[AD from SpringBay]

Oh oh - it's R rated and violent. That's really an oddity among movies these days. Perhaps there should be an outcry? Perhaps Mr. Gibson should ignore the brutality of the originals and include more modern and subtle tones of recent Bible interpretation. Maybe a homosexual element or a mookish side-kick for the savior? Perhaps a happier ending? Or what if he has the board of Directors for the NRA replacing the Sanhedrin? Would these make the film more palatable?

[Sam's Army]

Yeah, this must be the latest DNC talking point on the matter; the (ahem) folks over at DU were decrying the violence yesterday of the movie and had plenty of posts mocking Jesus to boot.

Makes ya wonder when some folks protest so much...

[Agnes Heep]

Based on everything I've seen written about the movie, it's not historically accurate, and probably overdone for dramatic effect. It sounds as if Gibson is picking up where "Braveheart" left off--with a nice, gruesome torture scene to get people's blood up--a pornography of violence, as it were. Other than being, like Wallace, a sympathetic victim, Jesus has very little to do with it.

[Skooz]

"As many were astonished at thee; his visage was so marred more than any man, and his form more than the sons of men"
Isaiah 52:14

Kind of hard to soft peddle that.

[reegs]

...it's an exercise in cinematic sadism...

It is truly shocking to see how much this movie is being smeared before it has even been released.

Somehow, a realistic portrayal of our Lord's suffering is "sadistic," but gore-fests like "Natural Born Killers" is high art. Should I expect any better from the media? Do you think we'll hear about the many people who will come to Christ through this film?

[Copernicus]

This is a joke? The Soviet Socialist Left disturbed by graphic violence?

This has happened before. Can someone jog my memory?

Didn't Pat Robertson produce a video back in the 1980's based on Dante's Inferno that was banned from air on the (then) fledgling MTV, because it was "too violent"?

I have some vague memory of this.

Best regards,

[smith288]

The reality is that is WAS brutal. Its not an "or" question.

[freedomson]

Yeah, too violent.

But all should praise 'Kill Bill'.

[Sloth]

Yeah, because in reality, lashings followed by crucifixion would be a relatively peaceful affair, with only minor discomfort and minimal bleeding. Why is Mel trying to portray it as something so unpleasant?

< /sarcasm>

[TomServo]

God demands punishment for sin. And since Jesus became sin, he was punished accordingly. I doubt this film will accurately portray the amount of punishment inflicted upon Christ. I'm sure it was much worse than the film displays.

[Cubs Fan]

I think we ought to Freep this movie like a poll. I urge all to get out there and vote with your tickets.

The only people I've seen attacking this film are leftists. for that reason alone it would be worth supporting this movie.

Furthermore, A Christian relative of mine saw a screening at her church and said the movie is great. I'll take her opinion over numbnut leftists who hate Christianity any day.

[Hildy]

The media just CANNOT let this go...I want to know why. I can't imagine this movie being any more violent than 75% of the movies I saw last year. I'm seeing it next week, so I'll let you know!

[Lazamataz]

I have no opinion.

[latrans]

"It is as it was". That's what the Pope said.

[Sister_T]

Will folks buy a clue?? Jesus' death was NOT this pretty, "oh, spank me, you big, Roman guard, you!" nonsense! It was BLOODY, horrific and, yes, it was violent! Being beaten with a cat o'nine tails doesn't leave just bruises. Do these people read the Bible? There's violence throughout. Mankind does not have the best history in treating its fellow man with decency and kindness. We probably aren't getting treated to ALL of what happened to Christ and if this little bit offends folks, the whole truth would probably shatter them!

[reegs]

Does anyone else have the same reaction to this film that I have? I'm very anxious to see it despite knowing I'll be a weeping, sorrowful mess by the end of the film.

[cyncooper]

This is very odd. The article is centered on the notion of bringing kids to see the movie, when Gibson has recommended children not see it.

[traumer]

"Dr. Alan Hilfer, a child psychologist..."

in a quick scan mode - I read it as Dr. Adolf Hitler
Sorry...

[Lazamataz]

I still have no opinion.

[N. Theknow]

"The man was bent over and had his wrists lashed to his ankles so that his back was fully exposed."

"The scourging was administered by two men. One man was taller than the other. The shorter of the two was more brutal with his lashes. The taller man was somewhat hesistant in his lashes."

"There was not one inch of skin left unscathed on the man's back and buttocks. Several spots on his back were opened to the bone. The lashes wrapped around the body onto the chest area. However, as was customary with the Romans when administering a scourging, the area around the heart suffered no trauma. The penalty for a Roman soldier accidently killing a prisoner by scourging before the prisoner could be crucified was to take that prisoner's place on the cross."

"He was taken prisoner while he was saying his prayers."

"There was evidence of a "cap" of thorns not placed on his head but jammed down into the scalp and forehead as if it was put on his head and then hit into place with either a board or the flat portion of a sword."

Paul Bromley explaining the findings of the group that examined the Shroud of Turin, speaking to a church group in 1982.