What Other Critics Are Saying (about the "Passion of the Christ")

Newsday ^ | February 24, 2004 | staff

[DentsRun]

It almost seems these reviewers were watching two totally different films. Four of the five reviwers absolutely hated it. Roger Ebert, who gave it two thumbs way up, thought it was "a very great film."

Now if the reviewers only told us what their real agendas are we'd know what this is about.

[A Citizen Reporter]

"Now if the reviewers only told us what their real agendas......"

Methinks they already have......

[JennysCool]

Yeah. Suddenly violence in the movies is a big deal. I wonder if any of them rapped Tarantino for the bloodletting in his last film?

There are a lot of people PROFOUNDLY afraid of this movie.

[cavtrooper21]

Well, we could look at the first three...
Newsweek, New Yorker, Time. All three willing participants in the spinning of the liberal agenda.

[Ronin]

I always listen to film critics. I never see a film unless they absolutely hate it, and I never watch a film that they love, unless other (normal) people recommend it as well.

[Tempest]

I think many of the reviewers don't seem to comprehend that Mel Gibson's primary intent is to demonstrate the gravity of the sacrafice that Jesus made in order to forgive us for our failings.

Some of the reviews I read would have liked it if Gibson had focused more on the kinder aspects of Jesus's life. Yet those aspects are already well known and understood. This is about relaying to the audience the heavy price that was willingly paid because of the love Jesus had for us.

I hope to see this movie when it comes out and I hope to be inspired to want to see it more than once.

[Ingtar]

My son saw a preview tonight. He agrees with all the reviewers. (Maybe not in spirit/agenda). It is a violent, bloody movie. But so was the incident which it portrays.

One of the points that Gibson emphasizes is that He could have left the cross at any time, but chose not to. Love held Him on the tree.

He recommends it to believers and nonbelievers with an open mind and a strong stomach.

[Humidston]

As one FReeper posted recently, I bet they wouldn't complain if it was a violent gross movie about the murder of Michael Shepherd.

[concerned about politics]

Of course the Exorcist (I, II, III), Jason (I, II, III, IV....), Halloween (I, II, III, IV, V....), and the Chain Saw Massacre are nice and clean American films. They're a "Must see."

[Seruzawa]

Lots of sour grapes here. All these Hollywood "geniuses" left Gibson swinging in the wind when he was originally hawking this movie. They "knew" it would be a bomb so he had to finance most of it himself. Now that it's apparently going to be a blockbuster they are chagrined at their own stupidity and in usual lefty fashion are attacking the guy who demonstrated their prejudice and incompetence.

We're supposed to believe that the critics who fawned over Fargo and others give a rat's a$$ about the violence of this movie? Give me a break.

[Humidston]

Correction: MATTHEW Shepherd.

[peteram]

They haven't got a clue! And unless they're eyes are truly opened, they never will.

[Dialup Llama]

The Gospel says Mary's soul was pierced by sorrow, this movie will show what that means. It will show why Peter was so fearful that he denied knowing Jesus.

Ebert was right. There will be no religious or devotional depictions to make these events pretty. The critics will howl because they are not getting the stoytelling Jesus that they are used to, they are getting Jesus as savior- someone they have never seen before in film.

[NTNgod]

The fourth, Ebert, is liberal, I believe, but he is Catholic.

For reference, here is his Last Tempation of Christ review, which he also praised:

http://www.suntimes.com/ebert/ebert_reviews/1998/01/010706.html

[ASTM366]

The violence of this movie has a

REDEMPTIVE PURPOSE...........

something most movie critics don't understand.

[txzman]

Count me out. I am a history major, born-again Christian and consider myself well read. I do not go to see Mel Gibson movies - they are ALL violent in the extreme.

I know what crucifixion is like, and worse. I do not need to be spoon fed gore and violence to know what Christ did for me. The fact that He, as God, died at all for my sins is all I need to know.

[Blood of Tyrants]

It is as if the critics are from Bizarro World or something, isn't it?

[Ron in Acreage]

Those afraid of this film fear a Christian revival of sorts, may sweep our country. Just as the liberal secularist were doing so well at squashing out Christianity wherever they can. God out of school, 10 commandments out of public places, Nativity scenes banished from public property, God removed from pledge, etc. The success of this film will be a big F*CK YOU!! to liberal secularist scum all across the country. It is vital for the left to try everything in their arsenal to crush this film. Snuff out the light of the truth. Not only should we go see this film, bring a friend or two also.

[Texas2step]

Here's where you can find most of the "mainstream" reviews of The Passion of The Christ. So far, 13 reviews. Eight reviewers loved it, and 5 hated it.

Links to reviews of the Passion

If you'll notice, most of the negative reviews have centered on the "violence" and portray the movie as a 2 hour bloodbath. Yet, other reviews (positive) reviews tell us of non-bloody portions of the movie.

Those who portray this movie as a "gore fest" have one item on their agenda. To keep as many people from seeing this movie as possible.

This is the only "criticism" of the movie that will keep some people away from it. Nobody ever said satan was dumb. Although it apprears that his anti-semitic smears backfired. :-)

[SuziQ]

really seems to deal directly with what happened instead of with all kinds of sentimental eyes, cleaned up, post card versions of it." -- Roger Ebert, on his syndicated TV show "Ebert & Roeper"

Frankly I'm tired of the "mooney-eyed" Jesus of the Hollywood film industry. It's time to see how it really happened, according to the Gospels.