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.

[Liz]

Thanks again.....that sure made my day.

[sonrise57]

I just got back from the seeing "The Passion of the Christ" with my wife. I had two reactions. A reaction born of the realistic portrayal of Christ's suffering, that caused me to have a spirit of repentence. My second reaction is anger. I will never, ever, ever believe anything published by the liberal elitist media of the this country. The media lied about the movie being "a violent gore fest". The media lied about the movie making no point about the meaning of his suffering. The movies lied about the Christ's suffering being disconnected from his life. Lies, lies, lies, lies, lies. Do you believe I am angry? This movie is exposing to the light the dark satantic plan to keep our culture in darkness. Now I have to go see the movie again, without the fear that I am going to witness a sickening gore fest. I also have to go to see the movie again with some spiritually open people who don't know that Jesus died for them.

[Liz]

I will never, ever, ever believe anything published by the liberal elitist media of the this country.

The media lied about the movie being "a violent gore fest.

The media lied about the movie making no point about the meaning of his suffering.

The media lied about the Christ's suffering being disconnected from his life.

Lies, lies, lies, lies, lies

Wow. We all wish we'd said that.

[GigaDittos]

It's the best movie ever made, even though I haven't seen it yet.

[incindiary]

I haven't read this whole thread, but here is what I just posted on another board...

I saw it last night. The show before ours and the show I saw was sold out. For me, it was definitely an experience... not just an ordinary movie. I knew of course that Christ suffered and died on the cross for our sins, but seeing it in graphic images is very different than just reading the words. It was heart-wrenching, knowing that He willingly went through all that, for all of us. It made me cry... a lot of people in the theatre were crying. There was one point when people were losing it, crying out loud, I think it was when they were actually nailing Him to the cross... it was definitely moving.

I agree with what Criminal said... the brutality and horribleness of the Roman executioners, how they mocked and spit on Him, and the mob who called for His death, it all shows the ugliness of mankind. But even when Jesus was on the cross, and they were still mocking Him, He was forgiving... it makes me think we are unworthy... He went through hell for us, and so many people don't realize it or believe it.

other thoughts

Just as I suspected, the hype about anti-semitism was bs. It showed what actually happened, and the fact is, not all the Jews were the bad guys. Jesus Himself, and the disciples, and many of his followers were Jews.

If Mel Gibson's goal was to show Christ's suffering, out of Love, to make us appreciate our salvation even more, then Mel not only achieved that goal but hit it out of the park. I was inspired by this film, not to sound sappy, but it affected my love and faith, and it makes me want to be better, seeing what Jesus went through.

Mel Gibson deserves big thanks for making this, and I hope this film does REALLY well... I will probably see it again, hopefully with some unbelieving friends of mine.

[TNMountainMan]

[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?"]

Jesus is quoting scripture here (Psalms 22). I think it is the whole Psalm we are to consider which ends on a triumphant note of praise for the Father's faithfulness.

[incindiary]

in case anyone was wondering 'Criminal' is a poster on another board. I guess I should've re-written my post for here.

[Sol_Invictus]

I saw the movie last night.

My first reaction is that the debate about violence and anti-Semitism misses a larger point: this is not a good movie.

Mel seems to have a bit of the George Lucas (Episode I) disease. IOW, this director needs someone to say NO sometimes.

While there has been much talk of the influence of Caravaggio on the scenes, I was dismayed to see a sensibility more in line with Jack Chick. While Judas agonizes, a silly looking demon flirts around in the background. The scene with the wizened children chasing him was weird, in a very pointless sort of way. However, Mel would be a contender if the script for Evil Dead 4 ever shows up.

Then there is the lack of redemptive spirituality. The context of Jesus' teachings is woefully undeveloped. If you walk in with strong feelings for Jesus, you may not need much context, and bully for you. But as a work of art, it is painfully stunted in this way.

There is also the intellectual anemia. When Pilate asks his wife how she recognizes truth, she replies that is something merely "known". Thus, Gibson removes the rational from truth and assigns it entirely to the emotional or intuitive facilities. A supremely New-Agey, feel-good kind of moment. And deeply unsatisfying to anyone with a predisposition to an approach at least seasoned with critical thought.

I'm not sure where Gibson got the idea to have a crow peck out the unrepetant thief's eye. It contradicted his theme of forgiveness in a jolting way.

Gibson is a heavy-handed director. He apparently thought it would be provocative if Jesus looks directly into the camera when delivering some deep thoughts. It isn't provocative Mel, it's something a pretentious 18 year old would do with his first school camera project.

The decision to film in Latin and Aramaic was cool enough. But if Gibson was so interested in authenticity, why a handsome Western-European look for Jesus, and a supermodel for Mary Magdalen?

Finally, the ending was silly. We see Satan's wig fly off. Then we see the light changing in the tomb, and martial drums begin to play. We see Jesus, staring purposefully into the distance. Apparently he is ready to kick some butt, in a very peaceful sort of way.

No need to pause on the violence and anti-Semitism; the subject has been beaten to death.

[RobRoy]

Yes!

[GigaDittos]

Pilati had a lot in common with Dean.

[FlatLandBeer]

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;


This is where I fliched in the movie..I could just imagine the pain..I could almost feel it.

[FlatLandBeer]

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.



Thsi is a surrealistic moment in the film..not sure what it means..but as for it being the anti-christ that is possible since the image is the opposite of the many images of Mary holding the Christ child.

[pax_et_bonum]

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

Good!

>>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.<<

"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?"

Hey, guess what! We agree on this: this is the pinnacle of Jesus suffering, the point in time when his suffering was the worst, so much that He felt abandoned by the Father.

However, I must re-state that Jesus wasn't alone. And ALL of His disciples didn't abandon Him. Only one - John - stayed, but that one makes all the difference.

Of course he was alone, in the sense that we have the skin boundary, but he had three people with him, as I said before - His mother, Mary and the disciple John - who were sharing His suffering. If you really believe He was alone even though three companions were with Him, why would you ever visit an ill friend in the hospital or speak out to support a friend who is being slandered, or any of those things we do to help each other in times of suffering? Why would you do that if they are suffering alone, anyway?

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."

What about the woman who was going to be stoned for adultery? Women were held very accountable in their culture. Their roles were different from men, but they were held accountable.

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.

But our bodies aren't temporal! -not permanently, anyway! We believe in the resurrection of our bodies. I can't stress how important it is to see the importance of the physical. We won't be "complete" until the resurrection of our bodies re-unites our bodies with our souls. We aren't angels. We are made physical and spiritual, and death is the unnatural separation of those, brought on by sin.

And, considering this, remember that Christ didn't become an angel. Ever. He did become human. Why? Why did he become flesh and blood? He's God. His power is infinite. If He chose to become a physical being, an actual member of the new "dimension" of physical creation which He created, mustn't that be really important?

If the Bible speaks much more to you than the movie, you could look through the New Testament to find passages that refer to physical acts of Our Lord.

I'm not trying to tell you what to do, it's just that my coming to realize that the physical is critical in the understanding of Christ and His teachings - of course I'm not saying that I understand perfectly or even to any great depth - has helped me to see Him in a beautiful new light and one that makes very logical sense.

One other note, when I saw the movie on Tuesday, I was surprised a little because it was much more "simple" than I had expected. I wasn't disappointed, as you were, but I was expecting... I don't know... something... sort of like seeing any movie made from a book and the scenes are placed differently than you've imagined them in your mind. However, this movie was touching to me in its profound simplicity.

Also, as a Catholic, I've been meditating and focusing on the Passion for my whole life, so I didn't cry. I was deeply touched, but by the beauty of Our Lord's willing sacrifice made with such selfless Love and put on the screen so that I could actually see something like what it had been when it happened.

My impression was: this is REAL - the Passion is the most real thing that's ever happened on this earth.

[nickcarraway]

It does depend on each child, but after watching it, I don't think it's necessary to prevent all children from seeing it. I think the key is for at least one parent to be with the child, and to gauge what the child can handle. You might want to watch it first without them, to see for yourself. I think most 11 year olds could handle it, and even younger, depending on the child. Children see a lot worse today, and the way this movie is made, I don't think it's damaging other movies/TV.

[docmcb]

Lack of redemptive spirituality?

What about "there is no remission of sins without the shedding of blood"?

I think the sheer physical reality of it is the redemptive point.

[docmcb]

Yes, indeed. It's not just that Jesus Christ WAS God and Man; he still IS God and Man. He is the second Adam, and he's preparing a place for, not just for us, for the rest of us.

[.30Carbine]

Thank you for that post, Grizzly Bear. Hugs from VT! ( ;

[luckystarmom]

Those were my only "problems" with the movie. I almost felt the demon scenes were too Hollywood.

I thought the Satan Character was portrayed well. Almost seductively evil. Just a hint. The demons just went over the top for me.

[luckystarmom]

I liked when Mary flashes back on a time when Jesus fell as a young child, and she runs to pick him up.

I thought showing Mary's own suffering was powerful, and it made Jesus more human.

[luckystarmom]

Is there any record of what happened to Joseph. Was he alive when Jesus died?

We know Mary was. I just was wondering what happened to Joseph.