What is your reaction to Mel Gibson's "The Passion"?

Welcome to A2K, Ocean, but this subject is already being discussed in two different forums -- here's the one in Film:

http://www.able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=18830

I saw the movie tonight or if you want technical I saw it Friday night. I know how it is told in the bible.

There are minor liberties. But for the most part it was as it was when read from the bible.

This movie made me think of how Mary must have felt seeing her son going through so much and she was not able to protect him as a mother wants to and does.

I admit that I did shed tears. How can't you. Never have I seen a movie where the person is being attacked and it felt so personal. And yet at the same time I did not want revenge upon the attackers. It is remarkable ability to rely information through visual means and have it so full of emotion that seeing it once will forever be engrave upon your soul.

Thank you Mel for eyes into the past to see what one man endured so that all men (& women) may be spared from sin's grasp. It was a grand sight and never shall one forget the visual pain and suffering that cascaded the screen. Well done.

It'd be interesting to know the religous affliations of those in the audience.

I read that post first.. that isn't a post on what you THINK about the movie.. it's a post on Mel Gibson and his money....

I have no religious affiliation... but I have read the bible. This movie, regardless of what people think.. is pretty much Exactly as it happened in the bible... amazing.

Well, it's extrapolated from a few words in the Bible and the Emmerich texts (she was virulently anti-Semtic, BTW) and there are two other discussions on the boards about what people THINK of the movie. Considering the tools available to Mel, I don't believe the movie is amazing at all. His use of horror film cliches is especially silly looking (the little boys turning into ghouls made me laugh -- I would have expected something like that in Peter Jackson's earlier movies and he's trying to live those down with "The Lord of the Rings.") Actually, the discussions of the movie have now become merely tiresome and polarizing. If one is not a fundamentalist Catholic, why on Earth did the Lutheran, Protestant, et al break away from that church? Answer -- products like Mel's movie and it is, after all, a product.

BtW, it's certainly not your fault but every drop of blood has been wrenched out of this topic on three different discussions. Literally.

Ghouls. No. Demons. yes.

They looked more like ghouls than demons -- doesn't change the fact that it is a cheap funhouse Hollywood CGI effect. Tacky.

You think it is tacky because you didn't like it. Period. You were not going to like it and would not allow yourself to like it. So when you saw it your intention was not to like it. And you have made yourself happy with not liking.

I know because when I went and saw Austin Powers I was knew I wouldn't like it and I ended up hating it and riping it apart. But after I saw it again I realized how funny it was and it is one of my favorite movies. I am not saying--because you would quote me and say that you would never think that of the Passion--that you are going to like th Passion. I am saying you intended on hating it and that is what you got.

Demons have not real shape. So you don't know if that is or isn't what they look like. Plus the movie wasn't about CGI. You keep making it like it was about Money about this about that. It is so hard for you to think that maybe there are people who make things because they want to show the greatness in what they beleive. You are so going to read that wrong. Go ahead. Be my guest.

People tend to shove their feelings onto others. Like say someone is cheating on their partner. The cheater will continue to be pariniod that that is what their partner is doing to them. So when people say that they are only in it for the money or that CGI was crappy--that is all that matters to them.

My intention was not to dislike the film before I'd seen it. I was prepared for the brutality and blood (which were seemlessly integrated with very good CGI effects) but it still was more disgusting than uplifting. It was also not very good drama even with the effects thrown in to highten the action and I think it's because the story is too well known. I also never said Mel was in it for the money because I don't believe that. He may have a field day with the profits making more Mel versions of the Bible, he may donate the profit. That remains to be seen. I'm not sure the authors of the Bible would be pleased to see anyone translate their work to the screen but they're not here to complain.

BTW, I wonder how a persons committment to their religion has to be validated by a movie. Is there a predisposition to love the movie before going in to see it?

That is a funny statment.

But it was just like the bible version. Maybe two diffrences that might because of his diffrent beliefs that his church taught but very close--more so than I thought before seeing it.

No. But the movie gives a new view on what occured. It sets up a diffrent way of thinking about the events. One that some may have never thought out.

I never really gave much thought to how Mary would have felt seeing her son going through all of the abuse and feeling helpless.

The same with Prince of Egypt--though that was less aligned with the Bible. I knew it was possible that Mosses and Pharoh were "related" but I never thought about how that would make Mosses feel when he had to come back and demand release of his people. Nor did I think about what his baby "crib" had to go through when his mother put it on the river. All the animals that would have access to him along the way.

I disagree -- I believe Christians, even those who are not fundamentalist Catholic, are predisposed to love the movie despite the overwrought imagery.

The Bible does leave a lot up to imagination and extrapolation -- that's why there are clerics and theologians. Whether moviemakers are still too low an artistic lot to tackle the genre is highly debatable. I've read that Mel is compared to Picasso and Van Gogh. He's aped classic art (in other words, copied it) even telling the cinematographer who to imitate. The facile nature of this kind of filmmaking is obvious.

I prefer to go past this and anticipate "Hidalgo," opening today and "Troy" as epics that may get my blood rushing. This one just made me not imagine blood gushing.

I was not predisposed to love the movie. I had doubts it would even make feel anything. So disagree all you want to but you are wrong.

I saw the film last night and was terribly disappointed. Mel Gibson's Braveheart was one of my favorite movies of all time; so perhaps my expectations were a little high... but with all the hype and all... If I'd of seen an accurate advertisement; I wouldn't have seen the movie at all: WATCH CHRIST GET TORTURED FOR TWO HOURS! Mel Gibson virtually ignored everything beautiful and focused in on shock value violence. If you didn't know who Christ was; you may just as well see any gory movie. Watch Ben Hur instead. I can only assume that those who liked the film must feel they owe it to Christ to watch a depiction of his suffering. It was a sad waste of talent and an enormous budget. Both thumbs down!

Completely agree, OCCUM BILL. A client I just spoke to about a lighting problem got onto the topic of the movie when I asked what he was up to lately (the couple are also old friends as his wife played oboe in the Pacific Symphony and I got her some leverage in her career through a friend of mine). He said he had seen the film and it was way too brutal -- he wouldn't not be going to see it again. It left him confused about his religion (he's Methodist).

Everyone missed the point of the movie.

It is the same reason Jesus was sent to earth.

The movie showed Jesus exact reason for being born.