The Passion Of The Christ

[MoosethePR]

I 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.

[modage]

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.

[MacGuffin]

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.

Off the top of my head, American Beauty (Sept), Seabiscuit (July) and Silence Of The Lambs (Feb).

[modage]

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.

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.

[MacGuffin]

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.

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.

[Ghostboy]

The prime example would be City Of God, which came out this time last year.

[modage]

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.

[Ghostboy]

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.

[matt35mm]

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.

[modage]

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.

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?

[Ghostboy]

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.

[Jeremy Blackman]

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.

[Chest Rockwell]

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.

[NEON MERCURY]

.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.........

[Ghostboy]

JESUS 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.