This is topic Passion of the Christ in forum Film Handlers' Movie Reviews at Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE.


To visit this topic, use this URL:
https://ft-forum.com/ft/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=4;t=000731
Posted by Chris Hipp (Member # 1788) on 02-21-2004, 02:34 AM:
 
Well, this is definitely not a movie for the weak stomached. I do not see what all the controversy is about, the events in the movie are nearly exact with that in the new testament. I think that the violence will hurt this movie after opening weekend.

Well done.

Edit: after reading Jason's post:

I too am Atheist, please don't get the wrong idea just because I liked this movie. Anyone interested in religion or history will like this film, if you can stand the gore.

[ 02-22-2004, 01:01 AM: Message edited by: Chris Hipp ]
 
Posted by Kevin Wale (Member # 1851) on 02-21-2004, 02:54 AM:
 
Just saw the movie.

I have never had such a mix of so many emotions and thoughts at once. The sheer sadness of it combined with the pure joy of it... it's unbelievable what Mel has pulled off here.

Considering the fact that the high priest was at the cross when they took Jesus down off of it without his headress, I think it is without any possible debate that there can be no antisemetism derived from anyone who is able to understand the simplest in story presentation. Especially since Mel clearly made a huge point to show very strongly that things were done in secrecy because the council would have likely never approved and many of the pharisees thought the whole thing was a farce.

The most brilliant scene as far as impact goes one with Satan but I won't give any details. I'll just say it gave me goosebumps.

Christians are going to have a very hard time watching this movie because so much of it is so heartbreaking. You know the end. You know the reason. You know you're at fault. You know the power, yet it is heartbreaking.

I really don't know how the average non christian will take the film. It's a powerful film and it's very emotional. I do feel nearly everyone will think it's an excellent work. Some of the things that are high tension moments may not have the same effect on someone who doesn't have a passion for what is happening. I also feel no one will be able to take thier eyes off the screen.

The only bad thing is that there is probably more cap code than I have yet seen in a film. Or, it's at least all relatively close together where maybe other films have it more spread out. I don't think most people will notice... I just don't blink very often when I am really into a movie. lol

If people will watch this movie and pay attention to Jesus' line about him chosing to give up his life and that no one(that would mean not Jews, not Romans, not nails, or whips) can take it from him uless he allows them to, they will have the answers to thier questions about who is to blame. I mean, just from a purely intellectual standpoint, I cannot see how there can be an issue here unless people just chose to not pay attention.

I've read about people feeling Mel went too soft on Pilate... it sure looked to me like he was painted as a spineless weakling dictated by fear... just like Peter was whom we know was forgiven according to the movie and the bible. I really felt Mel didn't let anyone off the hook in this movie. The slightest tiny bit of doubt seemed amplified in every character that felt it(all of them).

Photagraphy was excellent. There was a few times there was so much quick camera movement you just couldn't make heads or tails of the shot you just saw. Not to where it made the plot hard to follow, just enough to make you have to readjust your eyes for a second. It fits Mel's jittery mannerisms. lol

The music is FANTASTIC! Wow even.

The acting was even better. The language was beautiful to listen to and the actors delivered it so well.

Hmmm, I can't think of any of the other points theatre buff types would be interested in reading.
 
Posted by Chris Hipp (Member # 1788) on 02-21-2004, 03:09 AM:
 
Just an FYI, that guy at the cross was Joseph of Aramethea, he owned the garden of gethsemane where Jesus' tomb. I dont know how to spell those names.
 
Posted by Kevin Wale (Member # 1851) on 02-21-2004, 02:27 PM:
 
Oh, I didn't think about Joseph being there. Still, the scene with the high priest crying after the temple was destroyed, it was done with a tinge of him "getting it." He was the one so adament about the temple being destroyed and rebuilt in three days. It was clear to me that he realized that that was exactly what had happened. Also, with Jesus praying for him just before that, I think it's safe to assume that it would have been something he thought about. Whether in real life it happend or not, Mel clearly showed that there was salvation for those directly responsible for Christ's death in the natural as well as salvation for all of us who killed him because of our sins as well. It was a clear demonstration of how the Jews indeed aren't any more responsible than I am. They were just the tool there at the time to be used.
 
Posted by Jason Black (Member # 684) on 02-22-2004, 12:43 AM:
 
WOW.

Viewing this film has proven to me that I actually know very little regarding the historical events told in the Bible.

Thankfully, I had co-workers who helped explain things to me that I did not understand. For those who KNOW the Bible, this will be a VERY moving film. For those who don't, I can see many questions that would need to be answered to more fully understand what was just viewed.

I, personally, found the film to be just as powerful as the buzz informed us it would be. I think that Mel Gibson has done an awe inspiring depiction of the crucifixtion of Christ. It is clearly evident that he, along with Jim Caviziel (sp?) have really put their heart into this film.

In my opinion, they have far surpassed my expectations. I expect big things to happen as a result of this film. It it sure to open the eyes of many.

BTW, I viewed the film with an atheist, who gave praise to the film as well.

Kevin, I noticed that CRAP CODE as well. It was as bad, or worse than in Master and Commander, which, to date, has had the worst insertion of CRAP CODE I've noticed.
 
Posted by Aaron Garman (Member # 1653) on 02-22-2004, 03:05 AM:
 
I'm still speechless. Never has it been so silent at the end of a film at our place. This film has made me rethink a few things. It scared me, but also gave me hope in something better that lays ahead.

AJG
 
Posted by Mark J. Marshall (Member # 1409) on 02-22-2004, 11:43 AM:
 
I really enjoyed this movie. Without going into too much detail, I'll say that even after hearing the story told in church and Sunday school hundreds of times, and reading the Gospels, and seeing biblical movies about Jesus' life from Jesus Of Nazareth to Jesus Christ Superstar, and thinking I know the basic story, nothing prepared me for this movie. Believers who have accepted Christ would be well advised to bring lots of tissues with them when they go to see The Passion.

As to the anti Semitic claims, they're unfounded. I had no animosity towards Jewish people going in, and I have none now, and I didn't get the slightest hint that that was any part of the story line or any kind of hidden or direct message embedded in the film. Anyone who thinks otherwise after seeing the movie should go back and re-read the gospels and be prepared to back up their claims that Mel pulled the gospel story in that direction.

This was not the most violent movie ever made, as some in the press would have you believe, but it was pretty gruesome at times. And there were a few scenes that shocked me a little more than I expected to be shocked going in. I'll be curious to see how many people take their children with them.

Technically, I noticed no title in the beginning, which I thought was interesting. And also, the crap code on our print is not that bad. I noticed it in the fifth reel, but it wasn't intrusive at all, which we're all very thankful for.

And for those interested in my background, I was born and raised Episcopalian, although I now consider myself a non-denominational Christian.

Mark
 
Posted by Tim Reed (Member # 137) on 02-22-2004, 01:10 PM:
 
I cannot wait to see this film.
quote:
For those who KNOW the Bible, this will be a VERY moving film. For those who don't, I can see many questions that would need to be answered to more fully understand what was just viewed.
Incidentally, for those who find it difficult to take the Bible at face value, there's a great book by Dan Story called "Defending Your Faith" that puts everything in perspective and offers answers to common (but logical) objections. It sure convinced me.
 
Posted by Wolff King Morrow (Member # 2226) on 02-22-2004, 05:10 PM:
 
Edit:

My apologies for editing my posts. I was informed by my employers that I am not allowed to discuss anything pertaining to operation, proceedures, profits, or wages of the company I work for on this or any other public media. Please note I was NOT aware of such a policy, so I apologize for the disruption of the thread.

Thanks for your understanding on this. -Wolff

[ 03-02-2004, 09:51 PM: Message edited by: Wolff King Morrow ]
 
Posted by Richard Greco (Member # 2032) on 02-24-2004, 08:56 AM:
 
Whoa.......

This was very disturbing....

I saw it yesterday at the employee screening and I just can't describe in words how it made me feel. I am religious but not extreme and I felt the full brunt of this film. There were many moments that shocked me and scared me. To think about the sheer brutality that people are capable of......

In our employee screenings usually we are talking and joking throughout and don't even stay to watch the credits....

Everyone was completely silent and solemn through the movie and when the credits rolled, we all were just....still.

This is going to effect many people on many levels.

I walked into a screening that a church bought out last night and I heard many people weeping and sniffling. This was heavy.

Definitely a 5/5
 
Posted by Ian Price (Member # 14) on 02-24-2004, 02:10 PM:
 
David Denby

quote:
"One of the cruelest movies in the history of cinema," says the New Yorker's David Denby in a negative review that also calls the film "a sickening death trip, a grimly unilluminated procession of treachery, beatings, blood and agony."

Critic Denby adds, 'For two hours ... we watch, stupefied as a handsome, strapping, at times half-naked young man is slowly tortured to death. Gibson is thoroughly fixated on the scourging and crushing of Christ and is so meagerly involved in the spiritual meanings of the final hours, that he falls in danger of altering Jesus's message of love into one of hate."
Thankfully we got the Rodger Eber 4-star review in our local paper.
 
Posted by Michael Schaffer (Member # 1204) on 02-24-2004, 03:11 PM:
 
quote:
Gibson is thoroughly fixated on the scourging and crushing of Christ and is so meagerly involved in the spiritual meanings of the final hours
That is why it is called the passion meaning the transition under suffering. That Jesus suffered and died for the rest of mankind IS the central spiritual meaning.
 
Posted by Greg Mueller (Member # 17) on 02-24-2004, 03:39 PM:
 
Haven't seen this film but after these reviews I plan to.
A film which affected me much the same as the reviewers here was Jesus Christ Super Star. When I saw it in it's original release it gave me a whole new slant on Christ's message. Although the title is kind of a turn off it really is a wonderful film.
Maybe I'll go this weekend....
Thanks guys
 
Posted by Brett Garten (Member # 1996) on 02-24-2004, 06:37 PM:
 
Saw it yesterday morning at screencheck for premiere tonight. German print. A bit smudgy and grainy. Loved the film. A brutal spectacle. Seemed very relevant. Persecution, injustice, prejudice, ignorance. It makes you think. It also makes you cry. Especially the second half.

Had a memo saying no ads, slides or trailers to accompany film - straight to feature. Souvenier booklets with every ticket. Just like the good old days. What was the last film you got a booklet for? And what was the last film to play feature only? Wondering why - to heighten the impact. The last thing you want to see before a movie like this is Coke commercials and a trailer for Agent Cody Banks 2.

Let's not forget Mel's dad is a well-known conspiracy buff here in Australia. It's easy to read the film as a slander to Jews. There's even a scene you could say is gay-bashing. And yes you could agree with Denby and say the film focusses on the gross and gory spectacle of Christ's death. But isn't that what a passion play is all about. Very primal.

It makes this job exciting when you get a unique and powerful film to show. We should be taking up on a crown of thorns.

What do you think?
 
Posted by Lauren Fisher (Member # 1905) on 02-25-2004, 03:19 AM:
 
i saw the passion sunday night with a fellow ub and a manager. i have a habit of talking in the middle of the films about stupid things, i did very little in this one. i love the way the movie was done...how when hes going through the brutality of humans some of them remember how they felt and how it was like to meet jesus for the first time. i did well until the lords supper hit and by then i needed a box of tissues.

my parents called me to find out how it was and my advice to peoples is that if you have a weak stomach...dont eat, and bring a box of tissues.

i do believe that this movie will have an impact on not only believers but others as well.
 
Posted by Demetris Thoupis (Member # 833) on 02-25-2004, 04:27 AM:
 
Have not seen the movie yet but sure sounds promising. I don't know when it will hit Cyprus screens but I am really DYING to see it after reading all of your reviews. Knowing from Mel Gibson sure this film will be a HUGE hit.
Demetris
 
Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 02-25-2004, 04:45 AM:
 
quote:
my advice to peoples is that if you have a weak stomach...dont eat
Hmmmm, I do believe the movie grill is already sold out all opening weekend. Hmmmmmmmmm, chicken tenders followed by [puke]
 
Posted by Peter Berrett (Member # 672) on 02-26-2004, 05:37 AM:
 
Hi all

I haven't seen this film ( I doubt I will as I prefer comedies and I'm not into gore) but I couldn't help wondering whether Mel will make sequels ie Passion of Christ 2, 3, 4 etc.

How about a sequel where the central character returns and teams up with a black guy to clean up the streets of Jerusalem?

You make think that the biblical story would make this impossible but not so. Remember - this is Hollywood!

cheers Peter
 
Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 02-26-2004, 09:56 AM:
 
A sequel based on "The Book of Mormon"?:

http://scriptures.lds.org/bm/contents

quote:
THE
BOOK OF MORMON
ANOTHER TESTAMENT OF JESUS CHRIST
http://scriptures.lds.org/bm/intrdctn

quote:
The crowning event recorded in the Book of Mormon is the personal ministry of the Lord Jesus Christ among the Nephites soon after his resurrection. It puts forth the doctrines of the gospel, outlines the plan of salvation, and tells men what they must do to gain peace in this life and eternal salvation in the life to come.
Palmyra (site of Hill Cumorah) New York is just east of Rochester:

http://www.lds.org/placestovisit/region/0,10749,1775-1-1,00.html

http://www.lds.org/placestovisit/location/0,10634,1831-1-1-1,00.html

quote:
Experience the excitement, drama, and pageantry of America's largest and most spectacular outdoor theatrical event, focusing on the Book of Mormon: Another Testament of Jesus Christ.

The Hill Cumorah Pageant: America's Witness for Christ is a magnificent, family-oriented production complete with earthquakes, lightning, and a 37-foot erupting volcano. Seven sound stages, all with digital sound and state-of-the-art lighting, transform the hill into a scene from America's past.

The pageant portrays the account of a group of people who left Jerusalem about 600 B.C. and were guided to what is now the American continent. Live actors depict events that lead up to the climactic visit of Jesus Christ to the Americas.

A history of this people, written on gold plates, was deposited in this hill approximately A.D. 420 by Moroni, the last survivor of a great civilization. In 1827, Moroni returned as an angel and delivered the gold plates to Joseph Smith, who translated them through the power of God. The translation of the gold plates is called the Book of Mormon: Another Testament of Jesus Christ.

The Hill Cumorah Pageant: America's Witness for Christ is a testimony in drama and music that Jesus Christ is the Savior of the world. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has hosted this spectacular, all-volunteer pageant since 1937.

While you're in the Palmyra area, visit the Hill Cumorah Visitors' Center and interesting sites relating to the Book of Mormon and its translator, Joseph Smith.

 
Posted by Chris Hipp (Member # 1788) on 02-26-2004, 02:36 PM:
 
I actually just watched the trailer for the book of mormon movie on DVD. They sent it to me on 35mm and dvd. It looks like a decent movie, but I would probably not be able to stop laughing. Mormons...
 
Posted by Michael Schaffer (Member # 1204) on 02-26-2004, 03:03 PM:
 
quote:
The pageant portrays the account of a group of people who left Jerusalem about 600 B.C. and were guided to what is now the American continent. Live actors depict events that lead up to the climactic visit of Jesus Christ to the Americas.
Is that a joke?

Has there ever been a movie about the further life of Peter, how he travels to Rome to found the church and gets martyred? The only movie I can think of right now which deals with events in the aftermath of the crucification is Ben Hur.
 
Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 02-26-2004, 03:35 PM:
 
quote:
Is that a joke?
No, it's part of the Mormon faith.

I'm a Roman Catholic, but I respect other religions, and have enjoyed attending the Hill Cumorah pageant, which is presented for a week each July in Palmyra NY, about 20 miles east of where I live.

quote:
The only movie I can think of right now which deals with events in the aftermath of the crucification is Ben Hur.

And "The Robe".
 
Posted by James Leon Rockett Jr (Member # 2140) on 02-26-2004, 04:12 PM:
 
The Passion of the Christ was just.... powerful.. and moving.. and heavy.

By no means am I really religious, but it was a beautiful film and very impactful. Definately one of the movies that you "have to see."
 
Posted by Claude S. Ayakawa (Member # 1401) on 02-26-2004, 04:49 PM:
 
"BEN-HUR" did not deal with the aftermath of the crucifixion. It ended there when Judah Ben-Hur is reunited with his mother and sister as the rain washes away the blood of Jesus and the sins of the world. At this time both mother and sister has been cleansed of their leprosy by the Lord.

Although "THE ROBE" had a setting before and after the crucifixion, the story itself was based on a fictitious novel by General Lew Wallace. Although "QUO VADIS" was also a fictional dramatization of the aftermath of the crucifixion, it is set during Emperor Nero's reign ending with the burning of Rome and his death. The persecution of the Christians and the death of Peter are however based on history and the gospel. The most touching scene in the entire film shows Peter fleeing Rome until he hears the voice of God asking him, "Quo vadis domine?" (Where are you going?) He returns to Rome and is apprehended and crucified up side down at his own request. He did this because he felt he was unworthy to die the same way as the Lord after denying him three times as was foretold at the last supper

-Claude
 
Posted by Michael Schaffer (Member # 1204) on 02-26-2004, 05:19 PM:
 
And this is where he was crucified (at least according to the Catholic church which build this really big cathedral on top of the site):
-

Anyway, back to the topic - I found this movie very impressive, but I found the violence a bit over the top. Not in the sense that I found it offensive. As I said earlier, the immense suffering is part of the passion. But somehow it was so much that it wasn`t believable any more. It gets to look more like an elaborate make-up job than a suffering man.
When the soldier thrusts the lance in his side, the pool of blood that rains on the bystanders is just too trashy-looking.
I am also undecided what to think of the devil, even though he (she?it?) was done in a very interesting way. But I didn`t like the "monster moments" with those children.
As far as authenticity is concerned, I was a bit surprised by the renaissance-style high gloss of the images. It does take away a lot of the grittyness of the scenery.
BTW, the Latin they spoke was not classical Latin. We do not really know what it sounded like, and I think it must have had a speech melody somewhat like Italian, but we do know for sure that some of the consonants were pronounced different at that time. The C and G were not soft as in modern Italian (like they pronounced it in the movie), but always hard. So, "voce" is vo-ke, not vo-che. "Intellegere" has a hard g as in "get", not intelle-jere. Latin words were always transliterated into other languages like that. You can actually hear in the movie that the Jewish priest refers to the emperor as "ka-e-sar", not "cea-sar" or "cha-e-sar".
 
Posted by Michael Gonzalez (Member # 593) on 02-27-2004, 11:06 AM:
 
The Latin they spoke is/was called "Street Latin".

After viewing the movie, I can see now that it was shot in a way so that provided the audience had a understanding of the New Testament, you would have been able to follow what was going on even with out the subtitles like Mel had originally wanted.
 
Posted by Michael Schaffer (Member # 1204) on 02-27-2004, 06:05 PM:
 
quote:
The Latin they spoke is/was called "Street Latin".
That reflects on the grammar, but not on the consonant values which shifted to soft c and g only much later around the middle of the first millenium AD. Pilatus was not from Rome, but from an area further south, but as an educated man and high official he certainly spoke High Latin. If anything, his Latin would have been harder even because the area he came from was settled by a lot of people of Greek ancestry. He would also not have spoken to the Jewish priesthood in their language, but they would have spoken in his language or through an interpreter (which I agree would have messed up the pacing of those scenes).
 
Posted by David Stambaugh (Member # 1102) on 02-29-2004, 06:46 PM:
 
29 Feb 2004, Regal Cinema World 8, Eugene OR, 12 noon, House #3, probably DTS. Attendance ~400, a sellout for practical purposes even if there were a few empty seats. No complaints about presentation -- very good. They showed rolling stock and the Regal Roller Coaster, but no trailers at all. MovieTunes has been replaced with something called Widescreen Radio but sounds basically similar.

Not the usual moviegoing crowd. I have no doubt that many of these viewers hadn't been inside a movie theater in many years.

Minor complaint: While the credits were rolling, they had 1 hour and 15 mins. until the next show, but the cleaning crew was antsy to get in while there were still people inside. They could have easily waited 5 more mins. for the auditorium to empty out.

This film is quite devastating to watch. I'm still mulling it over. I don't think I've ever seen anything like it. Maybe Schindler's List. I had to close my eyes a couple of times because I couldn't bear to watch the brutality.

One critic who despised the film nitpicked about the body makeup looking fake. To criticize this film on that level is to entirely miss the point. [Confused] [Roll Eyes]
 
Posted by Greg Anderson (Member # 235) on 02-29-2004, 11:02 PM:
 
The Book of Mormon Movie, Volume 1: The Journey = Laughably cheap and an embarrassment to anyone who A) is a Mormon and/or B) Works in the Utah movie production industry. Or, maybe I should start a new thread. (I was too curious and couldn't resist seeing the movie last Fall.) No... I won't. But Mormons can take heart because at least the Church itself didn't make this movie... just Mormon director with more ambition than he had money or filmmaking skills.
 
Posted by Michael Schaffer (Member # 1204) on 03-01-2004, 02:34 AM:
 
Utah has a movie industry?
 
Posted by Wolff King Morrow (Member # 2226) on 03-01-2004, 02:39 AM:
 
For a complete guide to the mormon faith, simply watch the episode of South Park called "All about Mormons". I had never bothered to find out what Mormons actually believed in, so I was quite amazed at how.. shall we say, "strange" their story is...

I was even more amazed when I found out that South Park did NO embellishing of the story!
 
Posted by Jason Thode (Member # 1854) on 03-03-2004, 02:49 AM:
 
This movie may be controversal and gruesome but it was done correctly. My hat goes off to Mel Gibson for making this movie and directing it the way he did. The way the film was shot through different angles, and how it was made using the old langauge with sub-titles adds flavor to this pic as well as not leaving any confusion. I find that from start to end the movie had the best acting and direction that can be achieved by anyone to tell the tale of Jesus's crucifiction. A true work of art, and should be considered one of the best pictures ever to hit the silver screen. [thumbsup] GO MEL! [Big Grin]
 
Posted by Tim Reed (Member # 137) on 03-05-2004, 09:49 AM:
 
This was one of the most moving experiences I've ever had! I was speechless, as was the rest of the audience. The flashback to the Last Supper, as they were nailing him to the cross, did me in.

The authenticity brought through elements like the use of the original languages was beautiful. The staging and cinematography were stunning. The music, breathtaking. Technically, it is an impressive work, at the pinnacle of film craftsmanship.

Mel Gibson has created a masterpiece. God bless him for his perseverence in bringing this vision to the screen. I certainly hope Hollywood will take a good long look and maybe reassess its direction. Undoubtedly, the movie will create a renewal of conviction amongst the populace. It sure did with me.

Truly an awe-inspiring picture.
 
Posted by Greg Mueller (Member # 17) on 03-07-2004, 11:35 AM:
 
[thumbsdown] [thumbsdown]

The wife and I saw this last night with about 85 other people at the local Regal plex (hey your shutter timing is out a bit).

Ok, so what was it that was so "great" about this movie?

***Spoilers***

Was it how well the spfx department can depict flesh sliced and diced to ribbons?
Or maybe it was the crow pecking out the eyeballs of that guy on the cross.
Maybe the spike being driven into JC's hands and ankles?

As someone said before, after about 5 minutes watching JC get tortured, all I wanted is for the movie to be over. Does that make it powerful?
If Mel wanted to impress us with the pain and suffering I'm afraid this movie back fired at least for the wife and I. After a bit we got numb and then disgusted, not with the torture but with Mel G. I mean how many times can you see JC get whacked with some torture device or blunt instrument and see his head jerk back in pain and see those bloody teeth? I found my self saying "Jesus Christ, get on with it"

What I did like...
Costuming was great. Sets great. actually everything was great except the torture.

Linda thinks maybe Mel is a masochist or sadist.

As for the Jews (et al) bitching about this film.... I don't see what it is they are complaining about.

This movie has made it on the curiosity element. The big rush to the box office is to see what all the hub-bub is about. I don't believe a lot of second timers will be going to this film.
Just my opinion.

PS
Linda read my review and suggested I say something about all the horrible things that have been done through out history in the name of religion. I think you can add this movie to the list.
 
Posted by Oscar Neundorfer (Member # 458) on 03-07-2004, 12:53 PM:
 
quote:
If Mel wanted to impress us with the pain and suffering I'm afraid this movie back fired at least for the wife and I.
I think Mel DID want to impress us with the incredible amount of pain and suffering. One of my favorite lines from a Christian song is this:

"I'll never know how much it cost,
To see my sin upon that cross."

Believe me, after seeing this film, I have a MUCH better idea of the price that was paid. I did not realize how much better an idea until in church this morning, it was all I could do to take Communion without breaking down and crying in absolute gratitude for what was done for me.
 
Posted by Pravin Ratnam (Member # 1417) on 03-07-2004, 03:16 PM:
 
I have mixed feelings about the movie, but overall a positive review. For the record, I am an agnostic Hindu who is skeptical of religion. I have defended even Scorsese's attempt at Last Temptation of Christ and even felt he wimped out a bit in that movie. And after seeing Passion, and then seeing Last Temptation on Bravo, I realize Martin Scorsese's version was not as good as I remembered it to be.

Havin said that, I have lots of respect for Gibson's attempt. This movie is made with a lot of passion and as a moviegoer , this is very important to me. I would rather see a flawed movie full of passion than some generic bland crap. That's why I am such a fan of Oliver Stone movies even if I am skeptical of some of his viewpoints.

My only nitpicks with Passion were the overuse of music, slo mo and quick camera movements in the first 20 minutes. Scenes like the throwing of coins in slo mo to Judas looked great in the trailer, but the style of that scene looked a bit contrived when you watch it in the movie itself. The arrest of Jesus had shades of Gladiator redux.

ANTI SEMITISM WHINING:
I hate to agree with the likes of Falwell, but I do not understand the fuss by Jewish leaders. They are really inviting more of a backlash with their protests instead of their whining about Gibson. The only anti Jewish issue I had was the softening of the Pilates character. But Gibson was following only what was preached to him before. I went to a catholic school for a few years and I don't remember Pilates as being portrayed significantly worse. Maybe Jewish leaders are afraid to break their political alliance with the far right and made Gibson the scapegoat. They should try to set the record straight as they see fit, but without trying to make it anti Passion protest. However one may view Pilates portrayal, it is balanced by the following
- Gibson does give screen time to the Pharisees who protest Yeshua's treatment.
-The Romans, not the mob of Jewish hecklers, are given a lot more closeups and screentime in terms of cruelly taunting and torturing Jesus.
- When the guy who helps Jesus move the cross is excused by the romans, he is taunted as "go away Jew" or something similar. Mel Gibson did not have to put this reference to the guy's jewishness. He could have just as easily ended that scene without the taunt by the Roman soldier. If anything, Mel has made it clear with his one scene that it was the power struggle of the Pharisees, not the Jewishness of the Pharisees that turned them against Jesus.
- There are people in the mob who are obviously Jewish. Is that any different from the English mob gathering to see William Wallace tortured to death in Braveheart? Is Gibson an Anti-English bigot? If you make a movie about Jesus, would you include Greeks in the mob just to make jewish leaders happy?

VIOLENCE: Maybe I am jaded. I didn't think the gore was gratuitous. The whole point of the movie was this - Jesus died for your sins voluntarily. If you can't even watch his sufferering, your pain is not even a fraction of the pain he endured first hand. The least you could do is at least experience that pain many levels off, to appreciate his sacrifice. Maybe, a lot of moderate christians are in denial and try to act embarassed by Gibson's use of violence. But if I were a believer, I would think that this use of violence is appropriate. The manner of the death and being saved by Jesus is the SINGLE MOST recruiting tool used by missionaries I have encountered. Whenever, someone tries to convert me, they make this an important point. It is better to sin and be saved , rather than follow all of Jesus's teachings , but not accept him as the son of god and that he died for your sins.

Mother and Son: I liked the fact that GIbson used Mary to portray a mother's grief and helplessness at having to see her song being tortured to death. Very well acted.

Shame on the New York Times for their coverage of this movie. The movie I saw bore no relation to the coverage by the Times. Their obvious bias even extended to neutral areas like predicting the box office of the movie. Just 2 or 3 days before release, they were predicting only 35-50M in the first weekend, while we all seemed to be aware that 100M in 5 days was a possibility. I wish Newmarket was public, because ever since December, I was predicting big things for this company(with Monster, Passion) this quarter and wished I could buy stock in their company.

Oh and I am aware that this movie could be used for the wrong reasons by right wingers like Falwell. But that should not be used against the movie. I do find it interesting that people like Falwell really don't give a damn about what they claim to be Jesus's teachings. They only care that you need to be saved. POLITICAL RANT ON: They are the same people who are all gungho about preemptive violence and whatever coverups it takes. Geez, I wonder what Jesus would do when it comes to influencing regime changes and lies justifying such actions(just to paraphrase some religious folk who like to use that slogan).
POLITICAL RANT OFF

While I was aware that Jesus was never the actual name, watching this movie just made me want to ask this question. How did the name Yeshua ever get morphed into Jesus ? It's not like Yeshua is such a hard name to pronounce. Why would someone decide to use another name to refer to him?

[ 03-07-2004, 06:10 PM: Message edited by: Pravin Ratnam ]
 
Posted by Greg Mueller (Member # 17) on 03-07-2004, 03:58 PM:
 
Well since none of us has a time machine, including Mel Gibson, we must keep in mind that this was an >interpretation< of the events of that time by the director. No one alive today can say one way or the other if the crucifixion was like this movie or not.
So folks, take a step back and keep in mind that this is Mel Gibson speaking to us, not god. Lets not get the story confused with the interpretation.
 
Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 03-07-2004, 04:16 PM:
 
Here's my take on the film, a few days after seeing it.

Screening: Carmike Cinemas, Screen #4 (THX), audio in DTS, 7:00pm showing, Tuesday 3/2.

First thought: What possessed so many parents to bring elementary school age kids to watch this movie? Are they on drugs or something? They must have taken some kind of "stupid pills" to expose children to this kind of violence and wanton cruelty. It really had me bothered.

Overall, I found the film to be a powerful statement about Christ's last 12 hours. That's all the film intended to be. It did not intend to tell the entire story of Christ's life. The film's title says what it is. Take it or leave it. IMHO, the film works more for those who are familiar with the story of Christ. There are a number of points in the movie not fully explained, and just merely implied with quick flashbacks and other such devices.

It is a pretty rare thing for me to be moved to tears by anything in a movie, and I really didn't expect to be watery eyed by this film either. However, I did find one point deeply moving. After Jesus was unmercifully flogged by the Roman soldiers, Mary and Mary Magdelene were on their hands and knees sponging up his blood off the stone floor of the courtyard. Mary thinks back to when she was on her hands and knees at Jesus' feet, when he saved her life. This is all the movie shows. But I found it to be a very powerful counterpoint. Mary sees the price Jesus paid in saving her life over her sins in prostitution. The priests wanted to stone her to death. The film did not have to have Jesus say "let he who is without sin cast the first stone." I imagined him saying it. Jesus was a man who had great love for all people and belived everyone was worth salvation. Whether or not you believe him to be the son of God, the guy did indeed have quite a lot of guts for standing up for his principals.

To be honest, I was expecting the movie to be more violent than it actually was. So, if anyone is avoiding the film over the violence, I have to say I have seen worse. Critics like Roger Ebert were calling it the most violent movie he has have ever seen. I was expecting a sustained, unrelenting ordeal. "The Passion of the Christ" is still not something I would allow any child under 13 to see even when accompanied by parents. The scene where Jesus is flogged, first with wood rods and then with cats of nine tails was certainly enough to warrant an NC-17 rating. That part of the movie really had me squirming. But the rest of it had violence no worse than a lot of R-rated movies I've seen. Films like "Man Bites Dog," "Henry: Portrait of a Serial Killer" and even "Schindler's List" I believe have more horrible levels of violence in them.

I cannot say I left the movie on any kind of "good movie high". The thing on my mind was how little mankind has learned in the 2000 years since Jesus' death. We have popular cultures that champion monetary greed, physical and psychological cruelty and sexual excess with cartoon superficiality. In the last century we have seen madmen like Hilter, Joeseph Stalin and Mao Tse Tung butcher people by the millions. One could look at these occurences and call Jesus a fool for dying for our sins. We're not showing that we're worth the trouble. Even Satan told Jesus that. But leaders lead by example. Jesus showed us the real definition of honor. Stupid sheep will follow cruel people out of fear and give rise to dictators.

My complaint about the film:
CRAP CODE!!!
The film print of "The Passion of the Christ" I watched had some of the worst instances of cap code I have seen yet in a movie. The dots were tattooed on the screen in key parts of the film. When Pontius Pilate literally washed his hands of Jesus and handed him over to the mob, Crap Code was all over the screen. It was so bad that if you took snap shots of the 14 stations of the cross cap code would appear on all of them. It had me thinking of how Jack Valenti would look on a cross.

Passion Plays
Every year on Easter Weekend, the Lawton-Fort Sill area draws thousands of tourists to watch the Passion Play in the Wichita Mountains. The play is held in what is known as "The Holy City," a missionary built in the 1800's. I'm pretty curious to see what kind of effect "The Passion of the Christ" may have on attendance at this event as well as affecting any of the dramatic narrative in the program.
 
Posted by Carl Martin (Member # 1146) on 03-08-2004, 03:34 AM:
 
quote:
How did the name Yeshua ever get morphed into Jesus ?
i'm in a linguistic mood so let's have a stab. jesus (or iesvs) would be the latinization of yeshua, and would have been pronounced much the same (something like YAY-soos, i'm guessing), but with the familiar -us ending. this spelling survived as latin was for a long time the "official" language not only of christianity but of literacy as well. while many languages today use the same spelling, it is subject to their phonetic systems. compare the english pronunciation to the spanish hay-SOOS.

so although the "intent" was to preserve, at different times, the pronunciation or spelling of the dude's name, the cumulative effect was to change it.

carl
 
Posted by Michael Schaffer (Member # 1204) on 03-08-2004, 04:16 AM:
 
Mr Martin is quite right. The first step was the transliteration of Yesshua into Greek in which the New Testament is written. Iessos, because the Greek language does not have a sh sound and because it was very customary to transliterate words with the respective grammatical gender ending, in this case -os for a male name. From there, it went into Latin Iesus, again because it felt more natural for Latin speakers to end his name with the typical -us for male names. The letter J was not used in classical Latin, and only came into use in the middle ages to represent originally a "Ye" or "Yi" sound. From there, it went on to be used in different ways in different languages, basically depending on how the letter J came to be used in each language. For instance, as in modern French and English where the J is pronounced as in, well "Jesus" for instance, in Spanish as the aspirated H, in German still as a Y-sound.
Correspondingly, "Christos", Greek for "the anointed" was accepted into Latin with the Latin ending "Christus" and is still used in that form in many languages. Why the ending was dropped in English, I don`t know.

About the violence - I also found the violence over the top. We only see Jesus beaten to pulp, he gets up and goes on time after time, but we do not feel any of his mental struggle to go on and on. That was thematized very well in "The Last Temptation", and even more so in the magnificent book by Nikos Kazantzakis after which the movie was made. Which reminds me, isn`t Jesus tempted by the devil on the cross one last time? Where was that in the movie?

quote:
and then seeing Last Temptation on Bravo
I didn`t catch that movie. That sounds like a Western...
 
Posted by Glen Rich (Member # 1150) on 03-14-2004, 03:32 AM:
 
I've been screening "Passion" 4times a day for the last fortnight,whilst it isn't as popular as our usual general release films it has a fair following .Not of the usual section of religious nuts that come out of the woodwork,but people coming to see and possibly experience a re-affirmation of their faith.
Having noted that,after watching and listening to it constantly for 2 weeks I haven't noted any anti-semetic tendencies in myself ,but have felt the need to go out and find an Italian to kick fair up the bum.Think about it!!
 
Posted by Mitchell Cope (Member # 32) on 03-14-2004, 08:38 AM:
 
I think the reason this movie is so successful is because it rings true with Bible believing Christians. Mel Gibson did put his interpretation of the last twelve hours of Christ's life up on the screen. Martin Scorsese tried to do the same thing, but it was rejected by most, if not practically all, believers. It may be Mel's interpretation of the gospels, but it isn't going to fly if it is not close to the truth.

I heard Mel Gibson say if he was a painter, he would have done a painting. If you've been to any museums and galleries around the world, there are literally thousands of paintings on the suffering and crucifixion of Christ. Mel didn't just make this stuff up on his own. He also acknowledged the guidance of the Holy Spirit in making the movie. I think to show less suffering and torture would be to understate what we did to Christ. Would that be the truth?

The movie is difficult to watch because of the pain and suffering. It is not light entertainment. I thought the flashbacks were effective, but at the same time distracting to the continuity. I didn't think the earthquake in the temple looked real enough. The appearance of Satan in the garden is not scriptural, but very effective in showing what Jesus was about to do for us. I'm glad Mel put it in. I assume the baby Satan was carrying later was the anti-Christ. But who knows, it could have been you or me if Jesus had not died for us. Isn't that spooky? My biggest complaint was that not more time was spent on the resurrection of Christ. Maybe a sequel is in the works, though I understand Mel would like to do a movie about Abraham and Isaac.

As an aside, there's an inside joke in a Bible study group my wife and I go to. This movie is so successful, we understand that they're going to write a book about it. Like I said, inside humor. Hope you got it.
 
Posted by Tim Reed (Member # 137) on 03-14-2004, 04:00 PM:
 
quote:
Believe me, after seeing this film, I have a MUCH better idea of the price that was paid.
This is it, entirely. People have been so desensitized to violence that it fails to impact them. Saying Jesus was tortured and crucified, or just reading the words, most people today will think, "Yeah, okay." But, seeing such events, accurately depicted, with your own two eyes DOES make you realize how horrific it must have been.

This picture is emotionally moving. THAT is why it is a good picture; it speaks to the audience on a more than superficial level. Certainly, to Christians.

The Bible says Jesus was beaten beyond recognition, so I think Mel Gibson set out to be authentic by depicting the devices in use at the time, which no doubt would have been the same used on Jesus, yielding the same results. Therefore, we can surmise that it is an accurate portrayal of the event... as accurate as possible with the information we have.
 
Posted by Demetris Thoupis (Member # 833) on 04-02-2004, 04:29 AM:
 
I've seen it last Saturday and I have only three words. OH MY GOD!!!!!!!! BRAVO to Mel Gibson and the whole cast and crew for doing such a tremendous job. From the moment the film began until the moment the film ended complete silence. At the end all in the theater got up and aplauded which is very rare in Cyprus cinemas. Tears were running from everywhere (including myself). I've loved the film. I felt so happy that people want to see it, not for the theater owners to make money, but for people to actually see something worth seeing and not all that crap that exists nowadays with no real emotion or reality in it. Ok I admit the violence at some point got over the Top but don't you believe that Jesus was treated about the same way as Gibson portayed it?? GREAT ACTING. GREAT SOUND. AMAZING DIRECTION. Surely we will see it in next years Golden Globes, Oscars e.t.c.
Demetris
 
Posted by Gracia L. Babbidge (Member # 582) on 04-02-2004, 10:45 AM:
 
Out of morbid curiosity, I opted to watch this one, and for the record, I'm pagan. In my company for viewing this were my mother & my best pal. Also for the record, my pal is a fellow pagan, and my mother had been coerced to go to mass every Sunday as a child by her mother, but her father was half Blackfoot, and taught her about that spiritual path as well.

I'd call this one an example of a well-crafted film; yet not necessarily an entertaining film.

*Minor spoiler*

One thing that I found absurd was with the actual crucifixion in the film was showing the nails being driven through his palms. Yes yes, we've all been told that nails were driven through his hands as he was lying on the cross - and we've been told to take that as meaning the nails were driven through his palms. Reality check! The bones & tissue of the palm will not support the weight being placed on them in the process of crucifixion, the hands would tear ferociously, thus not remaining nailed in place. [uhoh]
I seem to recall reading somewhere (maybe in a palmistry reference book), that in the distant past, in many places around the world, the wrist is considered to be part of the hand rather than part of the arm. I also remember discussing the methods Romans used to torture people in a history class, and the point was brought up that the Romans had a variety of ways of crucifying people, not all of which involved nails, some were simply tied up. Yet those that were nailed had the nails driven through their wrists, because the bones there are strong enough to support the weight that they must. [Roll Eyes]
Ok ok ... it's a weird detail for me to harp on, but it's something that bugged me. [Shrug]

*End minor spoiler*

My mom was rather teary-eyed through most of the scenes clearly showing Mary greiving, as those scenes were rather moving. My pal also got a little choked up at a few of those scenes as well. Me, being the 'hard-ass' that I'm told that I am, didn't shed a tear throughout the film.

My friend really only commented heavily on two aspects. The first being the brutality of the Romans depicted made her glad that she was living now, yet at the same time stated that even now, it does not necessarily take much to reduce civilized people to a barbaric mob. Then after a little reflection, she remarked that Lucifer / Satan was interestingly placed throughout the film, and could be interpreted in many ways at every point.

*Comments to follow that are not intended to offend anyone on a religious / spiritual level, but may do so*

So, all in all, after viewing the Passion of the Christ, my feelings about organized religion were validated. One can teach a beautiful message, some will be receptive to it, others will be afraid of it, a lot of it will not be remembered if there's no drama anywhere around it... and if there's an excessive amount of drama, those that follow the ones originally receptive to the beautiful message will eventually get too wrapped up in the the drama / pomp / circumstances around the secondary events, and miss the message.
Jesus - Emmanuel - Yeshua - however you want to refer to the man, was teaching a beautiful message, promoting peace, and love among all that live, and believed in his message with all his being. Yet at the time and place he existed, such a simple, spiritual idea was taken as a threat, as it undermined the acceptable form of control used to herd the masses like cattle - religion. Let some time go by, and more Christian know more details surrounding the birth and death of their Christ than they know details of the message he was teaching. [scream]
I did notice some flashes in the film where some of Yeshua's lovely message were shown, but the rest of the film overwhelmed those flashes, dooming them to be of little notice.

*ranting off*

Anywho - the cinema where I viewed the film was kind enough to have placed a box of tissues in the auditorium for those that got weepy watching the film.
...Even though they commandeered the projectionists' (tall) desk chair as the resting place for the tissue box...
 
Posted by Dave Williams (Member # 299) on 04-03-2004, 08:57 AM:
 
quote:
I had never bothered to find out what Mormons actually believed in, so I was quite amazed at how.. shall we say, "strange" their story is...
No stranger than any other religeon.

quote:
Having noted that,after watching and listening to it constantly for 2 weeks I haven't noted any anti-semetic tendencies in myself ,but have felt the need to go out and find an Italian to kick fair up the bum.Think about it!!
Well then fly on over and give it a shot! This italian is in the mood for a fight, considering that modern day italians had as much to do with the crucifixion of christ as the modern day jews. I will let the italian-american anti-defamation leauge know your on your way. [Big Grin]

Very few movies have ever been so powerfully moving for me. I saw this about a month ago. I will go see it again. the last movie that moved me this much to tears was Idle Hands, and that was only because I had wasted an hour and a half of my life that I couldn't get back again. This time it was that I only paid so much money to see it and that was my sacrifice. In comparison I felt somewhat cheap. I was truly moved by the experience, as I cannot even call it a movie.

Ciao

Dave
 
Posted by Mike Spaeth (Member # 524) on 04-03-2004, 12:10 PM:
 
This movie is no more anti-Semitic then Schindler's List was anti-German and anti-Christian. Why don't people just look at movies in historical context?
 
Posted by Tim Reed (Member # 137) on 04-04-2004, 10:59 AM:
 
Gracia said:
quote:
The bones & tissue of the palm will not support the weight being placed on them in the process of crucifixion, the hands would tear ferociously
Did you not notice the foot block that was nailed in place, to prevent this?
quote:
it undermined the acceptable form of control used to herd the masses like cattle - religion.
...I'm pagan
Come again? Doesn't paganism involve a core set of beliefs that you are following as well? Isn't that, by definition, a religion? I'm sorry, but I find it difficult not to be hurt by an allusion that I am mindless for believing there is something greater than man. It takes a good deal of open-mindedness and unpretentiousness to come to the realization that you are not at the top of the totem pole.

Christianity doesn't make people perfect; it seeks to explain and offer direction for life. Religion involves people reaching out in search of God - Christianity involves God reaching out to us. This of course is based on the belief that the Bible is His true unerring word (which there are numerous compelling arguments and evidence to support - enough to convince me in my research).

Manipulation and control of the populace are borne of the shortcomings of man, not God.
 
Posted by Mitchell Dvoskin (Member # 751) on 04-04-2004, 12:02 PM:
 
Not being a Christian, I suppose I have somewhat different take on the film. Yes, it is powerful, a powerful indictment of the abuse of the mentally ill 2000 years ago. Poor Jesus, a seriously unbalanced and delusional young man who was hearing voices and seeing imaginary visions runs afoul of the Italian (ok, Roman) occupation authorities in ancient Judea. In his sick paranoid state, he envisions that the Jewish religious leadership is out to get him, as if he and his cult was important enough at that time for them to take more than just a passing notice. Cruelly tortured by his Roman jailers, he is lead away to be nailed to a cross, where he dies in agony and abandonment.

Why don't people just look at movies in historical context?

That is the problem. The film does not work in an historical context. For Example:

As to whether the film is anti-Semitic or not, isolated by itself, I do not believe it is. However, as a continuation of an ongoing propaganda campaign it certainly is. The "passion play" upon which the film is based was used for centuries to stir up hatred against Jews. In addition, one of the things that the Nazi propaganda experts found very successful was the casting of Jewish looking people as villains in mass entertainment films, sometime clearly identifying them as Jewish, but generally not. The Nazi's goal was to subtly plant the idea that Jews were different, did not share common values, and evil. This program worked all two well.
 
Posted by Mitchell Cope (Member # 32) on 04-04-2004, 06:56 PM:
 
What the Bible says is, "Then, behold, the veil of the temple was torn in two from top to bottom; and the earth quaked, and the rocks were split, and the graves, were opened: and many bodies of the saints who had fallen asleep were raised; and coming out of the graves after His resurrection, they went into the holy city and appeared to many.." (Matthew 27:51-53).

The veil was a heavy curtain that blocked the entrance to the Holy of Holies in the Jerusalem Temple, the place where the Ark of the Covenant was kept, symbolizing the sacred presence of God. Josephus described the veil as an ornately decorated curtain, made of blue woven fabric.

"So when the centurion and those with him, who were guarding Jesus, saw the earthquake and the things that had happened, they feared greatly, saying, 'Truly this was the Son of God!'" (Matthew 27:54)

The history I know also says the temple was destroyed in 70 AD by Roman General Titus, only about 40 years after Jesus walked the earth. I've been to Jersusalem and you can see the excavations of where the city was destroyed by fire way before other occupiers arrived.
 
Posted by Dave Williams (Member # 299) on 04-05-2004, 10:23 AM:
 
Let's not get too deep into religeous context here, lest the thread be shuteth downeth by the gods on high.

Needless to say we all have our feelings on this film, lets not try to insult or feel insulted by anyones particular take on the film.

I have expressed what it meant to me, as did Gracia, who has a different viewpoint and I thought she described it quite well. No need to try and point out any wrongness by anyone as it was her feeling on the movie, no one needed to feel attacked, that wouldn't be christ like now would it? [evil]

Yes I defended the comment on the mormon church and the italians in general, but did so in one case a very straightforward way and in the latter more of a cynical yet evil way. [thumbsup] Just remember we are all friends here, let's keep it that way..

eh? [Razz]

Ciao

Dave
 
Posted by Mitchell Dvoskin (Member # 751) on 04-06-2004, 09:15 AM:
 
It seems that the concerns of Jewish leaders were justified...

CBS News

quote:


(AP) Hanan Nsour, a veiled, 21-year-old Muslim in Jordan, came out of "The Passion of the Christ" in tears and pronounced her verdict: Mel Gibson's crucifixion epic "unmasked the Jews' lies and I hope that everybody, everywhere, turns against the Jews."

The Quran, though, says Jesus's crucifixion never happened.

Such are the contradictions that are welling up as the Arab world deals with "The Passion," even as the film draws large audiences in Jordan, Syria, Lebanon and other Arab countries that have approved it for screening.

In the Arab world, openly voiced anti-Semitism — and by extension the warm reception for "The Passion" — is bound up in the Arab conflict with Israel. Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat, after watching the film at his compound in the West Bank, was quoted by an aide as likening Jesus' suffering to the Palestinians'.

When the 1998 animated movie "Prince of Egypt" reached Cairo, censors banned it. One reason given: Islam reveres Moses as a prophet, and many Muslims recoil at seeing their prophets portrayed as flesh-and-blood characters.

Jesus is also a prophet to the Muslims, yet "The Passion" was OK'd by Egypt's censors with no changes. They have not explained why "The Passion" was allowed.

Governments and Islamic clerics are also sending mixed signals.

Kuwait bans any movies depicting any of the prophets recognized by Islam, but one of its top Shiite clerics, Ayatollah Mohammed Baqer al-Mehri, has urged an exception for "The Passion" because it "reveals crimes committed by Jews against Christ." The government has not yet made a decision on his call.

The dean of Kuwait University's Islamic Law College, Mohammed al-Tabtabai, has ordered Muslims to shun "The Passion" on the grounds that Jesus is a prophet.

In Jordan, a leader of the hard-line Islamic Action Front says Muslims should read the Quran or pray instead of watching movies, but he doesn't mind "The Passion" being screened in his country.

"The Jews are the most upset with the movie because it reveals their crimes against the prophets, the reformers and whoever contradicts their opinions," Hamza Mansoor said.

And in Egypt, the head of a department at Al-Azhar University that often advises the censors on these matters also is taking a hands-off approach.

"My understanding is that it is about the last 12 hours in the life of the Christ, which involve Christians and Jews. Muslims have nothing to do with that," said Sheik Abdel Zaher Mohammed Abdel-Razeq.

The Quran, Islam's holy book, is unequivocal in sura (chapter) 4, verse 157: "They said 'We killed Christ Jesus the son of Mary, the Messenger of Allah' — but they killed him not, nor crucified him. But so it was made to appear to them. And those who differ therein are full of doubts with no knowledge, but only conjecture to follow, for of a surety they killed him not."

Muslims believe another man was crucified in Jesus's place.

Many in the West accuse director Gibson of reviving the Jews-killed-Christ claim that has stoked anti-Semitism through the ages.

"The Passion" is also being welcomed by the Middle East's Christian communities. Some Egyptian churches and Christian bookshops were selling pirated versions of "The Passion" for less than a dollar even before the film opened here.

In the United Arab Emirates, a Gulf News editorial extolled the film for being "so close to the human condition in its depiction of betrayal, greed, falsehood, forgiveness and love. As Pope John Paul II has put it, `It is as it was!"'

The Vatican denies the pope ever endorsed the movie with those words, and kept out of the controversy. But Cardinal Nasrallah Sfeir, head of the Maronite church in Lebanon, waded right in.

"It is not exaggerated and portrays reality as it is. It is a very sad film and we did not feel there was any anti-Semitism there," Sfeir told reporters after watching the film at a private screening.

Part of the film is spoken in Aramaic, an ancient language still spoken by a small minority in Syria.

Salim Abraham, 37, a Christian journalist who speaks fluent Aramaic, said: "I was so very happy to see my language, for the first time ever, being spoken on the big screen and in such a powerful movie."

"I think there is nothing anti-Semitic in it," Abraham added. "It gives the facts as they are, though they may be slightly exaggerated in some instances."


 
Posted by Dave Williams (Member # 299) on 04-06-2004, 02:15 PM:
 
So this isn't a movie review forum anymore? [Eek!]

See ya all later, this place is getting creepy.

No more ciao.

Dave
 
Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 04-06-2004, 02:36 PM:
 
I guess none of the moderators (myself included) have caught this thread. It has been said before and this is in the rules...

NO RELIGION IS TO BE DISCUSSED ON THESE FORUMS IN ANY CAPACITY

Enough is enough guys. There are too many different religions and too many people feel far too strongly about why their religion is more important or accurate than your religion to permit these kind of discussions to continue. I am running a film-based website, not bible study. Anyone violating this rule again will be given a cool-off period from posting. Read the rules.
 




Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.3.1.2