dead and water sprays from the wound. A man on a cross is pecked at by a crow, it hits near his eye, on his forehead and head (we see bloody holes and he screams). Guards break the legs of two men hanging on crosses, we hear crunching with the blows of the mallets, hear the men scream, see their bloody legs and see the men die. Jesus is shown dead, and he is lowered from a cross (he is covered with blood and gaping wounds) and we see blood covered stakes and a crown of thorns. Guards surround Jesus in dark woods, they grab him, other men with him shove the guards, punches are exchanged, one man grabs a sword, slashes at guards, and slices the ear off one; we see blood dripping from the wound, blood covered flesh. and the ear is pressed back in place. The man with the sword is held against a tree by two guards, Jesus is tied with ropes and chains and led away. A man is punched repeatedly and whipped while being forced to walk in chains, he is knocked over a stone wall and is caught by the chains (he moans and suffers and we see his very bruised and bloody face) and pulled back up. Two men are lashed to crosses and are forced to carry them as they walk some distance, Jesus has a cross placed on his shoulder and he is whipped and shoved as he walks, and he stumbles and falls on several occasions; once the cross lands on top of him, he is whipped and kicked, people in crowds around him throw stones and jeer him, and blood drips from his hair. A woman kisses Jesus' feet and her face is covered with blood from his wounds. Judas suffers mental anguish from the guilt of betraying Jesus. A man punches Jesus in the face and he falls to the ground, people spit on the man and punch him repeatedly, a crowd of people close in on the man punching him and spitting on him ceaselessly. Jesus trembles, cries, appears to be in pain, he begs for help, something drips on his face (it could be blood), he collapses onto the ground, a snake slithers toward him, and he stomps on the snake with his sandaled foot. In a few scenes people in crowds chant and call for a man to be put to death by crucifixion. A man dies on a cross, his head falls limp and we hear his last breath. We see Jesus with an open hole in his hand (after the Resurrection, and there's no blood). The personification of Evil or Satan appears to people in different scenes: In one scene Judas imagines the faces of two boys changing to wrinkled snarling faces: one boy bites the Judas' hand (we see a bloody wound), the boys strike Judas and throws rocks at him, the boys and others chase him, he cowers and cries in agony from their taunts, he sees the carcass of a dead animal crawling with maggots, and he hangs himself from a tree (we hear a crunch when his neck breaks, see his feet swinging, then see him hanging from a distance). In another scene we hear growling and snarling, then see a very brief image of what looks like a blue-tinged face with very sharp teeth as it snaps at a man; in another scene we see a supernatural creature (presumably another instance of Evil or Satan) writhing and hear it screaming; in another scene a bug slithers back into the creature's nose, and a snake crawls out from beneath its feet. A man yells at guards who beat and kick Jesus, who is on the ground. A crowd of people shoves and begins to get aggressive, guards shove them and beat a few. A man (Barabbas) is held with a chain around his neck, he gasps and gags, and he has scars and dried blood on his face. A man burns his hand on hot metal. A guard kicks a cup of water out of the hands of a woman. A woman has a bruised and scratched face, presumably after having been stoned. People are frightened when they hear loud thunder, heavy winds blow, and an earthquake shakes the ground causing buildings to fall to rubble. A woman asks to die with her son. We see a few people grieving for Jesus, and a little girl weeps when she sees Jesus' condition. Guards laugh and seem to be enjoying torturing a man, several guards tease and taunt a man while torturing him, a group of guards play dice while waiting for three men on crosses to die. A man barges through a door and two women on the inside are frightened. A leopard on a leach growls and snarls.
I can't wait to see the CAP Alert review of this.
Germans should protest against the next film dealing with the Holocaust, as such a film could inspire a new wave of anti-germanism.
And I just farted.
Quote from: RaviI can't wait to see the CAP Alert review of this.
Here it is, my friend:
http://www.capalert.com/capreports/passionofthechrist.htm
I'm actually surprised by how reasonable this is...
Quote from: T. CarderThough this movie is a faithful depiction of the unimaginable terrors our Lord suffered for our sakes, it is a movie. It is entertainment. Violent entertainment. Thus the reason for the zero score in the Wanton Violence/Crime investigation area. It was not Jesus in the film. It was Jim Caviezel
...but is it really? Look at the ratings, especially the "offense to God" part... He still ignores context, even penalizing the movie for "wine drinking."
i am not a religious person by any means. my parents made me go to church until i was like 15 then we stopped going. i believe there is a god, that is about all i need to get me through the day. its getting kind of irritating hearing all of these people bash mel gibson for this thing he has made. what about all the other "jesus" films out there i.e. The Greatest Story Ever Told, King of Kings, The Last Temptation of Christ, etc. if people dont like it, then they dont need to see it. for people to say he never should of made this film and that he should be ashamed of himself is totally ridiculous. and as far as the violence goes...thats REALITY. mel gibson proved to be a master of his craft with Braveheart. based on that film alone i am excited about seeing this. i am going to see this film today. i cant wait. it is gonna be cool as hell, and most likely really, really well done. especially after watching ebert and roeper on sunday i am amped even more, because those guys loved it. now lets enjoy a fucking great film. who is with me?
p.s. all the naysayers are just the devil in disguise..... :evil:
Quote from: filmboy70mel gibson proved to be a master of his craft with Braveheart. :
WAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
Quote from: RegularKarateQuote from: filmboy70mel gibson proved to be a master of his craft with Braveheart. :
WAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
Yes... I agree with this. "Well-crafted" is not the term that comes to my mind when thinking of any film Gibson has directed... or even been in, really.
Quote from: RegularKarateQuote from: filmboy70mel gibson proved to be a master of his craft with Braveheart. :
WAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
Humpf, that was rather harsh. "Master of his craft" is exagarated but Braveheart was a fucking big movie with insane action sequences while Gibson was only at his second attempt as a director. The violence was good and original. By no mean a masterpiece but in terms of entertainment it's allright.
I haven't seen the movie, so I won't judge it yet, but I really agree with some of the things Ebert said, but if I think it's anti-semetic (which I don't think I will) that's the end of the line for it. I will say that I have some more respect for Mel now, since in the end, he made the film he wanted to make, a pretty admirable quality for a director. Also, I am really surprised that in today's day and age someone can make a movie and the masses will flock to believe it's reality.
yeah but who cares if its anti-semetic? hes putting up his own money to make whatever the hell statement he wants to make. pro-jesus, anti-jew, its all propoganda.
This site must run on 103 octane ego. :roll:
Quote from: metroshaneThis site must run on 103 octane ego. :roll:
agreed
Quote from: samsongQuote from: metroshaneThis site must run on 103 octane ego. :roll:
agreed
explain
Quote from: godardianYes... I agree with this. "Well-crafted" is not the term that comes to my mind when thinking of any film Gibson has directed... or even been in, really.
I loved Braveheart aesthetically. Was I just gullible?
And the end. I think I cried at the end.
if you are reading this you are a dummy. anyways none of you would have been able to make this movie any better so shut the fuck up. Mel Gibson isnt just in hollywood because he has great eyes, hes still around because hes talanted.
I wanna see the DVD commentary track for this.
Quote from: prophetif you are reading this you are a dummy. anyways none of you would have been able to make this movie any better so shut the fuck up. Mel Gibson isnt just in hollywood because he has great eyes, hes still around because hes talanted.
I want to argue but I'm not allowed to!
I just got back from it. I agree with Ebert, and would also give it four stars. It's not perfect, but its flaws are no more greivous than those in Last Temptation, which I also love.
Maybe I have deeper resources of lapsed Catholicism than I thought I did, because I was consistently moved to the point of tears. It's wrenching. The violence was gratuitious, but I think it was just. Whether or not you believe that Jesus is anything more than a man, I think it's impossible not to feel compassion for this portrayal of him. I guess it could be argued that Gibson, by using such extreme violence, is goading viewers to compassion, but I didn't feel that. I think the violence is valuabe because it's going to remind people just what that symbol is hanging on their wall...the crucifix has become such a bland image that the reinforcement gere of what it actually was is something that I think will be very positive.
Furthermore, if Gibson's intent was simply to revel in the gore, he wouldn't have cut away to Mary's reaction for a good portion of the scourging. The character of Mary is one of my favorite aspects of the film; her portrayal in Scorsese's film (and in Kazaantzakis novel) was one of my big problems with it, and here I feel her character is delved into more fully, and the impact her son's torture and death has on her is accurately portrayed. One of the things I like about Catholicism is the maternal aspect of it, and that is portrayed well here.
Overall, the film is very well made, very poetic; the intercutting of the arrival in Jersualem and the last supper with the crucifixion is extremely well done. I had a lot of problems with some of the slow-mo and ramping effects used at the beginning scenes, but I think they would have been less objectionable had the film not been subtitled -- the lack of understandable dialogue would have been negated by the emphatic camare work (overall, I'm glad it was subtitled, because every now and then there's a line that deserves to be understood; but there are lots scenes that don't have them, and I think they could have gotten away with using them even less). Likewise, there are some scenes that could have used a little less dramatic score (particularly the destruction of the temple).
The demonic elements, which I wasn't aware of, aside from the nicely done androgynous incaranation of Satan, are mostly very interesting/frightening (especially one that seems like something out of a David Lynch movie), although the final shot of Satan in the film was pointless and distracting.
The anti-semtisim -- well, either you see it or you don't. As has been said in other reviews, it's no more anti-semitic than the bible. What I'm surprised no one has mentioned is the brief scene involving Herod, where he's portrayed as prancing, overtly fey ruler; if it was anyone but Gibson making the movie, it might be ignored (there's a similar character in Gladiator that I never heard any furor over), but in this case I doubt it would be. The scene was largely unnecessary, anyway. The MOST offensive thing about the movie was the Garfield trailer they showed before it.
Also, the message of love -- love your enemies, etc, which is a beautiful one and one of the great things about what Jesus taught -- is conveyed excellently during the Last Supper; a few minutes later, during the crucifixion, one of the thieves dying at Jesus' side laughs at him and promptly has his eyeball plucked out by a crow. It's a cheap, pointless moment. These two moments blatantly contradict each other, and are an excellent microcosm of almost every problem there is with Christianity.
But still, I think it's a work of art, an important film, and not necessarily as volatile as it's going to be made out to be. It's also going to make a lot of money...I don't the violence is going to detract devoutly religious people from going back to see it again, because it's so emotional.
Obviously, if you've reading this thread, I've been hoping that it would be a good film. I'm interested to see what Godardian and JB and those of you not looking forward to it think. Also, I'm really interested in what Scorsese thinks of it, if he goes to see it, which I imagine he will.
Apparently, the Passion is so powerful it can FUCKING KILL YOU:
Go to www.drudgereport.com for the story.
Basically, some woman had a violent seizure/heart-attack during the end of the film and died soon after.
Thanks for the review Ghostboy.
I wonder what the 5 day take will be? Cause you know if it does good more will be coming, but for different reasons. MONEY.
Quote from: GhostboyI just got back from it. I agree with Ebert, and would also give it four stars. It's not perfect, but its flaws are no more greivous than those in Last Temptation, which I also love.
Maybe I have deeper resources of lapsed Catholicism than I thought I did, because I was consistently moved to the point of tears. It's wrenching. The violence was gratuitious, but I think it was just. Whether or not you believe that Jesus is anything more than a man, I think it's impossible not to feel compassion for this portrayal of him. I guess it could be argued that Gibson, by using such extreme violence, is goading viewers to compassion, but I didn't feel that. I think the violence is valuabe because it's going to remind people just what that symbol is hanging on their wall...the crucifix has become such a bland image that the reinforcement gere of what it actually was is something that I think will be very positive.
Furthermore, if Gibson's intent was simply to revel in the gore, he wouldn't have cut away to Mary's reaction for a good portion of the scourging. The character of Mary is one of my favorite aspects of the film; her portrayal in Scorsese's film (and in Kazaantzakis novel) was one of my big problems with it, and here I feel her character is delved into more fully, and the impact her son's torture and death has on her is accurately portrayed. One of the things I like about Catholicism is the maternal aspect of it, and that is portrayed well here.
Overall, the film is very well made, very poetic; the intercutting of the arrival in Jersualem and the last supper with the crucifixion is extremely well done. I had a lot of problems with some of the slow-mo and ramping effects used at the beginning scenes, but I think they would have been less objectionable had the film not been subtitled -- the lack of understandable dialogue would have been negated by the emphatic camare work (overall, I'm glad it was subtitled, because every now and then there's a line that deserves to be understood; but there are lots scenes that don't have them, and I think they could have gotten away with using them even less). Likewise, there are some scenes that could have used a little less dramatic score (particularly the destruction of the temple).
The demonic elements, which I wasn't aware of, aside from the nicely done androgynous incaranation of Satan, are mostly very interesting/frightening (especially one that seems like something out of a David Lynch movie), although the final shot of Satan in the film was pointless and distracting.
The anti-semtisim -- well, either you see it or you don't. As has been said in other reviews, it's no more anti-semitic than the bible. What I'm surprised no one has mentioned is the brief scene involving Herod, where he's portrayed as prancing, overtly fey ruler; if it was anyone but Gibson making the movie, it might be ignored (there's a similar character in Gladiator that I never heard any furor over), but in this case I doubt it would be. The scene was largely unnecessary, anyway. The MOST offensive thing about the movie was the Garfield trailer they showed before it.
Also, the message of love -- love your enemies, etc, which is a beautiful one and one of the great things about what Jesus taught -- is conveyed excellently during the Last Supper; a few minutes later, during the crucifixion, one of the thieves dying at Jesus' side laughs at him and promptly has his eyeball plucked out by a crow. It's a cheap, pointless moment. These two moments blatantly contradict each other, and are an excellent microcosm of almost every problem there is with Christianity.
But still, I think it's a work of art, an important film, and not necessarily as volatile as it's going to be made out to be. It's also going to make a lot of money...I don't the violence is going to detract devoutly religious people from going back to see it again, because it's so emotional.
Obviously, if you've reading this thread, I've been hoping that it would be a good film. I'm interested to see what Godardian and JB and those of you not looking forward to it think. Also, I'm really interested in what Scorsese thinks of it, if he goes to see it, which I imagine he will.
Great Review!
Now I'm even more excited to see this tonight.
Thank you.
God I feel so, so, so shitty having to wait till the fucking weekend to see this.
yeah ghostboy thanks! i got a little overly excited when i said mel is a master of his craft. sure he has only made one film...but i think it was a great film. i suppose if he keeps on the same track, his director filmography will be awesome. i am no good at being a critic so i am not going to attempt to write a review, but i agree with ghostboy. i fucking loved this film. it was as good as i thought it might be. all these people that are bashing this film obviously are missing the point. it is not about what really happened or who is responsible. this is mel gibson making a fantastic film for everyone to see. last time i checked filmmakers dont make films for the audience. they mostly do it for themselves and hope the audience loves it. that is when they, being the director, are the creative force behind the thing i.e. writing, directing, producing. this was mel gibsons movie and he should be proud of what he has accomplished. i also dont think that The Last Temptation holds a candle to The Passion. anyways, everybody go see this film. you wont be dissapointed. :yabbse-thumbup: :yabbse-thumbup:
I'll be seeing this tomorrow at 4:00 (advance tickets!)
'Passion' a box office hit on first day
By DAVID GERMAIN
AP MOVIE WRITER
A sign hangs on the box office window announcing a sold out showing of "The Passion of the Christ' as Olga P. sell tickets to the 1:30 showing of movie at the City Reading Cinemas, Wednesday, Feb. 25, 2004 in New York. The controversial Mel Gibson movie, "The Passion of the Christ," opens today at 28-hundred theaters around the country. (AP Photo/Mary Altaffer)
LOS ANGELES -- Mel Gibson's "The Passion of the Christ" took in an estimated $15 million to $20 million after just one day of release, a remarkable number for a religious-themed movie so divisive that no Hollywood studio would touch it.
"The Passion" rang up $7 million in matinee ticket sales alone in the United States and Canada on Wednesday, said Rob Schwartz, head of distribution for Newmarket Films, which Gibson hired to release the movie after studios balked.
With an estimated $3 million from private screenings for church groups Monday and Tuesday in advance of Wednesday's official opening, grosses for "The Passion" were expected to climb as high as $20 million once evening screenings are counted, Schwartz said.
Final numbers were to be released Thursday.
That falls far short of the single-day record of $43.6 million held by "Spider-Man," but "The Passion" already has passed the receipts that other modern religious films took in during their entire runs, among them "The Last Temptation of Christ" ($8.4 million) and "The Omega Code" ($12.5 million).
"The Passion" opened on 4,643 screens in 3,006 theaters.
"I think the prospects are certainly good for at least hitting $100 million overall. Then again, we have to see how the rest of the weekend plays out," Schwartz said. "Hopefully, if we continue the torrid pace we're starting to set now, that's an achievable number."
Gibson put up the film's $25 million budget out of his own pocket. After theater owners take their cut, about half of the box office take will come back to Gibson, who then pays Newmarket a percentage fee for distribution.
The film, starring Jim Caviezel as Jesus, is a bloody depiction of Christ's final hours and crucifixion. The movie's box-office prospects benefited from months of debate as Gibson built grassroots support by screening it for church groups and excluding potential critics, while some Christian and Jewish leaders complained that it could fuel anti-Semitism by implying Jews were collectively responsible for Christ's death.
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/movies/apmovies_story.asp?category=1402&slug=Film%20Passion%20Box%20Office
HOLY SHIT THATS ALOT OF MONEY.
Quote from: filmboy70i also dont think that The Last Temptation holds a candle to The Passion. anyways, everybody go see this film. you wont be dissapointed. :yabbse-thumbup: :yabbse-thumbup:
WHAT THE FUCK???
Quote from: RegularKarateQuote from: filmboy70i also dont think that The Last Temptation holds a candle to The Passion. anyways, everybody go see this film. you wont be dissapointed. :yabbse-thumbup: :yabbse-thumbup:
WHAT THE FUCK???
i think what he means is The Passion is better than The Last Temptation of Christ. :roll:
Last Temptation is far more successful at externalizing Jesus' struggle with his dual nature. This movie is far more successful at showing...well, Jews without Brooklyn accents. Seriously, though, they're both very good movies that both take different routes in trying to bring audiences to a closer understanding of a historical figure who may or may not have been divine in nature (although both movies take a pro stance), and I would never recommend discarding one for the other.
Quote from: GhostboyLast Temptation is far more successful at externalizing Jesus' struggle with his dual nature. This movie is far more successful at showing...well, Jews without Brooklyn accents.
haha, thats all i ask.
any news on a McDonald's Happy Meal tie-in?
Quote from: SHAFTRany news on a McDonald's Happy Meal tie-in?
Post of the month, or at least the week.
I don't see why people are so bent on giving Gibson their money. I couldn't be less interested. It's just amusing seeing this thread balloon so much. Makes us no better than anyone else who'd eat up Gibson's tripe. You would think some would be offended at the commercialization of these figures. I know it didn't start out that way, but he is cashing in big time on this.
People want to see it because people want to see it--that's not what makes commericialization. The movie plays without trailers, even. And as for Mel Gibson? He took all the financial risks, he gets all the financial rewards. That's fair to me.
I saw this movie tonight, and I have some definite criticisms. Overall, the movie was okay for me. But this movie could be really powerful for people, could disgust people, could go any way. I'm in the middle. But my criticisms lie in the execution of the film, and Mel Gibson's direction--not the story, so my personal beliefs don't affect those criticisms.
There were some "Great Movie Elements," and there were some cheap shots and some easy-way-outs. So, yeah... I ended up in the middle. I recommend seeing it before commenting on the film or what Mel Gibson is trying to do, though. And I do respect and commend Gibson as an artist who brought his vision to the screen, so bravo and congrats to him, cuz his MOVIE (which he did pour his heart and soul into, no doubt) opened today.
Quote from: Ghostboy.
Also, the message of love -- love your enemies, etc, which is a beautiful one and one of the great things about what Jesus taught -- is conveyed excellently during the Last Supper; a few minutes later, during the crucifixion, one of the thieves dying at Jesus' side laughs at him and promptly has his eyeball plucked out by a crow. It's a cheap, pointless moment. These two moments blatantly contradict each other, and are an excellent microcosm of almost every problem there is with Christianity[/b].
what do you mean by this......???
btw........you did a great review....just curiouis about what i highlighted
seein this sunday.....i feel kinda wrong for being excited about it
Quote from: SHAFTRany news on a McDonald's Happy Meal tie-in?
wow, close. i was just watching The Daily Show and they pointed out that some official The Passion merchandise includes necklaces with nails on them (like the ones Jesus was hung up with). i am not making this up.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Even before Gibson's controversial film about the last hours of Christ's life opened in theaters Wednesday, products associated with the movie grabbed attention. Three companies were licensed to sell items such as coffee-table books, jewelry, mugs, T-shirts, photographs and coins, said Tara Powers, a spokeswoman for Family Christian Stores based in Grand Rapids, Mich. Among the products generating interest is a a nail pendant hanging from a leather cord. "It's a rendition of the nail used in the movie," said Hileigh Murphy, a marketing communications specialist with Bob Siemon Designs, the Santa Ana, Calif., company that makes the pendant. The $12.99 necklace -- $16.99 for the larger version -- is not the best-selling product.
Hmm. That's interesting.
Also, I just remembered--I've never heard louder music in a movie. I just didn't like the score at all, and the use of it. It's the kind where, y'know, Jesus stands up and the music "swells." But I've just never heard louder swelling in a movie before.
CHICAGO (Reuters) - A middle-aged woman died of an apparent heart attack on Wednesday while watching the climactic crucifixion scene in "The Passion of the Christ" at a morning showing in Wichita, Kansas, a television station reported.
The film was stopped and a nurse in attendance went to the unidentified woman's side, a spokeswoman for KAKE-TV in Wichita said.
"It was the highest emotional part of the movie," she said. A crew from the TV station was at the special showing, which was sponsored by a radio station.
The woman, who was in her 50s, was pronounced dead at a nearby hospital, where a spokesman would only say she had been attending a movie. The county coroner's office said an autopsy would be performed.
Mel Gibson's "The Passion of the Christ" took in an estimated $15 million to $20 million after just one day of release, a remarkable number for a religious-themed movie so divisive that no Hollywood studio would touch it.
"The Passion" rang up $7 million in matinee ticket sales alone in the United States and Canada on Wednesday, said Rob Schwartz, head of distribution for Newmarket Films, which Gibson hired to release the movie after studios balked.
With an estimated $3 million from private screenings for church groups Monday and Tuesday in advance of Wednesday's official opening, grosses for "The Passion" were expected to climb as high as $20 million once evening screenings are counted, Schwartz said.
Final numbers were to be released Thursday.
That falls far short of the single-day record of $43.6 million held by "Spider-Man," but "The Passion" already has passed the receipts that other modern religious films took in during their entire runs, among them "The Last Temptation of Christ" ($8.4 million) and "The Omega Code" ($12.5 million).
"The Passion" opened on 4,643 screens in 3,006 theaters.
"I think the prospects are certainly good for at least hitting $100 million overall. Then again, we have to see how the rest of the weekend plays out," Schwartz said. "Hopefully, if we continue the torrid pace we're starting to set now, that's an achievable number."
Gibson put up the film's $25 million budget out of his own pocket. After theater owners take their cut, about half of the box office take will come back to Gibson, who then pays Newmarket a percentage fee for distribution.
The film, starring Jim Caviezel (news) as Jesus, is a bloody depiction of Christ's final hours and crucifixion. The movie's box-office prospects benefited from months of debate as Gibson built grassroots support by screening it for church groups and excluding potential critics, while some Christian and Jewish leaders complained that it could fuel anti-Semitism by implying Jews were collectively responsible for Christ's death.
Quote from: EEz28CHICAGO (Reuters) - A middle-aged woman died of an apparent heart attack on Wednesday while watching the climactic crucifixion scene in "The Passion of the Christ" at a morning showing in Wichita, Kansas, a television station reported.
The film was stopped and a nurse in attendance went to the unidentified woman's side, a spokeswoman for KAKE-TV in Wichita said.
"It was the highest emotional part of the movie," she said. A crew from the TV station was at the special showing, which was sponsored by a radio station.
The woman, who was in her 50s, was pronounced dead at a nearby hospital, where a spokesman would only say she had been attending a movie. The county coroner's office said an autopsy would be performed.
wonder if this woman's family could sue?
wouldn't be the first time; oliver stone got sued when two kids took acid, saw natural born killers, and went out and killed a couple.
The disclaimer is in the title.
If you have a weak heart, seeing something entitled THE PASSION is something you shouldn't do.
Quote from: OnomatopoeiaQuote from: SHAFTRany news on a McDonald's Happy Meal tie-in?
Post of the month, or at least the week.
I don't see why people are so bent on giving Gibson their money. I couldn't be less interested. It's just amusing seeing this thread balloon so much. Makes us no better than anyone else who'd eat up Gibson's tripe. You would think some would be offended at the commercialization of these figures. I know it didn't start out that way, but he is cashing in big time on this.
that was a stupid post.
Quote from: abuck1220Quote from: OnomatopoeiaQuote from: SHAFTRany news on a McDonald's Happy Meal tie-in?
Post of the month, or at least the week.
I don't see why people are so bent on giving Gibson their money. I couldn't be less interested. It's just amusing seeing this thread balloon so much. Makes us no better than anyone else who'd eat up Gibson's tripe. You would think some would be offended at the commercialization of these figures. I know it didn't start out that way, but he is cashing in big time on this.
that was a stupid post.
That was a stupid response. And by mod-age's report, it shows mine was quite apt. It's better to keep your mouth shut and let people think you're an idiot instead of opening it and removing all doubt.
It was a great movie and the violence was awesome as predicted. There was like 5-6 grandmas who were crying all along the thing which gave a nice touch to the feeling of the film.
Ten people left the theater in the first hour.
Seriously, have you ever seen a better looking Satan ?
I can't wait to see this, only because I know I'll have a strong opinion about it.
Quote from: Pas RapportSeriously, have you ever seen a better looking Satan ?
please... somebody... bring a digital camera to a screening and make me proud.
Quote from: OnomatopoeiaQuote from: abuck1220Quote from: OnomatopoeiaQuote from: SHAFTRany news on a McDonald's Happy Meal tie-in?
Post of the month, or at least the week.
I don't see why people are so bent on giving Gibson their money. I couldn't be less interested. It's just amusing seeing this thread balloon so much. Makes us no better than anyone else who'd eat up Gibson's tripe. You would think some would be offended at the commercialization of these figures. I know it didn't start out that way, but he is cashing in big time on this.
that was a stupid post.
That was a stupid response. And by mod-age's report, it shows mine was quite apt. It's better to keep your mouth shut and let people think you're an idiot instead of opening it and removing all doubt.
thanks for the advice, but i'll stand by my opinion of your post.
-you call the film tripe. have you seen it? no? then maybe it's a little premature to call it tripe.
-you're apparently upset that gibson is making money of the "commercialization" of the film. yeah, a 2 hour plus, sub-titled religious film starring :!: jim caviezel :!: ....sounds like a real cash cow! if he had made the movie into a 90 action movie starring himself you'd have a point. as it is, you don't.
Quote from: abuck1220
-you're apparently upset that gibson is making money of the "commercialization" of the film. yeah, a 2 hour plus, sub-titled religious film starring :!: jim caviezel :!: ....sounds like a real cash cow! if he had made the movie into a 90 action movie starring himself you'd have a point. as it is, you don't.
http://www.boxofficemojo.com/articles/news/?id=040225potc.htm
'Passion' Nails $26.6 Million on First Day
by Brandon Gray
February 26, 2004
HOLLYWOOD (Box Office Mojo) – Perhaps Ash Wednesday should be renamed Fat Wednesday.
Fueled by an unprecedented media frenzy and religious fervor, Mel Gibson's The Passion of the Christ has delivered on the hype.
Playing on 4,643 screens at 3,006 theaters, the $30 million production took in a whopping $26,556,573 on Wednesday – ironically prompting most in the industry to use the Lord's name in vain.
In the process, The Passion burned onto the record books, notching the biggest opening day for a movie released outside the summer (May-August) and holiday (November-December) seasons. Hannibal was the previous title holder with $19.8 million posted in February 2001. Even if one subtracts the $3 million from private church group screenings on Monday and Tuesday that were folded in to the Wednesday gross, The Passion is still comfortably on top.
Among all opening days, The Passion land at No. 9, but it reached No. 3 among all Wednesday bows, behind only The Return of the King's $34.5 million and Star Wars: Episode I - The Phantom Menace's $28.5 million and ahead of The Two Towers's $26.2 million and The Matrix Revolutions' $24.3 million.
The Passion's opening day far exceeded Newmarket's and Box Office Mojo's Wednesday projections that it would come in at around $20 million, based on matinee grosses from around 28% of theaters. That shows that projecting so early can be as inaccurate as if the news called the winner of a political primary with only a fraction of precincts reporting.
With less than 900 theaters reporting mid-Wednesday, The Passion had rung up over $7 million from matinees alone. That was about 18% behind what The Return of the King had at the same point on its opening day, and around 4% behind The Matrix Reloaded. The Passion ultimately followed a similar pattern to Return of the King.
In just one day, The Passion has become the highest-grossing Christian-themed movie of recent memory. It's a genre that's been ghettoized as a niche market up until now – former champ Jonah: A VeggieTales Movie grossed a modest $25.6 million in its entire run.
http://www.usatoday.com/life/movies/news/2004-02-24-passion_x.htm
Posted 2/24/2004 3:08 AM Updated 2/25/2004 12:06 PM
Promoting 'The Passion'
By Theresa Howard, USA TODAY
NEW YORK — Smart, grass-roots marketing and merchandising, along with a healthy dose of controversy, are replacing the typical film's $30 million marketing budget to spread the word about The Passion of the Christ.
A nail pendant is among the official movie merchandise for The Passion of the Christ; a large one on a leather string sells for $16.99.
By Mary Altaffer, AP
Moviemakers Mel Gibson, Newmarket Films and Icon Distribution, with the help of hired marketing guns, have enlisted churches and Christian retailers to build buzz around the movie. It opens tomorrow, Ash Wednesday, the day that begins the solemn pre-Easter season of Lent, and the signs point to a strong opening weekend. (Photos: Mel Gibson's 'Passion')
Churches are encouraging group ticket sales, and stores are stocked with film-related products, such as licensed cross-nail pendants, crosses, coffee mugs, coffee-table books and artwork.
"When you have star talent like this, you want to maximize opening weekend," says Mitch Litvak, president of The L.A. Office, an entertainment marketing firm. Studios typically spend $20 million to $30 million on marketing if they want a blockbuster opening, he says.
In this case, the film's backers are turning to the country's 120 million churchgoers. The moviemakers are providing churches with free marketing materials to help fill theater seats — and pews. Among the items are posters and postcards for direct mailing with the line: "Best outreach opportunity in 2,000 years." One promotional tool points preachers to www.sermoncentral.com for free sermon ideas that promote the movie while preaching the Gospel.
The licensing and distribution of merchandise also play a key role, especially for retailers serving a growing market for religious goods.
"By having religious-themed articles in the marketplace, it does draw people's attention to (the movie)," says Charles Riotto, president of the International Licensing Industry Merchandisers' Association. "If it's done tastefully, it could be a good marketing ploy."
About 2,000 Christian specialty stores are selling Passion articles, and distribution is expected to reach an additional 1,000 by month's end, says Dwight Robinson, director of marketing for Bob Siemon Designs. The company is the lead licensee for Passion and a distributor of jewelry and other goods.
"A lot of accounts out there have been holding back, but in the last few weeks they have gotten inspired," Robinson says. Siemon has a multiyear deal with Icon and pays a royalty based on a percentage of sales.
Other elements of Passion marketing:
•Witness cards. More than 1 million "witness cards," which promote the movie on one side and have an evangelical message on the other, have been distributed, Robinson says. A pack of 25 cards — intended to promote Christianity — sells for $5.95.
•Jewelry. Siemon shipped about 100,000 small and large pewter nail pendants on a leather string in the past week. They cost $12.99 and $16.99. "The nail is a symbol of the Crucifixion, just like the cross," says Tara Powers, spokeswoman for Family Christian, the country's largest chain of Christian specialty stores with 320 locations in 39 states. The chain is carrying Siemon's full line of Passion goods. "It's a way to share faith with other people," Powers says.
•Books. The biggest seller at Family Christian is a colorful, behind-the-scenes coffee-table book about The Passion, selling for $24.99. "We sold 3,000 copies in just one week," Powers says.
•NASCAR. Interstate Batteries Chairman Norm Miller asked that the hood of the race car his company sponsors, Bobby Labonte's No. 18, be emblazoned with the Passion logo in the recent Daytona 500. Miller wanted to contribute to the film's promotion.
•Art. Carpentree in Tulsa is selling framed paintings and prints based on the movie for $30 to $100 as part of a three-year licensing deal with Icon.
"Sales have skyrocketed," says Golda Browne, marketing director for the Passion line. "We're working frantically to keep up with demand." The company has sold 20,000 prints and pictures in just three weeks. Coming soon are signed and numbered oil-on-canvas paintings.
•Co-op commercials. Ad company faithHighway has the rights to a 20-second movie clip and has signed up 300 churches, at $795 each, to air the trailer on TV with an additional 10-second plug for their church. For $1,790, the company will put the church's pastor in the ad. "We're seeing record sales, and for salespeople that means record commissions," says Dan Hedman, director of conferences and training.
Some Christians think the marketing is risky. "The promotion is all very great until you see the movie," says Michael Guglielmelli, a priest at St. Francis Catholic Church in New Jersey. "In a sense, you don't even know what you're putting your name to."
Thanks for the info, Ravi. I rest my case.
Quote from: NEON MERCURYQuote from: Ghostboy.
Also, the message of love -- love your enemies, etc, which is a beautiful one and one of the great things about what Jesus taught -- is conveyed excellently during the Last Supper; a few minutes later, during the crucifixion, one of the thieves dying at Jesus' side laughs at him and promptly has his eyeball plucked out by a crow. It's a cheap, pointless moment. These two moments blatantly contradict each other, and are an excellent microcosm of almost every problem there is with Christianity[/b].
what do you mean by this......???
btw........you did a great review....just curiouis about what i highlighted
What I meant was that Christianity has long had a history of persecuting their enemies and disbelievers (actually, that goes for almost every religion). This goes from the destruction of indigenous cultures to the blanket judgement passed today regarding who is saved and who isn't.
My full review, expanding on some the ideas in my previous post, can be found here (//www.road-dog-productions.com/passion.html).
Onomatopoeia is correct in criticizing the merchandising of this movie, as it is sort of ridiculous (it reminds me of that bible story of the merchants in the temple), but abuck is quite right in critizing him for his open dismisal of the movie and of us for wanting to discuss it.
I watched 'The Last Temptation Of Christ' again last night; I'd strongly recommend watching it back to back with 'The Passion.'
Quote from: OnomatopoeiaThanks for the info, Ravi. I rest my case.
i don't get it...what was your case?
Quote from: GhostboyI watched 'The Last Temptation Of Christ' again last night; I'd strongly recommend watching it back to back with 'The Passion.'
I think that anytime you start trying to lump the likes of Gibson in with Scorsese (problems I have with some of his works aside), you get into really shaky territory, because problems aside, Scorsese is The Real Thing. And, well, I've been through like sixteen years of church when I was a kid, so I know what the story was all about, and my reasons for not wanting to waste my time and money with Gibson's version. If I'd see it for free, maybe, but my experience with Gibson is that he generally lacks substance and nuance, and I really don't want to sit through two hours of violence and the heavy-handedness akin to a preacher yelling "REPENT! (you bad, bad person, you). Sounds like a real guilt trip to me. Especially if it can make, you, Ghostboy, come almost to the brink of tears.
Some people think it's wrong to make a judgment on a movie without seeing it. Others, well, they know it's smart to use discretion in spending your time watching movies, especially when there are so many, especially for people who really love movies period. I think there are more worthy efforts around, so I won't be spending my money on this one, not just because of the whole media influx. I may check it out though if I can get to a free screening, which my university sometimes offers. I also find it ironic that Gibson had so much trouble picking up a distributor, and was so gung ho about doing this for the art, but gradually this became more of a big Hollywood type picture. If he really cared about the art, the media assault would never have come. He would have let word of mouth handle things. But then again, maybe that's the studio's doing. All I know is, when I walk into my creative non-fiction class and see a stack of 8x11 fliers for The Passion of the Christ all shiny and glossy, selling this film like it's a commodity and not art, I know things have gone too far.
Well, I agree that you should be choosey on what films you watch, and if you don't feel like it then, for sure, skip it, there's plenty classic films we should all be watching. But as to those flyers, I mean, it's a movie, man. Cinema is a commercial art. Especially when it costs 25 million. You gotta at least expect the guy to try and get some of his money back, and to get people to see a movie, you gotta advertise. I do think, however, that this merchandising thing sounds a little suspect...
well, i'm gonna wait until this hits video, or atleast the dollar cinema, where it is likely that i'll have a chance to catch it in am empty theater. a bunch of hysterical, religious nuts crying, walking out, yelling- yuck, too much for me. i have a hard enough time just going to church w/ these ppl. (and yes i am catholic)
Saw this last night... Have MANY feelings on it, but most of it has already been said in some way, so I'll keep it short.
Bottom Line: Hated the movie
Why? Because it provided no context. Christ was a revolutionary who incited people in the worst way possible during times of great political upheaval. The Romans are occupying Jerusalem, persecuting the Jews, and the Jewish Leaders are trying desperately to hold their people together. Then Christ comes along and tells them the best way to rebel is to NOT rebel, but to Love. The Jewish leaders see this as highly dangerous to the future of their people, and have him executed. They use the excuse that he's a blasphemer because he claims he's the son of God. He accepts his death, he loves those who are killing him, even AS they're killing him, and then depending on what you believe, he is raised from the dead.
Now, it's a fairly simple story that has GREAT dramatic and emotional power, if told the right way. Then Gibson comes along and decides to forget about who Christ WAS and what he DID, and instead devotes two hours to portraying how greatly this man suffered. We don't see WHY he's executed, we don't even get a clear understanding of why his disciples are so devoted to him. We get brief clips of the most generic versions of his teachings (Love One Another), and in the mean time we have to sit through an hour and a half of Christ being beaten, scourged, and forced to carry his cross on the road to calvary. Then he dies. Then he's resurrected.
Anyway, this is a longer rant than I expected, but Gibson puts on such an appalling display of pretension in denying the audience any hint of character development, assuming that one should already know everything about this man, except of course, How brutally he was tortured and murdered. I was raised in a strict fundamentalist christian home, so I went in with a wealth of knowledge on who this man was, yet I was NEVER emotionally involved. Instead, I felt like I was watching pornography, where the characters are mechanically fucking and coming, and you don't give a shit except for the fact that its so over the top. The violence in this film WAS pornographic, all the more so because the audience is completely denied any emotional entrance into the story EXCEPT through the violence itself; that is, the suffering of another human being.
Anyway, I've got a lot more to say, but its coming out randomly, so I'll stop for now.
Oh, and Mel Gibson sucks as a filmmaker. Story and Religion aside, his hardhat approach to directing is mind-numbingly boring and very typical of Hollywood.
And Braveheart sucks.
I'm done. :roll:
it amazes me how many people get fanatical on super bowl sunday...or put up a picture of their favorite band on the wall. But mention Jesus and all of the sudden you are a religeous nut.
If I watch football on sundays, then I'm a man's man. If I go to church then I'm a holy roller. Why didn't anyone come down on Stone for making a football movie?
It's a movie and if it interests you then see it. If not, don't...but the the cursing of the movie...especially if you haven't seen it, is just a fear mechanism.
I agree with you, and I was actually really looking forward to the movie. Unfortunately, it's just a bad movie. That's the bottom line.
That brings up an interesting debate. I mean Mel as specifically stated that he wasn't trying to make the "story of Jesus"....that he was intentionally showing the last 12 hours of his life. That's the movie, take it or leave it.
The debate being can we really navigate away from the typical hollywood narrative standard? Does the filmmaker really owe us something based on that standard? I don't know the answer but sure would like to discuss it.
I think the nature of who Jesus was really overpowers any obligations or expectations or ambitions towards artists statements either Gibson or the audience has. When you talk about Jesus, you really owe it to the material to explore who he was if you're going to do it. If I was ever going to do this film, I'd read the New Testament and the Book of Mormon, and any other testaments to his life and craft an all-encompassing tale about his life, his death, his resurrection, and his new life in Central America, as the Book of Mormon tells it (I think that's right, isn't it? -- though please, let's not get into whether or not the Book of Mormon or the Bible is valid in the first place). I'd also study Jewish history and Christian history and try to come to a better understanding of who Jesus was rather than just relying on the Catholic faith and their bible.
From what I've heard, Gibson has been so blinded by his faith and this one element -- the suffering Jesus endured -- that he's failed to engage the viewers with anything else. And I really like Film Student's review for addressing that.
So, really, this movie has even more undue attention because of this nature of being shortchanged as a result of Gibson's ego-driven desire to express this one emotion that really is all too personal for most people to care about when there are wider aspects of this story that are neglected. Normally I feel the filmmaker doesn't owe the audience anything, but in this case, considering the nature of the beast, I'd like to see more effort like what I described above.
damnit...you people ruined the ending for me.
Quote from: Film Student
Oh, and Mel Gibson sucks as a filmmaker. Story and Religion aside, his hardhat approach to directing is mind-numbingly boring and very typical of Hollywood.
This is my feeling precisely, which is why, without forming any definite opinion until I do actually see the film, I'm hardly rushing out to hop on the
Passion bandwagon. Usually, my only response to hype is to just try and see past it, but seeing past this hype leaves me with nothing but a Mel Gibson movie. :( Someday I'll be posting my thoughts on the film here, probably, but it won't be soon. I have many bigger cinematic fish to fry than little Mellie Gibson...
If you're a christian...the ending was already ruined.
I just got back from this today, it's truly a great film. I was deeply touched by what it was trying to do and it's execution. It's very bloody, violent, dark and disturbing but so was Jesus Christ's actual crucifixtion. It's profound, brilliant and a masterpiece. Everyone should go see this movie except for the youngest of children. And the very last shot is perfect, doesn't need to be spelled out and stands alone.
Quote from: godardianQuote from: Film Student
Oh, and Mel Gibson sucks as a filmmaker. Story and Religion aside, his hardhat approach to directing is mind-numbingly boring and very typical of Hollywood.
This is my feeling precisely, which is why, without forming any definite opinion until I do actually see the film, I'm hardly rushing out to hop on the Passion bandwagon. Usually, my only response to hype is to just try and see past it, but seeing past this hype leaves me with nothing but a Mel Gibson movie. :( Someday I'll be posting my thoughts on the film here, probably, but it won't be soon. I have many bigger cinematic fish to fry than little Mellie Gibson...
hows does it feel to be a snob?
I hope this doesn't turn into another Triplets of Belleville type thread.
Quote from: RaviI hope this doesn't turn into another Triplets of Belleville type thread.
how does it feel to be a pansy?
"Braveheart" was entertaining as hell..I loved that sh#t. The fight scenes kicked arse.
Quote from: cowboykurtis
how does it feel to be a pansy?
Fine, for the most part... except for having it instinctively and wrongly used as some sort of insult to signify... what? Cowardice? Fear of contention or a
Triplets of Belleville-type thread? :roll:
I suppose that the same mind that characterizes having a standard for discourse a "pansy" quality would also characterize having a standard for films (which Mel Gibson's fall well short of) as being snobbish, so I probably won't be losing any sleep over it.
haha, if someone calls me a pansy, I'd never reply with the word "contention" in it.
Quote from: cowboykurtisQuote from: RaviI hope this doesn't turn into another Triplets of Belleville type thread.
how does it feel to be a pansy?
Quite dandy. How do you talk to an angel?
Mel Gibson is on Jay Leno tonight if anyone wants to see what he has to say for himself. The media onslaught continues. :-D
LENO: Apparently, originally, Gibson wanted Bill Murray to play Jesus, and the film was to be called Lost in Salvation.
...
Also, Satanists are upset at the film, saying Satan came off bad in the movie. Yeah, they're calling it anti-Satanic.
:x
Quote from: OnomatopoeiaLENO: Apparently, originally, Gibson wanted Bill Murray to play Jesus, and the film was to be called Lost in Salvation.
Mothers, hide your daughters. That nutty Leno's at it again!
Quote from: Ghostboyalthough the final shot of Satan in the film was pointless and distracting.
but it wasn't pointless. It was Satan losing his power that he had throughout the film. Jesus went to hell before he was resurected and overpowered Satan.
To all the naysayers: How did this movie not meet your expectations? What more or what else rather did you expect?
and why the hate on Mel Gibson? I thought Riggs did a beautiful job.
If it was the same story, same portrayel but with...why not say Scorsesse at the helm and the camera moved or held a bit longer, I know your attitudes would be different. and that's sad.
****
Scorsese challenged his own faith, Mel Gibson is catering to it. I think we should stop comparing the two
Quote from: poser(isms)Quote from: Ghostboyalthough the final shot of Satan in the film was pointless and distracting.
but it wasn't pointless. It was Satan losing his power that he had throughout the film. Jesus went to hell before he was resurected and overpowered Satan.
You're right, and I shouldn't have said pointles...but to throw a big special effects shot in there at that moment was, in my eyes, distracting and tasteless.
Also, this film and Last Temptation ARE comparable, regardless of Scorsese and Gibson's differences in talent and intentions, because ultimately both films were made by filmmakers seeking to better understand Jesus. One film is concerned with the internal struggle, the other the external, and both take big risks of different sorts.
Yeah, I just didn't want to see the argument 8)
Quote from: hacksparrowQuote from: OnomatopoeiaLENO: Apparently, originally, Gibson wanted Bill Murray to play Jesus, and the film was to be called Lost in Salvation.
Mothers, hide your daughters. That nutty Leno's at it again!
jay didn't write that one, his chin did.
the demonic scenes were awesome.
everything else has been said, either ur a Ghostboy or a Film Student.
Quote from: poser(isms)If it was the same story, same portrayel but with...why not say Scorsesse at the helm and the camera moved or held a bit longer, I know your attitudes would be different. and that's sad.
Can you please think about that for a minute and take that back, because that's an ignorant fucking comment.
how do i wait a full month to see this?
Quote from: phil marlowehow do i wait a full month to see this?
read the book?
(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ascensionbooks.com%2Fimages%2FProductShots%2Fbible.jpg&hash=6f3977865aebe4b492bd5e35dca773ff3ab9b050)
don't wanna spoil the ending...
Quote from: phil marlowedon't wanna spoil the ending...
i can understand that, heck, why don't you see any of the lethal weapon movies then?
Quote from: mogwaiQuote from: phil marlowedon't wanna spoil the ending...
i can understand that, heck, why don't you see any of the lethal weapon movies then?
you mean mel gibson is jesus. i allways thought it was ernst hugo järegård
Quote from: godardianQuote from: cowboykurtis
how does it feel to be a pansy?
Fine, for the most part... except for having it instinctively and wrongly used as some sort of insult to signify... what? Cowardice? Fear of contention or a Triplets of Belleville-type thread? :roll:
I suppose that the same mind that characterizes having a standard for discourse a "pansy" quality would also characterize having a standard for films (which Mel Gibson's fall well short of) as being snobbish, so I probably won't be losing any sleep over it.
im so proud of you
tell me cowboykurtis, are you proud of him?
Quote from: phil marlowetell me cowboykurtis, are you proud of him?
he seems like hes on the path to becoming a well adjusted member of society -- i am very proud of his acheivments
Quote from: OnomatopoeiaLENO: Apparently, originally, Gibson wanted Bill Murray to play Jesus, and the film was to be called Lost in Salvation.
Could that be one of the worst joke of all time ? I would think so.
Mogwai ... there's a wallpaper with Satan's face on the Passion website. He/she looks better in the movie though.
Quote from: Onomatopoeia
LENO: Also, Satanists are upset at the film, saying Satan came off bad in the movie. Yeah, they're calling it anti-Satanic.
I can't believe no one's said anything about this one -- it's hilarious!!
Quote from: phil marlowei allways thought it was ernst hugo järegård
that guy was so cool in riget! heard he was dead, is he?
just checked: he's dead. :cry:
Jesus, it took three deseases at the same time to finish him...tough motherfucker.
Quote from: Pas RapportQuote from: OnomatopoeiaLENO: Apparently, originally, Gibson wanted Bill Murray to play Jesus, and the film was to be called Lost in Salvation.
Could that be one of the worst joke of all time ? I would think so.
Mogwai ... there's a wallpaper with Satan's face on the Passion website. He/she looks better in the movie though.
Jay Leno is a fuckstick. They need to give Conan his time slot.
Leno sucks.
Quote from: Pas RapportQuote from: OnomatopoeiaLENO: Apparently, originally, Gibson wanted Bill Murray to play Jesus, and the film was to be called Lost in Salvation.
Could that be one of the worst joke of all time ? I would think so.
Moreover I don't really get it/see why it's funny.
LENO: "It's funny because of how
Translation and
Salvation rhyme. Get it?"
CHEST: ::laughs hysterically::
Quote from: rustinglassQuote from: phil marlowei allways thought it was ernst hugo järegård
that guy was so cool in riget! heard he was dead, is he?
just checked: he's dead. :cry:
Jesus, it took three deseases at the same time to finish him...tough motherfucker.
yep he's dead..i heard some interview where peter ålbæk(the zentropa exec) said that he though that ernst hugos dead would be the end of zentropa, financially....he's crazy though so whatever.
but rustinglass..don't tell me you've ignored the recent tom hanks thread:
Quote from: in the tom hanks thread zigur róz to mogwai(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fusers.cybercity.dk%2F%7Ebse5560%2Fernsthugo.jpeg&hash=6a6cdee2cca456503438526bee523374b4c6aadc)
Thank you so much for everything.
Gibson don't know subtlety.
Quote from: FooBoyI liked The Passion Of The Christ quite a lot, although it has it's share of flaws. The film's weaknesses lie in the depiction of some of the very minor characters, who seem rather two-dimensional. In particular, this criticism can be applied to the Romans who whip Jesus, who act as though they've stumbled off the set of Xena, doing little more than grinning oafishly and cackling between blows. That said, main actors are all very good, and credit goes out to Jim Caviezel for his terrific performance - his role was no doubt one of the most difficult for an actor to play. Anti-semetic? I didn't think so. It was the people in power calling the shots, not the Jews as a race. Also, I wouldn't call the film depressing - quite the opposite actually, although I don't think it's uplifting in a conventional sense. Overall, dispite some quibbles, I think Gibson handled the material fairly well, making this is one of the better films of its type.
Good enough to get Caviez' an Oscar nod for "Best Actor" in next year's Oscars?
Quote from: phil marlowebut rustinglass..don't tell me you've ignored the recent tom hanks thread:
Well, I....uhhmm....
I suck :oops:
Quote from: MyxomatosisQuote from: FooBoyI liked The Passion Of The Christ quite a lot, although it has it's share of flaws. The film's weaknesses lie in the depiction of some of the very minor characters, who seem rather two-dimensional. In particular, this criticism can be applied to the Romans who whip Jesus, who act as though they've stumbled off the set of Xena, doing little more than grinning oafishly and cackling between blows. That said, main actors are all very good, and credit goes out to Jim Caviezel for his terrific performance - his role was no doubt one of the most difficult for an actor to play. Anti-semetic? I didn't think so. It was the people in power calling the shots, not the Jews as a race. Also, I wouldn't call the film depressing - quite the opposite actually, although I don't think it's uplifting in a conventional sense. Overall, dispite some quibbles, I think Gibson handled the material fairly well, making this is one of the better films of its type.
Good enough to get Caviez' an Oscar nod for "Best Actor" in next year's Oscars?
Certainly. Unless there are alot of touchy people making the nominations. Come on folks its just freedom of speech and media. If you don't like it. Then don't see it.
i doubt he'll be nominated if only because the academys memory is usually only a month or two long and recalling a film that came out a year earlier (unless its an indie film that plays for like 6 months), is usually next to impossible. especially recently.
Quote from: themodernage02i doubt he'll be nominated if only because the academys memory is usually only a month or two long and recalling a film that came out a year earlier (unless its an indie film that plays for like 6 months), is usually next to impossible. especially recently.
Off the top of my head, American Beauty (Sept), Seabiscuit (July) and Silence Of The Lambs (Feb).
Quote from: MacGuffinQuote from: themodernage02i doubt he'll be nominated if only because the academys memory is usually only a month or two long and recalling a film that came out a year earlier (unless its an indie film that plays for like 6 months), is usually next to impossible. especially recently.
Off the top of my head, American Beauty (Sept), Seabiscuit (July) and Silence Of The Lambs (Feb).
well seabiscuit is an oddity although still in the second half of the year, and it wont win. silence was almost 14 years ago and still seems pretty rare, and sept is usually as far back as an 'oscar contender' can go and still be a safe distance. i still think it'd be something if this is up for oscars. i'm not saying it was always this bad, just it seems recently it is.
Quote from: themodernage02well seabiscuit is an oddity although still in the second half of the year, and it wont win. silence was almost 14 years ago and still seems pretty rare, and sept is usually as far back as an 'oscar contender' can go and still be a safe distance. i still think it'd be something if this is up for oscars. i'm not saying it was always this bad, just it seems recently it is.
But you're forgetting studios don't normally release 'Oscar contender' films early in the year, so it's not necessarily the voters fault. If a film does come out early and they want to push it for nominations, that's what the DVD/VHS screeners and ads in the trade papers are for.
The prime example would be City Of God, which came out this time last year.
that would fall under the indie film catagory (plus its STILL playing!) passion will be old news soon. by april it wont even be playing anymore and 6 months from then, people (the public) will barely remember it.
Maybe, but The Passion is actually much more indie, despite its bigger budget, and Newmarket is much smaller than Miramax. City Of God was absent from theaters from March until November of last year.
Well technically, The Passion of the Christ is completely an independent film.
I know that "Indie" pretty much just means a sort of... edgy filmmaking attitude, but I still take the word literally.
Gibson funded the project himself, and everything is being run and managed by his company, Icon. There is no studio involved anywhere. There was the production company and the distributer (Newmarket), that's all. Pure independent film.
A lot of movies that seem "independent" are not, because they were greenlit by a studio. I'm not saying that one is bad and one is good, or that any one of them is better, but there is a difference. Sorry for my mini-rant.
Oh and the new Star Wars movies are independent films as well. They're not usually mentioned as such, but Lucas funds them himself and Fox is just the distributor. Lucas doesn't need anyone's money or any studio to greenlight his movies--not that Fox would've had a problem agreeing to greenlight the new Star Wars movies; they probably would've gotten a higher percentage return as part of that deal.
I'm not sure about that whole Disney-Pixar deal, which will exist only until Pixar finishes its next two movies. I don't know to what extent that Disney is involved in production or funding. My guess though is that Disney doesn't do squat but distribute and advertise--which would be why Pixar is pissed about the 50-50 deal that they had. So my belief has been that Pixar funds and produces the films themselves, which makes it closer to independent, in a way, I guess.
Again, sorry for the mini-rant.
Quote from: GhostboyMaybe, but The Passion is actually much more indie, despite its bigger budget, and Newmarket is much smaller than Miramax. City Of God was absent from theaters from March until November of last year.
but i saw City of God for the second time in D.C. in june. and i thought i read harvey kept it playing atleast in a theatre or two in ny/la for the whole year pretty much?
Yeah, my mistake. But in any case, The Passion could make it around for Oscar consideration, depending on how Hollywood reacts to it. Despite many execs apparent disgust over the film, it's making money -- and I read an article in which PTA's (former?) agent John Lesher said this about it: "People here will work with the anti-Christ if he'll put butts in seats." Sad but true.
Well, I saw it today. They need a sequel... The Compassion of the Christ.
The one part that was truly moving is the "forgive them" moment. But otherwise...
I didn't appreciate being bashed over the head with Jesus' suffering, as some kind of provocation to love him. Then again, the "Look what Jesus did for you. What are you going to do for him?" message has never resonated with me.
I really honestly don't think the movie was exceptionally well made, and its only source of power seems to be its violence.
I was prepared to like it, I really was.
I just came back from it. It was pretty good, but like Blackman says it probably would be nearly nothing without the exceptionally gory violence. I had no revelations, as I'm not religious in the first place, but the realism of the violence nearly brought me to tears all by itself. I don't know if that's really a good thing or not. But besides, despite the fact it was depicting Jesus I felt nearly nothing for the characters, besides Mary, who I thought was done well. I could understand their agony and all that but the film didn't show enough of any of the characters besides the torture and the crying for me to like any of them enough to truly feel compassion for them. Also, that last part was just bad, along with the final shot of Satan in pain or whatever. Overall I liked it though, I think.
I could understand some of the Latin. :wink:
.just got back from it.......
SPOILERS.
.i missed the first five minutes....the first scenes that i saw were the onees in the wodds at night w/ satan and the snake....(so if someone could clue me in into what i missed ....much obliged)........
anyway...
i hav enever felt so emootional over a film like this...i get emotinal over magnolia, mulholland dr., The Godfather Trilogy.etc....but nothing affected me like this........both physically and mentally...during the graphic scenes my stomach was hurting and twisting so bad i though i was going to be sick...especially during the whipping scenes w/ the glass or stones or whatever it was...its brutal....my thoughts are scattershot after this so forgive my rambling but i'll try........i think this film is the most powerful thing i have ever seen IMO.....the crucifix scenes going into the ressurection at the end had me crying.....in some movies i will tear up but nothing like this....and it wsn't till after i left the theatre on my way home that IT REALLY STARTED TO AFFECT ME.....man, this is powerful....but when Jesus is being beatened and crucified.....when he talks to God saying "forgive him for they do not know what they do"......and the scene where one of the other guys on the cross is saying that Jesus does not deserve to be on the cross and how that he(not Jesus) asks for forgiveness and the the camera goes over and shoes Jesus saying.."you will be in paradise w/ me"...i have read/heard those lines in the Bible and the film portrayed those lines very effective.among other things...i'm just explaining mine....
. and the tear from Heaven was brilliant....and i got to mentioned the ressurection part where Jesus walks off and the camera shows the wounds in his hand-P.O.W.E.R.F.U.L........it film shows people what Jesus did for us..everyone...what he went through to save us.........the film helped enrich my already STRONG relationship my Christian faith....and it gives me chills just to think about when it is my time to die......I will be in the Kingdom of God.....
on the technical side...its very well done.and the score was perfect....
i got to say for the critics who complain that this film is just expoilted violence and what happen to Christianity being about love....?......well to answer that JESUS DID THE ULTIMATE SACRIFICE FOR US..HE SAVED US... THIS IS AN ACT OF LOVE HE DID FOR US....
really good film.. cheers..mel.........
Quote from: NEON MERCURYJESUS DID THE ULTIMATE SACRIFICE FOR US..HE SAVED US... THIS IS AN ACT OF LOVE HE DID FOR US....
The problem is that not everyone believes that, and so for the film to be truly successful, it would have to affect non-believers. Which its doing to some, as in my case, and not others, a la (I assume) Jeremy Blackman.
i thought this film was terrible because i found it absolutely pointless. its great that they didnt hold back on the gore, but this brings nothing new to the table, as far as movies about jesus go. plus, the romans wanted jesus dead just as much as some (not all) of the jews. i dont get it.
Well, this film does have one thing going for it, and that is Jim Caviezel. He really pulled off the part and if he ends up winning awards for it...I'm cool with it.
The film as a whole I thought wasn't that good, in any way. For a film whose big selling point is it's realism, the film sure is stylized. Slow motion shots, stylized lighting, cgi (why, oh why cgi in this film?), frantic editing are all used, and all used poorly. Sure the film carries some emotional weight, I mean it's about Jesus and his crucifiction, how does it not? I sat through this 2 hr move, bored for the majority of it.
I respect Gibson for making this film and funding it on his own, but I don't respect his direction. Mel made his career on action films and this is what this movie is. LEARN HOW TO BE SUBTLE.
And the very last part, the little epitaph for the rest of the film. That was cheesy. I can't wait for JC2: Judgement Day.
EDIT: Adding more.
How does the religious right condem films like Pulp Fiction for their (offscreen) violence and eat up the onscreen violence of this film?
Quote from: Cecilanything.
you're alive?!?
Quote from: SHAFTRHow does the religious right condem films like Pulp Fiction for their (offscreen) violence and eat up the onscreen violence of this film?
oh, religious people are crazy.
Quote from: themodernage02Quote from: Cecilanything.
you're alive?!?
yes. all those who thought i had offed myself, raise your hands
It was considered, but we decided you were too smart and crafty to do that.
for some reason, i am starting to think that Gibson never actually intended on releasing the film with no subtitles, but that he just said so in order to start some early buzz. I guess i have got to hand it to Mel, i didn't like the film at all, but damn if he didn't generate a blair witchian amount of interest for his movie for almost no cash. Angry rabbis, constant re-editing, distribution techniques..all of this publicised, and all of it free.
I'll go on record saying that this will be my pick for the Best Film of 2004. This film is powerful. I couldn't hold back the tears. If the Academy is like me, they will rememeber this film come awards season. Those who say Gibson is a terrible filmmaker, are dismissing his abilities. The suffering of Christ is beautifully shot and executed. I keep reading about the violence as the main point, and while the violence is bloody and stays with you, I found that the reaction shots of the people, insert shots of the blood dripping from the nail, extreme close-ups of Jesus (eyes and mouth), the crown of thorns on the rock, a shot of the cross flipping over for a perfect composition shot of Magdalene - shots that couldn't have been scripted - were what resonated with me the most. The intercutting of the crucifixtion and the last supper was brilliant. The film drove myself and the audience I saw it with to tears; we were moved by it, and that's what great filmmaking is. It could be very easy to shoot shots but leave the emotion behind. This film doesnt do that. I was especially deeply moved by the mother/son relationship and how the love was conveyed, and this is why Caviezel and Maia Morgenstern both deserve nominations, as does Caleb Deschanel for his cinematography and John Debney for his score.
It's an amazing film first, and a religious film second. Absolutely breathtaking. I do wish it would have included a little more on the resurection at the end. After all, that's a large part of the Christ story. I would like to have seen Jesus return to his mother and a few disciples to show them that he is of God, his Father, and not to anguish over his pain. I suspect Gibson didn't have that in the film b/c it might have messed with the flow of the film. As it is, it's an outstanding piece of filmmaking.
I did see the merit in the anti-semitic claims. But I think any Passion play that portrays the Jewish leadership as more harsh is just as valid as one that portrays them as less so. I thought the handling of the demons and devil were good for the most part, however the final shot of the devil seemed a bit hokey when juxtaposed with the scenes before and after it. And the scene of Judas being tormented byt he children reminded me of the scene in Devil's Advocate when Jeffrey Jones is being attacked by the bums/demons.
Quote from: MacGuffinI found that the reaction shots of the people, insert shots of the blood dripping from the nail, extreme close-ups of Jesus (eyes and mouth), the crown of thorns on the rock, a shot of the cross flipping over for a perfect composition shot of Magdalene - shots that couldn't have been scripted - were what resonated with me the most.
It's called coverage. Gibson doesn't have the ability to hold a shot for over 5 seconds. He has to constantly cut away. The film's power could have been sustained if he could sustain a shot.
It is interesting how this film really is splitting people into love/hate groups.
Also, analogzombie, is that Death Stalker in your avatar?
I think it would be funny if they started playing "All-Star" by Smash Mouth at the end.
Quote from: ShanghaiOrangeI think it would be funny if they started playing "All-Star" by Smash Mouth at the end.
The ending was cheesy enough, I wouldn't have been surprised.
this film was an abolutely overwhelming experience.
Quote from: Film StudentSaw this last night... Have MANY feelings on it, but most of it has already been said in some way, so I'll keep it short.
Bottom Line: Hated the movie
Why? Because it provided no context. Christ was a revolutionary who incited people in the worst way possible during times of great political upheaval. The Romans are occupying Jerusalem, persecuting the Jews, and the Jewish Leaders are trying desperately to hold their people together. Then Christ comes along and tells them the best way to rebel is to NOT rebel, but to Love. The Jewish leaders see this as highly dangerous to the future of their people, and have him executed. They use the excuse that he's a blasphemer because he claims he's the son of God. He accepts his death, he loves those who are killing him, even AS they're killing him, and then depending on what you believe, he is raised from the dead.
Now, it's a fairly simple story that has GREAT dramatic and emotional power, if told the right way. Then Gibson comes along and decides to forget about who Christ WAS and what he DID, and instead devotes two hours to portraying how greatly this man suffered. We don't see WHY he's executed, we don't even get a clear understanding of why his disciples are so devoted to him. We get brief clips of the most generic versions of his teachings (Love One Another), and in the mean time we have to sit through an hour and a half of Christ being beaten, scourged, and forced to carry his cross on the road to calvary. Then he dies. Then he's resurrected.
Anyway, this is a longer rant than I expected, but Gibson puts on such an appalling display of pretension in denying the audience any hint of character development, assuming that one should already know everything about this man, except of course, How brutally he was tortured and murdered. I was raised in a strict fundamentalist christian home, so I went in with a wealth of knowledge on who this man was, yet I was NEVER emotionally involved. Instead, I felt like I was watching pornography, where the characters are mechanically fucking and coming, and you don't give a shit except for the fact that its so over the top. The violence in this film WAS pornographic, all the more so because the audience is completely denied any emotional entrance into the story EXCEPT through the violence itself; that is, the suffering of another human being.
Anyway, I've got a lot more to say, but its coming out randomly, so I'll stop for now.
Oh, and Mel Gibson sucks as a filmmaker. Story and Religion aside, his hardhat approach to directing is mind-numbingly boring and very typical of Hollywood.
And Braveheart sucks.
I'm done. :roll:
Well, the film is called "The Passion of the Christ." Meaning, the suffering of Christ. Did you really expect anything else to be the main focus of the film? The film is not supposed to be concerned with the teachings and characteristics of Jesus. Its main concern is the passion of Jesus. Including too much of the other stuff would take away from the point of the film.
Quote from: SHAFTRIt's called coverage. Gibson doesn't have the ability to hold a shot for over 5 seconds. He has to constantly cut away. The film's power could have been sustained if he could sustain a shot.
Say what? Okay, really, how many here have it in for Mel Gibson? I thought there was nothing wrong with the directing. It was a VERY powerful film.
Anyway, how many audiences laughed when the murderer Barrabas (sp?) smiled in surprise that the crowd wanted him released?
Quote from: SHAFTRIt's called coverage. Gibson doesn't have the ability to hold a shot for over 5 seconds. He has to constantly cut away. The film's power could have been sustained if he could sustain a shot.
I absolutely thought about that after watching the movie. It wasn't necessarily that I thought that it was bad to cut away so often, and I actually realize that it was probably necessary to make the visual effects work.
I thought about how strong an image it would be to show Jesus before he was whipped and in one or just a few shots (that can last just as long as that whole sequence) tear out all that skin and meat.
And the MPAA rates movies based on the amount shown--this would not have increased the graphicness, but would have, possibly, been more disturbing, which was Gibson's intention anyway.
I don't have a problem with Gibson--I've always liked the guy--but I just think that the cardboard cutout characters makes the movie less powerful. I got no sense that I was watching real human beings on the screen, and if I had been able to get that sense, the movie would've been very very powerful, I'm sure. Really, the cardboard-cutout-characters is the only real problem I have with the movie at all, and I think it's because Mel Gibson and the guy he co-wrote the screenplay with are both first-time screenwriters.
Oh, and also, SWEET JESUS! this movie (from Wednesday to Sunday) made over $117.5 million!
Quote from: CinephileQuote from: SHAFTRIt's called coverage. Gibson doesn't have the ability to hold a shot for over 5 seconds. He has to constantly cut away. The film's power could have been sustained if he could sustain a shot.
Say what? Okay, really, how many here have it in for Mel Gibson? I thought there was nothing wrong with the directing. It was a VERY powerful film.
I don't have it 'in' for him. I always enjoyed Braveheart. Braveheart works because it is an action film, first. The Passion just didn't do it for me, in any way. The film is not powerful, the events it is based on are.
This was one of the worst films I've ever seen. It failed all around. I even fell asleep during the cross carrying.
Quote from: matt35mmReally, the cardboard-cutout-characters is the only real problem I have with the movie at all, and I think it's because Mel Gibson and the guy he co-wrote the screenplay with are both first-time screenwriters.
All the women in the movie struck me as pretty cliché, and even weak...
Well yeah, the women, the Jews, and even Jesus, who had no more depth than the hundreds of famous paintings with Jesus in it.
It's true, Virgin Mary did nothing but cry, and Mary Magdalene did nothing but but look damn good. Yeah that's a little cynical I suppose, but she was nearly distractingly beautiful (Monica Bellucci), even with all the dirt and what not, but that's not a criticism of the film at all.
I did like the intercutting of Jesus falling down as a baby and falling down with the cross. Mary, who understands what is going on, is STILL, no matter what, a mother to her child. She runs, with arms outstretched, the same, regardless. That, while simple, was one of the film's powerful moments for me.
It's not that the film was entirely so-so, it just had high highs and low lows that make it, for me, so-so. With that said, that doesn't mean that it's "the average film."
It's not average, just plain bad.
It amazes me how many people say they love film...while it's obvious they really hate it. I mean why else would you accentuate the negatives? You don't do that to things you truely love. It's called leveling.
I guess some people have some issues with what they have achieved personally.
'Passion' No. 1 at box office[/b]
Mel Gibson turned water into wine at the North American box office as the faithful flocked to watch the writer/director's controversial labor of love, "The Passion of the Christ," over the weekend.
The gritty movie, which revolves around the last 12 hours of Christ's life, sold an estimated $76.2 million worth of tickets for the three days beginning February 27, officials for the film said Sunday -- the seventh-best three-day opener of all time, and the best for a new release in February.
Since opening Wednesday, "Passion" has grossed $117.5 million, which included about $3 million worth of group sales for preview screenings the prior two days. The tally represented the second-best for a Wednesday release, behind only 2003's "The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King" with $124.1 million in its first five days.
However, the Friday-to-Sunday sum for "Passion" beat the equivalent three-day haul for "The Return of the King" of $72.7 million. The three-day record of $115 million is held by the 2002 hit "Spider-Man."
"Passion" also ranks as the second-best R-rated opener, behind last year's "The Matrix Reloaded" with a three-day sum of $92 million.
The film, starring James Caviezel as Jesus and Monica Bellucci as Mary Magdalene, has outraged some Jewish groups, who say it pins the blame for Jesus' demise on them. It drew sharply divergent reviews from critics, and benefited from keen grass-roots enthusiasm among Christians, thousands of whom have seen the movie in focus groups over the last few months.
"The grass-roots and the controversy obviously helped, but when you get this big a number, it's a mainstream 'wanna-see,' and word-of-mouth is now in effect," said Bob Berney, president of the film's North American distributor, Newmarket Films.
Many people have accessed the film's Web site to write that they have already seen the film multiple times, according to producer Bruce Davey, who runs Gibson's Icon Prods. film banner. The site received 54.1 million visits Thursday.
Gibson, a traditionalist Catholic, reportedly financed the film out of his own pocket for about $30 million, although Davey said he had "no idea" about that. He declined to reveal the break-even point.
"Passion" played on about 4,700 screens in 3,043 theaters across the United States and Canada. Davey said the movie is playing equally strongly in Australia, where Gibson was raised.
Newmarket Films, a unit of closely held Newmarket Capital Group, is best known for such art house hits as "Monster" and "Whale Rider."
Congratulations to Monica Bellucci, who co-stars in both of the top two R-Rated movies of all time!
Quote from: matt35mmCongratulations to Monica Bellucci, who co-stars in both of the top two R-Rated movies of all time!
congratulations to her bra.
Hmm. Also, The Matrix Reloaded (and then even more in Revolutions) and The Passion of the Christ were pretty much based on the same story.
Movie-goers like to watch R-Rated martyrdom. It's been proven without a shadow of a doubt! R-Rated martyrdom with Monica Bellucci in it! Well... personally, I know that that combination would make a must-see movie for me.
has anyone ever seen this...
(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimages.amazon.com%2Fimages%2FP%2FB00007CVRX.01.LZZZZZZZ.jpg&hash=8b4ba67c77f5e36d482a121a08f025e36ac9e073)
I have, and it really isn't that good.
My girlfriend and I had a discussion about the shot of Satan holding the baby while Jesus was being beaten. We disagreed about what exactly it symbolized. What did it mean to you?
Quote from: MacGuffinI'll go on record saying that this will be my pick for the Best Film of 2004. This film is powerful. I couldn't hold back the tears. If the Academy is like me, they will rememeber this film come awards season. Those who say Gibson is a terrible filmmaker, are dismissing his abilities. The suffering of Christ is beautifully shot and executed. I keep reading about the violence as the main point, and while the violence is bloody and stays with you, I found that the reaction shots of the people, insert shots of the blood dripping from the nail, extreme close-ups of Jesus (eyes and mouth), the crown of thorns on the rock, a shot of the cross flipping over for a perfect composition shot of Magdalene - shots that couldn't have been scripted - were what resonated with me the most. The intercutting of the crucifixtion and the last supper was brilliant. The film drove myself and the audience I saw it with to tears; we were moved by it, and that's what great filmmaking is. It could be very easy to shoot shots but leave the emotion behind. This film doesnt do that. I was especially deeply moved by the mother/son relationship and how the love was conveyed, and this is why Caviezel and Maia Morgenstern both deserve nominations, as does Caleb Deschanel for his cinematography and John Debney for his score.
cool Mac i agree w/ you.........
First, I'll identify what post I am on the religious table. Completely agnostic and believer that religion has played the largest role in keeping people from understanding each others differences. I thought it was insulting that Gibson opened the film on Ash Wednesday and offered his fictional work as sacrament and now has put the country on two sides arguing religion instead of a fictional film that is as realistic as Alice in Wonderland.
That being said, the film is mostly a success for me. I understand Shaftr's grievances and while I did fault Gibson's filmmaking abilities from time to time (his sudden scare shots got old in the first half), I think he did an excellent job. He cut a lot, but I don't think he over cut where he took away from the power of the story or the imagery. The film was as effective with its imagery as any I've seen in a long time because cudos go to the production team in so vividly recreating this world. I didn't find a logic of theory with his filmmaking, but I saw a film that seemed to emotionally ring true with his feelings with every scene and what he wanted to convey.
The big fault of the movie that keeps it from greatness and mixes my opinion are the subtitles. Its obvious with how little characterization there are to supporting characters and back history that this film was made under the intention it would be a modern day silent film because the language couldn't be translated. Its power would be for the image and the recreation of an event. Its a mirror film to The Passion of Joan of Arc where that film was also about a specific event only and its ghastliness. The film was made in the silent era, but I think Dreyer realized that it was redudant to show all the dialogue when it'd simply be arguing back and forth between Joan being a heretic or not. All things that just scratch the surface on what countless number of books have devled into for religion and spirituality. The worse problem for The Passion is that the story is even more known to everyone and the film is trying to play teacher with something it minimalizes compared to books and what many just already know. The great thing it could have done was to give life to this world and the effect of Christ dying. I understand some moments in the film may have been hard to translate without dialogue, but jeez, the brain can think a little bit.
Also, the roman leader who fought with himself in allowing Christ to be condemned was too understanding for my tastes. I talked the film over with a Christian very well read on this and he agreed that his role was extended to someone likely too nice for his position. Yes, in the gospels, his characters tries to wipe his hands clean of guilt and yes, his wife did beg him to pardon Christ, but I saw none of the arrogance or bias that would lived in that character for his position and time of history, whether he was for pardoning Christ or not. Many historical films suffer from the idea that everyone in past times had too many bad things about them for current audiences to identify with. Past Presidents in the 1800s oddily lose all identity of their time's bigotry that they very much shared. I think the filmmakers here got scared with all the ugliness in the characters and used artistic license to grant some characters portaits prolly too kind for their bill. Bad thing is they were just making cliches.
Quoteinstead of a fictional film that is as realistic as Alice in Wonderland.
Interesting. I mean, I know many people debate if Jesus was the son of God, you know, the Messiah...however, I can't think of one history account (religeous or secular) that ever question that the events happened. It's pretty well known that there was a dude named Jesus, he taught the love of God, and he was crucified on a cross. That's facts pardner. And pilot? Well again, all historical accounts pretty much say the same thing about him...he washed his hands of the whole account.
However, if you're eragant enough to not believe in any higher power...than perhaps you can dismiss history too.
8)
There's also debate about whether Jesus really claimed he was the son of God or just a son of God (in that we are all sons and daughters of God).
I can also understand the anti-Semitism accusations. The Romans were blameless. And Pontius Pilate was an extremely likeable guy.
If the point of the movie is his human suffering, it's nothing to predicate a religion on. We might as well deify Iranian torture victims if we're going to obsess about blood and guts to the exclusion of spirituality.
Quote from: Jeremy Blackman
If the point of the movie is his human suffering, it's nothing to predicate a religion on. .
Thus the whole contention over context, and lack thereof. You have to bring it in with you if you want to be moved in a religious way. I'd completely call that lazy filmmaking except that, again, the passion is the point of the movie, for better or worse.
I like GT's analysis of the subtitle issue...
Quote from: metroshaneInteresting. I mean, I know many people debate if Jesus was the son of God, you know, the Messiah...however, I can't think of one history account (religeous or secular) that ever question that the events happened. It's pretty well known that there was a dude named Jesus, he taught the love of God, and he was crucified on a cross. That's facts pardner. And pilot? Well again, all historical accounts pretty much say the same thing about him...he washed his hands of the whole account.
However, if you're eragant enough to not believe in any higher power...than perhaps you can dismiss history too.
that was totally uncalled for.
GT went on to justify his statement and wasn't arguing the reality of jesus but the supposed reality in which it was presented. also, agnostic means he's a good guy.
ps. i <3 JC.
Quote from: GhostboyYou have to bring it in with you if you want to be moved in a religious way.
And I agree that it's a very personal movie. I don't want to be all snobbish at people who find spiritual meaning there, because I know there are personal reasons why I don't find any.
Quotethat was totally uncalled for
You're right and for that I apologize. I think it's the cumulative ignorance that has gotten to me over the last couple of weeks...and when he called it a fictional movie...well I just went off. So again, I'm sorry.
Quote from: GhostboyQuote from: Jeremy Blackman
If the point of the movie is his human suffering, it's nothing to predicate a religion on. .
Thus the whole contention over context, and lack thereof. You have to bring it in with you if you want to be moved in a religious way. I'd completely call that lazy filmmaking except that, again, the passion is the point of the movie, for better or worse.
So the film should be considered a magnification of the physical suffering of Christ rather than an all-encompassing presentation of his teachings, beliefs, etc.
As far as I heard (without seeing it yet) that was sorta the idea...
Quote from: Jeremy BlackmanThere's also debate about whether Jesus really claimed he was the son of God or just a son of God (in that we are all sons and daughters of God).
I can also understand the anti-Semitism accusations. The Romans were blameless. And Pontius Pilate was an extremely likeable guy.
If the point of the movie is his human suffering, it's nothing to predicate a religion on. We might as well deify Iranian torture victims if we're going to obsess about blood and guts to the exclusion of spirituality.
"I am the way, the truth and the life...no man come to the Father except through me"
Strong words that regardless of what you believe negate the debate you refered to. I am a believer. I love Jesus.
Mom me
:yabbse-thumbup:
Beautiful post.
Quote from: metroshaneQuotethat was totally uncalled for
You're right and for that I apologize. I think it's the cumulative ignorance that has gotten to me over the last couple of weeks...and when he called it a fictional movie...well I just went off. So again, I'm sorry.
Apologies are fine and forgiveness is better but keep in mind he comared the story of Jesus to Alice in Wonderland and I am of the opinion that he owes us an apology or at least deserves a sitting down and talking to. Jesus was a historical figure and his suffering is well documented. Alice is a fictional character dreamed up by a funny man.
Mom me
Quote from: mom me"I am the way, the truth and the life...no man come to the Father except through me"
Strong words that regardless of what you believe negate the debate you refered to.
How?
Quote from: mom me"I am the way, the truth and the life...no man come to the Father except through me"
Strong words that regardless of what you believe negate the debate you refered to.
Then let's call it a debate about how much the Bible actually reflects Jesus' words.
Quote from: Jeremy BlackmanQuote from: mom me"I am the way, the truth and the life...no man come to the Father except through me"
Strong words that regardless of what you believe negate the debate you refered to.
Then let's call it a debate about how much the Bible actually reflects Jesus' words.
"Actually reflects Jesus' words"... how do you mean, exactly?
Quote from: GhostboyQuote from: mom me"I am the way, the truth and the life...no man come to the Father except through me"
Strong words that regardless of what you believe negate the debate you refered to.
How?
I'm scratching my head, too... those strong words have little to do with what JB was pointing out about the film's apparent focus/fixation.
Quote from: SoNowThen"Actually reflects Jesus' words"... how do you mean, exactly?
Okay, how do I say this delicately? He didn't write the book. And it's been translated and edited by politicians.
Quote from: Jeremy BlackmanQuote from: SoNowThen"Actually reflects Jesus' words"... how do you mean, exactly?
Okay, how do I say this delicately? He didn't write the book. And it's been translated and edited by politicians.
Hahaha, don't worry about delicacy.
So then you dispute that the quotes of Jesus are real, and in fact are just controlled and edited words by The Powers That Be to control us the masses?
If so, then your personal bias towards the idea of the film is such that you really can't give any decent criticisms of it, seeing as how the whole Passion idea is predicated on the suffering of THE MESSIAH. And if you know (notice I'll use "know" rather than "think") that Jesus was the Messiah, then any debate as to the validity of the suffering et al is simply null and void.
Or, I guess to cut through the bs, I doubt very much that believers and non-believers are gonna be able to even have decent discussions on this film. If you aren't already on board with Jesus as Son of God and Savior Of Mankind then the movie probably ain't for you. And it's not Mel's job to take you into account. He made a specific movie.
EDIT: I hope reading that I don't come across as yelling or screaming... just simply
passionate about the topic :wink:
Quote from: SoNowThenSo then you dispute that the quotes of Jesus are real, and in fact are just controlled and edited words by The Powers That Be to control us the masses?
I'm just saying that I wouldn't unequivocally trust my personal spirituality with such a flawed document.
Quote from: SoNowThenIf so, then your personal bias towards the idea of the film is such that you really can't give any decent criticisms of it
So if I believe something different, my opinion means nothing? Where's the debate anyway if we can't question that? What if I believe some things but not others? Is my opinion invalid unless I accept the whole belief system?
No, I don't think your opinion means nothing. But to a Christian, some of the huge problems you have with the film don't even come into play.
It just leads me to believe that no matter how good the movie might have been, there was no chance for you to get on board with it, given the chasm in personal beliefs.
Quote from: SoNowThenNo, I don't think your opinion means nothing. But to a Christian, some of the huge problems you have with the film don't even come into play.
You're assuming that I'm not "a Christian"... and also that no Christian could have a problem with Gibson's interpretation.
Quote from: SoNowThenIt just leads me to believe that no matter how good the movie might have been, there was no chance for you to get on board with it, given the chasm in personal beliefs.
Which is why I said it's a personal movie. And that also depends on whether you're judging interpretation/representation in how "good" a movie is.
Jesus this, Moses that, Abraham hit me with a wiffle ball bat.
but seriously, how did that scene where Jesus is hanging on the cross when the clouds begin to part and God appears shouting "GIMME BACK MY SON!" stay in the movie?
damn that Gibson.
Quote from: new guyJesus this, Moses that, Abraham hit me with a wiffle ball bat.
I like this new guy already. Sacrilicious.
i saw this today and enjoyed it (as much as one is supposed to enjoy it i guess). i am not particularly religious and pretty skeptical of any organized religions however i thought the movie was well done. (well shot, well acted, good score, etc.) i didnt think the violence was any more extreme than anything i've seen before. it was RELENTLESS, but no certain shot sticks out as being too much! being someone of minimal knowledge about this stuff it would've been nice to have a little more backstory, but as the film stands i think it is good. it was powerful, but as powerful as any story would be about that amount of suffering. whether or not jesus was the son of god doesnt affect your sympathies toward that level of human suffering. i think regardless of personal beliefs, it was a good story that most people are aware of the same way people know the story of frankenstein or superman or romeo and juliet, just because its been told so many times since birth. i wasnt enlightened, but i was interested.
Quote from: mom meQuote from: metroshaneQuotethat was totally uncalled for
You're right and for that I apologize. I think it's the cumulative ignorance that has gotten to me over the last couple of weeks...and when he called it a fictional movie...well I just went off. So again, I'm sorry.
Apologies are fine and forgiveness is better but keep in mind he comared the story of Jesus to Alice in Wonderland and I am of the opinion that he owes us an apology or at least deserves a sitting down and talking to. Jesus was a historical figure and his suffering is well documented. Alice is a fictional character dreamed up by a funny man.
Mom me
This is what I'm talking about. Sure, Christ has more historical importance and all, but its just a movie. The problem with the movie isn't that people are taking the experience serious, but I get the feeling people are looking to the film as sacrament and part of the Christian religion. The pope never approved of the film and no religion is. Its one man's own belief and is completely separate of any insitution. There just needs to be a serious separation of ideology with this debate and I am seeing some people try to do it but its only going so far.
SoNowThen can u at least watch the damn movie before u say anything else?
Quote from: themodernage02i saw this today and enjoyed it (as much as one is supposed to enjoy it i guess). i am not particularly religious and pretty skeptical of any organized religions however i thought the movie was well done. (well shot, well acted, good score, etc.) i didnt think the violence was any more extreme than anything i've seen before. it was RELENTLESS, but no certain shot sticks out as being too much! being someone of minimal knowledge about this stuff it would've been nice to have a little more backstory, but as the film stands i think it is good. it was powerful, but as powerful as any story would be about that amount of suffering. whether or not jesus was the son of god doesnt affect your sympathies toward that level of human suffering. i think regardless of personal beliefs, it was a good story that most people are aware of the same way people know the story of frankenstein or superman or romeo and juliet, just because its been told so many times since birth. i wasnt enlightened, but i was interested.
I take his standpoint. Except that I do know a few parts when I felt like turning away:
1) When the roman's are flaying (whatever) Jesus and one of the Romans lashes the whatever across his back so that it hooked into his side, and then he pulled it dragging a load of skin with it.
2) The nail(s) going into his palm(s)
3) Though they didn't actually show it, the nailing of Jesus' feet.
I do agree that it was shot and all that rather nicely. But I thought the story was lacking something--I feel I didn't really know the characters, except maybe Mary.
Quote from: PSoNowThen can u at least watch the damn movie before u say anything else?
I'm not arguing really the movie per se, but this attack on the idea of the movie.
I'll go see it, but I've never been all that interested in seeing it in the first place. And once I do see it, I'll only be able to talk about it in terms of technical movie type stuff. If I like the way it's shot, I'll defend it as a good movie, if I don't like the way it's shot I'll probably not discuss it at all.
Have I said anything connecting to the film that is totally wrong based on me not seeing it? If I have, just point it out and correct me, I don't mind.
Quote from: SoNowThenHave I said anything connecting to the film that is totally wrong based on me not seeing it? If I have, just point it out and correct me, I don't mind.
well, it's these type of comments..
Quote from: SoNowThenIt just leads me to believe that no matter how good the movie might have been, there was no chance for you to get on board with it, given the chasm in personal beliefs.
like, just see the movie and then u can hypothesize however u want. before then, ur just assuming everything and that's wack in any situation.
Fair enough.
'kay, this weekend or the next, probably...
Before I write what I thought about the movie, let me say that I attended Catholic school for twelve years. I no longer consider myself a catholic. But I am a religious person. That beign said I thought The Passion was a bold move by Mel Gibson. A great piece of film that will be debated and analyzed for many years to come. I salute him for taking creative risks. But, as a person who has had Catholic doctrine shoved down my throat for most of my life, I have to say that I was turned off by what I saw on screen. When I think of religion and Jesus in particular, blood and violence don't come to mind. I think if Jesus were alive today he would not like the movie. His teachings are whats is important. The religious messege was lost with the two hours of torture. I f you are not a Christian or don't know anything about Christianity you will probably not like this movie. Personally if I was not a Christian and saw this movie It would be difficult to convert me. The movie is angry and its main purpose is to shock and make you feel guilty. I know that Jesus sacrifice is important but there is a reason why the Bible doesn't go into detail on the violent execution of Jesus. Because the detail is not necessary. I also thought Mel's interpretation of Jesus was misjudged. In the flashbacks scenes he is much to strong and kind of pompous and looks down on everybody. For me Jesus should be humble and look like everybody else.
And most people who love this movie and are self proclaimed Jesus lovers dont even follow his teachings are a buch of hypocrites. They cry about the execution of Jesus, but more than likely they are for Capital Punishment and are all for putting someone in the electric chair when there is a possibility that they might be innocent. Most so called Christians, there are a few people on this world who deserve to be trully called a Christian, if they were trully Christians they would care about the innocent bystanders of War but apparently they dont. Who cares how many innocent people die under American military power just as long its not us. I say to those people to look deep inside themselves and ask WHAT WOULD JESUS DO. I repeat most Christians are hypocrites.
easy there...
Quote from: SHAFTR
Also, analogzombie, is that Death Stalker in your avatar?
oh yes!!! he is the deathstalkerist! well it was anyway
Quote from: OmegaSlackerMy girlfriend and I had a discussion about the shot of Satan holding the baby while Jesus was being beaten. We disagreed about what exactly it symbolized. What did it mean to you?
To me it symbolized that creepy, androgynous satan likes to hang out with demented devil babies. or maybe it's suppose to mirror Mary and Jesus, or God and Jesus. either way creepy androgynous devil with equally creepy devil baby it super creepy.
one review:
http://www.dvdmoviecentral.com/passion_of_the_christ.htm
Quote from: SoNowThenone review:
http://www.dvdmoviecentral.com/passion_of_the_christ.htm
Best (or Worst, take your pick) Handjob of a Review That's the closest thing to propaganda about the film that I've read thus far.
Quote from: SoNowThenone review:
http://www.dvdmoviecentral.com/passion_of_the_christ.htm
As soon as it said "This should be considered the best movie of the millenium" or something to that effect. It lost my interest. Oddly enough it was the last sentence of the review.
Quote from: StefenQuote from: SoNowThenone review:
http://www.dvdmoviecentral.com/passion_of_the_christ.htm
As soon as it said "This should be considered the best movie of the millenium" or something to that effect. It lost my interest. Oddly enough it was the last sentence of the review.
The last sentence was "This should be considered one of the new millennium's most important movies." Which is true.
Very good review.
Quote from: CinephileQuote from: StefenQuote from: SoNowThenone review:
http://www.dvdmoviecentral.com/passion_of_the_christ.htm
As soon as it said "This should be considered the best movie of the millenium" or something to that effect. It lost my interest. Oddly enough it was the last sentence of the review.
The last sentence was "This should be considered one of the new millennium's most important movies." Which is true.
Very good review.
Yes, you are right! Thank you for helping me form my own opinion or something to that effect.
You're welcome or something to that effect.
Hahaha... everything to do with this movie makes people hate each other. Kinda like my religion...
(whoa -- kidding around folks -- cheez)
Quote from: from the link to a review that SoNowThen posted...dvd journalI'm focusing mostly on the historic and theological aspects of the movie, because they meant the most to me personally. As I mentioned in my opening, your assessment of the film is going to be based largely on your instinctual and emotional reaction to what you see. The violence in the film is harsh and uncompromising. Hopefully, most will take from it the message that Mel Gibson wanted to convey, which is the understanding of the nature of the sacrifice Jesus made in order to finally bring man and God together again.
perfect.......
:yabbse-thumbup: ....and i would agree w/ this film being one of the millenium's most impotant works thus far.
There is a great article in the current issue of The New Republic called "The Worship of Blood" that really explains a lot of things I didn't know about the film and its integrity dealing with the subject matter. I suspected the film portrayed characters in unfair light, but I didn't realize how far it took it. The excellence of filmmaking and production (even more so on second thought) is still there but it is obvious this film is made with many flaws. Artistically, the article condemns the film for its unrelenting brutality. In a way, I agree. The subtitles commonplaced the narrative for me and conversations seemed to slide by a lot quicker and when the film was mostly silent in dialogue, it was during the scenes showing brutality. This maybe unevened the film and made the violence stand out most for people because they had to really focus on the image of the scene when the subtitles were gone. I wish they were gone the entire time. I saw much to look in many of the other scenes, but of course American viewers want to be told what is happening. This is still preliminary talk. I've seen it once but I've been reading on a history I know little about and I need to see it again.
As stated earlier, this was one of the worst films I'll probably ever see. On just about every level.
Quote from: mutinycoAs stated earlier, this was one of the worst films I'll probably ever see. On just about every level.
I respect your opinion so, why?
Quote from: mutinycothis was one of the worst films I'll probably ever see. On just about every level.
I just saw this film and couldn't agree more. It was so ridiculous, I actually laughed out loud several times. I should point out that I believe Jesus was one of the best humans who ever lived (although I don't believe he was, by any stretch, the son of god).
Mel should go back to what he does best, sappy shoot-em-up cop movies where his character takes bloody vengence with absolute disregard for the type of message it portrays.
Quote from: Pastor Parsley
Mel should go back to what he does best, sappy shoot-em-up cop movies where his character takes bloody vengence with absolute disregard for the type of message it portrays.
The Passion of the Christ 2, co-starring Joe Pesci!
Jesus Demands Creative Control Over Next Movie (http://www.onion.com/news/)
Teacher Suspended for 'Passion' Excerpts
WASHINGTON (AP) - An elementary school teacher was suspended this week after school officials learned that he showed students excerpts from the movie "The Passion of the Christ.''
Ronald Anthony, who teaches at Malcolm X Elementary School, was placed on paid leave while investigators look into the incident, Elfreda Massie, the interim superintendent for District of Columbia Public Schools, said Friday.
Massie said Anthony acknowledged showing some of his sixth-grade students portions of the R-rated film on Tuesday. The movie depicts the crucifixion of Jesus and includes violent scenes. At least 16 students are believed to have seen portions of the film, Massie told The Associated Press.
School officials learned of the incident when a parent complained, Massie said.
The school sent a note to parents Wednesday, saying the film shouldn't have been shown and that the teacher believed it connected historical events from the students' social studies book.
Massie said Anthony "used poor judgment'' and should have relied on more appropriate materials to for the lesson.
School officials also said they are looking into how Anthony obtained a copy of the film, which has not been released on video
Quote from: Pastor ParsleyQuote from: mutinycothis was one of the worst films I'll probably ever see. On just about every level.
I just saw this film and couldn't agree more. It was so ridiculous, I actually laughed out loud several times. I should point out that I believe Jesus was one of the best humans who ever lived (although I don't believe he was, by any stretch, the son of god)..
..
Quote from: from the link to a review that SoNowThen posted...dvd journal : I'm focusing mostly on the historic and theological aspects of the movie, because they meant the most to me personally. As I mentioned in my opening, your assessment of the film is going to be based largely on your instinctual and emotional reaction to what you see. The violence in the film is harsh and uncompromising.Hopefully, most will take from it the message that Mel Gibson wanted to convey, which is the understanding of the nature of the sacrifice Jesus made in order to finally bring man and God together again.
..u make know sense
problem there, neon, is that if he doesn't believe that Jesus was the son of god, than this doesn't mean anything:
"the understanding of the nature of the sacrifice Jesus made in order to finally bring man and God together again."
Quote from: Pedro the Wombatproblem there, neon, is that if he doesn't believe that Jesus was the son of god, than this doesn't mean anything:
"the understanding of the nature of the sacrifice Jesus made in order to finally bring man and God together again."
.pedro ..whats up.. 8) ....?
well to answer your post people cannot fault this film becuase they don't believe in the Chrsitian doctrine ..etc......
it's not the film's fault .....its (non-believers).....or poeple w/o a spiritual connection in their lives fault.....i'm not going to criticize peoples beliefs..
.so please no one think i'm being a Jesus freak or whatever.....i'm all about believe what you wanna believe...its a free country right....jeepers....if you wanna believe that we were created by giant mutant ants w/ 8 testicles that spawn us and as part of your doctrine on the holy ant day you go out w/ a straw and snort up ants piles around your neighborhodd to feel a "spiritual" connection w/ all the other ants and when you see an ant farm you break them to set the ants free...---thats fine do what you want---but lets go over NEON's basic guide for critiquing films.....
1.)does the film make sense......yes
2.) its it shot wondefully......yes..
3.) production values up to par.......yes
4.) acting......yess
5.)costrumes and art design........yes..
6.) score........yes......
7.) script......yes......
8.)..driection.....yes
....so basically every facets that i believe that makes a film good/great.....this film suceeds.....
.and once again i hope i don't come off as naive or rude or judgemental.....if i do.. i apologize......
The Crucifiction
I should stress that this isn't an attack. The Passion of the Christ is just a movie. However, the director doesn't seem to think so. So...
Mel Gibson's The Passion of the Christ is without a doubt one of the worst motion pictures I assume I'll ever be subjected to. It fails on every attempted level, whether it historical, spiritual or cinematic. It's not just the poor conception and execution of the material, but the ego by which the picture was created. That alone isn't terrible; think Kubrick and Coppola and Scorsese.
By making The Passion of the Christ, Mel Gibson has done nothing to improve the standing of Jesus or the multitude of religions based around his myth. All he's done is profit. And helped others to profit by tagging along for the ride. In fact, this could be deemed The Selling-Out of Christ. For an educated, successful man in this day and age to be so deluded that he spends $30 million to fashion a Middle Ages account of this story, it's (pardon my directness) downright pathetic. Mr. Gibson has taken dubious Biblical accounts and various other "sources" to fashion a film without any realistic or historical proportion. And to make matters worse, he's convinced of its absolute truth.
There is virtually no historical record of Jesus' life or execution, aside from several contradictory accounts in a book of pseudo-history and fairy tales called The Bible. These accounts are light on detail, routinely drift into outlandish fantasy, and often disagree with one another. Not only that, there are no actual writings by Jesus; he left nothing behind of his own doing. That said, every religion that has sprouted from his myth, and every lesson derived from it, are nothing more than attributes. He's become a be-all/end-all post for centuries of pontification. Not only that, he's risen from the post of a human with connections to God, to the Lord himself, in clear violation of the 10 Commandments.
Instead of redefining Jesus for the modern age by using historical records and updating the story to fit a contemporary, enlightened mindset, Gibson, under the tutelage of his discredited father (I don't mean this as a personal attack against Hutton Gibson, but of his views and teachings), has made a film lacking in rational thought. There is no truth to be found here. Just movie magic. And cynical marketing.
There is no truth to be found in a blue, foggy grove where the movie begins. There is no context for the events that follow. We know nothing about Jesus, other than he's trembling with fear. While Jesus is praying, Lucifer, looking like he walked out of Ingmar Bergman's death fable The Seventh Seal (a blatant reminder that this is just a movie) unleashes what looks like an albino Burmese python, which Jesus promptly steps on. Now, I'm not sure how Satan transported the snake from Burma, but since he's supernatural I'll give him a suspension of disbelief. Also, I'm not exactly sure where this appears in The Bible, but it's certainly a fun cinematic moment.
Soon, guards arrive to arrest Jesus. His follower Judas, a character of questionable history, gives him up to the authorities (after seeing Judas accept in SLOW-MOTION a bag of MONEY). During the melee, a guard's ear is lopped off and Jesus picks it up and returns to the injured man's head. (Why couldn't he have helped poor Marvin Nash?)
What follows is so absurd, so ludicrous, that it alternately made me laugh out loud and fall asleep briefly (during the cross carrying scene). The picture's star, Jim Caviezel, a fine actor in films like The Thin Red Line and Ride With the Devil, pretty much unintentionally discredited The Passion of the Christ while promoting it on The Tonight Show With Jay Leno.
Caviezel described how during the first stage of Jesus' scourging, he wore a metal plate on his back to protect him from actual blows. According to him, on 2 occasions his was accidentally struck by a whipping reed – and they weren't even direct blows, but bounces off the plate. On the first occasion, he said the wind was completely blown out of him and he nearly passed out. On the second occasion, he was knocked down and bloody gash was opened on his back.
According to this film, and Gibson, Jesus would have endured a full round of whipping by multiple guards. Next, they would've traded in the reeds for metal tools with hooks on the end. With these tools, they lacerated his entire body head to toe, even peeling his flesh away to expose protruding ribs.
If this were real, as evidenced by both Caviezel's accounts and just general rational thought, Jesus would have been rendered unconscious within minutes of the ensuing first round and would probably not have recovered. There is no rationale for him to survive this, let alone for him to be standing in front of the Jewish crowd chanting for his death minutes later.
Once sentenced to death, this bloody figure has a crown of thorns placed on him and it's shoved into his head. On multiple occasions he falls on the thorns or others strike at it – each time driving the thorns further into Jesus' head. Now, on a purely observational level, these thorns would have penetrated Jesus' brain over and over again, probably killing him or at the very least rendering him a vegetable. But no, this still isn't enough.
In this movie, Jesus, after all this, still has the strength to carry his own crucifix! The torture continues as he's nailed to it (another element without any historical validity). And if that still wasn't enough, once he's nailed to it, the Romans flip the crucifix over on top of him! Finally, he's erected, and according to Gibson, Jesus is still strong enough and coherent enough to speak out loud and beg to God for help.
The torture that Gibson has Jesus endure is not only outlandish, vile and downright silly, it's actually kind of boring. It consumes the bulk of the picture's 2-hour running time and a great deal of it is shown in slo-motion. Now, slo-motion once had a great effect by slowing down the action to portray the horror of violence (Seven Samurai, The Wild Bunch, Full Metal Jacket), but in the years that followed this groundbreaking technique it's become a staple of cartoon action films - many starring Gibson. What once had the power to unsettle has become a tool to thrill. I never felt Jesus' pain (besides the fact that he's completely undeveloped as a character and human), but felt more as if Gibson was glorifying it. And I think that was his point, since he chose to focus entirely on the excruciating execution of Jesus as the foundation of his theology. He glorified the violence to show Jesus' glory in accepting and "overcoming" it.
That's pretty sick. And irresponsible. Because if I knew nothing about Christianity and somebody took me to see this film, I'd think it a vile, bloodthirsty religion. It isn't. It's about peace and brotherly love. He also does Christianity no service by discarding Jesus' teachings and beliefs. We're simply made to see how he was willing to suffer for the rest of humanity, something that's also completely undeveloped.
I'd like to take issue with the film very briefly on this theological cornerstone. Along with Jesus, thousands upon thousands of people were crucified under Roman rule. This is historical fact. And to single out one man's suffering while neglecting that of others is at odds with the very foundation of his teachings of compassion to all. Not only that, but I'd argue that he hardly suffered any more than the victims of Medieval torture devices, the subjects of Vlad the Impaler, the victims of America's nuclear bombings of Japan, or the casualties of Chernobyl or the Holocaust. Jesus needs to get in line like everybody else. Humans have been treating humans like shit since we've existed.
Another aspect of the film that flies in the face of history and rational thought is the issue of culpability. According to this film, based on vague Biblical references, Gibson would have us believe that the citizens of Judea argued for his execution, and that the Roman ruler of the region, Pontius Pilate, was sympathetic toward Jesus' plight (his wife is even depicted as crying, proclaiming Jesus a holy man). Again, this is contrary to the reality of Pontius Pilate, who is historically characterized as a brutal headmaster. He didn't tolerate anything. Executing a man or putting down an uprising was part of his job. A more learned interpretation, based on history and an understanding of the psychology of power, would suggest he had no trepidations about the execution. And if, in fact, as the picture depicts, he had reservations, he most likely would have manipulated public sentiment to his advantage so that he could show Rome it was of popular consensus. But considering that this event was of relatively insignificant importance at the time, as evidenced by the lack of any historical documentation, this manipulation was probably unnecessary. It was most likely the fabrication of Christianity's first empire: The Romans. And considering that they had adopted a religion based around their execution of the central protagonist, it certainly wouldn't have played well if they had taken responsibility (Jesus was crowned "King of the Jews" as a statement against Jewish rebellion). This attitude of co-opting continues today and in our country. We have a president who claims to be a strong Christian and that his faith guides his every decision, yet he also happens to hold the record for executing more men in our nation's history than any other person. He holds a religion based upon unjust capital punishment as an excuse for enacting the same policies of those who performed the execution. (Lenny Bruce's electric chair joke comes to mind...)
Other cinematic choices employed by Gibson fail for various reasons. For instance, when Judas goes to hang himself he finds a badly decomposing horse beside the tree. Now, if I were about to kill myself, regardless of my anguish, I think I'd prefer to do it at a nicer location, ya' know? It backfires as a cinematic device because we're attuned more to the horse than with the drama of Judas. Similarly, at the crucifixion, a crow arrives and begins attacking one of the other condemned men – while he's still alive! Also, the repeated digital effects surrounding Satan are so laughingly childish, I can't believe they stayed in the final cut. These silly devices are the epitome of Gibson's failed strategy; he chooses theatrical stunts over actual drama.
Gibson has claimed all along that The Passion of the Christ is about tolerance and compassion. If that was his intent, he has failed. Straight up: failed. A movie based around graphic slaughter without exposition or statements made by the protagonist to that effect, cannot claim to be about something it does not portray.
Jesus was a human being, nothing more. The legend of his life and death had a great influence on history, but his life and death at its time was not historical. If upon Jesus' death the ground shook and split open, it would've found some way into the history of the times. It didn't. It's a dramatic gimmick.
We live in an age of science and reason (well, sort of). The dramatic foundations of most of our religions have been proven false. They're myths on the order of the Greeks. What Christianity and the others still offer that's relevant is a moral code to live by. We need to take these basic values and adapt them into an age defined by evolution. Defined by relativity. Quantum physics. It is plain unintelligent to pursue The Bible as literal fact and truth. It's a book of myths. As depicted by Martin Scorsese in The Last Temptation of Christ, Jesus understood that, regardless of whether the supernatural elements of his story were real, people needed to believe his story as a device of hope. It worked imperfectly for 2000 years. But as I said, to accept it as anything else at this point is childish. As a society based upon information and progress, we must, for our own good, start growing up. And this means, we must stop blindly following others' words like sheep and start doing the most difficult thing imaginable: thinking for ourselves.
By creating a marketing strategy that chose division over unity, Gibson has by his own hand discredited his intentions. His pandering to the religious right, barring secular journalists from seeing the film, and proclaiming that Hollywood (and the Jews that run it) are out to get him, is reprehensible. (The opening week's record receipts cannot be deemed credible in terms of traditional box office sales, because the church organizations bought out entire multiplexes for the weekend; the figures do not represent regular ticket sales.)
If Hollywood blackballs him as he says it will, it won't be because he's Christian – it'll be because he now comes across as a paranoid lunatic with a martyr complex. After all, the only person whom we can safely say murdered Jesus in the manner depicted in this film is Mel Gibson.
You make some really good points, but your rather callous disregard for Christianity and personal faith discredits your review. There's tremendous opportunity to criticize this film and its maker for appealing only to believers in the divine Jesus (as Neon Mercury demonstrated a few posts back, there's a tendency to say that it's not the film's fault if you don't buy into it's message, while entirely disregarding the potential of a film that could appeal to Christians AND atheists). But by bashing the religion in your opening paragraphs, you come across as the opposite of religious zealots (i.e., if you believe in this tripe, you're an idiot), which then paints the rest of your deconstruction of the film's faults as exactly what you claim it isn't -- an attack.
It's not an attack. If viewed so, it could only be construed as an attack against a fictional story, not the philosophy based around it. Reread it.
Quote from: mutinycoThere is virtually no historical record of Jesus' life or execution, aside from several contradictory accounts in a book of pseudo-history and fairy tales called The Bible. These accounts are light on detail, routinely drift into outlandish fantasy, and often disagree with one another. Not only that, there are no actual writings by Jesus; he left nothing behind of his own doing. That said, every religion that has sprouted from his myth, and every lesson derived from it, are nothing more than attributes. He's become a be-all/end-all post for centuries of pontification. Not only that, he's risen from the post of a human with connections to God, to the Lord himself, in clear violation of the 10 Commandments.
that is the most ignorant shit i've ever read on this board.
ur other points are fine, i especially hav a problem with the impossibility of the beatings. but that shit i just quoted shows u to be the most narrow minded idiotic person to hav spoken so far in this thread. no one ever claimed that jesus wrote anything himself, that's just obvious shit, did u only just hear of Christianity the other day or sumthing? saying sumthing as stupid as that is like me saying "einstein never wrote a hit play", wtf, who the fuck ever claimed he did?
what other religious figures hav u convinced urself never existed? do u actually know anything about history or were u expecting no one would call u on ur blatant misinformation? tell the ppl at ur local Hate Centre that they'll hav to do better than that in this day and age when i can easily do a google search and expose ur idiocy.
do u think Siddhartha Guatama never existed either? or Moses?
ps. i'm posting this as sumone who is interested in history and is not a fucking idiot.
Quote from: mutinycoIt's not an attack. If viewed so, it could only be construed as an attack against a fictional story, not the philosophy based around it.
But that's exactly what I meant; by attacking the story and implying from the outset that it IS fiction, you discredit the philosophy around it as much as Gibson's film might, and thus your review takes a distinctly pejorative slant. If your goal is an objective critique of the film, wouldn't it be beneficial to label your beliefs as your own and not write from the vantage point that they are indeed fact? To tear the film apart on its own merits is your goal, I think, but, from what I could tell, you let your own beliefs provide much of the backbone for the review (you also leave yourself open for jabs towards your knowledge on the subject -- re: your comment regarding the 10 commandments).
Ghosty: 1st Commandment states Thou shalt worship no Gods before me.
To refer to Jesus as God or Lord is in direct violation of this. You can try to go with the Father, Son & Holy Spirit stuff -- but that in and of itself is merely an attempt to subvert it.
Second, P, your response was boring. You made no points and offered no evidence. You merely tried to attack me in poorly spelled English, which...makes YOU ignorant. I never said Jesus didn't exist. I simply stated that all we know about him is myth. That, and the fact that he was nothing more than a man -- penis, testicles, hair, skin, bones... By leaving no actual writings of his own, everything about him is conjecture. The stories in the Bible were written decades after his death and contradict each other, never mind their lack of actual detail. P, we don't even get accurate reporting today with all of our news sources. Please. Get over it.
And finally, there is no way to criticize the film without criticizing its story. And it just doesn't hold up. Especially when its director claims it to be absolute truth. This myth of a man born to a virgin is hardly new. Many leaders throughout history -- before and after Jesus -- have used that. Even Ghengis Khan. Christianity, as evidenced by this film and really everything about it in our culture at this point, is about the physical, not the spiritual. These 2 things must be separated. The basic philosophy of Christianity, including loving your neighbor, turning the other cheek, etc., are valid. The myth that props them up is not.
Most historians do not dispute the existence of a person named Jesus; evidence for Jesus' existence 2000 years ago are by historical standards actually rather strong. Jesus is obviously mentioned extensively within the New Testament, but is also considered a historical figure within the traditions of Judaism, Islam, Mandeanism and alternative Christian traditions like Gnosticism. Apologists often contend that he gets a passing mention within historical accounts of the period, but sometimes without citing a source. John the Baptist, and James the Just are documented in Josephus, where Jesus Christ also receives a brief mention.
Moreover, historians generally agree that at least some of the source documents on which the Gospels are based were written within living memory of Jesus's lifetime. Historians therefore accept that the accounts of the life of Jesus in the Gospels provide a reasonable basis of evidence, by the standards of ancient history, for the historical existence of Jesus and the basic narrative of his life and death.
ugh... whatever tho. that's historians, not hate-filled people.
Quote from: mutinyco
And finally, there is no way to criticize the film without criticizing its story.
Yes there is. Take it at face value, criticize the
storytelling and don't try to disconstruct what you feel is wrong with the religion -- that the physical and spiritual must be separated is an interesting thesis, but doesn't it belong outside of a review of a film?
Also, the notion of the trinity as a subversion of the first commandment is sort of silly. The triple nature of the Christian God makes about as much sense as anything else in the creed, but Christianity, like most religions, is based on faith and not logic. You could call it a clever work-around by the proponents of the historical Jesus, and someone else could call it the work of a deity whose all-powerful miraculous nature was recorded before the 10 Commandments were even written.
You guys know something, neither of you contradicted me in what you said. Reread what I wrote. I think you guys had an initial defensive reaction.
I will say, though, that considering the intent of the filmmaker is not outside the boundaries of criticique. The artist's intent MUST be considered when evaluating his work. Mel Gibson had a specific intent by making this film and claiming it to be true. It's all fair game. And I think it would be delinquent not to take this into account.
And P, I hate nobody. I just hate ignorance. I'm pretty sure I'm on the right side of history. We need to begin accepting myths for what they are. We need to distill the ideas behind them that work and adapt them to our modern world.
I haven't seen it yet, but I know that I'll be going in set on judging it as a standalone piece of art, and not a sermon. There's not a Christian bone in my body, but I do like the concept, the idea of this guy sacrificing himself for some greater good. I read the Bible, and saw it as a piece of fiction. It had a fabolous ending, which I'll gladly see an adaptation of. I rather try to love it as a cinephile, than loathe it as an atheist.
Quote from: PMost historians do not dispute the existence of a person named Jesus; evidence for Jesus' existence 2000 years ago are by historical standards actually rather strong. Jesus is obviously mentioned extensively within the New Testament, but is also considered a historical figure within the traditions of Judaism, Islam, Mandeanism and alternative Christian traditions like Gnosticism. Apologists often contend that he gets a passing mention within historical accounts of the period, but sometimes without citing a source. John the Baptist, and James the Just are documented in Josephus, where Jesus Christ also receives a brief mention.
:yabbse-thumbup:
Quote from: PMoreover, historians generally agree that at least some of the source documents on which the Gospels are based were written within living memory of Jesus's lifetime. Historians therefore accept that the accounts of the life of Jesus in the Gospels provide a reasonable basis of evidence, by the standards of ancient history, for the historical existence of Jesus and the basic narrative of his life and death.
I'm sure many of the gospels were originally true and "accurate," but the Bible as it stands today has been confabulated to political ends and even purged. Many things are fabricated and many things are missing. One good example is reincarnation being conveniently edited out.
Quote from: Jeremy BlackmanI'm sure many of the gospels were originally true and "accurate," but the Bible as it stands today has been confabulated to political ends and even purged. Many things are fabricated and many things are missing. One good example is reincarnation being conveniently edited out.
yeah word to that.
i was never talking about the bible, or even the 27 books (originally selected in egypt in the 2nd/3rd century) of the new testament. i only intended to establish the historically accepted existence of a man called Jesus around 2000 years ago.
i dreaded the minute this would become a God discussion, cos we're back at the point/cause of why it becomes boring -- no one knows the same as anyone else. When i say Jesus, mutinyco is automatically hearing "jesus is god is man is fish".
this is gonna go nowhere so i'm e-out, i've said my bit reasonably.
The Passion Crosses $200M Mark in 12 Days
Mel Gibson's The Passion of The Christ had another big weekend with the film adding $51.4 million. The $30 million-budgeted film, starring Jim Caviezel, passed the $200 million mark on Sunday, its twelfth day, to bring the massive total to $212 million. This is on-par with Star Wars: Episode II - Attack of the Clones and The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers, which also reached the mark in twelve days. The movie is now the fifth-biggest R-rated movie ever and has already climbed to the 48th spot on the all-time domestic blockbuster list.
Quote from: MacGuffinThe Passion Crosses $200M Mark in 12 Days
Mel Gibson's The Passion of The Christ had another big weekend with the film adding $51.4 million. The $30 million-budgeted film, starring Jim Caviezel, passed the $200 million mark on Sunday, its twelfth day, to bring the massive total to $212 million. This is on-par with Star Wars: Episode II - Attack of the Clones and The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers, which also reached the mark in twelve days. The movie is now the fifth-biggest R-rated movie ever and has already climbed to the 48th spot on the all-time domestic blockbuster list.
(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fmplex.ath.cx%2Fphotogallery%2Fbigguybuddychrist.jpg&hash=f2de72133c3e95543c84940bf03dc333005a865e)
hahahah.
yet another classic xixax image moment.
i love this board.
Cinephile you're my fucking hero.
Quote from: P"jesus is god is man is fish".
a collection of some of my favourite fish
(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.meangene.com%2Fdarwin%2Ffishnchips.jpg&hash=6b87f621f6b9b29780437f5ca1b9ba18a4b00052)
(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.meangene.com%2Fdarwin%2Fprocreat.gif&hash=f2889405622ec64faa514c7ed9113292ef154071)
(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.meangene.com%2Fdarwin%2Fshark.gif&hash=fc8c4bd8f61f1743ec42badf67c8e378f11432cc)
the shark jesus fish
it eats jesus fish of all kinds
(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.meangene.com%2Fdarwin%2Fdead.gif&hash=dcfd19161dbed1c9cc3b369a013473c666c3b1d5)
dead fish religion
Quote from: Jeremy Blackmanbut the Bible as it stands today has been confabulated to political ends and even purged. Many things are fabricated and many things are missing. One good example is reincarnation being conveniently edited out.
We all know there are varied translations, but, um, a little 'proof' please, before we make outlandish statements...
Quote from: SoNowThenQuote from: Jeremy Blackmanbut the Bible as it stands today has been confabulated to political ends and even purged. Many things are fabricated and many things are missing. One good example is reincarnation being conveniently edited out.
We all know there are varied translations, but, um, a little 'proof' please, before we make outlandish statements...
http://www.columbia.edu/cu/augustine/arch/sbrandt/nicea.htm
http://www.reincarnation.ws/reincarnation_in_the_new_testament.html
http://reluctant-messenger.com/origen6.html
http://www.worldlightfellowship.org/articles/jeannie-women-reincarnation.htm
Everyone should read these articles and think about them with the same apprehension and mistrust with which you question the modern versions of the bible.
Quote from: SoNowThenEveryone should read these articles and think about them with the same apprehension and mistrust with which you question the modern versions of the bible.
Apprehension and mistrust? How about healthy skepticism?
Well, yeah, I mean I too think it's good to have healthy skepticism, and I'm all for questioning things. Though at some point we pretty much have to accept some of the mysteries of the universe with a certain degree of faith, imo.
I just don't want someone to hear one radical and exciting revisionist idea and go off thinking it's 100 percent fact.
Just sometimes I get the feeling that a few people had a bad Sunday school class, or an asshole priest, and they do approach Christianity with intense mistrust and hate. And that's no good for anybody.
Quote from: SoNowThenThough at some point we pretty much have to accept some of the mysteries of the universe with a certain degree of faith, imo.
Sure.
Quote from: SoNowThenI just don't want someone to hear one radical and exciting revisionist idea and go off thinking it's 100 percent fact.
Of course there's exagerating, but it's a pretty well established fact that the bible has been edited to political ends.
Quote from: SoNowThen
Just sometimes I get the feeling that a few people had a bad Sunday school class, or an asshole priest, and they do approach Christianity with intense mistrust and hate. And that's no good for anybody.
.....you are exactl yright ....i look ata it as..."why would someone hat eChristianity?".....why does hate pricipals of love and devotion, being kind to one another etc.....[
THIS WILL GO INTO THE FILM ..SO ITS NOT ALL JUST A RELIGIOUS ARGUEMENT.. :wink: ]......seriously sometimes it makes no sense to say i hate Christianity.....and i believe that ppeople who have this "hatred" twards must have had something wrong or unfortuante happen to them....b/c i believ e that your "ordinary" kid growing up w/ decent parents and raise middle class and goes to Church often.....who suddenly ......denounbces Christianity...and abhors it.....SOMETHING MUSRT HAVE HAPPEN TO THEMM TO DENOUNCE A DOCTRINE OF FAITH ANFD LOVE...maybe it has something to do w/ Jesus' freaks, or awful priests or the other things mentioned by SoNowThen.....or-----i could be naive...its frustrating soemtimes b/c when Christians like to talk to other non-believers ...the non-believers get way to offensive by us......and its not like we're trying to turn them into a crazy convent like the charles manson gang.....its just we feel sad....really....that people don't believe in ahigher power.....its just we wish that people could
feel what we feel.........but ........back to......what i wasnted to say about the film......
-a few posts earlier
mutinyco mentioned something like........how could Jesus with stand all the blows from the romans......to answer...
:
JESUS KNEW THAT HE CARRIED THE DESTINIES OF ALL SINNERS AND HE WAS GOING TO DIE TO SAVE THEM(US)..HE IS THE SON OF GOD.AND KNOWING THE IMPORTANCE OF THIS TASK HE WAS ABLE TO WITHSTAND THE BEATINGS AND LASHINGS.......as Christinas and a person w/ some knowledge of the Bible i believe this reason to be true.....so, once agian.....
"OH YE OF LITTLE FAITH...CANNOT DENOUCE THIS FILM BASED ON LACK OF YOUR OWN FAITH".........
Neon, I think where you might marvel at Jesus' ability to "withstand" human suffering, I would marvel at his ability to transcend human suffering. I still think fascination with / fixation on physical pain has very little to do with spirituality.
Quote from: Jeremy BlackmanNeon, I think where you might marvel at Jesus' ability to "withstand" human suffering, I would marvel at his ability to transcend human suffering. I still think fascination with / fixation on physical pain has very little to do with spirituality.
no..no...no.....i mean that was my reasoning for people who see this film and say.."what ever...how could
anyone survive those whippings by the romans.."........my
fascinationeven thougH thats not the correct word for me....i would say my admiration/love/respect/thanks..... has do with the suffering Jesus went throug for us....AND his resuurection....which brought the most tears top my face.....it gives me hope....i feel good about this....that is
spirituality.....
I think I see what you're saying, but I think it's pretty difficult for the viewer to avoid the sadistic fascination that the camera obviously has.
Quote from: NEON MERCURYi would say my admiration/love/respect/thanks..... has do with the suffering Jesus went throug for us....AND his resuurection....which brought the most tears top my face.....it gives me hope....i feel good about this....that is spirituality.....
People suffer and die every day. His transcendence and the act as a whole is what makes it spiritual and unique to some people... and while I kind of like the idea of isolating the last hours of his life in a movie, the carnage of the suffering has absolutely no spiritual meaning for me.
Quote from: Jeremy BlackmanI think I see what you're saying, but I think it's pretty difficult for the viewer to avoid the sadistic fascination that the camera obviously has.
Quote from: NEON MERCURYi would say my admiration/love/respect/thanks..... has do with the suffering Jesus went throug for us....AND his resuurection....which brought the most tears top my face.....it gives me hope....i feel good about this....that is spirituality.....
People suffer and die every day. His transcendence and the act as a whole is what makes it spiritual and unique to some people... and while I kind of like the idea of isolating the last hours of his life in a movie, the carnage of the suffering has absolutely no spiritual meaning for me.
i see what you mean ...but you
gotought to see it from a traditonal Christian perspective....when you say that the carnage and suffering of His beating has no spiritual meaning or that people die everyday......you go tto understand that this is not(to Christians) just
somebody....this IS THE GUY THAT WILL SAVE US....and so His tale (being the Saviouir) that he is needs to be taken in a differen tcontext versus just "someone else".....you have to kno wth ediffeence....bnut yes i feel bad that good people die eveyday.....but this is not just, once agian, somebody.....and even those other two guys on the cross....in the film ONE OF THE MOST GOOSE BUMP INDUCING SCENES IS when the other guys says that Jesus doesn't derserve this but we do"...and Jesus cries out that he wil be in paradise also.....!!!!----how can on enot admire/love Jesus for that ...not to mentioned the fact that he is asking Hid Father to save the soiuls of his attackers....
but the arguement you make i think you are saying.....in a way is the vilolence is gratuitious ....but it is my understanding that the way Mel showed thsi film is the way it happened or ....it could be even worse....then what mel showed....
Quote from: NEON MERCURYyou gotought to see it from a traditonal Christian perspective....
No thanks. :wink:
Quote from: NEON MERCURYand even those other two guys on the cross....in the film ONE OF THE MOST GOOSE BUMP INDUCING SCENES IS when the other guys says that Jesus doesn't derserve this but we do"...and Jesus cries out that he wil be in paradise also.....!!!!----how can on enot admire/love Jesus for that ...not to mentioned the fact that he is asking Hid Father to save the soiuls of his attackers....
That was my favorite part of the movie, and I thought the "forgive them" line was handled pretty well. It seemed like more of a postscript than a climax, though.
Quote from: NEON MERCURYbut the arguement you make i think you are saying.....in a way is the vilolence is gratuitious ....but it is my understanding that the way Mel showed thsi film is the way it happened or ....it could be even worse....then what mel showed....
Accuracy is one thing, fixation is another.
Quote from: Jeremy BlackmanQuote from: NEON MERCURYyou got ought to see it from a traditonal Christian perspective....
No thanks. :wink:
....can't say i tried...:wink:
Quote from: NEON MERCURYand even those other two guys on the cross....in the film ONE OF THE MOST GOOSE BUMP INDUCING SCENES IS when the other guys says that Jesus doesn't derserve this but we do"...and Jesus cries out that he wil be in paradise also.....!!!!----how can on enot admire/love Jesus for that ...not to mentioned the fact that he is asking Hid Father to save the soiuls of his attackers....
Quote from: Jeremy BlackmanThat was my favorite part of the movie, and I thought the "forgive them" line was handled pretty well. It seemed like more of a postscript than a climax, though.
...whats wrong w/ that(re: postscript) ??....the climax is His death/resurrecton
Quote from: NEON MERCURYbut the arguement you make i think you are saying.....in a way is the vilolence is gratuitious ....but it is my understanding that the way Mel showed thsi film is the way it happened or ....it could be even worse....then what mel showed....
Quote from: Jeremy BlackmanAccuracy is one thing, fixation is another.
.....but .....do you not understand that This is the PASSION(suffering) of The Christ....i still think the fixation was/is justified......i still maintain that the film was tryin gto be an acurate portrayal of the last 12 hours of His life......and people's religious beliefs can make/break this filmm on technical merits.......but their belifs cannot doubt the truth......this is what happened....
....on a side not , w/ all the $$$$$$$$$$ this film is raking in i hope for a solid dvd.....it would be nice to get mel in the studio for a commentary track and other religious scholoars.......and some extras intot the making of this film and the surrounding controvesary.....hopefully mel would do this as a directors cut and include more scnes w/ Jesus durin gthe lighter times.....b/ those scenes w/ Him doing carpenterary work and sermon on the mountain werre cool.....
NEON, i know what u mean, but clearly this film is not EXACTLY how it it happened.
cos it was indeed about the suffering of christ, mel was right to show the physical aspect. but when i think about it, Last Temptation of Christ, tho not strictly adhering to the gospels, conveys a different (more spiritual and thus more relevant) kind of suffering.
the violence should never be the point. and in this case i'm afraid it is.
Quote from: PNEON, i know what u mean, but clearly this film is not EXACTLY how it it happened.
cos it was indeed about the suffering of christ, mel was right to show the physical aspect. but when i think about it, Last Temptation of Christ, tho not strictly adhering to the gospels, conveys a different (more spiritual and thus more relevant) kind of suffering.
the violence should never be the point. and in this case i'm afraid it is.
i see.......man this is a hard film to dissect.. :) ....but i still believe that if you are in the mindset watching this in a "traditonal" Christian view the film works flawlessly and very powerful.....b/cyopu see the suffering He went through and it should be shown and made visceral the lenghts He went to for us.....
but going to see it as a "'casual" filmgoer...i can see the "'plotholes" or whatever....problems people have....
i haven't seen ...The Lat Temptation of Christ.. :oops: ...but i wil do so....there's the criterion i been eyeing and i guess its the appropiate time to biuy it now....
*shameless plug for CC to follow*
NEON -- YOU MUST GO BUY LAST TEMPTATION NOW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
(and Diary Of A Country Priest)
That is all. I still haven't seen Passion.
Anybody see that Judas movie last night? I had to watch it because the commercial was SO cheesey! But it was actually -- rushed production, some weak acting aside -- pretty good. It was written by Tom Fontana (Oz, Homicide) and offered a pretty acceptable arch and character development. And whoever decided to cast Tim Matheson as Pilate was a genius!
hey the passion huh? Yeah I saw LTOC. it was good, but nothing to base your faith on.
I read in my newspaper that the film is basically pornography (of violence). My two cents.
Quote from: NEON MERCURY....as Christinas and a person w/ some knowledge of the Bible i believe this reason to be true....
I was going to make some joke, and then I realized how lame it would be.
Is this officially the largest thread ever in the 'Now Showing' section of XIXAX.com?
Quote from: MyxomatosisIs this officially the largest thread ever in the 'Now Showing' section of XIXAX.com?
Yep, but, at 52 pages, the Kill Bill Vol. 1 thread would be the largest for a movie and the Now Playing thread has 83 pages.
But let's just remember that this thread used to be in The Grapevine. And the Kill Bill Vol 1 thread is filled with news/rumors/speculation.
Wasn't Kill Bill going to be the name for the Passion of Christ, anyway?
The Passion Climbs to $264 Million in 3 Weeks
Mel Gibson's The Passion of The Christ added yet another big $31.7 million in its third weekend in theaters to boost its total to a massive $264 million. The $30-million budgeted film, distributed by Newmarket Films, has moved up to the #23 spot on the all-time domestic blockbuster list, only three million behind Shrek ($267.7), and is now the second-biggest R-rated movie all-time, with only about $17 million to go to pass up The Matrix Reloaded for the top spot.
Quote from: MacGuffinThe Passion Climbs to $264 Million in 3 Weeks
this is really really crazy huge blockbuster. who would've thought? i wonder when it will start to peter out and dropoff or if it can keep this insane climb going.
Quote from: themodernage02Quote from: MacGuffinThe Passion Climbs to $264 Million in 3 Weeks
this is really really crazy huge blockbuster. who would've thought? i wonder when it will start to peter out and dropoff or if it can keep this insane climb going.
I think it's guaranteed to be in the top 3 until Easter weekend.
A friend of mine changed the music on the trailer... I think it works much better.
http://www.gongoozler.com/devin/stupidmovies/passiontrailer.wmv
:lol:
This thread is longer than Jesus' beating in the movie...
Quote from: mutinycoThis thread is longer than Jesus' beating in the movie...
You must be a slow reader...
Quote from: mutinycoThis thread is longer than Jesus' beating in the movie...
*Spoilers*
Quote from: hacksparrowQuote from: themodernage02Quote from: MacGuffinThe Passion Climbs to $264 Million in 3 Weeks
this is really really crazy huge blockbuster. who would've thought? i wonder when it will start to peter out and dropoff or if it can keep this insane climb going.
I think it's guaranteed to be in the top 3 until Easter weekend.
that's probably true. the "Christian" market is rather large and there is a lot of money there. the film is causing a lot of people that don't go to movies at all to go......like old people and people that think the movies are the devil. my cousin's church rented a theater at 9am on Saturday morning......and it was packed.......and this church is not even in or near a large city......so i can't imagine what these mega churches with 1000's or even 10,000's of people are doing
Mel Gibson May Develop Maccabees Film
Source: Entertainment Weekly
The Passion of The Christ director Mel Gibson told Sean Hannity on his radio show today that his next entry in the genre may be the story of the Maccabees, the Jewish guerilla fighters who led a successful rebellion against Greek conquerors 165 years before Christ, inspiring the Jewish holiday of Hanukkah.
According to Entertainment Weekly, Gibson said the story "fired my imagination." Recounting the story, which occurred in biblical times but is not recounted in the Bible, Gibson said: "It's about Antiochus, the king who set up his religion in the Temple, and forced them all to deny the true God and worship at his feet and worship false gods. The Maccabees family stood up, and they made war, they stuck by their guns, and they came out winning. It's like a Western."
The story ends with a miracle: When the victorious Jews cleansed the Temple of its sacrilegious, they found only enough oil to light the Eternal Flame for one day, but it managed to last eight days, until more oil could be rendered. Hence the eight-day holiday of Hanukkah, when Jews light candles on an eight-branch menorah each night.
Quote from: Mel GibsonThe Maccabees family stood up, and they made war, they stuck by their guns, and they came out winning. It's like a Western.
This leads me to one question... does Mel Gibson have some kind of sick compulsion to equate heroism with violence?
Quote from: Jeremy BlackmanQuote from: Mel GibsonThe Maccabees family stood up, and they made war, they stuck by their guns, and they came out winning. It's like a Western.
This leads me to one question... does Mel Gibson have some kind of sick compulsion to equate heroism with violence?
yeah see, that's my problem w/ everything too. as if making a film extremely violent automatically renders it extremely powerful. i can't comment on passion b/c have yet to see it, but that's how i felt w/ braveheart.
Quote from: C:\BRADQuote from: Jeremy BlackmanQuote from: Mel GibsonThe Maccabees family stood up, and they made war, they stuck by their guns, and they came out winning. It's like a Western.
This leads me to one question... does Mel Gibson have some kind of sick compulsion to equate heroism with violence?
yeah see, that's my problem w/ everything too. as if making a film extremely violent automatically renders it extremely powerful. i can't comment on passion b/c have yet to see it, but that's how i felt w/ braveheart.
i can almost guarantee thats how youre gonna feel about the passion then.
Maybe not...I mean, the violence here isn't powerful or gross. It's so overdone that it's really pretty funny...
Quote from: mutinycoMaybe not...I mean, the violence here isn't powerful or gross. It's so overdone that it's really pretty funny...
Maybe you're influenced by the canned laughter that's looped in your mind.
Not nearly as much as by that Evil Dead geyser of blood that spills from Jesus after they stick a spear in his corpse...
Quote from: mutinycoNot nearly as much as by that Evil Dead geyser of blood that spills from Jesus after they stick a spear in his corpse...
* Spoiler *
I'm sure Mr. Buckley would approve.
Mel Gibson Breaks Hollywood's 10 Commandments
LOS ANGELES (Hollywood Reporter) - As "The Passion of the Christ" races toward $400 million at the North American box office, Mel Gibson is reaping the benefits of breaking the Ten Commandments -- Hollywood's Ten Commandments of movie marketing and distribution.
With "Braveheart" in 1995 Gibson did things conventionally and let Paramount and others finance the $72 million production, which went on to gross about $202 million worldwide while winning five Oscars, including a pair for him -- best picture and director.
By following his own path now with "Passion," Gibson orchestrated a success story that could serve as a case study for film schools for years to come. Beyond that, Gibson should profit for years to come since as a period piece costume drama "Passion" can enjoy an Easter afterlife in theaters from now till doomsday.
If "Passion" winds up with somewhere between $1 billion and $1.2 billion worldwide this time around, it's possible that well planned reissues down the road could send it sailing past the $1.8 billion haul of all-time champ "Titanic."
In breaking or bending so many of Hollywood's basic rules, Gibson showed considerable courage that's paid off big-time. Given reports of how distributors around town turned down the chance to release "Passion," it's clear that nobody -- including Gibson himself -- saw this as being the moneymaker it's become.
Here's a quick look at the Ten Commandments Gibson opted not to obey and how not doing so helped turn "Passion" into a blockbuster.
1. THOU SHALT USE OTHER PEOPLE'S MONEY TO FINANCE YOUR MOVIE.
Traditionally Hollywood considers anyone who puts his own money into financing a movie to be a sucker. Although Hollywood superstars and high profile filmmakers often talk about pet projects they'd love to bring to the screen, they almost never dip into their own bank accounts to make them.
In Gibson's case, his personal passion for "Passion" was so great and apparently so unshared by the Hollywood community that there was no other way this film would have gotten made other than with his own money. While it's unclear whether the $30 million to make "Passion" came from Gibson's personal bank account or from his and Bruce Davey's Icon Productions, what is clear is that the film's box office bonanza will give Gibson a heavenly return on his investment.
2. THOU SHALT LET A GOOD FILM SPEAK FOR ITSELF BY SCREENING IT EARLY FOR THE MEDIA.
Gibson recognized from the get-go that screening "Passion" early wasn't the way to go. If creating controversy was the key to building awareness of the film, letting the media have an early look at it couldn't possibly help. The less people know about something the greater the controversy over it is likely to be. By refusing to show "Passion" to the groups that were insisting on seeing it, Gibson kept everybody riled up enough to provide fuel for the media frenzy over whether "Passion" is or isn't anti-Semitic.
Instead of generating dull television reports or newspaper articles with one set of opinions balancing another set of opinions about the film and its message, the resulting media coverage focused on how incensed people were that Gibson wouldn't let them have an early look at his movie. The more people were told they couldn't see it, the more they wanted to see it.
3. THOU SHALT KEEP NETWORK TELEVISION ADVERTISING AT THE HEART OF A FILM'S MARKETING CAMPAIGN.
Network television advertising may be more expensive than ever and may deliver less audience than it used to, but Hollywood marketers still love it and plan their media campaigns around it. When major studios commit $25 million or more to launching a movie, network TV gets the lion's share of that money. In the case of "Passion," Gibson didn't have that kind of money to spend on marketing nor did he choose to pour it down the network drain.
The grassroots marketing effort that Gibson undertook for "Passion" initially on his own and later through Newmarket Films was a lean one that relied on reaching the film's core audience of Christian moviegoers and potential moviegoers by getting local church groups to promote seeing the film.
4. THOU SHALT HOLD PRESS JUNKETS BECAUSE THEY'RE THE BEST WAY TO GENERATE PUBLICITY.
Gibson's done so many press junkets that he, of all people, must know how ineffective they really are. By bringing together in New York or L.A. the usual crowd of jaded journalists from across the country and turning them loose for four or five minutes apiece on the film's stars, the resulting coverage is as bland and uniform as you could possibly generate. A press junket for "Passion" would have had Gibson sitting in a hotel room chair with a poster for the film on an easel beside him and a plant on a table behind him looking like it was growing out of his head. Whatever answers Gibson might have given to the typically inane questions that get asked at such junkets, they would not have driven people to see his movie the way television reports about the controversy raging over the then unseen film did.
5. THOU SHALT HONOR THY SUPERSTARS BY PAYING THEM BIG BUCKS TO GENERATE BIG OPENING WEEKEND TICKET SALES.
Whatever Gibson paid Jim Caviezel to star in "Passion" has got to be a lot less than Hollywood typically pays Gibson to star in a movie. Gibson didn't turn to superstar casting to make his own movie, however, because he knew high profile stars weren't the answer for this picture.
If Gibson, for instance, had cast himself to play Christ, moviegoers would have sat there and instead of being drawn into the film they'd have been thinking about how that's Mel Gibson under all that bloody body makeup. Bottom line, by skipping star casting Gibson was able to bring his film in for around $30 million. Add one superstar to that budget and you'd wind up with around $60 million, figuring a $25 million salary and another $5 million in related costs for the entourage and perks that accompany big stars these days.
6. THOU SHALT AVOID R RATINGS, SUBTITLES, STRANGE LANGUAGES, BLOOD & GORE AND GRAPHIC VIOLENCE BECAUSE THEY LIMIT A FILM'S AUDIENCE.
With nearly $270 million in grosses already under its belt, "Passion" is poised to become the biggest R rated film ever this weekend. That record will fall as soon as "Passion" passes $281.6 million, which "The Matrix Reloaded" did domestically last year.
The conventional wisdom in Hollywood has for years been that R ratings aren't so great because they serve to limit a film's audience by excluding people under the age of 17 (unless they're accompanied by a parent or guardian). Gibson clearly rejected the idea of writing and filming "Passion" so that it would land a PG-13 rating. That just wasn't going to be the movie he wanted to make and, to his credit, he refused to compromise. The film is said to be attracting a new audience demographic of young males who happen to love onscreen blood & gore and are attracted to violent images.
7. THOU SHALT SCREEN YOUR FILM AT FESTIVALS TO ATTRACT A STRONG INDEPENDENT DISTRIBUTOR.
Gibson was smart to resist any temptations to unveil "Passion" at a major film festival. As a superstar long associated with the world of big-budget mainstream Hollywood movies, he'd have been in the wrong world at Sundance. With it having been quite difficult for "Passion" to achieve theatrical distribution in France, it's hard to believe it would have been the kind of film that would have been embraced at Cannes. It's hard to picture acquisitions executives for all those scrappy, studio-owned "independents" rushing up the aisle after viewing 10 minutes of the film to corner Gibson in the lobby and make him a distribution offer he couldn't refuse.
8. THOU SHALT RELY ON A PLATFORM RELEASE IN NEW YORK AND L.A. TO GET WORD OF MOUTH GOING.
If Gibson had gotten a studio distribution deal the likelihood is he would have been pressured into a platform release of "Passion" at a handful of theaters in New York and Los Angeles. Hollywood believes you get word of mouth going by starting in a couple of theaters and letting influential critics and the film's initial audiences spread the word. In the case of "Passion," the kind of buzz that would have been generated would almost certainly have been the wrong kind.
9. THOU SHALT COVET PROMOTIONAL PARTNERS IN FAST FOOD, FASHION, COSMETICS, TOYS AND VIDEO GAMES BECAUSE THEY ADD BIG DOLLARS TO YOUR MARKETING CAMPAIGN AND GENERATE AWARENESS FOR YOUR FILM.
As important as Hollywood thinks fast food and other tie-in promotional campaigns are, they were clearly unsuitable for a film like "Passion." How much they actually contribute to the success of mainstream releases is open for debate, as well.
10. THOU SHALT CONTROL YOUR DESTINY AS A FILMMAKER BY WORSHIPPING THE GOLDEN IDOLS OF WALL STREET TO RAISE MONEY FOR YOUR OWN MAJOR STUDIO.
Perhaps the greatest temptation that Gibson appears to have resisted is the one to springboard off a film's success by tapping Wall Street for the money to make more films through one's own major studio. The dream of starting your own studio and achieving parity with the established majors is one that's seduced other successful filmmakers before.
Gibson, however, apparently has the best of both worlds. With his investment in "Passion" having paid off, he can now finance the production and marketing of any similar scale movie he ever wants to make. By doing so, he'll once again be the sole owner of his movie. If he can get lightning to strike again at the box office, he can take in another ton of money -- like the $350 million to $500 million in profits "Passion" seems likely to bring him -- and have the satisfaction of having done it on his own terms.
Yeah, but he got one thing right: making his movie for gullible masses.
Quote from: mutinycoYeah, but he got one thing right: making his movie for gullible masses.
Wow. You've got nothing good to say about this, do you?
(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ebaumsworld.com%2Fforumfun%2Fsucks2.jpg&hash=a5c45d6d19ef2eb9f19fdfe749b817f62ffd4faa)
I didn't like this movie when I saw it and as it keeps racking up money and people keep ignoring the bad reviews and keep saying how good it is...I just keep getting more and more angry.
I still think its good, but I admit that captalistic success always sours things for me, too.
that 10 commandment thing kept on mixing indie movie strategies with studio films, most films break at least half of the commandment anyways, didn't make the Passion's success that special or abnormal.
Also the whole parodying 10 commandment thing is a little annoying, especially beginning each one with "thou shalt"--it's pointless and it's not funny.
some parts were like masterpiece good, some parts were not as good... very basic structure, very cliche hollywood film techniques, but still very powerful and detailed and very honest account. he told the story the way it should really be told that no one else has ever done yet.
overall= good-verygood
I saw it a second and third time. I like it less and less each viewing. I actually walked out half hour into it on the third viewing.
Quote from: The Gold TrumpetI saw it a second and third time. I like it less and less each viewing. I actually walked out half hour into it on the third viewing.
A friend of one of my friend's brothers said he made out during it. Haha.
Quote from: SHAFTRQuote from: The Gold TrumpetI saw it a second and third time. I like it less and less each viewing. I actually walked out half hour into it on the third viewing.
A friend of one of my friend's brothers said he made out during it. Haha.
When I first saw and actually liked it, I laughed out loud during the flogging scenes. I was into the film, but those scenes went beyond what was necessary and the gore of it tickled me funny.
GT you have a lot of time on your hands to see a movie 3 times that you keep liking less.
Quote from: themodernage02GT you have a lot of time on your hands to see a movie 3 times that you keep liking less.
I'm reviewing it for my college paper so i'm calling it homework. my first time officially trying to review in that paper. i thought the last guy sucked and i'm glad he graduated.
okay, thats a good excuse. also: have you seen/do you plan to see Eternal Sunshine... ? after i watched it i thought "GT will not like this movie". haha, i dont know why.
Quote from: themodernage02okay, thats a good excuse. also: have you seen/do you plan to see Eternal Sunshine... ? after i watched it i thought "GT will not like this movie". haha, i dont know why.
seeing it tomorrow and considering my lack of love for gimmick and kaufman, i expect just that. i'm open to it surprising me but the only thing i liked by kaufman was confessions and thats because of mainly clooney's filmmaking.
thanks to all the talk about the violence I wasn't very shocked by it at all. The most moving scenes of the film were the few and far between moments when Jesus speaks, or when it flashes back to his words. The movie basically ended when, as they nailed him, it flashed back to the last supper--the words about love your enemy and such were incredibly powerful and the cheesy music was very effective too. But what came afterwards, Satan in hell, the earthquake, the temple of doom, the gut, and even the resurrection, were all very sloppy.
Schrader 'Disturbed' by Gibson's Crucifixion Film
LONDON (Reuters) - The Hollywood screenwriter behind the last controversial film about Christ says Mel Gibson's new film on the crucifixion is violent and disturbing.
"It's a well-made movie but it's very violent and infused with a great sense of self-flagellation," Paul Schrader, screenwriter for "The Last Temptation of Christ," told Reuters.
Gibson's "The Passion of the Christ," to be released with an adults-only certificate in Britain Friday, has been heavily criticized for its bloody portrayal of Christ's final hours.
A 56-year-old woman died of a heart attack in Wichita, Kan., last month while watching the film's climactic crucifixion scene.
Some Jewish groups even branded the film anti-Semitic, arguing that it revives old accusations that Jews bear collective responsibility for killing the Son of God.
Schrader's "Last Temptation," released in 1988 and directed by Martin Scorsese, was attacked by Christian groups for a brief scene in which Jesus is seen having sex with Mary Magdalene.
But the screenwriter, who penned such cinematic classics as "Taxi Driver" and "Raging Bull," distanced his film from Gibson's.
"They are two totally different movies," he said after giving a talk in London about his acclaimed career.
"My film was essentially a humanist story about the struggle to find God in which Christ is used as a metaphor," said Schrader, who was raised in a strict Calvinist household and studied theology.
"But screenings of Gibson's film have been more like evangelical meetings. The audience comes into the film with such a powerful belief system that they think they have a religious experience. It's quite an interesting and disturbing phenomenon," he said.
Gibson's film has been a huge success in the United States. According to studio estimates, it has earned more than $250 million since its Feb. 25 U.S. opening.
Shrader said the film would never have been made without the backing of a big star like Gibson.
"This is not the sort of film Hollywood likes," he said. "But Gibson was uniquely positioned to make it and he successfully tapped into a ready-made audience made up of conservative religious groups."
Gibson, who reportedly spent $25 million of his own money on the film, is a follower of a small traditionalist Catholic church that denies the legitimacy of Vatican decrees made since the mid-1960s.
Paul Schrader: :yabbse-thumbup: (most always, but an extra one for this)
i finally saw it yesterday and i'm so disappointed, the movie is too cliché, the script is really naive, Jesus, the personage, should be one of the most interesting in history, but in this movie is introduced as a sphinx, suffering all the movie, but nothing more, and Maria, crying and crying, well everybody crying and crying, and the unbearable music! suggesting something that is obvious, but the worst thing in my opinion was the final scene, what made me remind a "Rambo" movie, i felt embarrassed for Gibson, you know, Jesus like Rambo, oh god! i thought this movie was more interesting, it's a pity.
Quote from: The Gold TrumpetQuote from: themodernage02GT you have a lot of time on your hands to see a movie 3 times that you keep liking less.
I'm reviewing it for my college paper so i'm calling it homework. my first time officially trying to review in that paper. i thought the last guy sucked and i'm glad he graduated.
How about posting your reviews on Xixax?
A Historical Look at Crucifixion (http://freshair.npr.org/day_fa.jhtml?display=day&todayDate=04/01/2004)[/b]
John Dominic Crossan is professor emeritus of biblical studies at DePaul University in Chicago. A native of Ireland, and ordained as a priest in the United States, he left the priesthood in 1969. Crossan is a founding member of the Jesus Seminar, a group of scholars who meet to determine the authenticity of Jesus' sayings in the Gospels. Crossan wrote the books Jesus: A Revolutionary Biography, The Historical Jesus and Who Killed Jesus? Exposing the Roots of Anti-Semitism in the Gospel Story of The Death of Jesus.
so what did he say? who killed Jesus?
Well, he talks a lot about the movie... And "the crowd" apparently defended Jesus. He points out lots of other glaring inaccuracies, omissions, and even lies in the movie.
Quote from: SHAFTRQuote from: The Gold TrumpetI saw it a second and third time. I like it less and less each viewing. I actually walked out half hour into it on the third viewing.
A friend of one of my friend's brothers said he made out during it. Haha.
Is this the plot of an episode of a Christian version of Seinfeld?
Anyone see the South Park episode this week? It totally skewers Mel Gibson, and I interpreted Cartman's becoming Hitler not as a criticism that the film is anti-Semitic, but of the criticisms of the anti-Semitic claims.
Quote from: RaviQuote from: SHAFTRQuote from: The Gold TrumpetI saw it a second and third time. I like it less and less each viewing. I actually walked out half hour into it on the third viewing.
A friend of one of my friend's brothers said he made out during it. Haha.
Is this the plot of an episode of a Christian version of Seinfeld?
.
Ya, Seinfeld makes out during Schindler's List.
Quote from: Jeremy BlackmanA Historical Look at Crucifixion (http://freshair.npr.org/day_fa.jhtml?display=day&todayDate=04/01/2004)[/b]
John Dominic Crossan is professor emeritus of biblical studies at DePaul University in Chicago. A native of Ireland, and ordained as a priest in the United States, he left the priesthood in 1969. Crossan is a founding member of the Jesus Seminar, a group of scholars who meet to determine the authenticity of Jesus' sayings in the Gospels. Crossan wrote the books Jesus: A Revolutionary Biography, The Historical Jesus and Who Killed Jesus? Exposing the Roots of Anti-Semitism in the Gospel Story of The Death of Jesus.
Is the book as long as the title?
Different titles (sorry).
:(
LETHAL WEAPON 5!!!
source: classified
"It'll probably be the best yet. From what I hear Mel Gibson has replaced Richard Donner as the director of the movie and written his own script. The plot goes like this. Murtaugh sells out Riggs to a group of Jewish gangsters who proceed to horribly torture Riggs until he dies. It's very beautiful and poignant and we will all appreciate Lethal Weapon and Riggs a little bit more after watching it."
Quote from: mogwaiMurtaugh sells out Riggs to a group of Jewish gangsters who proceed to horribly torture Riggs until he dies. It's very beautiful and poignant and we will all appreciate Lethal Weapon and Riggs a little bit more after watching it."
:lol: hahahah.
My book keeper, Golinkin, did not enjoy this fine moving picture while I honestly could not find anything wrong with it. I fear he suffers from a brain ailment. It shall be a damn shame to loose him.
should i feel bad for eating popcorn while watching jesus get tortured...i'm rather unsure. because it is like that episode of Seinfeld when Jerry makes out during Schindler's List.
Quote from: mogwaiLETHAL WEAPON 5!!!
source: classified
"It'll probably be the best yet. From what I hear Mel Gibson has replaced Richard Donner as the director of the movie and written his own script. The plot goes like this. Murtaugh sells out Riggs to a group of Jewish gangsters who proceed to horribly torture Riggs until he dies. It's very beautiful and poignant and we will all appreciate Lethal Weapon and Riggs a little bit more after watching it."
MURTAUGH: Man, I'm too old for this shit!
With apologies to Conan O' BrienQuote from: El Duderinoshould i feel bad for eating popcorn while watching jesus get tortured...i'm rather unsure. because it is like that episode of Seinfeld when Jerry makes out during Schindler's List.
As long as you're not eating corn dogs you should be fine.
*spoilers*
this movie sucked christian medicine balls.
it was played like satire sometimes. also, this movie is putting money in church pockets cause gibson based it on jesus. doesn't that mean jesus gets a piece of the pie? if jesus gets a percentage of the box office (which he should unless he sues gibson for more money) then i bet he gives it to his favorite churches, which is favortism but jesus would get away with it since he's like the CEO of those churches, you know? so the priests can't be like "damn you, jesus you didn't give us a dime!" they have to be all like "oh thank you jesus. we know you did what was best."
oh did anyone like when that guy got his eyes pecked out at the end? i think gibson ripped that off the simpsons but i don't know for sure. my friends keep on telling me they read that in their history books but i was like, "how does that make sense??? it was in the script!!" my friends are losers, they sit in the house and read all day. but they liked the movie so that explains what they're like..
and i didn't find what was so passionate in this movie. like i was expecting at least one sex scene, like barrabas the killer finding a long lost love. or jesus meeting somebody through his hardware business. lastly, didn't anyone find that last supper to be BORING? jesus, it was so dull. you'd expect like a couple strippers.. like a bachelor party but no.. jesus just talked forever about himself and everyone just listened. i think i would've fallen asleep in my passover lamb.
sorry for the long post.
Jesus was way cool
Everybody liked Jesus
Everybody wanted to hang out with him
Anything he wanted to do, he did
He turned water into wine
And if he wanted to
He could have turned wheat into marijuana
Or sugar into cocaine
Or vitamin pills into amphetamines
He walked on the water
And swam on the land
He would tell these stories
And people would listen
He was really cool
If you were blind or lame
You just went to Jesus
And he would put his hands on you
And you would be healed
That's so cool
He could've played guitar better than Hendrix
He could've told the future
He could've baked the most delicious cake in the world
He could've scored more goals than Wayne Gretzky
He could've danced better than Barishnikov
Jesus could have been funnier than any comedian you can think of
Jesus was way cool
He told people to eat his body and drink his blood
That's so cool
Jesus was so cool
But then some people got jealous of how cool he was
So they killed him
But then he rose from the dead
He rose from the dead, danced around
Then went up to heaven
I mean, that's so cool
Jesus was way cool
No wonder there are so many Christians
-king missile
Are those lyrics from a train song?
That sucker jesus has forgiven me for some pretty fucked up shit. :yabbse-thumbup:
This has been a very lyrical couple hours on Xixax.
Did anyone read the the LA Weekly interview in which Tarantino claims to have "loved" The Passion of the Christ?
http://www.laweekly.com/ink/04/21/features-powers.php
Also, for some truly religious movie moments, check out this quarter's edition of Reverse Shot (http://www.reverseshot.com).
Quote from: The Silver BulletDid anyone read the the LA Weekly interview in which Tarantino claims to have "loved" The Passion of the Christ?
http://www.laweekly.com/ink/04/21/features-powers.php
Yet I somehow doubt he was looking at it from a moral or spiritual perspective:
I loved it. I'll tell you why. I think it actually is one of the most brilliant visual storytelling movies I've seen since the talkies — as far as telling a story via pictures. So much so that when I was watching this movie, I turned to a friend and said, "This is such a Herculean leap of Mel Gibson's talent. I think divine intervention might be part of it." I cannot believe that Mel Gibson directed it. Not personally Mel Gibson — I mean, Braveheart was great. I mean, I can't believe any actor made that movie. This is like the most visual movie by an actor since Charles Laughton made The Night of the Hunter. No, this is 15 times more visual than that. It has the power of a silent movie. And I was amazed by the fact that it was able to mix all these different tones. At first, this is going to be the most realistic version of the Jesus story — you have to decipher the Latin and Aramaic. Then it throws that away at a certain point and gives you this grandiose religious image. Goddamn, that's good direction! It is pretty violent, I must say. At a certain point, it was like a Takashi Miike film. It got so fucked up it was funny. At one point, my friend and I, we just started laughing. I was into the seriousness of the story, of course, but in the crucifixion scene, when they turned the cross over, you had to laugh.
Quote from: The Silver BulletDid anyone read the the LA Weekly interview in which Tarantino claims to have "loved" The Passion of the Christ?
http://xixax.com/viewtopic.php?p=135419#135419
The Passion of The Christ on DVD & VHS August 31
Source: Fox Home Entertainment
Focusing on the final 12 hours of the life of Jesus of Nazareth's life, the year's most talked about movie, The Passion of the Christ, makes its highly anticipated DVD and VHS debut on August 31, 2004, it was announced today by Twentieth Century Fox Home Entertainment and Icon Productions.
Released in theaters on Ash Wednesday, February 25, 2004, the powerful, Mel Gibson-helmed epic went on to gross more than $375 million at the box office -- earning a spot in the top 10 grossing movies of all time.
Starring Jim Caviezel in the critically-lauded role of Jesus Christ and Monica Bellucci as Mary Magdalene, The Passion of the Christ DVD is presented with a maximum bit rate, 5.1 Dolby Digital and 5.1 DTS, offering viewers the highest quality picture and audio. The film, which was shot in Aramaic and Latin, is presented with English subtitles on VHS and English and Spanish subtitles on DVD. Priced to own, the DVD is available in Widescreen or Pan And Scan for $29.98 and the VHS is $24.98.
A special edition of the film is rumored to be in the works for a Christmast/Easter release.
Beginning June 1 at the film's website information will be available regarding bulk orders and high-quality, visually stunning customized church sleeves and other downloads encouraging church ministry participation. Additionally, the site will feature trailers, film synopsis, cast biographies, and soundtrack background, among other information. For retailers from the Christian Booksellers Association (CBA), the DVD/VHS will be distributed through Zondervan, a leading international Christian communications company.
(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.dvdtown.com%2Fmedia%2Fcoverart%2Fbig%2F12253.jpg&hash=ea61e3c028bb614df01c18cdaf37f6c268075a4a)
i just saw this yesterday -- it was very antisemetic -- pretty irresponsible "interpretation" of what happened.
Let this thread die. We keep extending it like the ridiculous death he experiences in the movie.
Quote from: mutinycoLet this thread die. We keep extending it like the ridiculous death he experiences in the movie.
dont fucking read it -- easy solution
Quote from: MacGuffinThe Passion of the Christ DVD is presented with a maximum bit rate, 5.1 Dolby Digital and 5.1 DTS, offering viewers the highest quality picture and audio.
It is as He would have wanted it.
QuoteWidescreen or Pan And Scan
NOT as He would have wanted it.
Quote from: cowboykurtisQuote from: mutinycoLet this thread die. We keep extending it like the ridiculous death he experiences in the movie.
dont fucking read it -- easy solution
Get over it. Easier solution. Let it die and stop resurrecting it/
Quote from: mutinycoQuote from: cowboykurtisQuote from: mutinycoLet this thread die. We keep extending it like the ridiculous death he experiences in the movie.
dont fucking read it -- easy solution
Get over it. Easier solution. Let it die and stop resurrecting it/
Or you can really just stop reading it. It's an easier solution.. however there's more of a chance that people will get over this thread before you can get over yourself. So I guess we'll see what happens.
Quote from: mutinycoQuote from: cowboykurtisQuote from: mutinycoLet this thread die. We keep extending it like the ridiculous death he experiences in the movie.
dont fucking read it -- easy solution
Get over it. Easier solution. Let it die and stop resurrecting it/
i saw it 2 days ago -- im sorry i didnt rush to theaters to be in time for the xixax banter -- i posted my opinion and its aggrivating getting the response of somone whining about it -- ignore it -- no one likes whiining, at least i dont.
blah
It's good to see Jesus inspire unity in you all.
Quote from: ranemaka13It's good to see Jesus inspire unity in you all.
(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fmplex.ath.cx%2Fphotogallery%2Fbigguybuddychrist.jpg&hash=f2de72133c3e95543c84940bf03dc333005a865e)
Quote from: Cinephile[picture of Buddy Christ
And it only took 39 pages for someone to post this :yabbse-thumbup:
Quote from: RaviAnd it only took 39 pages for someone to post this :yabbse-thumbup:
or only
33 (http://xixax.com/viewtopic.php?t=293&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=480)?
http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&category=63821&item=4190428399&rd=1
Quote from: cronopiohttp://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&category=63821&item=4190428399&rd=1
"Own a piece of religious history with the most accurate depiction of Christ's last hours."
Unless this is actual film footage of the crucifiction, this is not "a piece of religious history." :roll:
EDIT
http://www.tvshowsondvd.com/newsitem.cfm?NewsID=1516
South Park - South Park gets Passion-ate
Posted by David Lambert
5/17/2004
June 29th will see the release of South Park - The Complete 4th Season, which we've told you about before of course. So what's next after that?
Never wanting to miss up an opportunity for a good parody, Matt Stone and Trey Parker are timing their next South Park release to hit on August 31st, the date that Mel Gibson's The Passion of the Christ arrives on home video. The release is entitled South Park - The Passion of the Jew, and incorporates 3 episodes of the series into a single-disc release:
"The Passion of the Jew" - Season 8 (3/31/04 airdate)
"Christian Rock Hard" - Season 7 (10/29/03 airdate)
"Red Hot Catholic Love" - Season 6 (6/3/03 airdate)
This news comes to us courtesy of the official Comedy Central website for all things South Park-related: SouthParkStudios.com. There they cheerfully point us to this interview with Matt Stone that was published today in the New York Post, where the info about the upcoming DVD is revealed. Fans of Barbra Streisand should take an antacid before reading.
Stay tuned, and we'll be back as soon as possible with more info and cover art for The Passion of the Jew.
Gibson Stuns DVD Sellers with F-Word
Mel Gibson reportedly stunned a meeting of home-video retailers in Dana Point, CA last week when he appeared before them to support the Aug. 31 video release of The Passion of the Christ. According to the New York Daily News, which cited two independent sources, when one attendee asked Gibson about the movie, he shouted back, "F-- you! I don't mean f-- you; I mean f-- you in general. I don't have to answer any of these questions anymore. I'm a hell of a lot wealthier than I once was." One of the sources says that those in the audience were astonished, even though it was apparent to some that Gibson was joking.
How come most conservos have a hard time telling jokes?
Quote from: StefenHow come most conservos have a hard time telling jokes?
they hav a harder time getting them.
Sometimes it's difficult for jokes to realize they're a joke.
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/nm/leisure_regal_dc
Gibson's Icon Sues Regal Over 'Passion' Box Office
Tue Jun 8,12:34 PM ET
LOS ANGELES (Reuters) - Actor/director Mel Gibson (news)'s Icon Distribution Inc. has sued No. 1 movie theater chain Regal Entertainment Group for more than $40 million, claiming Regal failed to pay Icon its fair share of box office receipts for "The Passion of the Christ."
In the suit, filed on Monday in Los Angeles Superior Court, Icon said its agreement with Regal called for the companies to share receipts on "studio terms," which Icon defined as 55 percent of gross ticket sales paid to it and 45 percent retained by Regal.
Icon claims Regal has reneged on that deal and offered to pay Icon only 34 percent, instead.
"The Passion of the Christ," about the final 12 hours in the life of Jesus, was the biggest movie hit of this past winter and spring. It generated slightly under $370 million in domestic markets -- the United States and Canada.
The suit did not stipulate how much of those receipts came from Regal theaters, but Icon claims it is owed actual damages in excess of $40 million. Icon also seeks punitive damages.
Regal operates over 6,000 movie screens in about 550 theaters around the world. A spokesman was not immediately available to comment.
Regal shares edged down 0.2 percent, or 4 cents, at $17.59 shortly after midday on the New York Stock Exchange (news - web sites).
Privately held Icon was formed in 1990 by Gibson to distribute films made by his Icon Productions film company, of which "The Passion" is one. Privately held Newmarket Films partnered with Icon in distributing the movie to U.S. theaters, but Newmarket is not a party in the lawsuit.
Wow, my heart is breaking for Gibson.
Good to know he didn't make it for the money.
we'd all do the same.
regal are bastards. i hope icon gets all its money.
Anybody want 50 copies of The Passion? (http://www.foxhome.com/thepassion/bulk_case.html)
"Jesus died for somebody's sins...but not mine."
I work for regal.
Quote from: ewardI work for regal.
i did too when i was probably around your age. thats why i hate them.
I just watched the dvd release of this, its a pretty bare bones disc but it does have a track for the visually impaired that starts out with "Now lightning crackles over the image of an eye, our view pulls back to show an amber tinted image of a face, below it the words read icon productions" I shit you not, it's done all dramatic through the whole movie, its the most funniest thing EVER! You gotta listen to the whole movie though cause its funny as shit.
2.5 mil 'Passion' vids sold in first 12 hours
Mel Gibson's "The Passion of the Christ" sold nearly 2.5 million DVD and VHS units to consumers during its first 12 hours on retail shelves Tuesday, according to distributor 20th Century Fox Home Entertainment. Fox executives who are closely following retail trends surrounding the faith-based title said that most consumers are buying multiple copies, with the average being 1.8 copies.
That initial 12-hour sales figure puts "The Passion" on pace to possibly meet initial sales records for the home video industry held by the likes of DreamWorks Home Entertainment's animated "Shrek" and the Disney/Pixar animated feature "Finding Nemo," both of which topped 6 million DVD units sold through to consumers during their first three days in release.
Fox reportedly shipped about 15 million combined DVD/VHS units of "The Passion" to retailers, compared with initial shipments of 20 million units each for "Shrek" and "Nemo."
In any case, the highly anticipated DVD release of "The Passion" is precedent-setting for its niche genre, becoming the first faith-based live-action title to top 500,000 units sold through to consumers during its first week in release.
The previous benchmark for the genre was Cloud Ten's "Left Behind," which eventually topped 6 million DVD units sold through to consumers during its six-month home video life cycle.
As was true for "Left Behind," "The Passion" is expected to have a long shelf life, with most retailers expecting additional sales for the Thanksgiving, Christmas and Easter holidays.
"The Passion," which generated more than $370 million at the domestic boxoffice as part of a worldwide cume of $610 million, appears to be well on its way to setting overall DVD sales records as well.
While "The Passion" DVD, with no bonus features, carries a suggested retail price of nearly $30, Wal-Mart, Best Buy and Target are selling the DVD for about $16, with Amazon.com asking about $1 more. Other retailers are using tie-ins and discounts that amount to loss-leader campaigns.
Fox, which is distributing the film for Gibson's Icon Prods., has not disclosed the terms of its home video distribution agreement, but industry sources believe that Fox is receiving 10%-15% for its role.
I actually saw at Best Buy "The Passion of the Christ" DVD come in a bag with two cokes and a small bag of popcorn for only $10.99.
u ever get the feeling that you know something is not right and you just can't figure it out? like passion making all this money-- isn't it wrong 4 some reason? it's gotta be.
I want nothing more then for Mel Gibson to be caught with a hooker.
an atheist hooker
a Jewish hooker?
Quote from: SiliasRubyI actually saw at Best Buy "The Passion of the Christ" DVD come in a bag with two cokes and a small bag of popcorn for only $10.99.
I'd buy it then sell the DVD online for like $15 -- not that I'd want to contribute to this movie's sales, but it's hard to pass up a chance for a quick profit. Reminds me of that Seinfeld episode where Newman figures out a way to cash in on the $.10 deposit for bottles and cans in Michigan.
Quote from: ©bradu ever get the feeling that you know something is not right and you just can't figure it out? like passion making all this money-- isn't it wrong 4 some reason? it's gotta be.
Exactly why I hate even the idea of this movie. Not even that I believe what Gibson believes, but it's just why I despise that smug bastard and everything the movie stands for - even if the movie itself is something that Christians can get behind. But I doubt that's even the case because it sounds like nothing more than a snuff film to me.
It's something I don't even WANT to see -- I was discussing this last night, too, with some friends of mine. While it is important not to judge a film right off, there are some films that you know just aren't worth your time. This is one of them. What's even more offputting is that the violence in this film passes for an R, and Kill Bill passes for an R, yet sex and graphic nudity will still get an NC-17 rating in America. Americans, as a group, are some fucked up people.
Quote from: ono.I despise that smug bastard and everything the movie stands for - even if the movie itself is something that Christians can get behind. But I doubt that's even the case because it sounds like nothing more than a snuff film to me.
It's Christ blood pornography, essentially. Many Christians say that fixating on human suffering (which is the point of this movie) completely misses the point of the crucifixion. Not that I'm a big crucifixion fan myself.
But no film as interesting as this one would be a waste of your time. I hated it, but I'm glad I saw it.
I agree with Blackman. I was actually thinking of buying it just considering it could very well become an important film in a few years. I thought it was OK...at most, but it needs to be seen.
I, on the other hand, really liked the movie but have no interest in ever seeing it again.
And even if I did, I wouldn't buy the DVD, for reasons explained quite well in my pal LYT's blog: (http://www.lytrules.com/weblog.html)
The Passion of the Christ comes out on DVD this week. As you may recall by looking in the archives, I thought it was an impressive, if over-bombastic film, and I bonded with Bob Dornan over it.
It'll probably set a sales record. Churches and Christian groups will buy it in bulk.
Here's the problem: It's a "bare-bones" DVD, i.e. just the film, no extras.
So what? Why does every DVD need extras? Fair point. Not every DVD does.
Except according to the LA Times, there are extras in existence, and they'll appear on a new "special edition" Passion dvd due out next Easter.
Regular consumers are savvy to this kind of marketing ploy -- I have many friends who refuse to buy KILL BILL on dvd until the combined set comes out. But given that the Holy Spirit is co-director of The Passion (according to sole-credited director Mel Gibson), do you think that the third part of the Holy Trinity approves of fleecing the flock for two different versions of the disc?
The second part of that Trinity, i.e. Mr. Christ Himself, is pretty clear on the subject of theft.
I really liked the movie too, but I can't imagine ever being in the mood to see a cruxifiction again in the near future.
Unless I feel like jesus-hating....
Quote from: Jeremy BlackmanMany Christians say that fixating on human suffering (which is the point of this movie) completely misses the point of the crucifixion. Not that I'm a big crucifixion fan myself.
But doesn't the film basically say, "This is what Christ endured for your sins"? I haven't seen the film, but I would assume that in this context it makes sense.
Quote from: RaviBut doesn't the film basically say, "This is what Christ endured for your sins"? I haven't seen the film, but I would assume that in this context it makes sense.
Yes, but it's more like...
Look at this! Look at all this blood! All over the place! See what he did for you? Now what are you going to do for him?
The more I think about the actual experience of the movie, the more I realize just how sadomasochistic it is. The bold stylization of the gore-splattered crucifixion, the palpable physicality of it all, climaxing with a truly intense numb ecstasy... it really is, like I said, blood pornography. And there's nothing remotely spiritual about that.
it's meaningless.
the less said about it the better.
mel did a smart thing by coming up with a product that would sell to ppl he could take advantage of. that's the only thing this movie can be admired for.
Quote from: Jeremy BlackmanQuote from: RaviBut doesn't the film basically say, "This is what Christ endured for your sins"? I haven't seen the film, but I would assume that in this context it makes sense.
Yes, but it's more like...
Look at this! Look at all this blood! All over the place! See what he did for you? Now what are you going to do for him?
from all my Christian upbringing i have never ever thought of that reasoning of "look what i did for you.........so what are you going to do for me"..........thats ridiculous to think like that.....Christiasnity is all about acceptance and love .......faith ........excetera...........the way you look at it JB makes Jesus look jealous or envious which is the complete opposite from a traditonal Chrsitina view......i dont understand why people feel like Jesus is saying "well, i did thid for you .......so you got to beleive in me".......please......NO CHRISTIAN THAT I HAVE EVER TALKED TO ABOUT WHY THEY ARE CHRISTIANS EVER MENTIONED "well Christ died for me .......so i guess i have to follw him".....................its all starts out by accepting Jesus as your savior and through baptism and faith etc..........nothing like the way you seem to put it.......
as for the film............some of you people out there ought to applaud mel gibson for what hes done..............which is essentially most peoples dream here:...........to make a film YOUR WAY.........i and i think its hilarious that all these studio heads are pissing in their pants b/c they passed up the oppurtunity to distribute this film.......and as far as the advertising and merchandising of the film....................peopel need to wake up and realize that money talks........................thats just the way it is..it was obvious that there would be merchandising spinoffs and such from The Passion........
Quote from: NEON MERCURYQuote from: Jeremy BlackmanQuote from: RaviBut doesn't the film basically say, "This is what Christ endured for your sins"? I haven't seen the film, but I would assume that in this context it makes sense.
Yes, but it's more like...
Look at this! Look at all this blood! All over the place! See what he did for you? Now what are you going to do for him?
from all my Christian upbringing i have never ever thought of that reasoning of "look what i did for you.........so what are you going to do for me"..........thats ridiculous to think like that.....Christiasnity is all about acceptance and love .......faith ........excetera...........the way you look at it JB makes Jesus look jealous or envious which is the complete opposite from a traditonal Chrsitina view......i dont understand why people feel like Jesus is saying "well, i did thid for you .......so you got to beleive in me".......please......NO CHRISTIAN THAT I HAVE EVER TALKED TO ABOUT WHY THEY ARE CHRISTIANS EVER MENTIONED "well Christ died for me .......so i guess i have to follw him".....................its all starts out by accepting Jesus as your savior and through baptism and faith etc..........nothing like the way you seem to put it.......
neon, what the eff are u talking about buddy? Jesus didn't make this movie, the message JB was talking about was the one given by the movie. it has nothing to do with Christianity as a faith, it's a spectacle, it's horribly base.
i would be inclined to say it is almost anti-spiritual. u know, scrap that, i'm going to say it's anti-spiritual.
Quote from: NEON MERCURY[].NO CHRISTIAN THAT I HAVE EVER TALKED TO ABOUT WHY THEY ARE CHRISTIANS EVER MENTIONED "well Christ died for me .......so i guess i have to follw him"......................
You have to remember that most christians don't know what they are talking about when it comes to their faith. This isn't meant as an insult to Christianity, just part of the problem with most of it's "followers". My best friend is studying to become a pastor and he can't stand how most Christians just go through the motions or really don't even understand their faith. Most just seem to know the meaning behind Christmas and Easter and a couple of Old Testament stories they saw in cartoon form.
I'm getting off the point.
I saw the Passion and as I commented earlier in this thread, I thought it was horrible from all aspects (film and religion). As a former Christian, I think it did only 2 positive things.
a) It got people in the theatre who wouldn't normally be there.
b) It gave people a better idea of what Jesus went through during the Crucification.
The problem with b) is that it forgot to spend it's emphasis on why he did that. The Passion is a perfect example of a blockbuster, always telling what and never looking at why.
well, i saw it last night and there were parts that really moved me. really just towards the very end when he's on the cross. i feel like the story is very powerful, it's just that sometimes the way it's told is annoying.
and i was one of the skeptics that couldn't believe the shit the jewish anti defamation leagues were giving this movie, but after seeing it i totally understand why. halfway through the movie i was just like, "man! fuck those jews!" i feel like the movie tries to preach passion and forgiveness, but the jewish high priests are just so one-dimensional it's hard to find any humanity in them. gibson seems to beat us over the head with the fact that, "these jews are bad! but our lord and savior will forgive them anyway!" but i feel that jesus would have forgiven them b/c they are human and they're just afraid. mel seemed to want to rob them of any compassion, which is where he fucked up. while the story is moving and strong, the film itself seemed anti-semitic.
Quote from: Pubrick
neon, what the eff are u talking about buddy? Jesus didn't make this movie, the message JB was talking about was the one given by the movie. it has nothing to do with Christianity as a faith, it's a spectacle, it's horribly base.
i would be inclined to say it is almost anti-spiritual. u know, scrap that, i'm going to say it's anti-spiritual.
..i apologize....i thought those remarks were JBs opinions of Christianity..[sorry JB].....i tend to run at the mouth w/ Christianity because people find it such a negative thing for some reason....i think that some peoples disregard of Christianity has stemed from twisted views of plitcians, bible beaters, crazed zealots and such......the bottom line os all about love.......its that simple and for popel to twist this and disregard it seems ignorant to me....Christianity has been used as a scapegoat and/or twisted in form to better suit peoples actions twoards war or death, or gays or __________[fill in the blank]........BOTTOM LINE ONCE AGAIN: LOVE........Chrsitianity has been so bent out of shape people dont kno wwhat it means anymore.......so, i guess that swhy people tend to do the chic aethiest thing... :roll: .........for me, i love the feeling that there somethign more out there when i die ........that i lived a good life .i try to treat people right......i made many mistakes....but through Christianty i feel blessed that there is more to this when i die.....and for me thats beautiful.... thats S-P-I-R-I-T-U-A-L-T-Y.........
sorry to go armchair preacher on you guys..and sorry i went off topic from the film .which leads me to..........
Quote from: SHAFTRI saw the Passion and as I commented earlier in this thread, I thought it was horrible from all aspects (film and religion). As a former Christian, I think it did only 2 positive things.
a) It got people in the theatre who wouldn't normally be there.
b) It gave people a better idea of what Jesus went through during the Crucification.
The problem with b) is that it forgot to spend it's emphasis on why he did that. The Passion is a perfect example of a blockbuster, always telling what and never looking at why.
...first off, do you honeslty think as a film lover thatthis film was 'horrible from all aspects"?.........just from watching it as a film geek.i thoguth these certian aspects were wonderful.
1.] the cinematography.......its a gorgeous looking film....even in theatres i saw this to be true...but at home on dvd its pritstine.......there are many shots that are just beautiful.....the garden of gesethamene[in particular i loved].....try to bring yourself to watch it afain and you'll see........******and for you trivia buffs........there is a link w/ The Passion of the Christ[caleb deschanel] to david lynch........what is it*****???
2.]the production design/costumes were perfect....no one can argue w/ that point.....
3.]jim caviezel.....part of my appreciation of this guy began w/ the thin red line......[which is another brilliant film dealing w/ spirituality and nature].........ever since i saw jim in TTRL.......i immediatley became a fan....just like when i first saw crudup in Jesus Son......caveziel, who i beleive is a devout Catholic, deserves more respect and props for this roole....its hard [exspecailly being a Chrsitian] to "play" the role of Jesus Christ....and the emotional bagge that must weigh upon you.......and he flat out amazed me [an should anyone seeing this performance]..i am not sure that he is a lock to win the oscar....that performance deserves to be nominated.....he hardly ever spoke but commeanded the screen at all times......physically/emotionaly its a powerhouse performance..........thats a F.A.C.T.
4/] the makeup....................
.....oh ye xixax of little faith......... :notworthy:
why did they whip jesus so much? the other guys didn't get whipped. besides, in real life, jesus wouldn't have been able to walk all that way after getting whipped so bad. he wouldn't have been able to move.
yeah, jim caviezel was pretty darn good.
and if you put caleb deschanel as the hint for your passion/lynch link, neon, it's not gonna be very hard to figure out.
Quote from: bonanzatazwhy did they whip jesus so much? the other guys didn't get whipped. besides, in real life, jesus wouldn't have been able to walk all that way after getting whipped so bad. he wouldn't have been able to move.
yeah, jim caviezel was pretty darn good.
and if you put caleb deschanel as the hint for your passion/lynch link, neon, it's not gonna be very hard to figure out.
...the reason why Jesus was beaten more was b/c He was being accused of blasphemy. He is the son of God and people thought it wasnt true so hence the harshness twards Him........
as for my hint....Caleb also directed a few episodes of twin peaks... 8)
Quote from: NEON MERCURYQuote from: bonanzatazwhy did they whip jesus so much? the other guys didn't get whipped. besides, in real life, jesus wouldn't have been able to walk all that way after getting whipped so bad. he wouldn't have been able to move.
yeah, jim caviezel was pretty darn good.
and if you put caleb deschanel as the hint for your passion/lynch link, neon, it's not gonna be very hard to figure out.
...the reason why Jesus was beaten more was b/c He was being accused of blasphemy. He is the son of God and people thought it wasnt true so hence the harshness twards Him........
as for my hint....Caleb also directed a few episodes of twin peaks... 8)
not to mention that he was able to walk after that betaing b/c he is the messiah, song of god, blah blah blah, at elast that's the point of view of the christian faith. you must remember that the film is portraying someone who was supposed to have endured so much, and had the strength to do so b/c he was not of this earth, and/or endowed witht he power of God
at anyr ate what really got me, and this was spoken to above, was the way the Romans vs the Jews were portrayed
the Romans were implied to be acting out a)duty and b) satan's influence
take for example the scourging. The roman whipping JC begins to get a ferocious look on his face, even demonic, as he begins to seemingly enoy the process. this happens as Satan walks behind him, thus acting through him. Respite from the scourging comes from another Roman who appears in a blaze of sunlight creating a halo around his head, implying that God has sent him to rescue JC from the scourging.
throughout the ROmans are shown as doing what they must b/c they have to obey Roman law or are being forced to by demons, not b/c they weant to. Special emphasis is put on the shuffling of JC from one court to another in an effort to absolve each court of the guilt of killing the messiah.
The Jews on the other hand are shown as ravenous, bullies, seeking to torture a threat to their belief and power structure. Even in the face of JC's pain and anguish they don't flinch or blink really. The jewish elders are shown as vile, evil men.
My thoughts are these: even if this film is an acurate portrayl of events (which of course we will never know) I don't get why any Christian, Mel Gibson or otherwise, would care about the ferociousness of the Jews. After all, if the jewish elders had not done wahat they did, JC's mission would not have beena ccomplished, and Christianity would not exist in its present form.
Who cares if the Jews killed Jesus, someone had to do it.
I just saw this last night and all I could think of was Monty Python. Mostly "The Life of Brian" but also The Grail. When Jesus was on the cross at the end, all I heard in my head was Eric Idol singing "Always look on the bright side of life". Is that twisted? [/quote]
Quote from: analogzombieJC
I thought for the longest time 'JC' was supposed to be Jim Caviezel.
Quote from: Chest RockwellQuote from: analogzombieJC
I thought for the longest time 'JC' was supposed to be Jim Caviezel.
that's kind of creepy. Jesus Christ / Jim Caviezel hmmmm....
whoa that's really creepy i've got the heebiejeebies no way dude
Get this: Caviezel was also in Angel Eyes and Ride With The Devil.
He was also in The Count of Monte Cristo.....
Quote from: rustinglassHe was also in The Count of Monte Cristo.....
Hahaha...pretty good.
Jesus Christ / James Cameron / James Cagney
jarvis cocker
Jim Caveizel, Jesus Christ (in the movie), and Jim Carrey are all JC's in their 30s. I think Jim Carrey as Jesus would've been very very interesting. But then again, so would James Cagney be.
A James Cameron directed movie starring Jim Carrey and James Cagney (interchangably--Cagney would be digital) as Jesus Christ would be the movie of the decade, I think.
joan collins would be perfect as a female jesus in an kevin smith adaptation.
jesus christ! how many adaptations do we need? i'm gonna make a movie about satan.
James Caan plays Christ, put into power by his Father as head of The Family. Betrayed by Judas (John Cazale) and denied, three times, no less, by Peter (Al Pacino), Caan announces his (quiet) vengence on the Jews at a large spaghetti supper, with Him drinking red wine and breaking garlic bread with the members of his family. But when wind of this revenge gets back to the Family of Jews, they seek out the support of Don Pontius Pilate (Abe Vigoda). Swayed by their influence, the Don sets up a hit on Christ, in which the Savior is stoned making his way through a toll booth.
A Joel Coen film starring Johnny Carson.
QUENTIN TARANTINO......... oh wait.
Wow, Xixaxians really know how to take something and run with it.
Just in time for Easter, Newmarket Films is re-releasing a recut version of Gibson's controversial film about Christ. Source: Los Angeles Times
Mel Gibson's "The Passion of the Christ" became the top grossing R-rated film ever with $611 million in worldwide box office receipts. Now, Newmarket Films is rolling the dice on an unrated version.
Aimed at those who were kept away by the movie's graphic material, "The Passion Recut" is due out in 950 theaters on Friday, in advance of the Easter holiday. Gibson had hoped that a seven-minute cut would bring him a PG-13 rating. But his Icon Productions was informed by the Motion Picture Assn. of America in January that the film was still too intense for young people.
While R-rated films have gone out unrated on DVD, this is believed to be the first time that one has been re-released in theaters without a rating — a marketing move designed to distinguish it from the original.
"This can be tricky," conceded Newmarket President Bob Berney. "It's hard to know the commercial impact .... We have to fight the perception that 'unrated' means more graphic. The 'Recut' release is admittedly experimental. Who knows whether people who've seen 'The Passion' or bought the DVD will turn out? Realistically, the movie should play a few weeks beyond Easter. We think it will do some business, but nobody knows how much."
In "Recut," Gibson excised some of the scourging scenes from the story — the tale of the last hours of Christ — as well as graphic images of the crucifixion. Different camera angles and long shots have also been inserted. Rather than depicting the nails penetrating Christ's body, for example, the film has a shot of a hammer coming down. The film's website (www.the<243>passionrecut.com) posted a statement from Gibson, a portion of which is featured in the print ads: "By softening some of its more wrenching aspects, I hope to make my film and its message of love available to a wider audience."
John Fithian, president of the National Assn. of Theatre Owners, said that the major studios are contractually prohibited by the Motion Picture Assn. of America from releasing unrated movies. The option is available to independent distributors such as Newmarket Films, but it is not without risk, he noted.
"Some theater chains will not play unrated movies," Fithian said. "And the companies that will are going to enforce this movie as an R rating — refusing to sell tickets to children under the age of 17 unless accompanied by a parent or guardian."
According to Berney, "Recut" lands somewhere between an R and a PG-13, for which parental guidance is suggested. While still unsuitable for young children, the tone and balance are more appropriate for teens and those who are a bit squeamish, he said.
In London, the rating for "Passion Recut" has been reduced from an 18 (the country's equivalent of an R) to a 15, Berney said. In Australia, the recut version will carry the same rating as the original — MA for mature adults. In the U.S., "Recut" will play in all the major markets — but not in Regal Theaters, the world's largest movie chain.
Icon filed suit against Regal last summer, alleging that the company had short-changed it on "Passion" box office receipts. Last week, Regal settled the case for several million dollars, according to a Securities and Exchange Commission filing.
The Wall Street Journal reported that Gibson's Icon has sent out checks to hundreds of faith-based organizations in the wake of the settlement, compensating them for a $500 fee Regal charged on top of its ticket prices for private screenings.
In a letter accompanying the checks, the director said that he was "shocked and disappointed" by the charge, of which Icon was never informed. Regal said that such fees — internally referred to as a "worship price" — are commonly charged to cover marketing and overhead costs. Icon estimates that Regal hosted 1,400 screenings.
Newmarket offered "Recut" to Regal nevertheless, but the company turned it down, Berney said. Regal could not be reached for comment.
A grass-roots evangelical campaign has again been employed for "Recut," though substantially smaller in scale. E-mails have already been sent to churches advising them of the new version. Group sales, which drove the original to blockbuster status, are expected, particularly over Easter week. Each time the holiday rolls around, Newmarket intends to re-release a version of "The Passion" — either the original or the recut version. DVD plans for "Recut" are not yet in place, but a home video release is likely in late 2005 or early 2006. Whether bonus features, which were absent from the original, will be part of the package is yet to be determined.
Berney said the "event" nature of the original makes "Recut" a better bet than it might seem. " 'Passion' has always defied convention, and we continue to break rules. People are not used to re-releases. But this movie has nine lives."
Quote from: Hell-bound Gibson"By softening some of its more wrenching aspects, I hope to make my film and its message of love available to a wider audience."
i musta missed that part. or does he mean "love of making money"..
Saw a movie last night and they had the trailer playing for The Passion: Recut
Had a great time with alternate subtitles: Renailed. Resurrected. With new inspirational alternate ending. I now look forward to making fun of it every Easter.
Quote from: RaikusSaw a movie last night and they had the trailer playing for The Passion: Recut
Had a great time with alternate subtitles: Renailed. Resurrected.
The Passion: Smaller, Shorter, and Recut2LB
Ouch, two lane. I can almost feel that.
it's a penis joke, dudes
Quote from: Gamblor Ain'tWorthADollarit's a penis joke, dudes
it's the opposite of the south park title, we know.
wait, did jesus have two bar mitzvahs?
Why is everyone whispering?
Quote from: hacksparrowWhy is everyone whispering?
Don't ask, just stick with the program.
Quote from: Stefenwait, did jesus have two bar mitzvahs?
You know it, a few more and it'll be a bat mitzvah.
What the hell is going on in here?!
SHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH! They'll hear you.
Gibson's "Apocalypto" Is Nigh
Source: E! Online
In The Passion of the Christ, Mel Gibson revived the Aramaic language. For his next movie, he'll give new life to an ancient Greek term.
Apocalypto is the title of Gibson's next self-financed epic, Daily Variety reported Friday. Shooting is scheduled to begin in October, and a summer 2006 release is planned.
The film is described as an action picture, set 3,000 years in the past. Details otherwise are sketchy, and that's the way Gibson apparently wants it. According to Variety, the star requested studio execs read the script at his offices, less any pages get leaked.
As Gibson did on Passion, the Oscar-winning multihyphenate is directing, writing and producing, but not starring. Also as was done on Passion, his Icon Productions is footing the bill. While Hollywood studios were reluctant to distribute the religious epic that ended up grossing more than $611 million worldwide--the independent company Newmarket Films handled the honors--Disney beat out rivals for dibs on Apocalypto, the trade paper said.
Apocalypto is a Greek term meaning unveiling. It is not to be confused with Apocalypso, the 2003 album by vocalist Rita Calypso, or apparently even apocalyptic, the adjective of biblical doom. In fact, according to Variety, Gibson's Apocalypto is "not religious in theme."
In Passion, Gibson retold the final hours of Jesus' life, often in excruciating detail. Though movies dealing with religious figures hadn't been welcomed by the masses since the 1950s, Gibson's was, and found itself credited with bringing AWOL audiences back to theaters.
One group Passion didn't click with was Oscar voters. The film, accused sight unseen by some as a work that would fuel anti-Semitism, took home zero awards. Overall, the film earned three nominations, not one of which was for Gibson, who'd won two Oscars for directing and producing Braveheart.
Since the passions over Passion died down, Gibson has focused on television--he produced two short-lived shows last season, Clubhouse and Complete Savages--and fending off a stalker. Outside of a cameo on Complete Savages, and some supporting work in independent films, Gibson, the actor, hasn't starred in a Hollywood movie since 2002's Signs.
Quote from: MacGuffin
Since the passions over Passion died down, Gibson has focused on television--he produced two short-lived shows last season, Clubhouse and Complete Savages--and fending off a stalker. Outside of a cameo on Complete Savages, and some supporting work in independent films, Gibson, the actor, hasn't starred in a Hollywood movie since 2002's Signs.
Don't forget he produced Paparazzi.
Quote from: MacGuffinThe film is described as an action picture, set 3,000 years in the past. Details otherwise are sketchy
letterman said it's about the mayans, then he made fun of me.
I am a Christian and I get the message without seeing a 2 hour movie showing the never ending torcher of Jesus Christ. This is typical backwards thinking using guilt to force people to see this movie so a man can make sick amounts of money. I thought The Last Temptation of Christ was a much deeper movie with an ending that made you understand the true meaning of Jesus Christ. I dont wear religion on my sleeve, I just go with the flow and this movie was the same as seeing a Jim Carrey movie its funny for the first 2 minutes then its the same thing over and over again. :yabbse-thumbdown:
Gibson Asked to Stage Christ's Crucifixion
SYDNEY, Australia - Actor-director Mel Gibson has been asked to recreate the crucifixion of Jesus Christ in the streets of Sydney if the city is selected to host a major Catholic gathering in 2008, a newspaper reported.
Gibson's staging of the Stations of the Cross, a live interpretation of Christ's final hours, would be part of a bid by the city to secure the Catholic Church's World Youth Day in 2008, the Sydney Morning Herald reported Saturday.
The crucifixion reenactment — similar to scenes from Gibson's hugely successful film "The Passion of the Christ" — would begin with the Last Supper staged at Sydney's landmark Opera House at sunset, and would end with the crucifixion of Christ at St. Mary's Cathedral, according to bid documents the newspaper said it obtained.
The Archbishop of Sydney, George Pell, said intermediaries had approached Gibson about staging the event. Gibson's involvement with World Youth Day was on the city's "wish list," Pell said.
"He might well be attracted. I think his devotion to Christ is very real," he said.
The venue for the 2008 gathering, expected to attract an estimated 400,000 young Catholics from 160 countries, will be announced by the Pope on Aug. 21.
this is quite sad, idiotic, and uneccessary.
one of two things would be more tasteful:
A. showing the film
B. Mel Gibson growing a well groomed beard and nailing himself to the cross