Supermallet

I wasn't putting up the article as some kind of tell-all scandal that will ruin the film, I just figured it was worth putting up, especially since one of the reviewers mentions historical inaccuracy. Also, I think the lack of historical context is an important point to make.

As for the bit about Robocop, I think the point being made is that if the filmmaker sees fit to put in violence, they should be allowed to put it in, regardless of the subject matter. Why does Jesus get special dispensation? Or is it because it's Mel Gibson?

Also, I had a feeling the actors wouldn't be able to pronounce these dead languages. This article cemented that feeling. Not that it makes a difference, but it was a theory of mine.

And one last thing: I rewatched The Last Temptation of Christ and noticed that two of the things the scholars complain about in Passion, the carrying of the cross and the nails through the hands, are both dealt with correctly in Last Temptation. Jesus carries only the crossbeam to his crucifixion, and the nails are driven through his wrists. Obviously the film has a lot of things that run counter to the gospels, but it was nice to say they got some of the more historical aspects right. To me, a Jesus story is of intellectual interest only, so I would rather see a film take liberties with the gospels (which aren't entirely consistent among themselves) than with verifiable history.

gnradd21

Oh well, the film's not going away any time soon and the critics bashing it will just have to deal. It's obviously going to be a love-it-or-hate-it one. Either way, I have a feeling a lot of people will see it, if just for the curiosity factor.

Did anyone see the mom from Malcolm in the Middle commenting on the film on Entertainment Tonight? She sounded like she wanted to put Mel on the cross Apparently she wanted the baby animal version of the Jesus story. I hate to say "it's just a movie", but in reality it is. It's Mel's version based on what he knows and believes, and I think the graphic violence was necessary to truly show the immense suffering Jesus went through.

Lara Means

Ebert and Roeper's review is now up

http://tvplex.go.com/buenavista/eber...per/today.html

Terrell

Well, it doesn't take many brain cells to know that this film will get quite a few negative reviews, and that those negative reviews will really have nothing to do with the quality of the movie. This film will get slammed simply because it's a movie about Jesus and the crucifixion, as well as a controversial film.

People, critics included can't review a religious film, much less one this controversial, in a fair manner. There's too much baggage.

Supermallet

I think it's quite unfair to say that every negative review will have nothing to do with the movie. There isn't objective quality in art, someone's art is someone else's trash. Some people may honestly not like this movie regardless of the controversy, or because it's about Jesus.

Personally, I thought at least first review offered up was fair in its assessment, and not reactionary.

Terrell

Well, I overstated. Of course not every single review will have nothing to do with the quality of the film. But I've read most of the negative reviews, and most of them really focus on other things than how good the film really is. I mean, people bring too much of their own opinions to a film like this. For instance, most of the reviews slam the movie because of violence. Well no shit. Just because this depiction of Jesus' crucifixion isn't watered down to hell like most of the others, doesn't mean it's wrong. Jesus, who I happen to believe in, was beaten and tortured for hours. If you want to be accurate, that has to be depicted. Crucifixion is a nasty and terrible way to die.

Religion + controversy does not bode well for the reviews. Add violence into that and you really have something.

Supermallet

What else is a review besides someone's opinion of the quality of a film? How would you write a review without using your opinion?

Giantrobo

I know. That's why I gave you the " "

Supermallet

Yeah, I kind of figured. Still, someone may have thought that's why I put it up, so...

Artman

Saw it, thought it was great. The only downside is that the film is basically just a climax. Imagine watching only ROTK, with a few flashbacks to the previous films. Still, I cant wait to see it again. A life-changing experience? No. A well-crafted film? You bet.

And yes, i'm a follower of Christ!

A-

Dr. DVD

While I am reserving my opinion until I see the film, I will say this much about reviews from Christian groups, they tend to be very biased. While this film looks good, these are the same people that hailed The Omega Code.

What I'm trying to say is, and this is coming from an open-minded Christian if you believe in such a thing, reviews of a movie like this can be very polar and not that open to other opinions.

DGibFen

I might disagree. While a number of Christians have certainly jumped on the bandwagon (the idea of "any Christian reflection is good Christian reflection" seems to be in play there), there are several Christian reviewers I have talked to that agree with some of the issues that have been brought up (the excessive violence, some of the shots that are a bit on the cheesy side, etc.) In fact, Roger Ebert quotes from one of these reviewers in his review of the movie:

So I would say with some reservation that all Christian critics are just jumping on the bandwagon. Besides, some of the ones I've talked to hated The Omega Code and Left Behind.

B.A.

Lara - Thank you for the linky.l

covenant

"Maybe it's better if we just learn about Jesus in Sunday school."
"Left in the hands of Mel Gibson and his The Passion of the Christ, the basic message of Christianity - love your brother - is obscured under torrents of blood to the point of benumbing the audience."

Obviously a soft focus baby animal version of Jesus is more what these reviewers wanted. A bloodless Christianity.

See, my servant will act wisely ; he will be raised and lifted up and highly exalted. Just as there were many who were appalled at him - his appearance was so disfigured beyond that of any man and his form marred beyond human likeness

movielib

Some can, some can't. And it goes both ways.

Groucho

You're creating a false dichotomy here, where a movie can either be a "soft focus baby animal" version of the story, or have extreme graphic violence. There is a middle ground.

Michael Corvin

I think with all the biases and different religions of the people the ONLY people that can honestly review this film will be atheists. And more than likely none of them will be attending.

DonnachaOne

I disagree... wouldn't a lot of atheists automatically find the idea of a God-movie repugnant or just plain silly?

As with any film that deals with people's personal beliefs, I don't think we're going to be able to get a review without bias. Hell, it's hard to get a fair review of a comic book film, considering those who hate them and those who grew up reading comics... and this is based on THE BIBLE!

movielib

Here's a negative "review" I ran across that I think we can all agree is rather strange. No atheist could bash this movie as much as this guy.


http://www.letgodbetrue.com/TodaysWorld/passion.htm

Groucho

I can't figure out if that site is a joke or not.

movielib

I'm pretty sure it's serious.

BigPete

In reading the quips cut out for use in the Rotten Tomatoes summary, I was reminded of the negative comments that often surround films like A Clockwork Orange.

Sometimes a movie has very little to do with what you see on screen and everything to do with how you feel when you see it. I'm embarassed for the film critic who doesn't understand that.

DonnachaOne

He SO needs a Buddy Christ...

Help Me jayson1017

Roger Ebert gave the movie *. Same with Richard Roeper. I'm not watching it.

covenant

The biblical account is graphically violent not soft focus, therefore a realistic treatment of the subject matter must be violent.

The sunday school version glosses over the suffering and abuse of Jesus.