FR MOVIE REVUE: THE PASSION OF CHRIST (post your comments here)

2/24/04 | FR MOVIE REVIEWERS

[Liz]

All the world is waiting for the powerful message in Mel Gibson's ground-breaking film, The Passion of Christ.

Post here your own personal reactions after seeing the film set to open tomorrow, Ash Wednesday. Passion has previewed in some areas.

Also post reviews and pertinent comments from your state and area's newspapers and publications.

[Sol_Invictus]

I'm very excited to see this movie.

Christ's Passion is probably the most intense narrative in Western Literature. The emotion surrounding the idea of sacrificing oneself for the redemption of humanity goes to the heart of the most bitter cynic.

Rationally, the myth makes little sense, but in the face of death humans can seldom be logical. A comforting delusion may be better than no answers, and no comfort, in the end.

[alisasny]

I am not sure about that..throughout the movie we are retold some of Christ's greatest messages. The flashbacks to the Last Supper, flashbacks to Jesus saving Mary from stoning etc...the message is indeed in the movie. People may not believe in Jesus but they cant deny the message of goodness.

[MineralMan]

"Your attempt to denigrate the film, as well as the importance of the Passion, sounds a lot like a leftist's, or non-believer's, attempt to turn the Gospel against it's adherents."

Interesting. I have not denigrated the film. I have merely said that I will probably not see it myself. I have not denigrated the Passion. I have tried to put it into the perspective of the whole of the Christ story. I am a non-believer, as I make clear. A leftist? Where did that come from?

I'm discussing, not arguing. I've called nobody any names, nor have I suggested that anyone not go to this film. You seem confused about what I'm saying.

[AppyPappy]

Once again, Gibson did not affirm his father's beliefs but he has said he disagrees with them.

[Eva]

You are attempting discuss something which you don't understand. Your reasoning is flawed and sounds more like an excuse than a well reasoned objection.

[mel]

I tried to review comments on IMDB, but the board was too congested to let me in on the discussion of that film. That is absolutely the first time that I have had that happen there. I am just waiting till they put up the votes from people that actually watched the movie, not critics but just regular people. It still says awaiting 5 votes. For some reason, they are holding the tally

[VRWCmember]

Last night I saw a pre-screening of The Passion of the Christ. Here is my review of the film:

The Passion of the Christ is the most amazing movie I have ever seen. It is not an enjoyable or entertaining movie. I don't see how anyone could eat popcorn while watching this movie. This is not like The Promise, or other plays which show the life and ministry of Christ and his death and resurrection. There is no point in this movie where you feel like rejoicing, or cheering, or anything but the intensity of His pain. While we tend to equate the word "passion" with strong emotion (especially love), the word originally connoted suffering. It is this sense of passion that The Passion of the Christ emphasizes.

The movie is all about the suffering of Christ. It is two hours of intense suffering. From the intensity of His internal turmoil in the Garden of Gethsemane to the beating and scourging and the crown of thorns and further beating to the painful walk up the Via Dolorosa to the crucifixion, we witness His suffering, as well as the suffering of Mary as she watches her son being brutally beaten and executed. At points along the way, we see Him look at someone and then remember tender moments of teaching or service and see the love in His eyes -- not only for His followers but also for those who are abusing Him. The actress who portrayed Mary gives an outstanding performance that communicates the suffering Mary must have felt. Caviezel gives the best performance of Christ that I have ever seen. This is not a movie you enjoy or watch; it is a movie you experience.

The violence is brutal and graphic, but I disagree with all the critics who are calling it "the most violent movie I've ever seen" and so forth. There is a lot of blood. There is blood spattering in the beating and scourging scenes. Blood flows as they press the crown of thorns into his brow. And more blood flows with each blow to the nails in his feet and hands. The scourging shows the whips tearing flesh and ripping awful cuts in His back. One particular blow shows the strands of the whip tear into and hold the flesh, and as the guard jerks the whip back chunks of flesh and blood fly back toward the guard. (This was in my opinion probably the most graphically brutal shot in the film.) When you think you can't endure watching any more of the scourging, the guards turn Jesus around to whip his chest and the front of his legs for a while.

In spite of the massive amounts of blood spatter, the ripping of flesh, and the nailing of feet and hands and piercing of His side (where blood and water literally showered out onto the centurian), I did not find the violence as graphic as portrayed in some other films like Saving Private Ryan, Braveheart, The Patriot, and Gladiator, which showed numerous severed body parts and other combat violence. The brutality of the beatings, the intense bloodiness of the scourging, and the pain of the crucifixion are graphically and realistically portrayed. They show the suffering Christ endured in unprecedented clarity and intensity that may very well deepen your gratitude for what He suffered on our behalf. Depending on the sensitivity of your son, it may be acceptable for him to view this film. I am leaning strongly toward letting Nick see it this weekend. If you take your son to see the movie, I recommend attending an early afternoon showing so that afterward you will have plenty of time for questions, discussion, and reflection before it's time to send him off to bed. With that said, I would not recommend taking children younger than 10 to this movie, and depending on how sensitive they are, even older pre-teens might find the depiction of Christ's suffering in this movie too intense.

[commish]

Notice while he Condemns Mel for the "Leave it alone, diane", and continues the rant about him not repudiating his father; he leaves out this part of the Exchange (Quotes paraphrased to the best of my recollection) :

Dianne : "Do you believe the holocaust happened."

Mel : "Of course it happened"

[keats5]

I just got back from seeing the 12 noon showing, which is the first public showing in my neighborhood. I came to the theater 45 minutes early, and waited outside for about 20 minutes before they let us all in. Our theater was packed. I heard they already sold out for the evening shows.

My first thought was how wierd it was to see so many people buy popcorn to watch the crucifixion. Once the show started, people became more drawn in, and you could hear sobbing throughout the theater.

I guess, to me, the movie seemed different than how I had envisioned Christ's last hours. Most of my information comes stright from the gospels, and Mel certainly added to them. Of course, the gospels restrict themselves to the bare bones story. To tell the passion in full, one would have to take certain liberties. Otherwise you would only see occasional snapshots, not a full story. I think Gibson told the story well, and substantially accurately. As a non Catholic, I did sense a Catholic slant, which was fine. To me, it was like reading the Bible from a different translation than I was used to, but the story was the same.

I was somewhat taken aback by the portrayal of the Romans. They seemed to be shown as a bunch of hedonistic drunks, except for the occasional enlightened ones. I would think that the Roman soldiers would be have been required to maintain some decorum during a public execution.

I loved Gibson's portrayal of Pilate. I knew he made a show of washing his hands of the matter, and then handing Jesus over to the crowd. But seeing this happen really highlights Pilate's weak resolution of his political dilemma.

[Blake#1]

Why do you think Gibson put the massacre at the church in the movie?

[international american]

Good review!!

[cinFLA]

Why do you think Gibson put the massacre at the church in the movie?

Because it was the only building large enough to put them all into.

[af_vet_1981]

Once again, Gibson did not affirm his father's beliefs but he has said he disagrees with them.

No. He explicitly refused to comment on his father's beliefs.

[Solson]

Correction: This is a thread to offer REVIEWS of the movie. Thus, those who don't plan on seeing the movie have very little to offer.

[AppyPappy]

But he DID comment on them.

[XJarhead]

"His actions speak louder than his words," said Zev Brenner, a rabbi who is president and executive producer of the Manhattan-based Talkline Communications Network, America's largest syndicator of Jewish programming. "He could come out and say, 'I love my father, but I disagree with his views.'"

Er.... he's talking about actions speaking louder than words, then criticizes Gibson for not saying the right words. Kind of an odd way to phrase the argument.

[Hildy]

Have you seen it?

[Solson]

There is even more than that. There was much the selective poster left out. Not surprising...

[Blake#1]

Your are not getting my question. Let me try again. Gibson is a Roman Catholic, of the type that is anti-protestant. Anything he can do to to "put-down" Protestants he will do. He is of Irish ancestry with great hatred for the British Church (Protestant). He makes up history to inflame hatred of a subject. He does this in Braveheart and the Patriot. The film story has many lies in it. This shows that all of Gibsons story lines are suspect. What is the truth and what is a lie? I think the truth shall set you free.

[af_vet_1981]

But he DID comment on them.

Yes, these were his comments. There is no wedge, no divide, between him and his father with respect to this question. That was all he could offer after making this movie.

Sawyer asked, "Do you think people wondered if your father's views were your views on this?" "Their whole agenda here -- my detractors -- is to drive a wedge between me and my father -- and it's not going to happen," Mel Gibson told Sawyer. "I love him, he's my father."

"And you will not speak publicly about him?" Sawyer asked.

"I am tight with him. He's my father,"Mel Gibson responded. "Gotta leave it alone, Diane. Gotta leave it alone."