Absolutely not. I didn't say that he was anti-semitic nor was the film. I just said there is some circumstantial evidence that Mel's motivations might not be as "pure" as he tries to sell it as.

Secondly, I am not sure what you mean by "catholic bashing" because you disagree with a lot of Vatican II. Mel is still a Catholic, but he doesn't agree with Vatican II. Some catholics just don't agree with it, but they still consider themselves Roman Catholic.

And as I said in my above post, I really don't think the movie is anti-semitic, but given a historical context of anti-semitic passion plays, I think it is fair for some people to be concerned about it.

You edited your post, so I will address this coment too. My statement about "cop-out" is that while the passion story itself is not anti-semitic, it has been used in the past to promote anti-semitic viewpoints. thats all I was saying.

i totally agree with you on all counts.


and i put in the "not to catholic-bash" (my edit) so as to not offend any Catholics who may be reading these boards. i disagree with quite a lot of what the Catholic church teaches and the way they go about it, though the basis for my faith parallels theirs.
i was trying to be clever with the "Electric Boogaloo" comment though later got all sensitive on myself about it...

i also would like to hear anyone's interpretation (if you've seen the film) about:



what was that supposed to be?

On other technical notes, I found that Mel overused John Debney's score, the use of slo-mo was also excessive IMO.
The movie was good, not great and I felt that Mel tried to use all the dramtic elements of the story and embellish them a little too much.

yeah, i agree with your last blacked out statement. unneccesary for sure.

i liked the way that Satan was portrayed i just felt like the scene i mentioned creeped me out for no reason. like i said, i didn't understand the significance...

and how many americans dont know the history behind Jesus? i believe that if someone has no clue who jesus is...they probably will have no interest in this movie either.

cant wait to see this movie...going with my wife tonight!

Here's an interview with Jim Caviezel, I thought it was a good read. With the amount he had to endure as an actor just playing Jesus, I can't begin to comprehend how many times worse it must have been in reality for Jesus.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/SHOWBIZ/Movi....ap/index.html

I think it's cool how Jim has mentioned in some interviews how his initials are "JC" and he was 33 when they did this. Another thing I read about Maia Morgenstern(who plays Mary) -- Morgenstern is the Greek or Latin word for "Morning Star", one of the titles that has been bestowed upon Mary through the years.

isn't that title actually used in reference to Christ?

Revelation 22:16

Because it is his Catholic background... "additions" such as Veronica's veil are ingrained in the Catholic traditional telling of the Passion.

I'll break my opinion/review in parts, now that I've seen the film.

The Movie: Words like harrowing, gripping, emotional, and awe inspiring, get thrown around so much that they are just words used to get people in the theatre. I think this is one of a small handfull of films that those words actually have meaning. The cinematography is absolutely marvelous! I had visions of what the crucifixation might have looked like, but I think that the image of Jesus nailed to the cross as the Romans raised the cross up into the upright postion, is forever ingraved into my memory. Acting was top-notch; outside of Monica Belliuci and Jim Caviezel, I didn't reconize anybody, so that's saying a lot when a director can take nobodies and show what they can do. John Debney's score is haunting, probably one of his best. It goes almost to a point when it could've been cliched or cheesy, but then bounces back to aid the emotion of the actors. I pretty much agree with Ebert's 4 star review as mine is an A-, too.

Some complained about the lack of character development. Well, this is the final 12 hrs. of His life, we are a nation founded on a Christian background, and if you don't know Christ, the you are either living under a rock for 2004 years or are a devoted non-Christian who has never decided to look into someone else's religion. Not even a mini-series could provide enough development, so those points of negativity is useless. If you are Buddha, Taoist, or Hindu or whatever, then why are you seeing this??

The Anti-Semetic issue: I didn't not see anit-Semeticism. I seen High Priests of Judiaism who felt threatened by this new ideology. I seen history. For Mel to purposely put in Anit-Semeticism themes, would be a sin (he has stated he is Christian and that is against are faith). Media has blown this WAY over.

If anything I walked away disgusted at the Romans who took too much pleasure in beating Him. Funny, nobody has mentioned that aspect? Even funnier, is that later Romans adopted the ways of Christ.

Final Thoughts: A lot of people also complained about it being overly violent. I'm sorry, I didn't know getting beat and dying on the cross was a walk through the park? Movies like Saving Private Ryan, this, and others use violence to hammer home thier point. This is war, this is how we kept our freedom. This is His crucifixation, this is what He went through to wash away our sins and to fulfill the scriptures. Crucifixations are bloody, whippings with sticky things across the flesh are bloody. You should be horrified that this happened, so you can appreciate more your time alive.
The nails through the hands, well, is what we have known for years in this faith. I know it is not historically correct, and Gibson said it (the film) is historically correct from the Gospels, where he got the story from and is which we've seen in the theatre.
A near perfect film that should NOT be forgotten at next year's Oscars.

Grade: A-

Who's up for a handful of audio commentaires for the dvd release?

I saw The Passion this afternoon, and it was a brilliant film. I could not disagree more with this review.
Character development is hardly necessary in a film about the last 12 hours of Jesus.
The violence in the film is interspersed with very good flashbacks depicting Jesus with those close to him.
There is no anti-semetism in the film. During Jesus trial in the Temple, one priest actually asks why no other councillors are there and another person asks why it is being held in the middle of the night. It is perfectly clear that not even all the priests agreed on this matter.
Gibson hit a home run with this film. I expect it to make a great deal of money despite the negative reviews.

here here!!

I don't know who these scholars are, but they are wrong. Latin was spoken by many common Romans at the time of Christ's death. It may not have been the Emperor's Latin, but it was Latin. How do these scholars think that Italian developed? It sure wasn't from Greek.

The claims of anti-semitism weren't "really" based on the film, but the personal views of Mel Gibson and his father. Detractors simply used the film as an convenient excuse.

The only exception that I have of the film is Gibson's claim that this is the most accurate portrayal of the Passion to-date. Although the beatings and crucifixion were more technically explicit, on every other level, there were inaccuracies (when compared to the Gospel accounts) large enough to drive a semi-trailer through.

Well - I've now seen it.

My take? A decent movie where Mel Gibson wants to beat you over the head with his version of Christ's crucifixion. Not that that is bad - all movies have an agenda, his is just more obvious.

Strangely enough, I felt Gibson succeeded more when he went toward symbolism vs. graphic violence/scenes.

Overkill:


This worked:


It's hard to show abject pain and suffering - Elijah Wood failed (he just looked constipated) in taking the ring to Mount Doom, and Caviezel tried with his eyes, but how many times can you fall down, be flailed, and still make it seem real?

As for the constant anti-semitism claims - I had to agree that Gibson is at least not very sympathetic to the Jewish heirarchy of the time. They already had one Satan in the movie - why demonize Caiaphas and Ananias as well? Even a line or two about how they were doing this for the good of their people would have helped. But actually anti-semitic? I don't think so.

I did however, think there was some wink wink nudge nudge about how Gibson thought Christianity was superior to Judaism, but then, that IS how he believes.

Overall, I'm glad I saw it. But it was often heavy handed. I'll give it a

Grade: B- overall, with an occasional great scene, and a few real stinker scenes.

Quote:

During Jesus trial in the Temple, one priest actually asks why no other councillors are there and another person asks why it is being held in the middle of the night. It is perfectly clear that not even all the priests agreed on this matter.


Response:

Good point. I'd almost forgotten that, given that AFTER that, the Jewish leaders seemed of one mind. But yes, that made me feel better about the entire treatment of the Jewish leaders.

It is, without doubt, one of the most stunning movies I have ever experienced.

If you understand what it was like to in Jeruselem under Roman rule in 32 AD and just how cruel and unusual cruxifixion as practiced by the ancient Romans were, the movie makes a huge amount of sense, to say the least. You can definitely feel the agony of Jesus Christ as he is severely beaten, forced to carry that heavy cross, and then be nailed to the cross--you have essentially become part of the crowd that witnessed the Passion itself.

James Caviezel's performance as Jesus Christ is nothing short of brilliant--he conveyed Jesus' agony almost perfectly. This is a role worthy of at least an Oscar nomination for Best Actor. And Rosalina Celentano's performance as Satan is almost just as brilliant, also.

One thing I just strongly commend is Caleb Deschanel's top-notch cinematography, especially the scene at the very beginning of the movie in the garden.

By the way, the audience where I saw the movie was just as stunned as I was--NOBODY talked during the film. Religious or not, it is a movie that you will never forget for a long time to come once you've seen it.

(A little commentary: tragically, I think no thanks to the frequently vicious PR campaign against the film, it could be situation like Citizen Kane all over again--a great film snubbed at Oscar time because of politics. )

Time for a little Ebert and Roeper Audio review. (yeah sorry to all the people who already heard this, but I felt this is the appropriate place to post it)

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

First off, the criticism for lack of character development is valid - this is supposedly a work of art, and has to work as such. If you can't critique it in this manner, it's not art, it's catechism, which is certainly not how it's being sold (but, in reading this thread, certainly how it's being received...). You mention that even a miniseries would be inadequate for this sort of character development, but this is simply not the case (The Last Temptation of Christ, for example, did quite a good job with character development...)
Seondly, take a look at the internal logic of your post; it's not particularly sound. First you criticize people unfamiliar with the story of Christ as devoted non-Christians who never decided to look into someone else's religion (ie, accusing people of being closed-minded), then you go on to ask why people of other faiths are seeing this (ie, this film is for Christians only, and no business of anyone else)... You can't have it both ways.
Thirdly, a question: what message of Christ's teachings, and of the faith itself, does this film convey? I'm curious...

Quote:
"Thirdly, a question: what message of Christ's teachings, and of the faith itself, does this film convey? I'm curious..."


just a few quickly:

love thy enemies
no one comes the Father, except through Christ
Jesus laid down his life for His friends (mankind)
Love for one another