The Passion Of The Christ

[matt35mm]

Oh, and also, SWEET JESUS! this movie (from Wednesday to Sunday) made over $117.5 million!

[SHAFTR]

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.

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.

[mutinyco]

This was one of the worst films I've ever seen. It failed all around. I even fell asleep during the cross carrying.

[Jeremy Blackman]

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.

All the women in the movie struck me as pretty cliché, and even weak...

[matt35mm]

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."

[mutinyco]

It's not average, just plain bad.

[metroshane]

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.

[cine]

'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."

[matt35mm]

Congratulations to Monica Bellucci, who co-stars in both of the top two R-Rated movies of all time!

[SHAFTR]

Congratulations to Monica Bellucci, who co-stars in both of the top two R-Rated movies of all time!

congratulations to her bra.

[matt35mm]

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.

[SHAFTR]

has anyone ever seen this...


I have, and it really isn't that good.

[OmegaSlacker]

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?

[NEON MERCURY]

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.

cool Mac i agree w/ you.........

[Gold Trumpet]

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.