The Passion of the Christ (Very positive movie review)

WFAA-TV ^ | February 24, 2004 | GARY COGILL

[Texican72]

The Passion of the Christ is the most violent R-rated film I have ever seen. It's also an emotional, deeply touching movie-going event. Based on the New Testament Gospel accounts of the last 12 hours of the life of Jesus Christ, Mel Gibson's film is presented in Latin and Aramaic with subtitles, and it works.

Jim Caviezel plays Jesus with depth and astounding emotional range, from the Garden of Gethsemane all the way up the hill to the cross. His intense, humble Jesus has never been captured quite like this on film: a man who freely gives up his life and blames no one.

Gibson's film is deeply personal; it was even financed with his own money. What you can't see in this review are the non-stop, horrific images of beating and torture that play like an evil dream. Even Satan is represented, but so is Mary, the mother of Jesus, played by Romanian actress Maia Morgenstern, and you see the entire world of suffering on her face.

Biblical movies are often awkward, corny pageants. Gibson's film is just the opposite, with Oscar-worthy images by cinematographer Caleb Deschanel. This is a daring movie that demands you pay attention, and it's worthy of discussion, both as a religious and a cinematic event. The Passion of the Christ is the finest film in its genre.

[GeronL]

a man who freely gives up his life and blames no one.

son of God, God in the flesh.... but what can we expect from a reviewer?

Blames no one. Oh thats antisemitic!!!

[kellynla]

Looking forward to seeing it. I would bet the house that the Academy will not award one Oscar to "The Passion" and purposely ignore the picture next year out of spite. I hope I am wrong but I wouldn't put it past the lefties in Hollyweird.

[per loin]

Any bets on how many Academy Awards the film will win?

[scott7278]

I really enjoyed it...they had a prescreening earlier this evening. It was very intense and it certainly draws you in.

[BenLurkin]

Question: IS the resurrection included and if so how?

[3catsanadog]

Wouldn't it be something if God Himself came down to accept the award.

[luvbach1]

Maia Morgenstern is Jewish, by the way.

[LiteKeeper]

SPOTREP - THE PASSION OF THE CHRIST

[X-Servative]

Just got back from seeing it, and CS Lewis' comment in "Mere Christianity" keeps popping into my head, paraphrasing..."Either Jesus is who he says he is, or he's crazy."

I'll be digesting this experience for some time. Amazing on so many different levels.

[LiteKeeper]

I am going later with a group of cadets and cadet candidates from the Air Force Academy. We are going back to the chapel after the movie for a discussion. Looking forward to it!

[scott7278]

That would be my main concern of the movie, seeing that the resurrection is of "first importance" (1 Corinthians 15:3-8). The resurrection scene showed about a one-minute profile of Jesus who has obviously been "restored" but I wouldn't call it "glorification" in any way.

There was no earthquake, no angel rolling away the stone, no guards shaking in fear at his appearance that was like lightning, with clothing as white as snow. It was very calm, in fact, the scene morphs the tomb being closed into the tomb being opened. Very ordinary.

I enjoyed the movie as a movie. I didn't like the non-Biblical storyline additions, which you will pick up on right from the beginning in the Garden of Gethsemane. It could be confusing to those who are learning about Christ for the first time, in that they may pick up things that aren't true to the Scriptures.

The movie is NOT a literal, word-for-word, "Gospel account only" movie. There is artisic license and the additions of storylines which make for an interesting movie, but not a true historical account. Call it "speaking where Scripture is silent." I don't mean to imply by "artistic license" that the Gospel accounts are necessarily changed, but they ARE added to (any honest moviegoer has to admit that there are things -- some minor scenes, some major scenes -- that are not found in the Gospels). I say this because there has been alot of flaming for anyone daring to say negative things about the movie.

It is very violent, but the crucifixion was very violent. I was really drawn in, and it was like I was actually there witnessing it.

I would not discourage anyone from seeing it, but I wouldn't use it as a teaching tool.

[SkyPilot]

Any bets on how many Academy Awards the film will win?

I'll bet: Zero.

If Hollywood were to honor this film, it would have to look hard at its own soul---and it will not do that.

[geopyg]

..."Either Jesus is who he says he is, or he's crazy."

That's where that line is from - thanks!. I just mentioned that to a friend. (Well, Jesus was a good man, but he wasn't the son of God.......type of thing.)

Obviously for people that didn't believe him, killing him was no big deal. The part I get hung up on .... will I recognize Him when he comes back again? It didn't fit the preconcieved ideas back then - He probably won't next time around either.

[CharacterCounts]

I'll bet: Zero

That's not the way Hollywood works. To give it Zero nominations would be a clear statement of its hostility to the message.

Instead, They will attempt to reduce the film by nominating it for a couple awards in lesser categories such as make-up or the like. None of the important awards will be available for this film, however.