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

2/24/04 | FR MOVIE REVIEWERS

[PleaseNoMore]

I agree. I also admire Mel for "leaving it alone". It is obvious that Mel and his father have differing statements on the subject of the Holocaust. There is no need for Mel to do anything publicly where his father is concerned as the younger Gibson's own words lend him seperation from his father's views.

[PleaseNoMore]

If I knew where you lived and it was possible ( distance wise ) I would come get you and physically carry you inside the theater to see it. That is the truth.

[luckystarmom]

Call a local church. I'm sure they could arrange for someone to take you. If you are anywhere near, San Jose then I can take you.

[xone]

He also said on the cross,"My God my God why have you forsaken me." Because of his atoning act, He had to remove himself from the Father because He had the sins of the workld with him. God the Father has no association with sin.

[xone]

As you have indicated, Jesus was human, as a human he could be isolated from the Father. He is also one with the Spirit but receivedno communion with Him until 'It was finished.'

[.30Carbine]

I just bought Mel Gibson/Ken Duncan's collaborative book, "The Passion," on Amazon, along with the soundtrack.

The book is at #3! The soundtrack at #2!

We have plans today to see the movie for the second time.

[Liz]

Many thanks for the update. This will push the book and soundtrack to #1.

The film is already at the tippity top of filmdom history and has apparently surpassed all the opening grosses expected for those other highly publicized film secular Hollywood hypes to general sudiences.

Of course this film caters to the single most potent force in American life today----Christians.

[.30Carbine]

...the single most potent force in American life today----Christians

Amen. In every way.

[AlbionGirl]

Good morning Liz. It's beautiful this morning here in Rochester, NY.

I saw The Passion last night, and think I will see it again on Sunday.

It has gripped me and made me feel cold from the inside. It was marvelous.

Opening scene is powerful, as the movie opens up with an aerial shot, indicating, at least to my mind, the Presence, the Will of the Father: "and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters". Caviezel's performance does not totally convince me in this scene, but his excellence as an actor progresses exponentially as the movie continues.

Satan is extremely horrifying; Gibson conveys very effectively the idea that all that satan touches dies. Moreover, Gibson makes it clear in the scene w/satan and child that whatever satan creates or gives birth to, emerges into being from the tomb. It's a powerful message. An Evangelical co-worker tells me that I shouldn't fear satan; I tell her that she's free not to, but that I'll continue to do so, thanks all the same. The Book of Job has not been forgotten.

I like the fact that Caviezel's Jesus is a healthy, robust, handsome man in one of the primes of his life. It makes his sacrifice that much more poignant and tremendous.

I love the scenes of Caviezel's Jesus preaching and breaking bread with his friends, and I love the touching moment between Jesus and his Mother after he's finished his table. "It'll never catch on", was excellent. Jesus is affectionate; that's a much underrated and under-appreciated human quality.

I kept looking for signs of anti-Semitism on Mel's part, and became somewhat annoyed as the movie progressed that I had this mindset to begin with, due to the rants of his accusers. Even looking, I didn't find any. In fact, Caiaphas and the ‘boys' didn't even look Jewish to me, they looked Italian, and according to the credits, they were. I know Italians and Jewish people look somewhat alike, but the differences are great as well. Gibson was charged with using too many ‘big nosed' actors, and that this was a sign of his anti-Semitism, wrong again. The noses were Italian ‘big noses'. Peter looked like the great Phil Esposito of the bad and bruising ‘72 Boston Bruins.

Mel goes out of his way to convey that Caiaphas and the boys have convened their ‘adjudication' of Jesus in secret, and that the whole Council has not been invited to share the burden of Judging Jesus as heretic. Additionally, Caiaphas is portrayed as alternating between surety and ambivalence regarding the path he's taken. He becomes less obstinate upon viewing the suffering of Christ, and more obstinate as Christ continues to claim his inheritance from The Father.

Caiaphas' enormous ego is pricked and his pride is aroused. He and the boys do not come off as much Jewish as they do belonging to that race known as politician. Especially that breed of politician who will call what is right wrong, what is bad, good.

The Scourging and beating of Christ is tremendous, and the Romans come across as left of the bellcurve as satan makes ‘em, and absolute pigs of the world. My goodness are they sadistic.

Caviezel's performance while being Scourged and Crucified is an absolute tour de force. And while carrying his Cross, the Father's aid is transpicuous. Caviezel's facial expression kept alternating between Man and God. It was absolutely tremendous!

The final scene where he is taken from the Cross as the Father begins to comment, is powerful and heart wrenching. That solitary Tear of the Father is beyond the scope of adjective to describe.

Finally, when the Rock is pulled away, and Christ is restored, I again think,"and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters".

May God Bless Mel, and may this film unite the Christian sects as they have never before been united.

[Liz]

A stunning review.

Your perceptions, and your appreciation of even the minutest detail will undoubtedly please the artist in the talented Mel Gibson.

Mel strived mightily to tell the sacred story with as much artistry as he could muster.....and he succeeded mightily.

Thank you for letting us see the film through your eyes.

[gitmo]

Good post Dajjal,

I heard a reviewer this morning complaining about the 'gratuitous violence'. He mentioned the scene where Jesus was thrown over the wall and said that wasn't in the Bible. I remember noting that wasn't in the Scripture, but that Gibson was extrapolating based on the written record, plus the commentaries on the nature of the Roman cruelty. What Jesus allowed to happen to Himself was far worse than what this film could portray.

You're correct: The objections from the priest in the film about the lack of legal process stood out. You said it well, "This scene is extra-biblical, but does drive home that in Mel Gibson's original script, Christ's condemners are portaryed as a minority faction of the high priests led by Caiaphas who railroad Christ via a kangaroo court."

[gitmo]

me too

[gitmo]

"Being whipped, scourged, and crucified for us has always turned me off.....what a peculiar way to demonstrate love."

What a peculiar comment!

The wages of sin are Death, what better way could there be to show his love than to give us life by dying in our place?

e-s,
I have to agree this is a peculiar way to demonstrate love. The most wonderous way imagineable, but who would have thought of such a plan? He set this up at the foundation of the world! This is a most non-human approach to reunite sinful man to a holy righteous God. His ways are not our ways, indeed.

[gitmo]

Pilate and his wife are fascinating characters in the biblical account and in the movie.

His wife's dream is fascinating. Did this come from God? If so, what was God's objective? Was he giving Pilate warning so he could extract himself from this illegal execution?

And Pilate is the ultimate politician. He knows what is right in this case, but comes up with this Barabas / Jesus choice as an out. He declined to take the leadership position and free the man he had already declared innocent, thinking he had come up with a way that the crowd would make the decision instead. The scheme backfired in his face. He finally caved to public pressure and tortured an innocent man to death. The moral is to stand for what is right and don't try to hide behind cop-outs that will lead to what is right.

[Liz]

There's also the wisdom of Solomon when two women came before him each claiming to be a baby's mother.

What to do? Who does he believe? Solomon's "decision" was to order the child cut in two and to give half to each woman.

When one of the two women came forth and renounced her claim to the child, Solomon knew she was the real mother b/c, in his wisdom, he knew the real mother would not want her child harmed.

[AFPhys]

I dilly-dallied long enough that I'm not going to have much time to write this.

Saw it yesterday.

It was not as brutal as I had prepared myself for. The brutality exhibited there is most definitely supportable by historical records of Roman torture, scourging and crucifixion. I forced myself in spots not to avert my eyes, but I never did. I wondered a couple times how a person could take this and not pass out, but the Romans were experts in these things, and once they even prevented some cruelty because "He can't take any more", so Gibson probably has it right.

Tears were rolling down my face during much of it as I realized I caused this. I kept saying, "I'm sorry, Lord".

I blubbered like a baby a couple times, most prominently (surprisingly) during the flashback to Mary's running after a falling little boy.

This movie made me realize not only how bad I am, but how good I am, too, and my parental instincts brought to the fore by that scene helped me know that. Amazing, to me.

The flashbacks were wielded to incredible effect. I think this movie is a perfect work.

I will recommend that EVERYONE see this ON THE BIG SCREEN unless they are under 15 or truly unable to see even a cut without throwing up. I think Catholics who have really absorbed The Stations of the Cross (and seen the crucifix) regularly are likely to have an easier time with the brutal reality than many others, so get yourself prepared.

The flashbacks were beautifully used.

I will be seeing this again on the big screen within the next week - only the second film I'll ever have said that about - and, as a sidelight, the most violent movie I've ever watched was Ben Hur, since I shun violent movies.

ALL negative comments made about this movie are either out of ignorance, or from the Enemy - period.

Again, I repeat, this movie helped me realize not only how bad (sinful) I am, but how good I am, too.

Praise The Lord!

[AFPhys]

One comment to yours, then I must run:

Pilate is portrayed precisely as I would expect him to be, and I found out last night (after the movie) that one of the items about him that I thought was wrongly portrayed is actually historical (that he had been bawled out twice by Rome.) Gibson really did his homework.

I saw someone nastily criticize that Herod was portrayed as a buffoon, or some such, and thought that was over the top. I suspect that critic had no idea that Herod was in town on a vacation, and that it is certainly highly likely that during that time he was drunk and having a "good time" - I thought it a fascinating, and interesting and instructive take by Gibson and the writers.

[gitmo]

Yes, I was a little surprised at the portrayal of Herod. Especially the wig. It didn't seem authentic to the era, but that is more likely my ignorance.

[Naspino]

I posted my review of the movie here.

[hellinahandcart]

They are all proclaimed Christians, but did not think about inviting me....hhmmm.

Perhaps they were under the mistaken impression that you didn't want to go. OR they merely assumed it. Anyway, there's an old saying, "You don't ask, you don't get". Ask them to take you, if they liked the film (if they hated it, don't bother).

If that doesn't work, there is some way to get you to the movie theatre, I am sure.