Abob Teff

OK, so I sat down to watch the Passions of the Christ (herein referred to as the TPOTC) on the DVD . . .

. . . I'm not the religious man by any means. At best I'd like to follow the Buddha (though not a true religion), at worst I guess I am the Agnostic. However, I do enjoy studying religions and their mythologies (yeah, fire up the flames!). I was a little disappointed to find out that the TPOTC (OK, if you haven't figured it out yet, all of the "the"s are a joke) only follows a few days in the events of an epic story. The film may be great to somebody who is a believer, but I found it to be rather inaccessible to a pagan like me. It begins in the middle of the story (only some background info is given sparingy through flashbacks) and ends before his resurrection. Somebody like me who does not know the whole story does well to catch up half way through the film and be left hanging at the end. Also the characters, save Jesus (no pun intended) and Mary are unknown and left without introduction or recognition. Again, for somebody who is devout, no problem. For a heathen like myself, issues arise.

Who or what was the Faustian being lurking around? What was the deal with the bald little Evil Mini-Me thing?

Did anybody else watch the opening sequence and think that this may actually turn out to be a werewolf flick? (Constant looks at the full moon, fog rolling into the moores, rather pained look on Jesus's face . . . )

They did do a great job setting it up for a sequel though. Can't wait for the direct to video to see how many brains Jesus eats now that he is back from the dead . . . (I told you I'm going to hell!)

(While this is written in a humorous tone, my bland sense of humor has been oft take the wrong way on here. Hence this disclaimer. Read past the humor/blasphemy -depending on your take- and let's talk!)

Tarantino

You can go to hell because you don't like/make jokes about a movie?

Good thing I don't believe in that stuff...

Verbal Gorilla

You say that you enjoy studying religions, yet point out that only a believer would know what is going on. I myself, am not only agnostic, but I tend to lean toward atheism, yet I had no trouble understanding everything because I am very familar with the story. If you don't know about it at all, I can understand your point, but I disagree with the contention that it would only be comprehendable for "a believer". I also went in knowing that it wasn't a comprehensive film and maybe I was better prepared for what I was getting.

asianxcore

all I got was that Buddhism wasn't a true religion. hmm ok.

Artman

Well for not knowing how successful the film would be, it simply wasn't practical to make (and fund) a four-hr film about the life of Christ. Maybe they'll make a prequel.

The story is pretty basic, I don't quite understand the whole confusion thing..

To answer your questions about that wierd woman walking around - that was supposed to be a representation of Satan. The monster under the bridge and the little kids were demons. The evil-mini me, well that's up for interpretation I guess. I suppose it was Satan's way of mocking Mary and Jesus.

Personally I don't think the film needed any of the effects, but obviously Mel didn't consult with me beforehand.

Abob why the need to treat your post sarcastically? Straight-forward would've worked fine.

RyoHazuki

Wow a Passion sequel joke!??!?! Who comes up with this crazy shit?

cruzness

Personally I'd like them to make a TPOTC prequel trilogy explaining things like his origins and his path on his journey to be a unifying Force who will bring balance.....never mind they'd never do that.

Jackskeleton

Can they just show the film with these fellas on the lower third?

Seeker

I want to respond, but I can't think of anything witty at the moment.

The Infidel

Speaking of strange things about this movie...

Did anyone notice in the ending credits that someone was credited as being the movie's "Muppeteer"?

Where the hell were Muppets in the movie?!?

Artman

Reading the Passion article in Cinefex - they built a full-body animatronic Christ for the medium and wide shots of him on the cross.

Jackskeleton

You could totally see the strings

-or-

How would you have liked to be the guy to have your hand up jesus' ass?



Take your pick on whichever is most offensive.

El-Kabong

Woof! Ouch! I'll be sure to save you a seat in hell.

Blade

I think it's not even a few days, but the last 12 hours of his life (not counting the flashbacks).

And really, it wasn't my impression that this film was meant to be for anyone not already familiar with the story. It was supposed to be like a "passion play" which, if I understand the term correctly, is supposed to be a kind of dramatic reenactment of the last moments of Jesus Christ.

I think the most accessible part (for those not very familiar with the story) was the telling of his mother's grief.

I also consider myself agnostic, but I thought it was a very powerful film. Which is to say that I don't believe that these events actually happenned, but I could certainly sympathize with the symbolism it implied in his acts and the affect it would have on the faithful.

I wouldn't recommend this film to anyone who didn't know the basic outlines of story surrounding the crucifixtion, and/or who either disliked religion, or found religion to be somewhat ridiculous.

Trigger

I didn't see TPOTC, but since I don't believe in god I'm gonna guess that it's a terrible film. Also, I didn't read any of this thread, but I'm gonna go ahead and assume it's also terrible as well.

Superboy

Hm, I thought that it was a little overrated. I'm a devout Christian and I didn't enjoy it. Like you said, it would only really be enjoyable to someone who was already familiar with the story, and really defeats the purpose of having a blockbuster movie about Jesus's life. I honestly thought that The Last Temptation of Christ was a better movie in that it provoked the audience into thinking about the life of Christ and Christianity in general.

Really, the whole movie just boils down to an extended version of the execution scene in Braveheart, which was done much better and had a bigger impact because we were emotionally invested in the characters. TPOTC was just a 2-hour gore fest IMO, very immature, and very lacking.

Gyno Rhino

It's almost as good as "Mermaid in a Manhole".

wm lopez

Why was a woman used as the devil?
Satan was God's most beautiful and favorite angel, so if you were going to cast someone to play that part he would have to be a Brad Pitt looking type. And by casting a woman and making her look unattractive , but if you look carefully one can see some beauty.

And Satan is only in the Bible with Jesus in the dessert when Satan tempts Jesus 3 times. Oh and in the Book Of Revelation in the final battle.

But you know Satan had to be lurking around in the scenes that were filmed even though it was not written in the Bible, because this was important.

Gyno Rhino

IMNSHO, it wasn't really supposed to be a woman. It was supposed to be completely androgenous. Unclear sex.

Finger_Licking_God

Actually, it's not....rather it wasn't intended to be at first. From what I've read, the original Buddah was adament that people should not diefy him. His focus was on personal and spritual growth...not creating a religion. Different sects of Buddhism have since diefied him.

marty888

You mean they faked it ?????

wordtoyamotha

Just wanted to throw in my $0.02 here. I agree with the OP that the movie had little or no explanation of the people or events.

Overall, I thought the movie was pretty underwhelming. Too much use of slow motion! Having seen the movie for the first time just recently, I have to admit I was left wondering what the big deal deal was? From my understanding it was just a very literal translation from the bible of Jesus' last twelve hours, nothing more, nothing less.

*stands with palms up shrugging shoulders*

calhoun07

You missed the crucifixion of the Ewok then, I take it?

movielib

That seems to be what most people believe but it actually is based far more on the "visions" of a nun, Anne Emmerich (1774-1824), than it is on the gospels.

http://www.emmerich1.com/DOLOROUS_PA...SUS_CHRIST.htm

Kal-El

I think it's pretty evenly divided. He basically put together everything that's said in Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. Because there's stuff in Mark that's not in Luke, and vice versa for the others. Jesus of Nazareth was pretty much based on Luke. This is like a 4-in-1.

What's not in the Gospels he took from Anne. Like the dialogue of the devil for example and I think the whole deal with Pilate's wife.