Siryessir!
And if you're not a sir, please don't tell me. I've already had like, ten of those slip-ups.
It's hard to tell sex from most of the handles on A2K and the avatars sometimes will give it away. I do believe Sully was male -- at least John Goodman's voice is distinctly non-feminine.
I find many aspects of the film aimed toward being entertaining. The depiction of the Devil as an androgynus hermaphrodite was distinctly entertaining and slyly humorous.
I have now seen this movie on DVD and after doing so, I fail to see what the controversy is.
It is not anti-semitic, it is a bit too graphic with the scourging, but if you are familiar with the passion play, it does a good job of foolowing the story. The main players are there and they do their roles well.
Pilate was true to form and I thought the pharisee was handles quite well. I didn't see the anti-semeticism, unless of course the current way of thinking is that the jews weren't really responsible for Jesus crucifixian...
Anyways, I thought it was a good movie and it told the story it was supposed to tell.
"
Foolowing the story..."
It should be called "The Scourging of the Christ," not "The Passion of the Christ."
Pilate is a complete reinterpretation from the scriptures and the appearance of his wife is a figment of the imagination and typical movie manipulation.
(Mel's artistic license is a license to kill).
That's also the most unethusiastic review of a movie I've read this year. The actors did "well," the movie was "good." How much did you fight of the temptation (sic) to call it a masterpiece.
Movies are movies -- there are few that reach the level of fine art. This one, of course, doesn't. It only apes fine art and when the religious trappings are set aside, it's an action drama flick with pornographic violence.
No it isn't and think you are purposfully being over dramtic.
I didn't consider it a life altering masterpeice, but I do think that it retold the story of the crucifixion of Christ quite well.
Pilate, according to stories and legends, did everything he could to prevent the death of Jesus. Adding the wife aspect to Pilate is quite understandable, or are you suggesting he wasn't married and that they never talked if they did?
I think the real story behind the film is that some people are afraid that others might be able to share a belief and that scares them.
Accoring to stories and legends? You're the over dramatic speculator here. There is nothing in the Bible, for instance, about Pilate's wife giving out towels to wipe up blood off the floor. That's something ripped out of a CSI episode.
Some are afraid that others might be able to share a believe that scares them. No, what's scary is those who believe Mel's "vision" is exactly how it was. There is the drama queen stuff.
Wonder what Jesus thinks for his story being sold at a reduced price at WalMart?
(Something like Bette Midler's line, "Help, I've been immortalized in WalMart!)
Lightwizard wrote:Wonder what Jesus thinks for his story being sold at a reduced price at WalMart?
The bible has been sold at Walmart since the first one opened. I have no idea what Jesus would think, but if his word is getting to the people that want to hear it, then he would probably be happy.
I haven't seen the film and I really don't plan to if only for the historical inaccuracies. Now if somebody makes something historically accurate, mayble like that Tupac film, then I might go see.
I believe that Christians consider the NT to be "The Word", am I wrong in that belief?
This movie does not deliver the NT, it delivers a small slice (sic) and exaggerates the sentence "he was scourged" with wild speculation. Although it was obviously well researched on what Roman "scourging" meant, Gibson promptly decided to include all forms of scourging when in fact there was no way of knowing if caning was the only method used. It's a fantasy film and not a very good one.
So buy the DVD and you can enjoy the "Smashin' of the Christ" at your leisure in your own home on a weekly basis to reaffirm your faith.
I believe you have made your feeling on Christ and Walmart abundantly clear, LW.
How about you let those of us that wish to discuss the film do so?
Nice try but no deal. This is a free forum and I will discuss anything I please. Why don't you go back to the Emerald City and tell the wizard there that the wizard here won't fall for your bait. I have said nothing about Christ as a person but about depiction of him in this movie. Your dishonest debating habits are showing up once again.
In the meantime, get thee to a WalMart.
Yes, it is a free forum, yet I don't feel free to discuss this film because you feel the need to interject your obvious negative opinion after every single post. It makes it boring and useless to try to discuss it because I know that you will continuously try to be disruptive.
Disruptive? You are writing about being disruptive?
Again, you need a reminder that
you are not a moderator.
(If the heat's too much in the kitchen, you can leave the kitchen).
