[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[Psycho_Bunny]

As far as I can tell, from the vitriol coming from liberals over this movie, there must not be any Christians in it painted with negative stereotypes.

I'm not even Christian and I'm going to go see it, if for no reason other than to support Christians.

[per loin]

Many Christophobes are dragging themselves away from watching reruns of demonic tributes and hack-em-up/slash-em-up films just long enough to complain about Gibson's film. I suspect that the viewing audience will not soon forgot this hypocrisy.

[DestroytheDemocrats]

Well I am going to be honest. I am not going to see this film. I just do not want to see an hour and a half of torture scenes.
I would not go see a movie where there were depictions of animals being tortured or of children being tortured. I just do NOT want to see such things. So why would I want to see a reinactment of Jesus being tortured? I believe it happened and I understand what it meant and why it happened. I think the passion of Christ is ever more profound and meaningful than showing bloody scenes of torture. I might wait till it comes out on DVD but for now I just don't want to see it.

[raloxk]

Tha tfact that Ebert adn Roeper gave it a Thumbs Up, must be horribly devastating to the left

[ImpBill]

It is interesting in reading the responses to this the number of "Christians" responding that they don't need to see the film to know that Christ died for them. It might be instructive for all to know the depth of His love for us to watch what will truly be the most graphic portrayal of how he "suffered, was crucified, and was buried". I grew up knowing He died, but it was only after having seen first hand the horrors of death in warfare that I had any inkling of how the "man" Christ must have suffered in His torture and death.

"For God so loved the world ..."

If the billing of the film is anywhere near as it is in reality I believe it will humble this frail Christian. And just perhaps my faith will be strengthened for it.

I don't understand how so many who have not seen the film can be so critical of it.

[Reactionary]

I think what the Leftists really fear are substantive works of art.

They produce garbage. They've saturated the culture with it.

Gibson is the enemy because he will show the power of Western civilization and, by extension, the meaningless nature of a popular culture created by Leftists.