|
hugepedro
Feb 26, 2004, 9:43 PM
Post #26 of 69
(1362 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 28, 2002
Posts: 2875
|
In reply to: In reply to: Although the thought of watching 2 hours of Jesus getting his ass thoroughly kicked does appeal to me. I won't support anti-semitism. Pffft :roll: ...pendejo.
Aparently you didn't catch the humor in my juxtaposition of religious biases.
Was the line was too long for you when they were handing out grey matter?
|
|
|
|
|
mreardon
Feb 26, 2004, 10:04 PM
Post #27 of 69
(1362 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 17, 2002
Posts: 1337
|
Okay, recovering Catholic who married a Jewish girl and currently makes movies (Casper, Cabin Fever, etc.). Figure if that's not a rounded viewer for this, then no one is.
Saw the movie yesterday morning and in a nutshell, thought it was a decent movie. It wasn't "Braveheart", but maybe for the sequel, the action will be stronger. :D
Reading the words was not as disruptive as I thought it would be (though on the small screen I may feel different). The actors did a phenomenal job in their character portrayals. Mary Magdalene was great, and I was very impressed with Caviezel. It was basically the same acting as he did in "Thin Red Line" but I happened to like him in that, so I'm biased.
The settings were filmed beautifully. And DP Caleb Deschanel deserves every bit of credit on this one (if you haven't already, make sure to see "Fly Away Home" which he also was DP on). He managed to keep the coloring and scenes very real/surreal when he was supposed to.
As for the gore, even my horror-obsessed mind was struggling a couple moments where I think they went a little far. But then again, the torture of people during those times was not pretty (particularly those sent to death), and if it is to be accurately told, then this film did a great job of what those tortures were like.
As far as the anti-semitism, well, unfortunately I understand where people are coming from on this one.
The story is from the bible, and told as such. Meaning: it was the jews who demanded the crucifiction of this man who claimed to be the son of god, who also happened to be jewish as well. If the movie left it at that, then it never would have created this much controversy, because Jesus would have been known as a man, who "may" have been the son of god. Instead, Gibson went further and decided to make this not just a good movie, but a push for his religious viewpoint.
There is no misunderstanding in this film that Jesus was the son of god. I'm not giving away anything here, but there are a couple miracles performed, and the ending leaves no doubt to the viewer what Gibson's intentions are.
Unfortunately, that's where I felt a sour pit in my stomach. I'm a big fan of movies. I even like when people put their opinions in them. But the best movies are the ones where the audience is not force-fed into believing one conclusion over another. Ambiguity is great. We all like to believe that sometimes even the bad guys, though deserving of their punishment, are still likeable. In this, I started out watching a movie that was supremely shot with great acting, and left feeling like I was force-fed another version of "Battlefield Earth" (Travolta's telling of scientology).
Then again, without the controversy, I'm not sure the movie would generate the grosses it will (what should have been a 300 screen roll-out release exploded to 3,000 because of the publicity), and I haven't read any reports where Gibson will be distributing all the profits back to his Church. So in the end, maybe it's really just a movie after all.
Just my nickel's worth.
|
|
|
|
|
danooguy
Feb 26, 2004, 10:45 PM
Post #28 of 69
(1362 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 31, 2002
Posts: 3659
|
Thanks, mreardon. That was great.
|
|
|
|
|
rvega
Feb 26, 2004, 11:16 PM
Post #29 of 69
(1362 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 28, 2003
Posts: 421
|
In reply to: In this, I started out watching a movie that was supremely shot with great acting, and left feeling like I was force-fed another version of "Battlefield Earth" (Travolta's telling of scientology). Just my nickel's worth.
:shock: That movie was about scientology?
|
|
|
|
|
timmah
Apr 1, 2004, 4:44 AM
Post #30 of 69
(1362 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 19, 2003
Posts: 93
|
In reply to: In reply to: In this, I started out watching a movie that was supremely shot with great acting, and left feeling like I was force-fed another version of "Battlefield Earth" (Travolta's telling of scientology). Just my nickel's worth. :shock: That movie was about scientology?
Yup. It's funny to hear people talk about being "force-fed" ideas by movies. Dammit, you're not chained to your seat! Nobody's stopping you walking out! You don't have to clip that bolt! What were we talking about again? 8)
|
|
|
|
|
ipsofacto
Apr 1, 2004, 4:52 AM
Post #31 of 69
(1362 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 7, 2003
Posts: 482
|
23456789
|
|
|
|
|
bumblie
Apr 1, 2004, 1:09 PM
Post #32 of 69
(1362 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 18, 2003
Posts: 7629
|
It's frequently odd why a thread is revived, as is the case here. This thread's revival (pun intended) brought mreardon's lengthy post to my attention. In the past, I have taken acception with his posts and stated such, which has resulted in a few flamefests.
However, in mreardon's review of this film I was thoroughly impressed. He composed an excellent piece of writing. His writing skills and ability to be objective are self-evident. Kudos to mreardon.
|
|
|
|
|
mreardon
Apr 1, 2004, 3:35 PM
Post #33 of 69
(1362 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 17, 2002
Posts: 1337
|
In reply to: It's frequently odd why a thread is revived, as is the case here. This thread's revival (pun intended) brought mreardon's lengthy post to my attention. In the past, I have taken acception with his posts and stated such, which has resulted in a few flamefests. However, in mreardon's review of this film I was thoroughly impressed. He composed an excellent piece of writing. His writing skills and ability to be objective are self-evident. Kudos to mreardon.
Damn, and I was just starting to hate you :D
|
|
|
|
|
mreardon
Apr 1, 2004, 3:39 PM
Post #34 of 69
(1362 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 17, 2002
Posts: 1337
|
In reply to: In reply to: ...and currently makes movies (Casper, Cabin Fever, etc.) I hope you won't find this question impertinent, but what role do you play in the filmmaking process?
I've written a couple books/screenplays that were made into movies, directed a handful of commercials, music videos and movies, was production chief to a couple minor film companies, and produced a handful of features indepedently.
|
|
|
|
|
mreardon
Apr 1, 2004, 3:43 PM
Post #35 of 69
(1362 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 17, 2002
Posts: 1337
|
In reply to: What were we talking about again? 8)
Breasts. It always comes back to breasts. If every one had a pair and a trampoline the world would be a much better place.
|
|
|
|
|
moey
Apr 1, 2004, 4:01 PM
Post #36 of 69
(1362 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 9, 2002
Posts: 61
|
This was an interesting thread to read....especially being in central america, where it is nearly impossible to go to the movies right now and see anything BUT pasion de cristo. Not only is it constantly playing on at least 60% of the screens of any given cinema, they also (for the first week at least) ran it at night on EVERY screen at some of the cinemas. Thats right... for a matinee you might catch something else (school of rock?) but if you wanted to hit the movies saturday night your options were limited.
:shock:
|
|
|
|
|
pinktricam
Apr 1, 2004, 4:08 PM
Post #37 of 69
(1362 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 8, 2003
Posts: 7947
|
In reply to: The story is from the bible, and told as such. Meaning: it was the jews who demanded the crucifiction of this man who claimed to be the son of god, who also happened to be jewish as well. If the movie left it at that, then it never would have created this much controversy, because Jesus would have been known as a man, who "may" have been the son of god. Instead, Gibson went further and decided to make this not just a good movie, but a push for his religious viewpoint.
Actually, it was the religious leaders that demanded the crucifiction of Jesus and incited the crowd towards that end. But Jesus came into this world to die for me, for you and even for the very people that put Him to death.
If the movie (or history) would have left it at that without including the resurrection, then we wouldn't have Christianity would we?
The one and only reason Christianity has been such a powerful influence in this world is because of Jesus' rersurrection! We can see the power of it starting with the disciples. Here we have a group of men literally frightened out of their wits; scattering and abandoning their leader in the midst of His troubles, but after the resurrection, after seeing Him alive again, they become the core, the genesis, so to speak, of a new faith...each going to his own cruel death teaching and preaching it when all they would have to have done to be spared was to deny Christ.
Which one of us would die for something they knew was a lie?
|
|
|
|
|
ipsofacto
Apr 1, 2004, 4:52 PM
Post #39 of 69
(1362 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 7, 2003
Posts: 482
|
23456789
|
|
|
|
|
pinktricam
Apr 1, 2004, 5:11 PM
Post #40 of 69
(1362 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 8, 2003
Posts: 7947
|
No, Ipso, haven't read Waiting For Godot. But to answer the question you seem to be implying on the differences in the Gospels, I would use this imperfect analogy:
You have four people at an intersection, each on a different corner viewing the same accident at that intersection. They're each asked to give an eye-witness account of the event. They give their account as it was viewed from their own unique perspective. They each recount a slightly different perspective of the same accident.
Using the same analogy as applied to the Gospels, we are given an account of the same Jesus, but through each author's unique perspective. That doesn't disqualify the truth of the events, it just gives us different eye-witness account of them. Does that make sense?
|
|
|
|
|
ipsofacto
Apr 1, 2004, 5:25 PM
Post #41 of 69
(1362 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 7, 2003
Posts: 482
|
23456789
|
|
|
|
|
pinktricam
Apr 1, 2004, 5:40 PM
Post #42 of 69
(1362 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 8, 2003
Posts: 7947
|
In reply to: In that case, given that the accuracy of a statement is conditional upon one's reference frame, which reference frame is preferable, and what does this imply about the nature of truth, given the axiom from physics that all (inertial) reference frames are equivalent?
Frankly, I prefer what is known as "harmonizing" the Gospels. This appears to be what Gibson has done with The Passion of Christ.
Because of my limited knowlege of physics and philosophy, I can't really say what this implies about the "nature of truth". Would you care to elaborate on your question?
|
|
|
|
|
ipsofacto
Apr 1, 2004, 5:49 PM
Post #43 of 69
(1362 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 7, 2003
Posts: 482
|
23456789
|
|
|
|
|
pinktricam
Apr 1, 2004, 6:06 PM
Post #44 of 69
(1362 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 8, 2003
Posts: 7947
|
In reply to: ...it has truth only if God is the truth--it stands and falls with faith in God.
Ipso, this is where I beg to differ. IMO, truth is. Whether or not you believe it, or I believe it. It has stood before time and it will stand after time.
One of the most interesting and ironic moments in TPOC (to me, anyway) was when Pontius Pilate asked Jesus "What is truth?", when Truth was standing directly before him.
Judging from your mental acumen, I believe you'd find the Bible a very interesting study. Especially, its uncanny prophetic aspects.
|
|
|
|
|
ipsofacto
Apr 1, 2004, 6:11 PM
Post #45 of 69
(1362 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 7, 2003
Posts: 482
|
23456789
|
|
|
|
|
sharpender
Apr 1, 2004, 6:16 PM
Post #46 of 69
(1362 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 15, 2003
Posts: 663
|
In reply to: pinktricam wrote: Which one of us would die for something they knew was a lie?
Just what are Christians doing in uniform if the whole point of the story is that while being brutalized and murdered Jesus in teaching "follow me" was saying to not kill but turn the other cheek?
|
|
|
|
|
shakylegs
Apr 1, 2004, 7:03 PM
Post #47 of 69
(1362 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 20, 2001
Posts: 4774
|
Completely off-topic, but...
In reply to: he's interviewing the Jewess actor tonight....looking forward to hearing what she has to say and how she's handling the hype.
Kikes! I mean yikes! But, never mind me. Gotta go. My negress boss is calling me.
|
|
|
|
|
ipsofacto
Apr 1, 2004, 7:22 PM
Post #48 of 69
(1362 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 7, 2003
Posts: 482
|
23456789
|
|
|
|
|
mreardon
Apr 2, 2004, 2:45 AM
Post #49 of 69
(1362 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 17, 2002
Posts: 1337
|
In reply to: No, Ipso, haven't read Waiting For Godot. But to answer the question you seem to be implying on the differences in the Gospels, I would use this imperfect analogy: You have four people at an intersection, each on a different corner viewing the same accident at that intersection. They're each asked to give an eye-witness account of the event. They give their account as it was viewed from their own unique perspective. They each recount a slightly different perspective of the same accident. Using the same analogy as applied to the Gospels, we are given an account of the same Jesus, but through each author's unique perspective. That doesn't disqualify the truth of the events, it just gives us different eye-witness account of them. Does that make sense?
That makes sens. What doesn't make sense is creating a religion based on first hand accounts passed down through three generations before actually becoming words in a book, and then believing those words as truth. Even better, is the religious person who uses some of the words to live by, but not all of them. Kind of a "pick what you want" religion with abosolutely no consensus. Oh wait, or are you one of those people that is a true christian espousing the beliefs who was in fact abstinate :D
|
|
|
|
|
fredo
Apr 2, 2004, 5:13 AM
Post #50 of 69
(1362 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 27, 2002
Posts: 501
|
In reply to: Opens today. Who's going? I am asap.
I read the book, kinda long and boring in sections. I hope the movie does not bastardize the book... :wink:
|
|
|
|
|
|
