The Passion of the Christ: please help me

Ok I finally got around to watching the passion of the Christ. What an awful movie. All the slow-mo and cheesy demon bits just made me think, made for T.V.

Did anyone actually think it was a good movie?

Did anyone think it was anti-semitic?

Did anyone think that the beatings were way over the top and that no-one would survive such punishment?

jesus definitely would have bled to death long before he even started carrying the cross. he took a helluva beating with those straps that had the hooks and barbs on the end. the only good thing about the film was the dialogue in aramaic. it's definitely not something i'll watch again.

Originally posted by joz:
jesus definitely would have bled to death long before he even started carrying the cross.

Yeah, that is what I thought.

So why glorify the violence? As if the story is not horrific enough. I really didn't understand the movie was made that way.

Originally posted by Forumie Partie Markie:
Did anyone think that the beatings were way over the top and that no-one would survive such punishment?

Not even god?

:D

Originally posted by Bags:
[Not even god?

:D

No, not even God. :D

I have not yet seen Passion as of yet, but from everything that I have heard and read about this movie, the whole point is that this is not intended to be Mel Gibsons portrayal of Jesus' death. It is simply Mel putting on screen as accurately as he can the story exactly as it is told in the four gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. Of course, there are bits in one gospel and not in another, so it's a conglomeration of them all. This bit about the whips having metal tips and stuff to increase the pain/bleeding is a detail that I'm not sure is actually in the Bible or not. However, it's probable that the research was done on the types of whips that Romans would use for this kind of thing, and that's why they added it. Glorification of violence? From a Catholic standpoint, especially hardcore oldschool Catholic such as Gibson is… that's the point. One should be able to meditate on the insanely intense and bloody experience Jesus went through, and this will help you focus on living a Godly life. And heck, Jesus defied the laws of physics while wallking on water, so i'm sure he found it no harder to defy the laws of anatomy and held in his blood long enough to do what had to be done.

But by focusing on the violence so singleheartedly means the spirituality of the story is lost. It does not really matter that it is Jesus being stomach churningly beaten anymore. Its just stomach churning.

You need to see the movie to comprehend how over the top it is.

I thought the point was to be realistic about the violence…it was horrific, so it comes off as horrific.

That said, I haven't seen the movie and won't – I refuse to feed any dubloons into the Gibson fundamentalist brand of catholicism. That's what's stomach churning to me, that the general public saw this is a 'catholic' movie, when it's really fundamentalism, which is a whole different story. Which I'm learning more about through "Under the Banner of Heaven," about fundamentalist Mormons – an entirely different movement from Mormonism generally.

I didn't really like it. Sad, yes. But near the end, it did get very Hollywoodesque - made for TV as you said.

Originally posted by Bags:
'catholic' movie,

You should see the movie.

I find the not wanting to support or give money to, or not wanting to suppory anti-semitism as poor arguments.

It really is just the bible story done gory and wrought with violence. I dont see any agenda in the movie, just that it is not very good and overly violent. Just like a regular Hollywood action flick.

Originally posted by El Tee:
I didn't really like it. Sad, yes. But near the end, it did get very Hollywoodesque - made for TV as you said.

*edit* I can't remember what scene it was – but as I recall near the end I thought "Aw come on". Just a bit too over the top. I got it. He was bleeding.

Originally posted by El Tee:
I didn't really like it. Sad, yes. But near the end, it did get very Hollywoodesque - made for TV as you said.

When he got nailed to the cross, I could guess the shot and the look of anguish….. And all in slow-mo too. Classy. If the movie had no slow-mo it would have been done in half the time.

I guess the movie would have been much better if it had carried on into the resurection. Stopping there is the pain without the elation.

what i find so interesting is the same people who were buying tickets in droves, are more than likely the same people who complain about the sex and violence in hollywood.

Originally posted by El Tee:
*edit* I can't remember what scene it was – but as I recall near the end I thought "Aw come on". Just a bit too over the top. I got it. He was bleeding.

Oh year the spear into the side of a dead man? I imagine little or no blood. He was dead no heart pumping. Instead we get a gusher! Niagra falls were shamed.

Originally posted by kosmo vinyl:
what i find so interesting is the same people who were buying tickets in droves, are more than likely the same people who complain about the sex and violence in hollywood.

Yeah, I found the conclusion, I would much rather watch a movie about sex than violence….

I'm trying to recall (there seem to be a couple "Aw, come on" moments). I think it was when they turned him over on the cross. The scene took forever (and to turn him back over). It's reported to have happened but man, sheesh, long scene. Also, the sound when they put in the "crown" on his head. Again, reported to have happened…and I'm not squemish.
I think this movie lost me after he was whipped.
Anyone think the two female leads were miscast? I think the woman who played Mary Magdalene should have played Mary.

Originally posted by kosmo vinyl:
what i find so interesting is the same people who were buying tickets in droves, are more than likely the same people who complain about the sex and violence in hollywood.

But you see this is different. This is portraying JC. These end up being the same people that complain about sex when even JC had Mary Magdalene.

Originally posted by hitman:
…when even JC had Mary Magdalene.

WHAT? You're crazy…you're buying in to that DH Lawrence/Martin Scorsese lunacy.

Since the movie came out, it surprises me how many people can offer an opinion about the movie, even without seeing it.

I did see the movie and thought the violence was gruesome. At the same time, I felt the movie was tastefully done. No previews, no opening credits, Aramaic very well done, the cinematography and scenery was stunning, and the acting was great.

The movie felt like an accurate interpretation and I did not feel as if it had anti-semetic subtexts. But that's just me.

I'll start by answering your first 3 question. I believe it was a good movie. Not because of the violence and the blood, but for the reason it actually gives the viewer some sort of interpertation of what happened to Christ. People read about it in the Bible, but never see it acted out in front of them to understand the magnitude of what actually happened.

I don't think the movie was anti-semitic, but I do believe that it protrayed the Romans worse than the Jews. Was it just me or was King Herrad protrayed as a little too gay. No disrespect to anyone, just a feeling I took from it.

The beating Christ took may have been over the top, but that was the Mr. Gibson's decision to show that this was Christ not you and me but Christ.

I'm no Jesus freak, but it was a good movie. Would I watch it again, probably not.