The Passion Of The Christ

[Cecil]

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.

[SHAFTR]

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?

[modage]

anything.

you're alive?!?

How 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.

[Cecil]

anything.

you're alive?!?

yes. all those who thought i had offed myself, raise your hands

[Ghostboy]

It was considered, but we decided you were too smart and crafty to do that.

[puddnanners]

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.

[MacGuffin]

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.

[analogzombie]

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.

[SHAFTR]

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.

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?

[ShanghaiOrange]

I think it would be funny if they started playing "All-Star" by Smash Mouth at the end.

[SHAFTR]

I 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.

[Alethia]

this film was an abolutely overwhelming experience.

[European Son]

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.  

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.

[cine]

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.

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?

[matt35mm]

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.

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.