"Passion of the Christ": the negative Reviews are coming out
02-23-04, 01:05 PM
#26
Banned
Originally posted by DonnachaOne
He does make a good point about the violence, though - and I'm with him on the idea of not bringing children. We've sold churches entire showings - and I don't like the idea of fifty eight-year-olds watching their God getting the shit beaten out of him.
He does make a good point about the violence, though - and I'm with him on the idea of not bringing children. We've sold churches entire showings - and I don't like the idea of fifty eight-year-olds watching their God getting the shit beaten out of him.
02-23-04, 01:19 PM
#30
Banned
Originally posted by Patman
I wonder how many die-hard christians will be able to stomach the pain and suffering of Christ as depicted in the film. It will be telling.
I wonder how many die-hard christians will be able to stomach the pain and suffering of Christ as depicted in the film. It will be telling.
i felt bad eating during schindler's list!
02-23-04, 01:25 PM
#32
DVD Talk Hall of Fame
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Sitting on a beach, earning 20%
Posts: 9,917
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes
on
3 Posts
At the movie theater, we were joking about crossing out the word "Dasani" on the bottled water and writing "Holy" instead.
None of the moviegoers would argue over $3.33 for a bottle of HOLY water, would they?
Oddly enough, a medium drink and a pack of sno-caps rings up at $6.66.
None of the moviegoers would argue over $3.33 for a bottle of HOLY water, would they?
Oddly enough, a medium drink and a pack of sno-caps rings up at $6.66.
02-23-04, 02:06 PM
#33
Guest
Posts: n/a
His obsession with pain, disguised by religious feelings, has now reached a frightening apotheosis.
The Bible tells the story of the Christ with little detail: he came, he preached, he was crucified, he rose. Gibson makes a movie that explores the single most important facet of the man's life and is immediately hammered for failing to depict him as the "paragon of vitality and poetic assertion" that John F. Updike envisioned? Bullshit. Denby should go see "the Greatest Story Ever Told" and leave Gibson's film to those who are able to approach the material without a Bible-sized chip on their shoulders.
- Nice Seinfeld reference.
02-23-04, 02:16 PM
#35
DVD Talk Hall of Fame
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Louisville
Posts: 7,595
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by Patman
I wonder how many die-hard christians will be able to stomach the pain and suffering of Christ as depicted in the film. It will be telling.
I wonder how many die-hard christians will be able to stomach the pain and suffering of Christ as depicted in the film. It will be telling.
02-23-04, 02:41 PM
#36
DVD Talk Hero
Originally posted by DGibFen
...
The New Yorker reviewer is extremely biased, if you ask me. I get the feeling that he went in knowing he wouldn't like the film, then wrote accordingly.
...
The New Yorker reviewer is extremely biased, if you ask me. I get the feeling that he went in knowing he wouldn't like the film, then wrote accordingly.
But I found his review extremely well-informed on history from records outside the Bible and modern Biblical criticism (which the Biblical literalists reject).
It's definitely a different point of view than the literalists and whether one agrees or disagrees, those are long established (and IMO well established - but that's just me) positions of many scholars.
But then, he probably did know he would have these criticisms before going in because Mel made the film from the literalist perspective - everyone knew that as Mel had made it crystal clear.
If Mel had made "The Passion of the Christ According to an Amalgam of the Gospels" he would not be open to this type of criticism. But he seems to have proclaimed all along that he is filming "the true story."
Last edited by movielib; 02-23-04 at 03:16 PM.
02-23-04, 03:14 PM
#37
Banned
Thread Starter
Originally posted by DGibFen
A lot of Christians don't really have a good grasp on the physical and spritual brutality that accompanied Christ on the cross.
A lot of Christians don't really have a good grasp on the physical and spritual brutality that accompanied Christ on the cross.
02-23-04, 03:27 PM
#38
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Vancouver, BC
Posts: 327
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I just got back from seeing it and it's amazing. I'm not religious at all but it's amazing piece of work. All the scenes of brutality taken out on Christ really got to me. I can only imagine how hard it will be for some Christians to watch some scenes in this movie. I had to look away quite a bit and I'm not squeamish at all.
Look for my glowing review on Wednesday as I'm under an embargo until then.
Look for my glowing review on Wednesday as I'm under an embargo until then.
02-23-04, 04:20 PM
#40
DVD Talk Legend
Originally posted by movielib
If Mel had made "The Passion of the Christ According to an Amalgam of the Gospels" he would not be open to this type of criticism. But he seems to have proclaimed all along that he is filming "the true story."
If Mel had made "The Passion of the Christ According to an Amalgam of the Gospels" he would not be open to this type of criticism. But he seems to have proclaimed all along that he is filming "the true story."
But you know as well as I do, that there are not facts in history. Yes, there is truth, but that truth is almost certainly unknowable. Basically all history comes down to what you believe based on the evidence. My beliefs side with the literalists. Yours do not.
02-23-04, 05:16 PM
#42
Banned by request
I think the main point of these reviews is that the lingering shots of graphic torture, instead of making people realize the extent of his sacrifice, downplay the spirituality he's meant to represent. I think that's a fair criticism to make. It's not the gore in and of itself that bothers the critics, it's that the gore overshadows what should be the true emphasis of the film.
That being said, I'm going to go watch my Guinea Pig box set. Toodles!
That being said, I'm going to go watch my Guinea Pig box set. Toodles!
Last edited by Supermallet; 02-23-04 at 05:18 PM.
02-23-04, 06:05 PM
#43
DVD Talk Hero
Originally posted by DodgingCars
But what's wrong with that when he believes that it is?
But what's wrong with that when he believes that it is?
You know me well enough to know that I've studied the subject and that I've come to a different conclusion as you. In fact, I think most of the criticism of the historical accuracy of the Bible is downright ridiculas, yet its passed off as and accepted by many scholars as fact.
But you know as well as I do, that there are not facts in history. Yes, there is truth, but that truth is almost certainly unknowable. Basically all history comes down to what you believe based on the evidence. My beliefs side with the literalists. Yours do not.
Last edited by movielib; 02-24-04 at 10:08 AM.
02-23-04, 08:48 PM
#44
Needs to contact an admin about multiple accounts
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Las Vegas, NV
Posts: 2,730
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Once again,
IMO, I wasn’t too thrilled with it.
Not that the film is anti-Semitic – IT ISN’T. But I was bothered how Pontius Pilate was a fully realized character, nursing a troubled mind over what to do with Jesus, and the Jewish temple leaders were pretty one-dimensional, calling for crucifixion without MUCH internal struggle. And the Romans are practically imagined as feces-throwing gorillas the way they stomp around. A little too broad for me.
And the bloodletting seemed to stop serving a point about halfway through. It became a little gratuitous, but I wasn’t horrified. I have a steady diet of Dario Argento film to thank for that. Damn numbness to violence…
The Jesus and Mary scenes are just beautiful, and I came out wishing there was more of an emotional core to the story, and not just Mel fetishizing the crucifixion. There are a handful of other complaints, but I definitely wasn’t blown away. Dare I say it, but I felt more spirituality coming from DOGMA than this film.
Outside of the faith and Mr. Gibson, I can’t imagine this appealing to too many people. And for heaven's sake, if you have kids who want to see this, JUST SAY NO. This is not a film for the family, which will be evident once the opening weekend dust clears, and the theater managers can settle their refunded tickets.
IMO, I wasn’t too thrilled with it.
Not that the film is anti-Semitic – IT ISN’T. But I was bothered how Pontius Pilate was a fully realized character, nursing a troubled mind over what to do with Jesus, and the Jewish temple leaders were pretty one-dimensional, calling for crucifixion without MUCH internal struggle. And the Romans are practically imagined as feces-throwing gorillas the way they stomp around. A little too broad for me.
And the bloodletting seemed to stop serving a point about halfway through. It became a little gratuitous, but I wasn’t horrified. I have a steady diet of Dario Argento film to thank for that. Damn numbness to violence…
The Jesus and Mary scenes are just beautiful, and I came out wishing there was more of an emotional core to the story, and not just Mel fetishizing the crucifixion. There are a handful of other complaints, but I definitely wasn’t blown away. Dare I say it, but I felt more spirituality coming from DOGMA than this film.
Outside of the faith and Mr. Gibson, I can’t imagine this appealing to too many people. And for heaven's sake, if you have kids who want to see this, JUST SAY NO. This is not a film for the family, which will be evident once the opening weekend dust clears, and the theater managers can settle their refunded tickets.
- Full Review up on the site Wednesday when reviews are supposed to be emargoed till.
02-23-04, 09:24 PM
#46
DVD Talk Hall of Fame
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Louisville
Posts: 7,595
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Rotten Tomato's Current Rating: 55% (Rotten)
Metacritic's Take - Current score 45.
And Rivero, if you have a problem with me, there's an ignore list you can edit. Otherwise, tell me what the problem is and we'll deal with it.
Metacritic's Take - Current score 45.
And Rivero, if you have a problem with me, there's an ignore list you can edit. Otherwise, tell me what the problem is and we'll deal with it.
02-23-04, 10:18 PM
#47
Banned by request
Saw this on yahoo news (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp..._jesus_film_dc):
This isn't the other forum, so I didn't feel the need for selective bolding.
Jesus Scholars Find Fault in Gibson's 'Passion'
By Megan Goldin
JERUSALEM (Reuters) - Mel Gibson (news)'s portrayal of the final 12 hours of Jesus in his film "The Passion of the Christ" has been hailed as the gospel truth by some believers, but many scholars complain that it is riddled with historical errors.
Their complaints range from inaccuracies about hairstyles and clothes to a lack of gospel context in the film which has raised a furor among Jewish groups who fear its graphic depiction of the crucifixion will fan anti-Jewish violence.
Gibson, who has denied the film is anti-Semitic, has said he consulted scholars, theologians, priests and spiritual writers before scripting the film with the aim of making Jesus's agony during the crucifixion appear as realistic as possible.
Many Christians see the film as bringing them closer to their religion. Evangelical preacher Billy Graham called the film "a lifetime of sermons in one movie."
Gibson, a traditionalist Catholic, was so determined to make the $25 million film which he funded himself that he had his characters speak in Latin and Aramaic.
Experts say this was his first mistake as Greek was the language spoken in Jerusalem during Jesus's time, along with Aramaic and some Hebrew spoken by Jews.
"Jesus talking to (Pontius) Pilate and Pilate to Jesus in Latin!" exclaimed John Dominic Crossan, a professor of religious studies at the Chicago-based Roman Catholic De Paul University. "I mean in your dreams. It would have been Greek."
Latin was reserved for official decrees or used by the elite. Most Roman centurions in the Holy Land spoke Greek rather than Latin, historians and archaeologists told Reuters.
The mistakes, experts say, didn't stop with the wrong language, which Crossan -- who speaks Latin -- said was so badly pronounced in the film that it was almost incomprehensible.
"He has a long-haired Jesus...Jesus didn't have long hair," said physical anthropologist Joe Zias, who has studied hundreds of skeletons found in archaeological digs in Jerusalem. "Jewish men back in antiquity did not have long hair."
"The Jewish texts ridiculed long hair as something Roman or Greek," said New York University's Lawrence Schiffman.
Along with extensive writings from the period, experts also point to a frieze on Rome's Arch of Titus, erected after Jerusalem was captured in AD 70 to celebrate the victory, which shows Jewish men with short hair taken into captivity.
Erroneous depictions of Jesus in Western art have often misled film makers in their portrayal of Jesus, experts said.
JEWISH GROUPS VS GIBSON
For some scholars the errors go beyond language or hairstyles.
They say the heart of the problem is the film's script which interweaves the literal interpretation of four sometimes contradictory gospel accounts of Jesus' last 12 hours with the visions of a controversial 19th century nun.
"This is my version of what happened, according to the gospels and what I wanted to show," Gibson told the U.S. television network ABC this month.
But Crossan complained that the lack of historical context was the movie's "basic flaw."
The film begins not when Jesus enters Jerusalem to the exuberant welcome of thousands of Jews but rather at night in a garden on the eve of the crucifixion when he is arrested by the Romans after being betrayed by Judas.
"Why did they need a traitor? Why did they need the night? Why didn't they grab him in the daytime?" Crossan asked.
"Because they did not want a riot," he said, explaining that Jesus was immensely popular among his fellow Jews, which is why the high priests and Romans felt threatened by him.
Those details, Crossan said, were absent in the film.
"The lack of context is the most devastating thing for anyone who says it (the film) is faithful to the gospels because the gospels have the context," he told Reuters.
One of the most controversial aspects of the film is its portrayal of Pilate reluctantly sentencing Jesus to crucifixion under pressure from a bullying mob and conniving Jewish priests.
Scholars acknowledge the scene is faithful to the gospels, but some experts say a historical perspective is imperative.
"It is important to see the historical context. Not only for the sake of being true to history but for the sake of being true to the gospel passages themselves," said Father Michael McGarry, rector of the Tantur Ecumenical Institute in Jerusalem.
The gospels, he said, were written many years after the crucifixion at a time when the early Christians felt it would be politically wise to "soften Pontius Pilate as a way of placating" the Romans who ruled over them.
"Pontius Pilate was a very cruel and brutal man. And he wouldn't care two winks about executing another Jew. He had killed so many before him," said McGarry, who said he had not seen the film and was commenting only on the history of the time.
CRUCIFIXION WAS "STATE TERROR"
Crucifixion was a common punishment meted out by the Romans to rebellious Jews during Jesus's time. The Romans crucified so many Jews, said Zias, that "eventually they ran out of crosses and they ran out of space."
The depiction of the crucifixion was the part of the film most riddled with errors for Zias, who studied the skeleton of a crucified Jewish man from Jesus's time -- the only remains ever found of a crucified victim from antiquity.
Zias said Jesus would not have carried the entire cross to the crucifixion as vertical beams were kept permanently in place by the ever efficient Romans.
"Nobody was physically able to carry the thing (the entire cross).It weighed about 350 pounds," Zias said. "He (Jesus) carried the cross-beam, maximum."
Nor would Jesus have worn a loin-cloth in the crucifixion as did actor James Caviezel who portrayed him in the film.
"Crucifixion was a form of state terror. They humiliated the crucified victim. Everybody was naked. Men, women and children," Zias said.
Jesus, he added, would have been tied or nailed to the cross through the wrists, not the hands as shown in the film.
"You cannot crucify a person through the hands because there is nothing there but skin and muscle. It will tear."
Brushing off criticism of inaccuracies, Gibson has said he found contradictory opinions among the experts he consulted.
"Since the experts canceled each other out, I was thrown back on my own resources to weigh the different arguments and decide for myself," Gibson said in one interview.
By Megan Goldin
JERUSALEM (Reuters) - Mel Gibson (news)'s portrayal of the final 12 hours of Jesus in his film "The Passion of the Christ" has been hailed as the gospel truth by some believers, but many scholars complain that it is riddled with historical errors.
Their complaints range from inaccuracies about hairstyles and clothes to a lack of gospel context in the film which has raised a furor among Jewish groups who fear its graphic depiction of the crucifixion will fan anti-Jewish violence.
Gibson, who has denied the film is anti-Semitic, has said he consulted scholars, theologians, priests and spiritual writers before scripting the film with the aim of making Jesus's agony during the crucifixion appear as realistic as possible.
Many Christians see the film as bringing them closer to their religion. Evangelical preacher Billy Graham called the film "a lifetime of sermons in one movie."
Gibson, a traditionalist Catholic, was so determined to make the $25 million film which he funded himself that he had his characters speak in Latin and Aramaic.
Experts say this was his first mistake as Greek was the language spoken in Jerusalem during Jesus's time, along with Aramaic and some Hebrew spoken by Jews.
"Jesus talking to (Pontius) Pilate and Pilate to Jesus in Latin!" exclaimed John Dominic Crossan, a professor of religious studies at the Chicago-based Roman Catholic De Paul University. "I mean in your dreams. It would have been Greek."
Latin was reserved for official decrees or used by the elite. Most Roman centurions in the Holy Land spoke Greek rather than Latin, historians and archaeologists told Reuters.
The mistakes, experts say, didn't stop with the wrong language, which Crossan -- who speaks Latin -- said was so badly pronounced in the film that it was almost incomprehensible.
"He has a long-haired Jesus...Jesus didn't have long hair," said physical anthropologist Joe Zias, who has studied hundreds of skeletons found in archaeological digs in Jerusalem. "Jewish men back in antiquity did not have long hair."
"The Jewish texts ridiculed long hair as something Roman or Greek," said New York University's Lawrence Schiffman.
Along with extensive writings from the period, experts also point to a frieze on Rome's Arch of Titus, erected after Jerusalem was captured in AD 70 to celebrate the victory, which shows Jewish men with short hair taken into captivity.
Erroneous depictions of Jesus in Western art have often misled film makers in their portrayal of Jesus, experts said.
JEWISH GROUPS VS GIBSON
For some scholars the errors go beyond language or hairstyles.
They say the heart of the problem is the film's script which interweaves the literal interpretation of four sometimes contradictory gospel accounts of Jesus' last 12 hours with the visions of a controversial 19th century nun.
"This is my version of what happened, according to the gospels and what I wanted to show," Gibson told the U.S. television network ABC this month.
But Crossan complained that the lack of historical context was the movie's "basic flaw."
The film begins not when Jesus enters Jerusalem to the exuberant welcome of thousands of Jews but rather at night in a garden on the eve of the crucifixion when he is arrested by the Romans after being betrayed by Judas.
"Why did they need a traitor? Why did they need the night? Why didn't they grab him in the daytime?" Crossan asked.
"Because they did not want a riot," he said, explaining that Jesus was immensely popular among his fellow Jews, which is why the high priests and Romans felt threatened by him.
Those details, Crossan said, were absent in the film.
"The lack of context is the most devastating thing for anyone who says it (the film) is faithful to the gospels because the gospels have the context," he told Reuters.
One of the most controversial aspects of the film is its portrayal of Pilate reluctantly sentencing Jesus to crucifixion under pressure from a bullying mob and conniving Jewish priests.
Scholars acknowledge the scene is faithful to the gospels, but some experts say a historical perspective is imperative.
"It is important to see the historical context. Not only for the sake of being true to history but for the sake of being true to the gospel passages themselves," said Father Michael McGarry, rector of the Tantur Ecumenical Institute in Jerusalem.
The gospels, he said, were written many years after the crucifixion at a time when the early Christians felt it would be politically wise to "soften Pontius Pilate as a way of placating" the Romans who ruled over them.
"Pontius Pilate was a very cruel and brutal man. And he wouldn't care two winks about executing another Jew. He had killed so many before him," said McGarry, who said he had not seen the film and was commenting only on the history of the time.
CRUCIFIXION WAS "STATE TERROR"
Crucifixion was a common punishment meted out by the Romans to rebellious Jews during Jesus's time. The Romans crucified so many Jews, said Zias, that "eventually they ran out of crosses and they ran out of space."
The depiction of the crucifixion was the part of the film most riddled with errors for Zias, who studied the skeleton of a crucified Jewish man from Jesus's time -- the only remains ever found of a crucified victim from antiquity.
Zias said Jesus would not have carried the entire cross to the crucifixion as vertical beams were kept permanently in place by the ever efficient Romans.
"Nobody was physically able to carry the thing (the entire cross).It weighed about 350 pounds," Zias said. "He (Jesus) carried the cross-beam, maximum."
Nor would Jesus have worn a loin-cloth in the crucifixion as did actor James Caviezel who portrayed him in the film.
"Crucifixion was a form of state terror. They humiliated the crucified victim. Everybody was naked. Men, women and children," Zias said.
Jesus, he added, would have been tied or nailed to the cross through the wrists, not the hands as shown in the film.
"You cannot crucify a person through the hands because there is nothing there but skin and muscle. It will tear."
Brushing off criticism of inaccuracies, Gibson has said he found contradictory opinions among the experts he consulted.
"Since the experts canceled each other out, I was thrown back on my own resources to weigh the different arguments and decide for myself," Gibson said in one interview.
This isn't the other forum, so I didn't feel the need for selective bolding.
02-23-04, 10:41 PM
#48
DVD Talk Platinum Edition
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Kansas City, MO
Posts: 3,818
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Wait, you're saying that idiot Gibson gave Jesus shoulder length hair, when in reality it was only down to his neck?! I'm getting my ****ing money back!!
02-23-04, 10:54 PM
#49
DVD Talk Godfather
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Gateway Cities/Harbor Region
Posts: 63,284
Received 1,802 Likes
on
1,125 Posts
Originally posted by BRIAN 1972
why does robocop get cut for violence, but this does not....maybe they should have called it "RoboChrist"?
why does robocop get cut for violence, but this does not....maybe they should have called it "RoboChrist"?
Why did the FCC and the TV Networks allow SCHINDLER'S LIST to air pretty much un cut on TV? They showed nudity on network tv. How did that add to the story?
Sometimes important stories need to be told without censoring.
People have to understand that the violence inflicted on Jesus is important to the story. People usually only want the "happy love" side of Jesus...the bread and loaves pacifist Jesus...but according to the Bible, and even Kevin Smith's DOGMA, Jesus knew the pain that was coming and still did it because he loves all of us.
02-23-04, 10:59 PM
#50
DVD Talk Godfather
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Gateway Cities/Harbor Region
Posts: 63,284
Received 1,802 Likes
on
1,125 Posts
Originally posted by Suprmallet
Saw this on yahoo news (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp..._jesus_film_dc):
This isn't the other forum, so I didn't feel the need for selective bolding.
Saw this on yahoo news (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp..._jesus_film_dc):
This isn't the other forum, so I didn't feel the need for selective bolding.
Well I guess we can pull the film now.
