I Saw "The Passion of the Christ" Tonight.

[big_bad_buff]

I don’t think his intent was to create a blockbuster movie that could top lord of the rings or what have you. He got the point across and covered all he needed to. That being what Jesus went through for you and I. much resoect for him for this. keep in mind he spent like 30 million of his own money to make this film

I had really looked forward to seeing this movie. I had heard great things about it, of course, and I think Mel Gibson is excellent at creating movies.

I was rather disappointed with this movie though. There was a whole lot of beating and it focused so much on it that I just didn't feel that it was a good movie. The music was nice, the cinematography was good, but on and on the beating lasted. Maybe that was the intent, but I got the point and it didn't need to continue on and on. They could've thrown more about Jesus into the movie. The story seemed weak and so much more could've been told in this movie.

This was not the best movie I've ever seen. I believe that Lord of the Rings is a good series of movies, I love Schindler's List and Titanic, but this didn't rank up there with any of those when looking at the total package . . . in my opinion.

 

[napolean22]

It was a good interpretation of the bible. Unfortunately, I don't believe that the bible tells an accurate story of "the son of god". I can't say for sure if Jesus (the one in the bible) is in-fact the son of god.

Remember the girl in the movie who was with Jesus' mom and brother? Her name is Mary Magnellen (sp?). There are theories based on other literature and accounts (not included in the bible) that propose that Mary M. was Jesus' wife, and that they had a son. This leads into the theory of a bloodline leading from Jesus to present day. Interesting huh? At the time the bible came out, christianity was at a critical moment in development and history. It is beleived that certain stories of what actually happened were left out in an attempt to make Christianity more appealing.

If this interests you, read "the da vinci code" and see the movie "the order". These will help you understand what I am talking about.

For me...well I can no longer say I am a christian. All I know is that I believe in god and have an interest in knowing the facts. Not as they are told in Christian propaganda, but as they happened in real life...unbiased accounts (as they continue to pop up) will change a lot of people`s views.

 

[Hangfire]

It was a good interpretation of the bible. Unfortunately, I don't believe that the bible tells an accurate story of "the son of god". I can't say for sure if Jesus (the one in the bible) is in-fact the son of god.

Remember the girl in the movie who was with Jesus' mom and brother? Her name is Mary Magnellen (sp?). There are theories based on other literature and accounts (not included in the bible) that propose that Mary M. was Jesus' wife, and that they had a son. This leads into the theory of a bloodline leading from Jesus to present day. Interesting huh? At the time the bible came out, christianity was at a critical moment in development and history. It is beleived that certain stories of what actually happened were left out in an attempt to make Christianity more appealing.

If this interests you, read "the da vinci code" and see the movie "the order". These will help you understand what I am talking about.

For me...well I can no longer say I am a christian. All I know is that I believe in god and have an interest in knowing the facts. Not as they are told in Christian propaganda, but as they happened in real life...unbiased accounts (as they continue to pop up) will change a lot of people`s views.

LMFAO.

 

[grahf2]

In the news,a church in my state put up a sign in front of their place that said "JEWS KILLED CHRIST"(referring to the movie) and lots of angry jewish people tore the sign down. Wish I couldve saw that.....

 

[JuicePimp]

It was a good interpretation of the bible. Unfortunately, I don't believe that the bible tells an accurate story of "the son of god". I can't say for sure if Jesus (the one in the bible) is in-fact the son of god.

Remember the girl in the movie who was with Jesus' mom and brother? Her name is Mary Magnellen (sp?). There are theories based on other literature and accounts (not included in the bible) that propose that Mary M. was Jesus' wife, and that they had a son. This leads into the theory of a bloodline leading from Jesus to present day. Interesting huh? At the time the bible came out, christianity was at a critical moment in development and history. It is beleived that certain stories of what actually happened were left out in an attempt to make Christianity more appealing.

If this interests you, read "the da vinci code" and see the movie "the order". These will help you understand what I am talking about.

For me...well I can no longer say I am a christian. All I know is that I believe in god and have an interest in knowing the facts. Not as they are told in Christian propaganda, but as they happened in real life...unbiased accounts (as they continue to pop up) will change a lot of people`s views.

The Da Vinci Code and The Order are both works of fiction and are intended to be received that way. These 'facts' you say keep popping up do not have any historical basis. People have been trying for years to disprove the Bible with history and it has not been done once.

The reason that there are so many stories and rumors, even some that date back to the early years after Christ is due to the many attemps by opposing groups to discredit him. If discord and distrust can be created within any group, the group will struggle and fail. That is what many people back then and even today wanted to see happen to the Christians.

Jesus did not marry or have children or even engage in sexual relations at all. The entire purpose of his life was to redeem humanity. As in the Old Testament, where a pure unblemished lamb was to be sacrificed for sins by the Jews, Jesus was to be THE sacrificial lamb for everyone. This is why people believe Jesus was without sin as well. If he was not the pure "Lamb of God" then how could he take away the sins of the world?

Religon is not about being able to prove anything. It is about believing based on faith. We accept and believe what we cannot know or understand.

However, one cannot pick and chose part of the Bible to believe or not. If you take away parts you run into problems in other places. Like the situation I presented above about Jesus being without sin and then becoming our sacrificial lamb. If you do not believe in the Virgin Birth, then unless you also dont believe in man being born into sin, you have another problem with Jesus not being pure. If you doubt Jesus' miracles or his claims to be the "Son of God," then he would have been a liar, which if true would destroy everthing.

 

[Apöllo]

I hate how there are these people ragging on the movie.

"Well for me there was just to much beating."

The movie was supposed to be brutal and it was supposed to only take place in the last hours.

"The movie doesn't talk enough about Jesus' teachings."

WTF? That's not what the movie was about. If you want to know about his teachings then go to church or read the bible.

I'm not talking exclusivly about EF members, but also all of these articles and reviews.

All the movie is for is to show you the horror of what happened to Jesus, nothing more and nothing less.

 

[BO-DEN]

i this guy sounds like some one that faints when he gets a paper cut...

MAN-UP

it was and extream movie depicting an extream event.

art is what it is.....

I'm sure this has probably been beaten to death here already(no pun intended), but I have to throw my .02 in about a few things concerning this flick.

First, if I had to use one word to describe this movie, I would probably go with "gross" first & foremost. I mean, ENOUGH ALREADY with pounding it into the audiences head how bad Christ suffered. The scene where the Roman soldiers scourge him is so drawn-out, and overboard that I almost left. I say "overboard", because I can't see how any human being could get beaten that fucking brutally and still be alive. I think at some point, you would probably slip into shock & die after what-100 lashes with sticks, then another 100 with 2 cat-of-9 tails, where his flesh was litterally ripping off with each lash(gross). He would NEVER have been able to live through that much torture. "Overboard" continues after that, when they make him carry a huge cross through the entire city, and up to Mount Whateverthefuck after that. Again, no way. The scene though, that really chapped my ass, and was to me obsurd, was after they drag Jesus body away, after nearly beating him to death, his Mother comes over, and cleans up his blood for them. What the hell was that all about?! I see you just tortured my Son nearly to death eh? Hey though, let me clean up his blood for you just the same. Rediculous.

As far as the whole controversy dealing with the Jews killing him, I will say this: They did. Those Jews were responsable for killing him. Not all Jews, but definitely those Jews. I mean, when given the choice to condemn either Barabus(a known murderer), or Jesus, Kiafus and the Jewish Council chose to have Jesus killed. I never did get what the big vendetta was that the Jewish Council had against Jesus, that would justify that type of need for retribution, as the movie never really went into it, and I'm no Biblical expert. It was clear though, that they considered Jesus as a huge threat for whatever reason, and were resposible for condemning him. I don't think that Jews should take it as anti-semetic though. I mean, history is history. That is what happened. If anyone should be offended, it is Italians. The soldiers were protrayed as drunken, blood-thirsty, sadistic morons.

On a side note: I thought the character of Lucifer was pretty cool. I love how he just kind of floats through the crowd as Jesus is carrying his Cross through the streets.

Anyhow, anyone agree with my acessment of the movie?

 

[big_bad_buff]

couldnt agree more man, i know what your saying. mel didnt mess up when he made the movie, it covers what it was suposed to cover. the beating was brutal because beatings were brutal back then. the movie shows was christ went through in his last hours on earth.

the one that I laugh about is(i think it was on like time magazine or something crazy) the title was called "who is to blame for killing jesus"

I hate how there are these people ragging on the movie.

"Well for me there was just to much beating."

The movie was supposed to be brutal and it was supposed to only take place in the last hours.

"The movie doesn't talk enough about Jesus' teachings."

WTF? That's not what the movie was about. If you want to know about his teachings then go to church or read the bible.

I'm not talking exclusivly about EF members, but also all of these articles and reviews.

All the movie is for is to show you the horror of what happened to Jesus, nothing more and nothing less.

 

[justyxxxx]

I don’t think his intent was to create a blockbuster movie that could top lord of the rings or what have you. He got the point across and covered all he needed to. That being what Jesus went through for you and I. much resoect for him for this. keep in mind he spent like 30 million of his own money to make this film

Personally, as someone who doesn't believe in the majority of the Bible, even though I do acknowledge that there may have been someone by the name of Jesus and that he had many followers, in this movie Jesus comes across as "just another guy that believes he has special powers." I wanted to love this movie and honestly the violence didn't even seem real to me. Some movies seem real, but this one didn't. It was just on and on with beating after beating but I didn't get emotionally attached to the character.

Maybe if I believed that Jesus held the powers that some of you do, then perhaps I would've gained more from this movie. But it failed to set Jesus apart from anyone else that's been severely beaten . . .

And I do believe that Mel Gibson intended for this to be a blockbuster. After all, he's talking about the beating of Jesus Christ. Driving Miss Daisy was made on a cheap budget with some actors and actresses not getting paid until the movie started bringing in money . . . and Driving Miss Daisy, to me, was a much better movie with an actual story than this movie. And it turned out to be a blockbuster. Mel Gibson may have funded most of this movie, especially if he chose to distribute it as well, in order to get more money when it did make money. I haven't read up on this, and it's just a thought, but it's possible. The Blair Witch Project was a cheaply made movie and it turned out to be a blockbuster.

More money doesn't equal guaranteed blockbuster, nor does it mean good movie. Maybe for some of you this was the best movie ever, but for me, no it wasn't.

 

[big_bad_buff]

Are you responding to my previous thread or something? I really can’t say anything because I have yet to see it(prob see it tonight) but I’m going from 20 or 30 people I know that have seen it and have told me about it.

I know what you’re talking about; it’s hard to get into a movie without getting attached to the characters and getting to know the situation etc, and this is why I think this movie is basically just to show people what Jesus actually went through for you and I, mostly intended more for people who have the basic understanding of the bible etc, not supposed to be a story, more like a documentary of the last 3 days of Jesus using what we know of it from bible scriptures.

Again, Jesus performed many miracles throughout his life, the movie is based on the last 3 days that he lived, nothing more.

Who knows what mel was thinking, he might have made it thinking it would make him a billionaire seeing there are 100+ million Christians that will watch it.

Personally, as someone who doesn't believe in the majority of the Bible, even though I do acknowledge that there may have been someone by the name of Jesus and that he had many followers, in this movie Jesus comes across as "just another guy that believes he has special powers." I wanted to love this movie and honestly the violence didn't even seem real to me. Some movies seem real, but this one didn't. It was just on and on with beating after beating but I didn't get emotionally attached to the character.

Maybe if I believed that Jesus held the powers that some of you do, then perhaps I would've gained more from this movie. But it failed to set Jesus apart from anyone else that's been severely beaten . . .

And I do believe that Mel Gibson intended for this to be a blockbuster. After all, he's talking about the beating of Jesus Christ. Driving Miss Daisy was made on a cheap budget with some actors and actresses not getting paid until the movie started bringing in money . . . and Driving Miss Daisy, to me, was a much better movie with an actual story than this movie. And it turned out to be a blockbuster. Mel Gibson may have funded most of this movie, especially if he chose to distribute it as well, in order to get more money when it did make money. I haven't read up on this, and it's just a thought, but it's possible. The Blair Witch Project was a cheaply made movie and it turned out to be a blockbuster.

More money doesn't equal guaranteed blockbuster, nor does it mean good movie. Maybe for some of you this was the best movie ever, but for me, no it wasn't.