Replies

Just saw it.

It only moved be because I am indeed Christian.

The acting was fine, the scenery was and costumes were truly beautiful, and those who see anti-semitism clearly have a case of wishful thinkg, but...from a story-telling stand-point it was terrible!

!!!!Possible spoilers!!!

How about that plug for the shroud of Turin? ::gag:: Let's stay on track here.

I would have felt bad for anyone being treated that way. In fact, it ceased to be Jesus and just became a mutilated corpse. To boot, if the intent was to squirm at the violence, Mel did it in a very unsophisticated (stupid; insulting) way. Perfect example of what I'm talking about is The Texas Chainsaw Massacre. 99% of the violence was totally implied...which made it absoloutly horrifying since it allowed your imagination to take off.

The stock reply I get: "But that's what really happend. You can't ignore the ugly side of what really happened."

Uh, Ok. There is the Bible story which pretty much recites facts, and then there's the other 90% to fill in (unless I missed the screen-play after the book of Revelations). It's a movie. It's art (in Mel's case, that's a pure technicality though). There is interpretation. However, there are objective METHODS to effective film-making and story telling. And this is where people lose it, and just keep repeating "but that' what happend, but that's what happened." Ok,...listen...in Texas Chainsaw, the girl really WAS hung on a meat-hook. Tobe Hooper, however, was able to let us disgust ourselves with the details which he DOESN'T show. That's what creativity is, and what Mel lacks.

If you think genital close-ups and money-shots are neccesary to highlight the tender physical union between a man and a wife...then you might be Mel Gibson.

If you think 10 gallons of fake blood is neccesary to tell the story of physical human suffering then...you ARE Mel Gibson.

Also, since it was the pharisees which wanted him punished so badly, it made no sense that the Roman soldiers would get so excited about beating his ass the way they did. The other crucified guys, after all, weren't subjected to such extracurricular torture. The motivation of the romans (who, I assume, would have the apathy you'd expect in any civil servant) was lost on me completely. This is another good example of something that could have been creatively and conviningly dealt with (without betraying the gospel). Mel, again, has to make sure even the stupidest viewer understands who the "bad" guys are.

Arbitrary Satan cameos throughout. Clichés at that.

Evidently, you are not an asute student of history. I mean real history, not the bible or four gospels. Rather then take my word, I suggest the next time the History Channel presents the miniseries on the Roman Army you watch it. It fact the whole Roman Empire was brutal with its enemies, whether they were killed as victims in the Coliseum, slaughtered in battle, fed to the lions, nailed to the cross, etc. Every person nailed to the cross was totally abused. In fact Roman law prohibited Roman citizens from this torture. The Roman army also invented the word decimination. You know what it means! Whenever Roman soldiers or allies would not fight to the death in battle, after the battle concluded, ten percent of the soldiers were selected at random and killed on the spot. Mr. Gibson's portrayal of the scourge of Christ was right on the mark. Jesus, willingly accepted the scourge as atonement for the sins of all mankind. You call yourself a Christian, but I think you do not understand that Jesus Christ was born to die for the salvation of the human soul! I am not cross with you, I just pity your lack of knowing real history and understanding the purposes of the Lord!