Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Welcome
to BookAndReader!
We LOVE books and hope you'll join us in sharing your favorites and experiences
along with your love of reading with our community. Registering for our site
is free and easy, just CLICK
HERE!
Already a member and forgot your password? Click
here.
I saw it and thought it was pretty good. I tend to wonder if the violence was really that excessive in Jesus' time. Some people I talk to say that it was, others wonder with me. But nobody I've talked to says that it wasn't.
I'm glad that it had the subtitles. I would have gotten the gist of everything, but would have kept thinking to myself, "Ok, must remember this part so that I can look it up when I get home to figure out what they said." Of course, I would have forgotten by the time I made it to the car after the film.
A very well made film. Mel Gibson is a great story teller.
The film is extremely violent, but not in a gratuitous manner. The hatred/fear of Jesus was expertly portrayed along with the brutality of the Romans. However, Jesus' love conquers all.
Seems like it's a film I'd need to prepare myself for emotionally. It's going to be gut-wrenching and probably not suitable as a light Saturday evening enertainment?
I would think that the level of brutality/violence was real in that time period. Don't forget they had public stonings and gladiators killing each other as spectator sport.
At any rate, it'll be a far cry from the last 'Jesus' movie I saw, "King of Kings" with Jeffrey Hunter. (And that surely dates me!)
I haven't seen it myself, but after reading some of the stuff Mel Gibson said about it, I don't know whether I want to go see it or not. It's not my kind of movie in the first place, and secondly, Mel Gibson's a lunatic.
Well, he said the Holy Ghost directed the movie, and not himself, which sounds a bit creepy to me. There were other things as well, but I'd have to dig up some of the interviews I read a while ago, and I wouldn't know where to start looking.
This film isn't directed by Holly Ghost..., hi, hi. Mel Gibson is a joker, and everyones know that . This film is directed by a very great magician, who show as not only the martyrdom of Christ, but (more important for me ) anguish of his Mother. And this is an opinion of my not sensitive friend: "I feel guilty".
I refuse to go and see it. I might watch at home if Mom says it's god when she gets home today, but I don't do well with sad or violent. However it sonds like a very good version and I like that it is in the original (kinda) language.
I once had someone read to me a vivid account of the crucifixion, and I made them stop because I was getting queasy. Guess I just have too much imagination. At any rate, if that bothered me don't think I'm ready for this.
This is hard to write about because I’m still recovering, as I type. Incidentally, I couldn’t answer the poll as there wasn’t an option for ‘made it to the scene where
his mother mopped his blood from the flagstones
– roughly one and half hours into it – and had to leave.’
I am mortified to admit that I was half-carried, albeit vertically, down the stairs and out. Three rows from the top: felt sick, felt faint, started to pass out, and had to be transported bodily the length of the row, and down the stairs. I managed to focus on the little blue lights on the final twenty steps. I know there were twenty, because I counted them to concentrate the mind.
I see blood, weals, welts, death at my work, daily. But I was not prepared for this.
The atrocities shown were horrific. I felt his suffering, his mother’s suffering, his followers’ suffering. I could have handled that (probably), but kept thinking about how it still goes on. Tortures, wars, cruelties. That’s what got to me; that it still goes on.
The final straw was the awareness, as my friend, with great difficulty, manhandled me down the stairs and out, that NOT ONE OTHER PERSON in that theatre came to help. Granted, I probably looked drunk, but it was three o’clock in the Odeon, for goodness sake. Hardly ‘happy hour’.
Correction. The final straw, was when the ticket-girl brought me a glass of water, and informed me that people are buying crucifixion nails, on chains, to hang around their necks. How sick is that?
I should not have gone to see this film. But I’d be interested to hear the views of others with stronger stomachs.
BTW, Jim Caviezel impressed. Even with the dodgy brown contact-lenses. I previously saw him in The Thin Red Line and the Monte Cristo thingie, and I rate him as an actor.
And full credit to Odeon Cinemas, who refunded our money.
Third Man Girl < member of the 21st century’s caring society >
Went to see it this afternoon and must say it is fantastic. Can't really say I enjoyed it, as it;s not the type of film you can actually enjoy watching, but it was very well done and very horrific. Various times throughout the film I found myself averting my eyes from the screen, telling myself it's only a film and it's not really happening, and asking the woman besides me if she wanted a tissue as she was crying throughout.
I'm agnostic, and went to the film being just that - and expecting it to be somewhat antismitic as many reviews have stated it was. However, I would have to disagree and say the film does not concentrate on the blaming of the Jews, but, as the title suggests, the suffering, pain and love that is the 'Passion' of Christ throughout the last 12 hours of his life and His Mission.
The acting was top-notch from all involved, as were the special effects and camera work and costumes and such. This would have been a totally different, and worse, film if it was made with actors we already knew well, and if it had been in English - as it happens it was just right.
I do, however, disagree with a few things. Firstly, and not wanting to delve too much on religion due to the rules of this forum, the title, in my opinion, should be 'The Passion of Christ' and not 'the' Christ.
The next thing to complain about is that the way it was directed 'leads' you into what you should think a little too much. I know when watching when something is happening that is evil, I do not need to see the devil to tell me this. Likewise, I do not need the tears of Mary to be shown every time something strikingly heartbreaking is happening again, I know when I should cry and don't need to be told to do so by the visuals.
Lastly, and pulling this right back onto the topic of movie adaptations, there are several places where Gibson has expressed his creative licensing and has deviated from the events as they appear in the Gospels. They do add to the cinematic experience and story, in their own way, but at the same time they make you realise that this is a movie interpretation and the additions take you a step away from feeling it is real.
I cannot give my own view, having not seen it, only that of what I've heard. The devil is in the Bible so should be in the film. There is a lot of symbolism, not necessarily Biblical but closely related and the film is from a very catholic point of view, friends of mine who were never catholic couldn't understand parts, like it went through the stations of the cross, can't remember better examples any more.
It goes through all stations of the cross, Jesus falling three times, being visited by his mother, helped by Simon to carry the cross, wiping his face on the cloth from Veronica etc.
I'm not disputing that the devil should be in the film, I'm disputing the way he was shown both as a point to make us know that evil is occurring, and also as an opposite to the Virgin Mary.
At the start of the film the devil is shown talking to Jesus in the garden of Gethsemane and asking him if he can burden the sin of man by himself, and attempting to tempt him away from His Mission. This part does not appear in the Gospels, and, as I say above, is part of the artistic license given to the producer. The only reason I can see him [Gibson] putting it in is to link the story early on to the common knowledge people have of Adam and the Garden of Eden, thus his temptation and the original sin.
I'm not religious, and it's been a long time since I went to Sunday school, so this is obviously just my interpretation and not what many others can feel. Likewise, these are not the views of thebookforum.com or the management thereof.
