Reviews for "The Passion..."
 

From yesterdays and todays IMDB Studio briefings:

Although film critics had been expected to crucify Mel Gibson when his The Passion of the Christ was released, the reviewers have turned out to be about equally divided over its merits. Roger Ebert in the Chicago Sun-Times, for example, anoints it with four stars, although commenting, "This is the most violent film I have ever seen." (Earlier in the week, Richard Roeper, Ebert's colleague on his syndicated TV show, commented "This is the most powerful, important and by far the most graphic interpretation of Christ's final hours ever put on film.") Ebert adds: "The film is unsuitable for younger viewers, but works powerfully for those who can endure it." Clearly, some critics have not been able to endure it. Writes Gene Seymour in Newsday: "This movie is little else besides a depiction of punishment so ruthless and unyielding that watching it unfold feels like punishment. (And what, one wonders, did we do to deserve such punishment?)" Indeed, some critics who find much to praise about the movie, wind up concluding that the unrelenting violence in it makes it virtually unwatchable. In the words of Lou Lumenick in the New York Post: "Passion is the closest we've come to a must-see movie this year, but the real question is: How many audience members will have the stomach to actually satisfy their curiosity?" There is also the criticism voiced by early viewers of the movie. Jami Bernard in the New York Daily News writes in a review published on the newspaper's front page: "Mel Gibson's The Passion of the Christ is the most virulently anti-Semitic movie made since the German propaganda films of World War II. It is sickening, much more brutal than any Lethal Weapon." Kenneth Turan of the Los Angeles Times is not among the film's boosters either, and he remarks that the polarized reaction to it has left him in "the grip of a profound despair." He writes: "What is profoundly disheartening is that people of goodwill will see this film in completely different ways. Where I see almost sadistic violence, they will see transcendence; where I see blame, they will see truth." Still others point out that the film represents Gibson's vision. Richard Corliss, in Time magazine, while critical of much of that vision, nevertheless writes: "In dramatizing the torment of Jesus' last 12 hours, [Gibson] has made a serious, handsome, excruciating film that radiates total commitment. Few mainstream directors have poured so much of themselves into so uncompromising a production. Whatever the ultimate verdict on Gibson's Passion, it's hard not to admire Gibson's passion."

...and todays new reviews:

A few film critics have actually waited until today, the official opening date of The Passion of the Christ, to weigh in on the movie. Among them, A.O. Scott in the New York Times, who writes: "The Passion of the Christ is so relentlessly focused on the savagery of Jesus' final hours that this film seems to arise less from love than from wrath, and to succeed more in assaulting the spirit than in uplifting it. Mr. Gibson has constructed an unnerving and painful spectacle that is also, in the end, a depressing one. It is disheartening to see a film made with evident and abundant religious conviction that is at the same time so utterly lacking in grace." Joe Morgenstern in the Wall Street Journal: "I found myself stunned, then horrified, then defensively benumbed, by a level of violence that, in another context, would be branded as pornographic. No one who watches Mr. Gibson's dramatization of Christ's final hours will come away unaffected by its intensity. Yet this work of manifest devotion, financed by the filmmaker himself, is ultimately overwhelmed by his obsession with physical suffering to the exclusion of political and metaphysical context." Carrey Rickey in the Philadelphia Inquirer: "Even for the faithful, Mel Gibson's The Passion of the Christ is too much Good Friday and not enough Easter Sunday. Emphasizing Jesus' agony over His ecstasy, Gibson has delivered a blood-drenched epic more stunning for its brutal violence than for its depiction of the Calvary. This work of obvious devotion may well be the first spiritual splatter film." Chris Vognar in the Dallas Morning News: "Controversy aside, it is dramatically intense, skillfully constructed and often harrowing, in ways that should have an impact on people of any or no particular faith. Just be ready for oceans and oceans of blood." Claudia Puig in USA Today: "Despite controversies swirling around the movie, one cannot deny that Gibson has made a stunning film, beautifully photographed in contrasting dark and golden hues by Caleb Deschanel. However, the one thing The Passion is not is enjoyable. The nearly half-hour march to Golgotha, the site of Jesus' crucifixion, is excruciating."

Re: Reviews for "The Passion..."
 

I want to see this but I know that I won't be able to handle that and will cry so hard that I know I can't sit in a theater and watch it. I know my limits, I could barely get through Forest Gump. :confused:

Re: Reviews for "The Passion..."
 

That is the point of the film.

Jesus endured WAY WAY WAY (infinity) more than what is shown in this film....guaranteed.

Re: Re: Reviews for "The Passion..."
 

Actually, I have seen a portion of it and from what I saw there is no way that physically Jesus, as a human being, could have suffered as much or at least not much more. he would have gone into a coma or died.

But, I agree, it is called the "agony" for a reason.

Re: Re: Reviews for "The Passion..."
 

For some reason, I highly doubt that, just for the sheer fact that no human can sustain even what Gibson put on film. If Jesus did exist, I believe that something like the crucifixtion happened, but that the Bible's account is greatly exaggerated. I mean, in the film, he gets whipped so hard that his spleen start to come out of his body. Yet he still carries his own cross to the crucifixtion site? :confused:

This is tough to read...
 

A Physician Testifies About the Crucifixion
by Dr. C. Truman Davis

About a decade ago, reading Jim Bishop's The Day Christ Died, I realized that I had for years taken the Crucifixion more or less for granted -- that I had grown callous to its horror by a too easy familiarity with the grim details and a too distant friendship with our Lord. It finally occurred to me that, though a physician, I didn't even know the actual immediate cause of death. The Gospel writers don't help us much on this point, because crucifixion and scourging were so common during their lifetime that they apparently considered a detailed description unnecessary. So we have only the concise words of the Evangelists: "Pilate, having scourged Jesus, delivered Him to them to be crucified -- and they crucified Him."

I have no competence to discuss the infinite psychic and spiritual suffering of the Incarnate God atoning for the sins of fallen man. But it seemed to me that as a physician I might pursue the physiological and anatomical aspects of our Lord's passonate some detail. What did the body of Jesus of Nazareth actually endure during those hours of torture?

This led me first to a study of the practice of crucifixion itself; that is, torture and execution by fixation to a cross. I am indebted to many who have studied this subject in the past, and especially to a contemporary colleague, Dr. Pierre Barbet, a French surgeon who has done exhaustive historical and experimental research and has written extensively on the subject.

Apparently, the first known practice of crucifixion was by the Persians. Alexander and his generals brought it back to the Mediterranean world -- to Egypt and to Carthage. The Romans apparently learned the practice from the Carthaginians and (as with almost everything the Romans did) rapidly developed a very high degree of efficiency and skill at it. A number of Roman authors (Livy, Cicer, Tacitus) comment on crucifixion, and several innovations, modifications, and variations are described in the ancient literature.

For instance, the upright portion of the cross (or stipes) could have the cross-arm (or patibulum) attached two or three feet below its top in what we commonly think of as the Latin cross. The most common form used in our Lord's day, however, was the Tau cross, shaped like our T. In this cross the patibulum was placed in a notch at the top of the stipes. There is archeological evidence that it was on this type of cross that Jesus was crucified.

Without any historical or biblical proof, Medieval and Renaissance painters have given us our picture of Christ carrying the entire cross. But the upright post, or stipes, was generally fixed permanently in the ground at the site of execution and the condemned man was forced to carry the patibulum, weighing about 110 pounds, from the prison to the place of execution.

Many of the painters and most of the sculptors of crucifixion, also show the nails through the palms. Historical Roman accounts and experimental work have established that the nails were driven between the small bones of the wrists (radial and ulna) and not through the palms. Nails driven through the palms will strip out between the fingers when made to support the weight of the human body. The misconception may have come about through a misunderstanding of Jesus' words to Thomas, "Observe my hands." Anatomists, both modern and ancient, have always considered the wrist as part of the hand.

A titulus, or small sign, stating the victim's crime was usually placed on a staff, carried at the front of the procession from the prison, and later nailed to the cross so that it extended above the head. This sign with its staff nailed to the top of the cross would have given it somewhat the characteristic form of the Latin cross.

But, of course, the physical passion of the Christ began in Gethsemane. Of the many aspects of this initial suffering, the one of greatest physiological interest is the bloody sweat. It is interesting that St. Luke, the physician, is the only one to mention this. He says, "And being in Agony, He prayed the longer. And His sweat became as drops of blood, trickling down upon the ground."

Every ruse (trick) imaginable has been used by modern scholars to explain away this description, apparently under the mistaken impression that this just doesn't happen. A great deal of effort could have been saved had the doubters consulted the medical literature. Though very rare, the phenomenon of Hematidrosis, or bloody sweat, is well documented. Under great emotional stress of the kind our Lord suffered, tiny capillaries in the sweat glands can break, thus mixing blood with sweat. This process might well have produced marked weakness and possible shock.

After the arrest in the middle of the night, Jesus was next brought before the Sanhedrin and Caiphus, the High Priest; it is here that the first physical trauma was inflicted. A soldier struck Jesus across the face for remaining silent when questioned by Caiphus. The palace guards then blind-folded Him and mockingly taunted Him to identify them as they each passed by, spat upon Him, and struck Him in the face.

In the early morning, battered and bruised, dehydrated, and exhausted from a sleepless night, Jesus is taken across the Praetorium of the Fortress Antonia, the seat of government of the Procurator of Judea, Pontius Pilate. You are, of course, familiar with Pilate's action in attempting to pass responsibility to Herod Antipas, the Tetrarch of Judea. Jesus apparently suffered no physical mistreatment at the hands of Herod and was returned to Pilate. It was in response to the cries of the mob, that Pilate ordered Bar-Abbas released and condemned Jesus to scourging and crucifixion.

There is much disagreement among authorities about the unusual scourging as a prelude to crucifixion. Most Roman writers from this period do not associate the two. Many scholars believe that Pilate originally ordered Jesus scourged as his full punishment and that the death sentence by crucifixion came only in response to the taunt by the mob that the Procurator was not properly defending Caesar against this pretender who allegedly claimed to be the King of the Jews.

Preparations for the scourging were carried out when the Prisoner was stripped of His clothing and His hands tied to a post above His head. It is doubtful the Romans would have made any attempt to follow the Jewish law in this matter, but the Jews had an ancient law prohibiting more than forty lashes.

The Roman legionnaire steps forward with the flagrum (or flagellum) in his hand. This is a short whip consisting of several heavy, leather thongs with two small balls of lead attached near the ends of each. The heavy whip is brought down with full force again and again across Jesus' shoulders, back, and legs. At first the thongs cut through the skin only. Then, as the blows continue, they cut deeper into the subcutaneous tissues, producing first an oozing of blood from the capillaries and veins of the skin, and finally spurting arterial bleeding from vessels in the underlying muscles.

The small balls of lead first produce large, deep bruises which are broken open by subsequent blows. Finally the skin of the back is hanging in long ribbons and the entire area is an unrecognizable mass of torn, bleeding tissue. When it is determined by the centurion in charge that the prisoner is near death, the beating is finally stopped.

The half-fainting Jesus is then untied and allowed to slump to the stone pavement, wet with His own blood. The Roman soldiers see a great joke in this provincial Jew claiming to be king. They throw a robe across His shoulders and place a stick in His hand for a scepter. They still need a crown to make their travesty complete. Flexible branches covered with long thorns (commonly used in bundles for firewood) are plaited into the shape of a crown and this is pressed into His scalp. Again there is copious bleeding, the scalp being one of the most vascular areas of the body.

After mocking Him and striking Him across the face, the soldiers take the stick from His hand and strike Him across the head, driving the thorns deeper into His scalp. Finally, they tire of their sadistic sport and the robe is torn from His back. Already having adhered to the clots of blood and serum in the wounds, its removal causes excruciating pain just as in the careless removal of a surgical bandage, and almost as though He were again being whipped the wounds once more begin to bleed.

In deference to Jewish custom, the Romans return His garments. The heavy patibulum of the cross is tied across His shoulders, and the procession of the condemned Christ, two thieves, and the execution detail of Roman soldiers headed by a centurion begins its slow journey along the Via Dolorosa. In spite of His efforts to walk erect, the weight of the heavy wooden beam, together with the shock produced by copious blood loss, is too much. He stumbles and falls. The rough wood of the beam gouges into the lacerated skin and muscles of the shoulders. He tries to rise, but human muscles have been pushed beyond their endurance.

The centurion, anxious to get on with the crucifixion, selects a stalwart North African onlooker, Simon of Cyrene, to carry the cross. Jesus follows, still bleeding and sweating the cold, clammy sweat of shock, until the 650 yard journey from the fortress Antonia to Golgotha is finally completed.

Jesus is offered wine mixed with myrrh, a mild analgesic mixture. He refuses to drink. Simon is ordered to place the patibulum on the ground and Jesus quickly thrown backward with His shoulders against the wood. The legionnaire feels for the depression at the front of the wrist. He drives a heavy, square, wrought-iron nail through the wrist and deep into the wood. Quickly, he moves to the other side and repeats the action being careful not to pull the arms to tightly, but to allow some flexion and movement. The patibulum is then lifted in place at the top of the stipes and the titulus reading "Jesus of Nazareth, King of the Jews" is nailed in place.

The left foot is now pressed backward against the right foot, and with both feet extended, toes down, a nail is driven through the arch of each, leaving the knees moderately flexed. The Victim is now crucified. As He slowly sags down with more weight on the nails in the wrists excruciating pain shoots along the fingers and up the arms to explode in the brain -- the nails in the writs are putting pressure on the median nerves. As He pushes Himself upward to avoid this stretching torment, He places His full weight on the nail through His feet. Again there is the searing agony of the nail tearing through the nerves between the metatarsal bones of the feet.

At this point, as the arms fatigue, great waves of cramps sweep over the muscles, knotting them in deep, relentless, throbbing pain. With these cramps comes the inability to push Himself upward. Hanging by his arms, the pectoral muscles are paralyzed and the intercostal muscles are unable to act. Air can be drawn into the lungs, but cannot be exhaled. Jesus fights to raise Himself in order to get even one short breath. Finally, carbon dioxide builds up in the lungs and in the blood stream and the cramps partially subside. Spasmodically, he is able to push Himself upward to exhale and bring in the life-giving oxygen. It was undoubtedly during these periods that He uttered the seven short sentences recorded:

The first, looking down at the Roman soldiers throwing dice for His seamless garment, "Father, forgive them for they know not what they do."

The second, to the penitent thief, "Today thou shalt be with me in Paradise."

The third, looking down at the terrified, grief-stricken adolescent John -- the beloved Apostle -- he said, "Behold thy mother." Then, looking to His mother Mary, "Woman behold thy son."

The fourth cry is from the beginning of the 22nd Psalm, "My God, my God, why has thou forsaken me?"

Hours of limitless pain, cycles of twisting, joint-rending cramps, intermittent partial asphyxiation, searing pain where tissue is torn from His lacerated back as He moves up and down against the rough timber. Then another agony begins...A terrible crushing pain deep in the chest as the pericardium slowly fills with serum and begins to compress the heart.

One remembers again the 22nd Psalm, the 14th verse: "I am poured out like water, and all my bones are out of joint; my heart is like wax; it is melted in the midst of my bowels."

It is now almost over. The loss of tissue fluids has reached a critical level; the compressed heart is struggling to pump heavy, thick, sluggish blood into the tissue; the tortured lungs are making a frantic effort to gasp in small gulps of air. The markedly dehydrated tissues send their flood of stimuli to the brain.

Jesus gasps His fifth cry, "I thirst."

One remembers another verse from the prophetic 22nd Psalm: "My strength is dried up like a potsherd; and my tongue cleaveth to my jaws; and thou has brought me into the dust of death."

A sponge soaked in posca, the cheap, sour wine which is the staple drink of the Roman legionaries, is lifted to His lips. He apparently doesn't take any of the liquid. The body of Jesus is now in extremes, and He can feel the chill of death creeping through His tissues. This realization brings out His sixth words, possibly little more than a tortured whisper, "It is finished."

His mission of atonement has completed. Finally He can allow his body to die.

With one last surge of strength, he once again presses His torn feet against the nail, straightens His legs, takes a deeper breath, and utters His seventh and last cry, "Father! Into thy hands I commit my spirit."

The rest you know. In order that the Sabbath not be profaned, the Jews asked that the condemned men be dispatched and removed from the crosses. The common method of ending a crucifixion was by crurifracture, the breaking of the bones of the legs. This prevented the victim from pushing himself upward; thus the tension could not be relieved from the muscles of the chest and rapid suffocation occurred. The legs of the two thieves were broken, but when the soldiers came to Jesus they saw that this was unnecessary.

Apparently to make doubly sure of death, the legionnaire drove his lance through the fifth interspace between the ribs, upward through the pericardium and into the heart. The 34th verse of the 19th chapter of the Gospel according to St. John reports: "And immediately there came out blood and water." That is, there was an escape of water fluid from the sac surrounding the heart, giving postmortem evidence that Our Lord died not the usual crucifixion death by suffocation, but of heart failure (a broken heart) due to shock and constriction of the heart by fluid in the pericardium.

Thus we have had our glimpse -- including the medical evidence -- of that epitome of evil which man has exhibited toward Man and toward God. It has been a terrible sight, and more than enough to leave us despondent and depressed. How grateful we can be that we have the great sequel in the infinite mercy of God toward man -- at once the miracle of the atonement (at one ment) and the expectation of the triumphant Easter morning.

But, of course, that is a version of events that one religion believes and isn't necessarily fact.

That was quite hard to read and, I must admit, I skipped a few paragraphs because it was too much, but there were some points where I just thought to myself that they must think we're pretty gullable to buy that version of events.

After the whipping that caused such destruction to his body, he was only "half-fainting"?

After all of the torture he went through, he could still manage to even pick up the beam and walk with it?

I respect your beliefs, but I just think it's exaggerated.

Thanks for the article, Christy! :wavey:

Diss...
 

Welcome!!

Speaking of exaggerated, I find it hard to believe in evolution. ;) I just cannot see how something comes from nothing. :shrug:

Re: Diss...
 

:laugh:

I can't see it either, but I think it's more plausible than what the Bible says. I wholeheartedly believe that the human race evolved from apes over time, that no one just created a man and then yanked out his rib to make a woman. :laugh:

But...to each his own. :laugh:

Re: Re: Diss...
 

:shocked:

LOL

Christy, thanks for posting that. It was hard to read...but something I need to remind myself of.

Re: Re: Diss...
 

I thought the classic movie "Planet Of The Apes" kinda proved that :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

Brian "Get yer hands off my 10 Commandments tablet & NRA membership card ya filthy apes" j.

Re: Diss...
 

With all due respect (and ya know I love ya darlin' :cool: ) it most certainly is not something from nothing. That is too simple an explanation. Evolution is proven in just about all other species. It is not a theory then. The "problem" with the evolution of man is that the missing link or links cannot be found (I mean we are talking about millions of years here). That, however, does not disprove evolution. To the contrary, it just means it is still a theory that, when considered along with other species' proven evolution, is true. Also, look to your own body. Why do we have a useless "organ" called an appendix? Why do we have a tailbone when we have no tail? Clearly, these are remnants of our evoultion, which proves the theory of evolution.

Here is a great site from PBS on evolution. It truly is enlightening.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/

Also, what I think is pretty much all religions have creation stories; some far older by documentation usually via artificact than The Bible's Hebrew creation story (Genesis 1-3). So, I think the actual wording of Genesis 1-3 is symbolic. As I mentioned earlier, if it is literal, then who are the other people in different lands that Cain meets and marries (one of them) when God banishes him?

I also think the theory of evolution does not obviate or disprove the theory of intelligent design in Genesis. I think they co-exist and Genesis 1-3 is a summary of evolution. That works for me :laugh: Otherwise, there is no way Genesis can be true, the earth is just too old for the events of Genesis to have taking place when The Bible says they did.

:cool:

I agree and think from what I have seen of it, the new Mel Gibson movie is exaggerated as well. Hey - its Hollywood!!! :laugh:

I watched various talk shows last night where "The Passion" was the topic of the hour, and I must say, I'm very sickened by this movie.

The next big thing is the Christians screaming about how they're the most maligned and persecuted religion in America. :rolleyes: You should have seen the people making these claims last night.

The clips that they've been showing on TV of the movie are just gross and it's supposed to be even worse. I mean, when Ebert says it's the "most violent film ever made", you know somehting isn't right.

The thing I don't understand is why did Gibson make a movie that is solely about his torture and crucifixion and not at least include some of Jesus' supposed teachings? From what I hear, they don't even explain why this happens to him in the movie.

And, my final question, who is actually going to see this movie on the board?

I do not blame Gibson for making the movie because I think in general no topic should be censored from a film. I mean look at "Natural Born Killers" and that ilk. What I do think is I have the right not to go see it and to speak out against it as I did for "Natural Born Killers," etc. As for "The Passion," I think it is what it is. I think the bad part for me comes in when, as now, the religious far right is, for the most part, praising it and encouraging people to see it because they know it, like their hate speech and their blaming people not like them for the problems of the world, will bring people "a runnin'" back to them for guidance. I mean after all Pat Robertson claims to have God visit him in dreams and for $500 he tell you what God said - I will bet you $1000 what he says God told him is to give Pat more money so he can continue the crusade against the infidels - what an a$$hole :mad: Also, I find it highly hippocritical that the religious far right and a significant number of other types of people are so against violence in rap music, on t.v., etc., yet this film is one of the most violent things ever made. But, because that violence supports their agenda (which is mostly monetary IMO), the violence is okay :mad:

In sum, I think the movie for what it is and for what I have seen of it is brilliant in its general message that Christ dies for the sins of the world. I also do not find it anti-Jewish or at least not in the extremes that people are screaming about. But, the use of it to further hate through religion, esp. as it appears it will in Europe, repulses me. Perhaps I am wrong and this repulsive use of it was Gibson's intention all along :shrug:

Violence or no violence, Natural Born Killers was just a bad movie. It was preachy and annoying; the message glared at you, but Stone still decided to shove it down your throat. I did enjoy parts of it, though. :laugh:

Sadly, you're correct and this movie will only fuel the flames of the religious agenda. :(

That would be...
 

Me. My dad and I are going to see it this weekend hopefully. :)

I'm not some right wing fanatical religious person. I'm not saying ya'll are saying I am. I grew up going to various churches with my family and I went to a Christian (Baptist...although I am not Baptist) school for 9 years. I don't attend church anymore, although from 1997 through 2000, I was a member at a church.

I realize there are people out there who are "hypocrites", but I don't have the energy to get angry with them. God will deal with them when the time comes. I believe in the "judge not, lest ye be judged" thing. We are ALL sinners, yes, even the Pope and Mother Teresa. :eek: LOL

I know I'm gonna have a HARD time watching this film, but that's the point.

I am not anti-Semitic, I don't hate ANYONE. I may not agree with things that people do or believe in, but I don't hate them for it. It's not my place to judge people.

I'm going to see it because I am a fan of Gibson's and from what I have heard about it, it is fantastic (ie. the Ebert review, etc.). I don't buy the anti-semitism charges but I will wait to see the film. All the actors and Gibson himself said there is no condemming of any one race. Jesus himself was a Jew! As were the Apostles, Mary, Simone etc....so there are good and bad. The Jews potrayed negatively are the High Council leaders, obviously they had the most to lose if Jesus became widely accepted.

The Crucifixtion is the single most important event in Christianity. That is why. Most people who will see the film already know the story and teachings...if that is what you are looking for from the film then I wouldn't recommend seeing it.

Rob:cool:

Hi Dessention. Well, Jesus' teaching are in the film. Jesus' message was "love one another." He encouraged forvigeness, even at the time of his crucifixtion, he said, "Father forgive them, they know not what they do." Jesus was about love, and the fact that he sacrificed his life for others conveys that message of love in the film. Jesus said nothing about homosexuality, forcing one's beliefs down others throats, or anything like that. He traveled among the poor, sick, and outcast people of society. His message was one of love and acceptance -- a message that I think non-Christians and Christians alike should embrace.

By the same token, the people who are going to attend it already know the story of the crucifixion and it really makes no sense to see it. I'm not particularly looking for anything because I have no desire to see it. Like I said, I don't believe what the Bible says or in Christianity. However, I can't help but wonder why there isn't more to the movie than the torture and crucifixion. Everything I've read about the movie says that in the beginning of the film, Jesus is simply taken and tortured, then crucified. Why not at least show the audience his teachings? What is the point in producing, marketing, and watching a two-hour snuff film? That's all.

Do they actually go into the depth of Jesus' beliefs and teachings in detail, or do they simply make passing reference of it?

Well...
 

it is definitely being marketed in a way that I see as embarrassing.

You can buy "merchandise" for this movie at local religious stores, Merchandise? That is a SICK joke IMO...What next, Crucifixion action figures???

Brian j.

The movie is not about Jesus' entire life. It soley is about "The Passion," which is the only event the movie portrays. So, it is not meant to show what Jesus did in His life, etc. From that point of view, it makes sense to me that they did not go into why Jesus was there.

You missed what I was trying to say:

What is the point in producing, marketing, and watching a two-hour snuff film?

I would honestly like to know why people made a movie that is simply about the torture and crucifixion of the supposed son of God. The people who are going to pay money to see it already know that Jesus supposedly died for their sins. This movie serves absolutely no purpose except for Gibson to make money. Anyone who tries to say that isn't the case is delusional. Just look at they pre-movie hype that he built up. He started doing it back in 2000 before he even had it financed.

I'll tell you one thing, though. I wish the late and great Pauline Kael was alive to review this film; she'd tell it like it is. :nod:

Re: Diss...
 

Chrissy, not nothing. The first human form was actually bacteria.

Re: Well...
 

:nod: :nod: :nod:

They're selling t-shirts for it at my local mall.

But...
 

Where did the bacteria come from? It just appeared one day? :confused:

Re: But...
 

Where did God himself come from? Seriously.

Re: Re: But...
 

I think he came from New Jersey personally :laugh:

Re: That would be...
 

Hmmm... didn't you say the other day that you hate Clay now? ;)

Re: Re: Re: But...
 

:laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

He was a kosher butcher from Hoboken.

Re: But...
 

From what I understand, it was scrapped off of God's left ear.

I agree Gibson, like every other producer in the world, did this hoping to make money. But, I see that separately than the issue of why make this move at all. I do not think it is a bad thing to make a film about the agony and/or passion of Christ just as I do not think it is inappropriate to make a flim about any "controversial" subject. I mean on slightly similar lines, is it inappropraite for Jewish people to make a film about Moses and their persecution by the Egyptians? Is it inappropriate to show the white masters beating their slaves to death even though not all masters did that? So, I conclude it is how people are using this film is that I object to. :cool:

Finally, the snuff reference is cute, but inappropriate as I do not think anyone is beating off to this film, although you never know as there are some sickos in this world :cool:

LOL
 

No sir. I said I did not LIKE Clay anymore. I never said I hated him. I know you are teasing.

God has always been. He's the Alpha and Omega...Beginning and End. That's what I believe.

I am never going to believe we came from monkeys, I think that's absurd. Why are they still not evolving? They just decided to stop one day? LOL :confused:

Re: But...
 

Thus, the marriage (am I allowed to use that word in this context :laugh: ) of intelligent design and evolution!!!!!!! :cool:

Strand...
 

Are you saying that God created monkeys which evolved into people....or God made Adam and Eve and other stuff evolved? I'm confused.

Re: LOL
 

Did you not go to that website I posted :laugh: The point is monkeys are still evolving. Humans are still evolving through the shrinking of the tailbone and appendix that serve no more useful purpose. I think you are missing the point. It will probably take 20,000 years for humans to no long have a tail bone and appendix. We will see in our short (perhaps 80 year lifetimes) little to no evidence of the physical evolution of man. if we lived 8,000 years - we would still see only a little more. Evolution is based on environment and useage. Seriously, go to that website and look around. The evidence is astounding. And - you do not have to throw away your beliefs in Creationism. They can go hand in hand. :cool:

To answer Dissention's question, no, I will not be going to see this film.

I am a Christian who believes Jesus Christ was the Son of God and came down to earth to be crucified for the sins of the world. But I am Episcopalian, raised in a church that, by nature, is more liberal [politically] and reserved with our expressions of faith. I consider my faith to be more of a private thing.

However, I will not be seeing this film because of the IMMENSE violence of it. My personal decision is that I will NOT be able to take it.

But my main problem is with Mel Gibson. If God really told him that he needed to make this movie, he would take ALL the profits-- I mean EVERY SINGLE PENNY and donate it to religious charities around the world. And the fact that people are making MONEY off the MERCHANDISING of this film (and the fact that there's merchandising at ALL) completely sickens me.

And I still have my doubts about his claims that he is not an anti-semite. The fact is that he is a Conservative Catholic who has stated in interviews that he does not subscribe to the beliefs of Vatican II [one of which is the Pope's dictate that the Jews were not responsible for the death of Jesus]. And his father's comments are DISTURBING. [See previous thread I posted] I understand that Mel is not his father, but the fact is that those
comments have effected him.

To be an anti-semite is to be anti-Christian. Christianity, of course, sprung from Judaism. Jesus was a Jew. I just don't get how someone who claims to be Christian can be an anti-semite.

This movie is dangerous. This, combined with Dubya pushing the right wing Christian Coalition agenda that is pushing us closer towards the spectrum of theocracy [whatever happened to the separation of church and state] is pushing me closer and closer to packing my bags and moving to Toronto.

Re: Strand...
 

I am saying that Adam and Eve are not literal human beings. They represent evolution of nature. Many faiths believe this. Put it this way, if we all literally came from the same parents, then why are were we not dead after about three generations from in breeding? Why are we still evolving?