Betty Bowers reviews Mel Gibson's film The Passion of Christ

As someone who was severely traumatized by a film when I was twelve, I really feel sorry for those kids. I also wonder what will be the reaction of children who had a problem with aggresion before they saw the movie,

From the reviews that I have read, that film should have been rated NC-17. It does not sound to me that this film is appropriate for the immature mind, for many reasons.

Here you can read what many reviewers have to say about this film:

http://mrqe.com/lookup?The+Passion+of+the+Christ

Ignorance will no longer be bliss after they see this horror fest.

It's the goriest, most violent film I've ever seen. Fake blood is flying everywhere and Jesus would have died before he reached the cross.
But I suppose according to Mel Christ's Dad wanted to give the crowd a real lesion...err, I mean lesson. Or is it the didactic Mel?

A.O. Scott, in today's NY Times, says the flick is a cross between a horror film and a slasher movie. Sounds like a hit!

Excessive gore and violence. Hmmm . . . maybe I will see this piece of crap.

Mel believes with his popularity that he can get away with presenting his vision as a thelogian (he's ignored or colored historical evidence). He is mistaken. Phoenix is correct that the film should have still received an NC17 but I suppose the objection to violence and gore goes out the window when it's a religious subject. If Mel does the same for St. Sebastian, I figure he'll have a hundred arrows piercing his body before he expires.

Hi Lightwizard...I agree with you. It was by far the goriest movie I've ver seen, but there's a few reasons why I feel that it was justified.

All the other movies and plays based on ThePassion have fallen short of making any sort of global impact, which is exactly what Mel Gibson wants to accomplish with this movie. Gibson is acting as a minister with this movie, not a Hollywood director. Was the violence over the top? We don't know. Either does Gibson. No one will ever know just how much Jesus suffered, but that's not really the point. Mel Gibson felt that people had begun forgetting why Jesus did what He did. This movie was meant to remind people. He knew that showing Jesus being brutalized was going to get people talking. It was going to make people pay attention, because if we really take a step back and look at the violence; does it really matter how much torture Jesus endured? No. Even if He didn't receive even 1/10th of what Mel Gibson showed us on the screen, the fact that He was nailed to a cross with a crown of thorns buried into His head as an innocent man sacrificing Himself for humanity and their sins is remarkable. But as I was saying before, they've tried this approach in other movies and other plays and it didn't make an impact.

You had also mentioned that He would've died long before He made it to the cross. You're right, if He were just a man. In this story He is the Son of God. That is why He survives until he says "It is accomplished." Once it was accomplished, He knew it was time to let go.

Global impact I say. "Ben Hur" didn't make an impact (hint, it won a record number of Oscars).

As to his superhuman indurance to the horrific torture Mel displays on the screen, good for him. He has in just over two hours displayed the lesson God seemed to be reaching for but at the expense of not showing one iota of spirituality. This is Mel's ego being sacrificed, not the story of the Passion. Thanks, but I'll stick to Bach's "St. Mathew's Passion" and the finest film ever produced of the story, "The Gospel According to St. Mathews Passion" mention by one of the reviewers, an Italian film that has more resonance in ten minutes than in the length of time Mel spends on his slasher Christ film.

A link to that very fine film that Mel only can suppose to surpass:

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0058715/

If anyone rents this film, they will see how far off the ditzy critics who say that the Passion has never been presented as grand as this paltry effort. Sorry, I hated the film.

BTW, it's Mel's magnanimous effort to try to emulate a minister that is even more dangerous and off putting than almost anything else about the film. I always thought he was rather a goon, now it's confirmed.

True, Ben Hur did make an impact in Hollywood. It was a brilliantly made film. That's where The Passion lacks. It's not a great film. I never said the movie was great or as good as the other movies depicting the Passion. I'm just giving you the reasons why the violence was used. Gibson is attempting to build a Catholic Army with this movie. So far he's doing an exceptional job at accomplishing this. He's not bothered by the fact that people like you and I either like the movie or not. That's not a big deal to him. What is a big deal re the hundred's of thousands of people that will either restore their faith in Jesus or by watching this movie will at least contemplate what He did for us.

I've seen "The Gospel According to St. Mathews Passion" and you're right about it being a better and more resonating film, but the most are not going to agree with us. Even if they have heard of or seen the movie. To give you an example. Look at what 'the common man' is saying about this movie compared to "The Gospel According to St. Mathews Passion".

The Gospel

The Passion

2,712 people rating The Passion an A- in one day compared to 9 people giving "The Gospel" an A since 1994. Keep in mind I'm talking about global impact; not the quality of the film.

I agree this is the Passion according the Mel for the Christian movie-goer, likely many of those would never see "Mad Max" or "Lethal Weapon." Whether he is building a "Catholic army" is highly debatable. The IMDb ratings are not conclusive -- it's obvious to me that it is a campaign initiated within Christian ranks. It's the choir voting which will be the box office through the weekend. We'll these same people go back to experience it again and again. I wonder.

The Rotten Apples guage of the critical reviews has dropped down below 50% placing the picture as average. But it's the wild diversity of either loving the picture or hating it. There's only a few reviews that are inbetween.

Back to what I did like about the film, I feel the soundtrack although well done could also be background music for a horror film like "The Omen," and, in fact resembles that score. The Deschanel cinematography is sumtuous and at the same time very self-conscious.

Apparantly people still don't realize that it isn't religious differences that's the problem. Mel magnanimously stated he was not anti-Semtic, he prays for them all the time -- sure he does. It's the fundamentalist that want to subscribe to religious views from hundreds of years ago.

I'll repeat what I have said before: if a time machine is invented, let them all get aboard and go back to those times. If they had no way of returning, I wonder how many would go?

Actually, stories of Christ have always done very well at the box office but I don't believe this film will surpass the majority of them. If many Christian church sects endorse the film and begin urging their flock to see the film over and over during the coming years, it could boost DVD sales.

This is a commercial product. It can't feign being an art film even if it is sub-titled.

All the talk now is about whether the film will hurt Mel Gibson's career. Apparently a lot of studio execs are Jewish and have taken offense to the anti-Semitic views of Mel's father and, by association, Mel himself. Some have even said they will not work with Mel in the future.

I don't believe that. I read this quote this morning and agree:
"If the movie works, I don't think it will hurt him," said John Lesher, an agent with Endeavor. "People here will work with the anti-Christ if he'll put butts in seats."

they might work with the anti christ but they wont with an anti semite

It has always been my impression that the preponderance of evidence (based on films produced) suggested that they did, on a regular basis :wink:

Based on the NY Times review, I have no intention of seeing this film.

What clued me in was that I read that Gibson's Catholic splinter group, broke away after Vatican II, because they did not believe in the changes that the church had made. One of the things that Vatican II accomplished was to make official "peace" between the Catholics and Jews, in terms of the church's stand on the culpability of the Jews for the Crucifiction.

That, and the fact that Gibson's father is known as a virulent anti-Semitic nutjob, gives me reason to scratch my head about Gibson's intentions when he made the film.

Just so you don't think that I am blaming the son for the sins of the father, consider this:

In this month's Reader's Digest, there is an interview with Mel Gibson. Unfortunately, I can't link the article, but I will write the relevent part:




Gibson, being "direct and to the point", answers:



So what may we conclude from THAT!

That Gibson jnr loves his dad and doesn't want to answer the question.

I disagree. I think that he was attempting to circumlocute, but he gave himself away in his first two sentences.

I also saw that quote re Hollywood working with the anti-Christ if he puts butts in the seats, and I believe that's true. This furor will fade.

Does anyone think Gibson will have trouble finding work when some studio is ready to film the next chapter of "Lethal Weapon"?

Just to be clear--I don't respect what Gibson is doing here, but I am a realist...

Mel is getting a little long in the tooth like Ahnold -- perhaps he'll run for office or try for the Papacy.