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.

[BreitbartSentMe]

I thought I had heard that the actor who portrays Jesus was struck by lightning TWICE during the filming of this movie. I believe once was during the Sermon on the Mount scene, and once while he was on the cross.

Maybe God just wanted to add his own 'special effects'

[pax_et_bonum]

And it could not show the REAL suffering (non-physical) Christ endured.

?

Physical suffering is "REAL suffering."

[Ursus arctos horribilis]

"As you can see from my tagline, I'm an atheist. That, however, does not mean that I am not familiar with the story of Jesus.

I've been reading reviews of this film for a few days now, trying to decide whether or not I will attend. At this point, I do not plan to see this film. "

As a 50 plus year thinking atheist I can understand your trepidation on seeing the movie. I too was hesitating, but went with the wife yeasterday.

I came away ashamed, of myself, of man, and of the inhumanity committed by pure evil. I cried throughout and am now thinking it through, I had to confront my beliefs, and found them lacking.

I know now my life has changed, and it is hoped for the better. I always said the liberals would make a Christian out of me, but perhaps I have now done that for myself, we shall see.

[RobRoy]

The physical body is very short lived. Christ was ALONE in his suffering. Even his disciples had abandoned him. I don't think the movie portrayed any of his suffering very well, except the physical part, which was the least part of his suffering. But that IS what Mel does best.

I am in no way trying to bash the movie. I was one of it's biggest proponents before I saw it. But I must be intellectually honest about my sincere opinion on what I saw. And let me tell you, it was really hard not liking something that I DESPERATELY wanted to like.

Keeping my mouth shut while my pastors and friends were talking about it was not easy either. And they must have known something was up because I am normally the most talkative of the group.

I felt I needed to mull it over in my mind before I started talking. Well, I've mulled it, and what I said here is the "polite" way of sharing my feelings on it. As I said, it could be a good reality slap in the face to those who have been "flirting" with Christianity. For those of us who already are? Well, as is usually the case, the Book is better than the movie.

[Aquinasfan]

Caravaggio's Doubting Thomas.

Now that's ART!

[irishlass]

I would have to take issue with your characterization of the life and work of Christ being the same as other "Myths." I know of no mythological figure who caused those around them to sacrifice everything to spread their message and change the world. History records that eleven of the twelve apostles willing died martyrs deaths because of the impact the living Christ had on their lives. Mythological figures do not normally have this affect on human beings. This is one of many arguments which made me re-evaluate my religious beliefs, along with the writings of theologian Rave Zacharias.

[PMCarey]

First let me get my denomination out the way: my wife and I are both devote Catholics. Love the Pope, pray the rosary, etc. Okay. My thoughts.

This is a Good Friday movie, filmed version of the The Way of the Cross. My wife didn't like the film and thought it was too violent. I think this is a great film. However I have noticed that when the Triduum comes around, I get the most out of the Good Friday service, while my wife attaches herself to the Easter Vigil.

The Story of Christ is so rich and varied that there are many paths to it, many entry points. Perhaps you're most affected by the Sermon on The Mount and that becomes your way to Christ. Maybe you're a Holy Thursday person. I'm a Good Friday person and it spoke to me in that way.

There were a lot of amazing moments. Let me just cite one for discussion. The scene with Simon were amazing. Perhaps the most amazing was after Jesus fell the second time, Simon helps him back up, encouraging him to go forward, telling him that he's almost there, that he can make it. I found myself "rooting" for Christ not to give up, to continue and then it hit me that he was only going forward to his own death; but then I realized that this was the whole point.

Christ was not killed, instead he delivered up his spirit. He could've delivered up his spirit at any time. He could've delivered up his spirit during the scourging, during the path to Calvary, when the first nail went in. But he didn't. He kept going until "it was accomplished". What that meant, only Christ understood in its fullness, but I think it means that it would not be accomplished until in his suffering, he had fully taken on our sins, all of our sins. He could not stop earlier, because then it would not have been accomplished.

That is an insight that I received from the film and for that I thank Mel Gibson.

[Aquinasfan]

Can anyone tell me what disciple was with both Mary's at the crucifixtion?

John, "the beloved disciple."

[Aquinasfan]

I'm an atheist... I came away ashamed, of myself, of man, and of the inhumanity committed by pure evil. I cried throughout and am now thinking it through, I had to confront my beliefs, and found them lacking.

I will pray for you, as will many others here, I'm sure.

[pax_et_bonum]

The physical body is very short lived. Christ was ALONE in his suffering. Even his disciples had abandoned him. I don't think the movie portrayed any of his suffering very well, except the physical part, which was the least part of his suffering. But that IS what Mel does best.

I'm certainly not trying to talk you into liking this movie. I don't care at all who likes it and who doesn't.

However, if we separate the physical part of Christ's suffering from the emotional and spiritual suffering then part of the equation is missing.

One of the reasons that I'm Catholic is that the Church understands that we are flesh and spirit. The physical part of our nature is very important.

Christ came to earth as a man. He could have saved us without becoming fully human, but he chose to do it that way.

He chose to undergo great physical suffering for us, as that Man.

By saying that the physical suffering is the least important of His sufferings, you are de-valuing the only suffering of His that people can witness, the incredible physical suffering that is the visible proof of His love for us, and His very purpose for coming to earth as a man - to let them kill his physical body in order to overcome death.

Christ was a very PHYSICAL person. He drew in the dirt when confronting the crowd with stones, He spit in dirt and put the mud on the blind man's eyes to cure him, He touched people physically to cure and to love them, He allowed them to touch Him to be cured and to show their love, and, as a culmination of everything, He gave us His Body and Blood to eat and to drink.

It is necessary to incorporate the physical mysteries of Christ with the spiritual and emotional mysteries if we are to know Him, because that's the way He Himself designed it.

[Liz]

I thought every scene where Satan reared its ugly head was frightening.

These were excellent plot devices employed to reinforce the many mutations of evil.

....The soft, enticing voice of the androgynous being tempting Christ in the Garden we then see with a maggot emerging from its nostril.

....The classic ugliness of the satanic image after Judas betrays Jesus.

....The scene with Satan silently and effortlessly moving through the crowd.....

But the scene with the "satanic baby" caressing its "mother" was truly unnerving.

My take is that the baby was omnipresent evil, spanning the ages, always renewing itself. But another poster said it best.....it was the antichirst yet to show itself.

[pax_et_bonum]

The physical body is very short lived. Christ was ALONE in his suffering. Even his disciples had abandoned him. I don't think the movie portrayed any of his suffering very well, except the physical part, which was the least part of his suffering. But that IS what Mel does best.

I apologize for being a pest, but I must address these comments, also.

Christ was not alone in His sufferings. John, Mary His Mother, and Mary followed Him and were as close to Him as possible the entire time.

As for Mel's talent being limited to portraying physical activities best, I saw the interview with Diane Sawyer, and I must disagree with you. He exhibited a depth of spiritual maturity I've never seen in a celebrity interview.

He also revealed, by the movie, a tremendous depth of spiritual and mystical understanding which can only come through prayer.

[Giddyupgo]

Your words brought tears to my eyes.....so true. Thanks

[docmcb]

The most shocking/striking/impactful scenes for me were:

1) when the Romans flip over the cross to hammer the nails down so they don't pull out of the wood; I never thought of that, and it was like being hit by a falling timber myself;

2) when Mary uses the towels brought by Claudia to mop up her Son's blood from ther Praetorium floor; like the Patty Griffin song, "Mary stays behind and starts cleaning up the place."

3) when Jesus is moving slowly down the street with his mother flanking him on one side and satan on the other;

4) the contrast between the white unmarked bodies of the two thieves and the bloody striped body of Jesus on the crosses;

5) the Temple guard who remains kneeling as they drag Jesus away, after Jesus has healed his hacked-off ear;

6) Jesus building a TABLE (duh, it took me hours to make the connection) and his mother joking that it'll never catch on.

[PleaseNoMore]

Man thinks with the mind. Jesus ministers to the heart. I hope that you don't mind but I will be praying for you.

[Liz]

The film was nuanced toward imparting several messages per scene. The ability to take what one needs from the film's subtleties is one aspect of its brilliance.

That's the trouble with the ragtag cadre of naysayers who are condemning the film. As I've continually noted....subtlety is wasted on these people.

[Aquinasfan]

He kept going until "it was accomplished". What that meant, only Christ understood in its fullness,

Besides having finished the work of Redemption, Scott Hahn argues convincingly that the Seder meal begun in the upper room is finished. Scripture records that in the upper room Jesus does not drink of the cup, the conclusion of the Seder meal. Jesus on the Cross finally drinks from the sponge soaked in wine, and then says, "it is finished," thus finishing the new Seder meal, with Himself as the sacrificed lamb.

The center of the Seder meal is the eating of the lamb. The Seder is not consumated until the lamb is completely eaten. In the flashback Jesus brings the Seder to its fruition, as He becomes the sacrificial lamb, "this is my body which will be given up for you."

Jesus' death on the Cross is made present to us in the Eucharist, just as the Exodus event is made present to Jews in the Seder meal.

1 Corinthians 11:27

Therefore, whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord.

Notice also that this is one of the charges brought against Jesus in the movie. "He says that unless you eat his flesh you will have no life in you!"

[RobRoy]

>>I apologize for being a pest, but I must address these comments, also.<<

You're not a pest. I need to get this thing talked out!

>>Christ was not alone in His sufferings. John, Mary His Mother, and Mary followed Him and were as close to Him as possible the entire time.<<

I honestly think his aloneness was the primary reason the suffering was so severe. It is something I have tried to comprehend for a number of years now. All of his disciples left him and, no offense, but I think one of the main points the Bible tries to make is the utter aloneness of Jesus in his suffering, to the point even that he said "Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani?"–which means, "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?"

Yes, having your mother there can help, but God understands the cause of his mothers "love" and the concept of maternal instinct. And the other Mary as well, would not suffer consequences for being true to the end, since women were not held accountable as men were."

In the Bible, Jesus physical suffering is not AS moving for me as His physical suffering. He of all men knew/knows the temporal nature of the body. In the movie, Mel was most successful portraying the physical suffering, but less so when it came to the emotional and spiritual suffering. Maybe it was a bad script. Maybe is was bad acting. Maybe it was just me. But that is how I came away from it.
The movie did not move me, yet the Book does.

[lonevoice]

I've read all the posts on this thread and just now came to yours. Your comments have moved me to weeping. Thank you so much for such an open sharing of your spirit.

[keats5]

If you want to see what you've been missing, might I suggest the following starting places:

1)The Gospel of John* (from the Bible);
2)CS Lewis's little book entitled, "Mere Christianity"; and
3) http://www.whoisjesus-really.org.

*John was the faithful, beloved disciple who witnessed the crucifixion with Mary. Christ charged him with caring for His mother while he hung on the cross. (Can you imagine the stories he got from her?) His gospel amazes me more every time I read it.