The movie deals with the final 12 hours of Jesus' (played by Jim Cavaziel) life. I've read nothing but good reviews on this one so far. I wonder how it will do against 1965's "The Greatest Story Ever Told". This flick has garnered lots of controversy for its incredibly graphic nature. No doubt that'll help fuel the ticket sales over the weekend. I hope for Gibson's sake it does well seeing as the budget for this film came out of his own pocket.
Trailer.
EDIT: Added trailer link.
Full Version: The Passion of the Christ
My suite (room) mate at school has offered to take me...so I took him up on it. I will be going to the movie on Saturday with him and some others. We will see how the movie is. May prove interesting.
Supposedly this movie is super violent. It's really about the understanding of this moment, refered to as "The Passion of Christ." Many a debate among the orthodox and gnostic Christians relates to this moment in history. Even trying to fathom the religious depth behind it can be brain racking at times. So, this movie will surely get mixed reviews. It being either "ghastly" or "awe inspiring."
seeing as how im not a believer i have no interest in this movie and whats up with jesus being a white dude ........
I am not a religous person at all. My family has always been church goers, but that is just not for me. I am a fan of great cinema however and I look forward to seeing this. Maybe it's just the hype, but I think it looks interesting.
It opened yesterday and it seems the box office is already en fuego. Personally I'll wait for this one to come on DVD (like I always do).
I'm with dive here, being unreligious. my only oppinion is that, If it is discribed just as graphicaly in the bible, which is what i am hearing, why argue it being the same way on the big screen? censorship = bad for everyone.
| QUOTE |
| seeing as how im not a believer i have no interest in this movie and whats up with jesus being a white dude ........ |
i doubt there is anyone in the world today that could reflect the cosmetic apearance of jesus (whom no one has a factual representation of anyway). so be the actor white/black/hispanic/asian... none of them would really portrait an acurate image.
Well, the talk around where I work is that a mother of one of the teachers that I work for started crying from beginning to end. If that's a sign, then it's a powerful movie.
The movie looks like its gonna be good
I caught this on Friday on a whim with a couple of Ninjagamer people I met at the mall. Like others have stated before, I have no religious beliefs, nor any religious background (i.e. parents taking you to church, teaching you their religion, etc)...so I was kinda going into this movie with a "clean slate" as it were.
The first striking thing about the film is, as many people know, the complete use of Hebrew and Latin language in the film to keep the period feel intact. I know Mel Gibson had originally intended the film to have no subtitles at all, but I guess through some market research he found out most (stupid) people don't like to watch a movie if they can't undertand what is going on. Although just as many people also don't want to be "readin' all the durn time" while they are watching a movie... Anyhow, the subtitles are kept to a minimum, and it really strenghtens the focus on the actors' performances, and the visceral emphasis of the story.
Jim Cavaziel as Jesus has a very...gentle yet stoic appearance. With a little help from some magic contact lenses, he gets this look of compassion for everyone that one would expect in "the son of man." One of my favorite performances in the movie was Hristo Shopov as Pontius Pilate, the Roman governor over...wherever the heck this story took place. He was stuck with the unenviable position of being an outsider to this religious quarrel, and being forced to dictate the fate of a man whom he could see having done no wrong. Sadly, Monica Belluci, beautiful as ever, still comes across dumb as a pile of rocks, and about as good of an actor in her role as Mary Magdalen. Lots of other great performances too, but I won't waste more time. Except for saying the guy that played Satan was cool as hell. My favorite character in the movie, despite his scant appearances.
The pacing of the "main story" was very good, but the whole movie was stuttered by flashbacks to past sequences. While there were a few that I would deem as necessary to the continuity of the movie, many were just worthless fluff. To anyone else who has seen the movie: What the hell was up with that "table" scene? Worthless. Otherwise the movie flowed well through its ~2 hours.
One thing I greatly pleased with was the complete lack of religious posturing, propoganda, or pushing. It puts forth a completely objective view of these events, not giving a nod to anyone particulary to blame, but not declaring anyone innocent either. At its heart, this movie came across as a story about a man, his friends, and his mother. I think the most gripping moments of the film took place between Jesus and Mary, as anyone can relate to the bond between them and their parent (or child as well, I don't have any kids, so I don't know).
Much ado is being made about the representation of Jews as "badguys" in this movie. Yes, the bad people are jewish, but its not like its painting a picture that all Jews are evil. I'm sure most of the people here could tell it was just preposterous loudmouthing from people who didn't know what was going on anyways, so no big deal. Another issue is the violence. Again, I think this is an uproar from the Christian right, who have never been to an "R" movie before. Certainly this isn't a movie for kids, but it is far from the most violent or shocking film I have ever seen. Again, it is more the performances that conveys the pain rather than the visual representation. Not that its any slack in the blood and gibs department, mind you.
Overall, a quality film, interesting story, and (some) great performances. Is it an instant classic? I'm not so sure. It doesn't really have the epic feel that you would expect, but in some ways that's its charm. Certianly not the greatest movie ever, and not even onto my personal top 10 list, but definetly a good film.
The first striking thing about the film is, as many people know, the complete use of Hebrew and Latin language in the film to keep the period feel intact. I know Mel Gibson had originally intended the film to have no subtitles at all, but I guess through some market research he found out most (stupid) people don't like to watch a movie if they can't undertand what is going on. Although just as many people also don't want to be "readin' all the durn time" while they are watching a movie... Anyhow, the subtitles are kept to a minimum, and it really strenghtens the focus on the actors' performances, and the visceral emphasis of the story.
Jim Cavaziel as Jesus has a very...gentle yet stoic appearance. With a little help from some magic contact lenses, he gets this look of compassion for everyone that one would expect in "the son of man." One of my favorite performances in the movie was Hristo Shopov as Pontius Pilate, the Roman governor over...wherever the heck this story took place. He was stuck with the unenviable position of being an outsider to this religious quarrel, and being forced to dictate the fate of a man whom he could see having done no wrong. Sadly, Monica Belluci, beautiful as ever, still comes across dumb as a pile of rocks, and about as good of an actor in her role as Mary Magdalen. Lots of other great performances too, but I won't waste more time. Except for saying the guy that played Satan was cool as hell. My favorite character in the movie, despite his scant appearances.
The pacing of the "main story" was very good, but the whole movie was stuttered by flashbacks to past sequences. While there were a few that I would deem as necessary to the continuity of the movie, many were just worthless fluff. To anyone else who has seen the movie: What the hell was up with that "table" scene? Worthless. Otherwise the movie flowed well through its ~2 hours.
One thing I greatly pleased with was the complete lack of religious posturing, propoganda, or pushing. It puts forth a completely objective view of these events, not giving a nod to anyone particulary to blame, but not declaring anyone innocent either. At its heart, this movie came across as a story about a man, his friends, and his mother. I think the most gripping moments of the film took place between Jesus and Mary, as anyone can relate to the bond between them and their parent (or child as well, I don't have any kids, so I don't know).
Much ado is being made about the representation of Jews as "badguys" in this movie. Yes, the bad people are jewish, but its not like its painting a picture that all Jews are evil. I'm sure most of the people here could tell it was just preposterous loudmouthing from people who didn't know what was going on anyways, so no big deal. Another issue is the violence. Again, I think this is an uproar from the Christian right, who have never been to an "R" movie before. Certainly this isn't a movie for kids, but it is far from the most violent or shocking film I have ever seen. Again, it is more the performances that conveys the pain rather than the visual representation. Not that its any slack in the blood and gibs department, mind you.
Overall, a quality film, interesting story, and (some) great performances. Is it an instant classic? I'm not so sure. It doesn't really have the epic feel that you would expect, but in some ways that's its charm. Certianly not the greatest movie ever, and not even onto my personal top 10 list, but definetly a good film.
Many people say "I'm not a religious person, so I don't want to see this movie." Neither am I. Infact I downright hate Christain theology (don't give me this "but look at all the good points" talk, I've had it, all your good points are for the wrong intentions).
I still have yet to understand why that people would say that but still go see a movie about someone like Caesar, Joan of Arc, or Martain Luther King, Jr.
The passion of the Christ deals with one of the most controversial figures in history over the impact of one of the most controversial events in history. The thing is, this was something that did happen and I think it would be interesting to see a movie about it.
I still have yet to understand why that people would say that but still go see a movie about someone like Caesar, Joan of Arc, or Martain Luther King, Jr.
The passion of the Christ deals with one of the most controversial figures in history over the impact of one of the most controversial events in history. The thing is, this was something that did happen and I think it would be interesting to see a movie about it.
I saw the movie yesterday but it would be one that I would maybe not see again...just becuase some of the scenes can be so much to take in. You know what will happen but you do not want to watch it. I was tempted to turn away a few times during the end of the movie.
It is something like you know what is going to happen, but the movie seems to look so accurate on what happened from all the detail it can be a lot to take in.
Like I said above, I am not so sure I would see it again...one was enough for me.
It is something like you know what is going to happen, but the movie seems to look so accurate on what happened from all the detail it can be a lot to take in.
Like I said above, I am not so sure I would see it again...one was enough for me.
Believe it or not, the guy who played Jesus in this movie is 33 and if you noticed above, his initials are "JC." None of the major film studios wanted to do this one. It grossed upwards of $100 million in just a few days. If this thing comes back to theaters every easter, then it can easily pull in BILLIONS.
| QUOTE (Alisha @ Feb 26 2004, 02:48 PM) |
| seeing as how im not a believer i have no interest in this movie and whats up with jesus being a white dude ........ |
That, I agree with. Jesus could not have been white because his birth place was in Jerusalem, so it would be logical to assume that he would have a South-East-Asian appearance. I think casting a white actor and constantly portraying him as a beautiful, long-haired caucasian man is just a reflection of the world's racist attitude and inability to believe that their "savior" could have been what the Western society percieve as a"minority." I'm interested in seeing the movie from an educational/critical perspective, especially since I'm not a believer, so I won't take anything to heart, but I am already disappointed that they couldn't at least acurately give the actor an olive tone to his skin.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.