Are you gonna see it? Opinions?
I will see it.
Printable View
Are you gonna see it? Opinions?
I will see it.
I will see it.
I find it so interesting that so many religious groups are up in arms over this movie. Yeah, I know why, but it still is interesting.
The movie portrays the last days of Jesus' life as it really was, he was branded a crazy man and a traitor to the country. 95% of the people hated him and either thought that he was a stupid moron, ranting lunatic or a snob who thought that he was better than everyone else. Rocks were thrown at him as he carried the cross, most of the crowd did jeer at him, spit on him and call him names. Most of what the movie protrays is how it would really have happened. Jesus would not have walked amongst a quiet reserved crowd that bowed before him and threw petals for him to walk on as he carried his cross. Just like people gathered 100 years ago for hangings and 400 years ago for beheadings, people would have gathered 2,000 years ago to watch a crucifixion.
And the fact that religious groups are upset that his last days are portrayed in a more truthful manner and not through rose-colored glasses is what interests me. Talk about revisionist history.
I will most likely see it sometime or another.
I don't really wanna see it. Im somewhat not a big fan of the religious related movies.
I'm very excited to see this movie. :)
I'll probably skip this one, unless my friend drags me to it. Looks pretty well done though.
i'll likely see it. i'm curious.
I'll go see it with my mom. I'm also curious.
Im seeing an advanced showing, tonight in fact. 5 hours! I'll tell you all how it was, but the again I am religious, so my opinion will be rather biased.
I'll see it. Preferably this weekend. My pinky finger hurts too much to see it opening night.
I'll almost certainly see it (when it's out on DVD of course). Biblical history interests me. I already saw one likely historical inaccuracy just in the few seconds they showed on CNN. It'll be fun to watch for that reason if for no other. But the stories themselves are fun to read. I'm sure it'll be entertaining.
Hmm...I'll probably rent or buy it DVD. I mean, it's not subtitled, and I'm not a believer in christ. However, it does look rather interesting.
Its subtitled.
Really? I could've sworn I heard it wasn't subtitled somewhere....hmm. Anyway, I'll think I'll wait to catch it on DVD anyhow. =P Somethng about seeing graphic violence on a huge screen in a dark room just irks me.
Yes, all spoken language spoken in this film is either in Latin, Aramaic, or Hebrew. The film is subtitled... according to some site.
Aramaic, I think. And the ads say it's subtitled.
It's not often someone tries for historical accuracy in religious films; usually they're full of stereotypes or fanciful stuff. I might go and see it, it depends.
It's sad, though, that the film's getting branded as 'anti-Semitic' so readily. A Jewish leader in my city checked the movie out and said that it's fine because it's historically accurate, not deliberately biased against Romans, Jews or anyone else. It just shows what probably would have happened, based on the evidence we know.
Incidentally, it's called "The Passion of the Christ".
I wasn't going to see it fearing it wasn't subtitled, and I would spend the majority of the movie either thinking I knew it and knowing it, or thinking I knew it and not knowing it (big complicated either there huh?). I know enough about the bible to B.S. my way through, but still....
I guess I can watch it tmw if and when this silly ebay thing I have going on is over.
I just got back from seeing it, and yes it is subtitled. Some of what the Roman guards say, mainly during the whipping scenes, isnt subtitled, but most everything else is.
Only one word can accurately describe the movie: Intense. It totally made me think, and yes, it is very violent. I wouldnt say unncessarily, because this is what happened and I dont think such things should be played down, but it is so intensely violent that I almost had to get up and leave, because I couldnt bear to watch this man suffer anymore. I sobbed like a child.
Edit: Oh, and it's in all three languages mentioned, I know for a fact about Arameic and Latin (a friend of mine was taking Latin class and the students were asked if they'd yell things in Latin). I believe the language changes depending on who's speaking and when, like when the Romans are alone, or when the Jewish leaders are alone. I cant tell the difference though.
Edit2: Oh oh, when Jesus is being whipped, the strokes are counted off in what I'm pretty sure is Roman.
Yeah, I'm goin to see it when it comes to Denmark... Which is a long, long from the day it's out in USA :(
I've been saying I won't see it, but I might just end up doing so. I'd be going with my high school church youth group. The reason I wouldn't go, though, is because I just don't feel it will move me. It's violent? Violence in movies doesn't sway me either way. Sure it's different with true stories, but I'm still the same. It's very religiously provocative? It may be, but I'm not going to look at the story of Christ any differently afterwards- I already fully understand the extent of what happened. It's great that it's telling it as truthfully as possible, but it's not like that's extremely radical to me. I know the truth from Jesus' last hours in the 4 gospels, and it makes sense to me. I've seen enough movies that portray it well enough already.
This movie is beyond words. I just got back from the theatre. Wow. I've never seen anything like it. It certainly is a powerful movie. Anyone with the stomache to do so should see it. I have so many comments, but they're all spoilers, and since I know I myself ignore spoiler tags, I'll just hold off saying anything untill more people have seen the film so that I don't ruin anything.
I'm not going to see it for two reasons:
1. It's rated R
2. I already know about the last hours of Christ's life. If I ever need a refresher, I can just read about it in the scriptures, not see some glorified, violent representation of it.
Spoilers? I think the story is already pretty well known. I think everyone knows the ending.
True, but I'm referring to specific ways the story was presented. I wouldn't want to spoil the effect by describing them.
Okie, I see. I haven't seen it yet. I will, though.
the movie is outstanding. One of those movies that leaves you speachless at the end.
It really puts the crucifixion into a very very realistic sense. Everyone should see this movie. It is one of the best movies of all-time.
Again... wow. That was one of the most powerful movies I've ever seen. I was in tears through most of it, which is really kind of something for me considering I haven't cried in a movie since I was a kid.
The Passion's portrayal of Satan = perfect.
I shall see the movie. I hear its rated R for the cruelty and pains. It sounds interesting with he whole movie in another language. Plus woever sees the moive and doesnt like it, its a movie. Plain and simple its the basic story of what he had to come through.
Just a movie. Some things might not be exact but its a movie.
I'm not going to see it, not in the theater anyway. I've seen enough religious movies for 3 lifetimes, and most of them only succeeded in either boring me, or making me take issue with their inaccuracies (in some cases, both... remember The Last Temptation of Christ?). And all of the people on TV raving about how this movie has changed their lives is kind of making me go.... meh.
I saw it last night. I can't really describe how I felt about it. I like the devil aspect in the movie (the tempation aspect) and I thought all the acting was great, but it felt so incomplete. I mean... you know, most already know the story, but it just started out with nothing more than a few seconds before Jesus was captured.
The violence was insane. I gasped once. Those who have seen it probably know the part I mean.
I'm definitely going to see it. I've read a few reviews and supposedly it's incredibly gruesome in a realistic kind of way, not like Freddy movie or something. Based on the movie alone, I'ev only heard wonderful things about it. The only bad things I've read are stupid snobs claiming it's anti-Semitic because it portrays Jews in a negative light. Does the only non anti-Semitic way to portray this story involve Jews' negative actions portrayed in a positive way? It's like saying WW2 movies are anti-German because they portray Nazi Germany in a bad way. :rolleyes2
:lol: :lol: :lol:Quote:
Originally posted by Squall04
If I ever need a refresher, I can just read about it in the scriptures, not see some glorified ... representation of it.
The Jews were the ones in the movie begging for his death, but the Jews were also the ones weeping as he was crucified (different Jews, of course). So... if some idiot scholar wants to get all pissy, he shouldn't ignore the fact that Jews are also portrayed in a good light.
It's not anti Semitic. It's anti everyone. The Jews are evil. The Romans are evil. The apostles featured (excepting John) are worthless. Peter's as much a traitor as Judas ever was. There are maybe a handful of "good" people in the movie. Everyone else is a bloodthirsty sadist. No wonder Jesus hasn't returned in 2,000 years. Gibson's Passion isn't biased against Jews. It condemns everyone equally.
Exactly. I don't believe the Jews crucified Jesus. Everyone did.
Funny, before seeing this movie, I had been under the impression that St. Peter was a respectable man. My impression has changed. Anyone who's seen the movie knows the scene I'm referring to. The Jews and Romans hated Jesus, but they were up front about it. Peter is the type that pretends to be your friend, and abandons you whenever you need a hand. I can't say which is worse. Jesus should've sainted Pontius Pilate instead. He was more of a friend.
Pilate was just as bad. Neither of them would stand up because they were aware of the consequences. Pilate had to deal with the threat of rebelion, and Peter would have suffered the same fate as Jesus... well, he would have at least been whipped.
I think Peter's lifetime of good deeds makes up for his moment of intense weakness.
Jesus did pardon him after he returned. He asks Peter 3 times if he believes him, and he agrees 3 times. It's sort of the opposite of what Peter did.
The context was a bit different. Jesus was challenging Peter with his three questions. There are two 'love words' in Greek, we'll call them love and like.
Jesus: Peter, do you love me?
Peter: Of course I like you, Lord.
Jesus: Peter, do you love me?
Peter: I like you a lot, Lord.
Jesus: Peter...do you even like me?
just something that ocurred to me while reading this thread.
For as many non believers and people who question the bible that there seems to be on this site. Many of the same people seem to really be backing the crucifixion story and not really doubting it's historical accurateness for the most part.
And actually that is one thing that they said this movie would do. It would put the crucifixion story into a seemingly realistic type of event so many of the casual believers or non believers could understand it. And judging from the replies on this board it seems to be working.
I think many people are not doubting the crucifixion story at all because this movie put it in a tone in which they could understand.
Most people, including "non believers", already had little doubt that Jesus Christ was indeed a great man who once lived, and was executed by the authorities who were angered by his influence. The only real difference is that religious individuals believe that He was a prophet of the Lord (Jews and Muslims), or the son of God incarnate (Christians). The crucufixion was already believeable and understandable, as a matter of historical fact.Quote:
Originally posted by darkchrono
just something that ocurred to me while reading this thread.
For as many non believers and people who question the bible that there seems to be on this site. Many of the same people seem to really be backing the crucifixion story and not really doubting it's historical accurateness for the most part.
And actually that is one thing that they said this movie would do. It would put the crucifixion story into a seemingly realistic type of event so many of the casual believers or non believers could understand it. And judging from the replies on this board it seems to be working.
I think many people are not doubting the crucifixion story at all because this movie put it in a tone in which they could understand.
I was referring to the latter point, King Bahamut. It's easy for a person to claim solidarity when times are at peace, and the movie shows him doing so. Peter is a fair-weather friend, if I'm using the term right. When everything is safe, Peter claims loyalty and devotion. A few scenes later, violence erupts, and Peter is the first one to turn his back.
Peace: "You're my best friend"
Danger: "Sorry, don't know you"
How coincidental that when everything is settled down, and (after the events of the movie) Jesus is resurrected, Peter can simply answer three questions to redeem himself. We all know Peter can talk. He did it in the scene prior to the violence. I also know that later in history, Peter does eventually get a spine, and is crucified as well (though reportedly upside down - if that's even feasible).
As for Pilate - he did everything he could to save Jesus. He all but begged Jesus to say anything at all in his defense - anything to give him an excuse to spare him. Jesus turned down those opportunities. The final opportunity, when Pilate says he has the authority to spare him, I would say that Jesus's response was akin to suicide.
Considering only the action portrayed in the film, I would argue that Pontius Pilate was a much better friend to Jesus than Peter was. Real and Biblical history paint a different picture of Pilate, and of Peter as well, but I can only argue for the movie. I've read the Bible, but didn't get so vivid a picture in my mind as to what was actually happenning.
John on the other hand - John's an apostle I would want on my side. He stayed by his friend to the end. Even if we excuse Peter's noted cowardice, where was he later? John offered support as best he could through the entire ordeal, both to Jesus and the two Mary's.
On one last note - do you think adding the Satan figure was necessary? I can understand why she's there, as a counterpoint to Mary, but her scenes often came across as abstract and out of place. I think her first scene should have been her only scene. She's there for the purpose of temptation, and once the Passion truly begins, the ability to tempt is no more. Once Jesus was committed to the ordeal before him, having Satan flitter about here and there seemed more a distraction.
Pilate didnt do everything, because he had the power. All he had to do was say "No. No crucifixition, go away." but he did it anyway, because he feared an uprising. Not that I particularily blame him. And as for Peter, I cant say I would have stood up and said anything. I like to think I would, but would I? I dunno. Seeing what pain He went through, I couldnt have done it. It's not an excuse, but we shouldnt write off Peter, he did a lot of good in his day. John did stand by Jesus, as Peter should have, and was by far a better friend. And yes, Pilate did more than Peter did. But he still could have done more. They all could have, but if the cruxifiction was supposed to happen. Jesus was supposed to die for everyone's sins and all.
As for Satan, I liked the inclusion. Was it neccesary? No. But I loved seeing the self-satisfied smirk as Satan lurked about, think he'd won (I dunno if he was played by a woman, he certainly looked feminine, and as a former angel it's doubtful he has a sex at all, I just refer to Satan as a male).
I thought the shots were included to show Satan mocking Jesus. He offered Jesus a quick death through the asp, and Christ had rejected it.Quote:
Originally posted by TheAbominatrix
As for Satan, I liked the inclusion. Was it neccesary? No. But I loved seeing the self-satisfied smirk as Satan lurked about, think he'd won (I dunno if he was played by a woman, he certainly looked feminine, and as a former angel it's doubtful he has a sex at all, I just refer to Satan as a male).
Question: What was the demon child Satan held supposed to represent? Anti-christ?
I also think that Satan thought he was winning because he assumed Jesus would break after all this. Even one sin would excluse Jesus from being sinless, and hence if Jesus had succumed to hating those turds that laughed as he suffered (as I know I would have), it would've all been for not. But yeah, he was definitly mocking Him.
I don't think it was Antichrist, as his inclusion isnt for at least 2 thousand years afterwards, but that is an interesting thought. I saw it to be like, Satan sort of... showing Jesus he (satan) had control. He had corrupted a child. Its hard to explain what I felt, but now that I think more about the Antichrist explination, that sounds accurate.
I thought it had something to do with the Devil playing Mary and the baby being Jesus... or something demented like that.
Anyway, I thought that Satan was cool because he is supposed to be the most beautiful creature you've ever seen, and the guy or girl that played him was indeed pretty radient and cool looking, but not to the point where it was distracting.
I thought it was a good movie, I'm not really religious myself though. But I found it to be emotional.
Satan's supposed to be beatiful? I don't recall reading that in scripture. Watch it be in Psalms or something I haven't read.
Anyway I sort of watched it (take a hint) yesterday. I realised a couple of things that aren't quite pertinent to the story: that I didn't really think about the timeline of the last hours of Jesus' life, and that a movie that spans the time of ~12 hours seems to drag on a little bit. Anyway, there wasn't anything extremely bad about it. To me it was just a bland retelling of a few chapters out of a Gospel. It's a pretty good movie though :)
How can you possibly call it a bland story?
I don't get it.
It was just the last hours of Jesus, with very little artistic licensing from what I can recall from the Bible. You can argue that I just can't see the 'tastey' things about the movie all you want though. I stand by my claim. I didn't really feel anything for the movie. It's pretty sad to see what Jesus probably went through, but I already knew all that.
Maybe I'm just heartless ;_;
There really isn't anything "artistic" about what really happened. That is what happened in the last twelve hours of Jesus's life. What did you expect? Large-scale battles? Trying to destroy a ring so a man wouldn't take over the world? It was a re-telling of the last 12 hours of Jesus' life so people who didn't know what happened could learn.
EDIT: Alright, I just got back from seeing it. That's some pretty powerful stuff. I find it odd that one of the main issues with the movie was Anti-Semitism, yet it came directly from Jesus' lips: "Forgive them father. They are not to blame." He tells Pilate that.
I still don't get the symbolism with the psycho-retarded baby that Satan holds. And also, the crow motif: why would (SPOILER)a crow gouge the eyes out of his servant?
I thought the most powerful scene in the movie was the scourging scene. I couldn't help but think "Why did you do this for me?"
You know that the mother Mary was played by a Jew. If she was willing to act in this movie then it can't be anit-semitic? I haven't seen it yet, so I can't really comment on it that much, but I do know that she's a Jew.
Yeah, she's a Jew, but the crap about the movie being Anti-Semitic is completely untrue. Jesus himself says forgive them. It's not their fault.
You know, I might go see it. Sure, I'm an atheist, and even if I don't believe the religious parts of the story, Jesus of Nazareth was still a great man and a martyr, who thought of some really good lessons for living life.
Then I'll go home and watch "Life of Brian."
Well, I do recommend that you do see it, but the religious aspect is pretty much the whole thing. There isn't much about his teachings, simply his arrest, crucifixion, and resurrection.
Seen it.
It was a very powerful movie. It's nice how it's in Latin and Aramaic. It gives you a good idea of what it might have really sounded like.
I don't think it's too violent in the sense that it makes its point. The scene where he's whipped and beaten is one of the hardest to watch because you can hear everything. And when they nail Him to the cross, you can hear the nail going through the flesh.......very, very disturbing for me.
I cried the entire last half, just a strem of tears. Just seeing what he went through really hit me deep inside and made me think. My belief has only been strengthened. Where I had doubt, it no longer exists. Just seeing the crucifixion made me realize what He went through. I lost all my worries for the moment and when the movie ended, I just stared at the screen for about 5 minutes in awe.
But like I said, it made its point. Good movie.
Even if you don't believe, it still makes a good movie to see.
Then go home and watch "Life of Brian" to laugh to make up for all the disturbing images you had just seen.:P
I cried, but only in the scourging scene.
That had to be one of the worst scenes to watch for me.
I cried the hardest when they showed Mary trying to get to Jesus to help and she wasn't allowed. I bawled. But I think that's a womanly instinct......
And King Bahamut, I don't get the Devil part either.....maybe the Antichrist???
It's kinda freaky, thought. I had a nightmare the night afterwards about that. *shudders*
Yeah I cried throughout the entire end. I didnt wanna sob outloud because I wanted to listen and didnt want to disturb anyone around me. I could hear my friend's sister crying over in her seat.
As for Satan being beautiful, Moo Moo, I'm not sure if it's mentioned specifically in the Bible, but in Jewish lore there's a lot about angels. Satan was Lucifer, angel of music and... something else I believe, and it was said that his beauty made him think himself higher than God, hence why he was cast out.
Haven't seen it yet, but I probably will eventually. I wonder why so many people are so intent on ruining the experience for people. The attitude seems to be the same old "Stupid Christians always shoving their beliefs at us", except they're doing nothing of the sort.
Why would seeing this movie strengthen your belief? It's a movie, not a home video. You knew how it would end when you went in. But I'm not religious, so maybe I just don't understand. I mean, I believe in dinosaurs. Seeing Jurassic Park didn't strengthen that. Sure, it's ficticious, but that movie is just an adaptation of what you already know.
Some people are just more prone to emotional displays, maybe. I didn't flinch throughout the movie. I was just 'surprised' they turned him over to scourge his frontside. I suppose I had the ability to distance myself from the movie's attempt to hypotise the audience. Whatever the reason, I just can't empathise with people who felt strongly about the movie. I suppose it's good for them -- they can feel bad over seeing people suffer in a movie, or they can find strengthened faith through it.
There's thoroughly insensitive things I could say about the movie, but I'll keep those to myself.
A lot of the books in the Bible were thrown out of the modern version by the early Catholic church - the ones that did tended to be a lot more mythological, and dealt with angels and demons more than the main Bible. These would have talked about the fall more, I think. Anyway, look at the word "Lucifer" - it means "morning star," and Venus is certainly a beautiful sight - hell, look who it's named after.
I have read that, in reality, Pilate was actually a sadist and routinely crucified people without trial. Unlike Jesus, there are a good deal of contemporary records about him, as far as I know. Though, to be fair, the Jews were rather fond of parading around purported messiahs at the time, but only so long as they served as a rallying point against Rome.
EDIT: Also, I would REALLY like to go see it and sing "Always look on the bright side of life" during the crucifiction ;D
And angels are routinely refered to as 'stars'.
Pilate was a sadist, according to what I've read. However, around the time Jesus was crucified, Pilate was getting into deep trouble with Ceaser for many of his actions. This could be a reason for his sentencing, and his hesitancy there.
And Emerald Aeris, it's a powerful film that makes one think, question what they've been doing and why. The movie itself doesnt strengthen anyone's faith, but it's caused a lot of people to take a long hard look at themselves afterwards. That's where any change in faith comes from.
Then again, was it the Jews that wrote he was a sadist, or his peers? I think the Jews would be a tad biased.
But the Romans tended to be complete pricks, so I wouldn't be suprised if he was as bad as they say.
That I don't know. I'm not really sure what Rome's policy was towards Jewish anti-Roman feelings... like, were their own historical records surpressed? I'm not sure where the documents of the time come from, though I'm inclined to assume they were kept by the Romans.
I'll have to look into that.
I watched Passion last friday. But I expected more bloodshed.
TheAbominatrix>>>Satan was Lucifer, angel of music and... something else I believe
angel of light.
Yes and those books are called the Apocrypha. Very interesting to read. I'd have to check aobut the fall of Lucifer........there are now many Bibles out with the apocrypha in them.Quote:
Originally posted by Doomgaze
A lot of the books in the Bible were thrown out of the modern version by the early Catholic church - the ones that did tended to be a lot more mythological, and dealt with angels and demons more than the main Bible. These would have talked about the fall more, I think. Anyway, look at the word "Lucifer" - it means "morning star," and Venus is certainly a beautiful sight - hell, look who it's named after.
I saw it last night. It was good enough to keep my attention solely on the screen for ~two hours. The way Jesus's sacrifices are portrayed in the movie drive the point home twenty times harder than the dry old words in the Bible.
About Lucifer; before when he became Satan, he was an angel. He wasn't just any angel, he was basically the top most beautiful angel. Because he was the highest of them, he kind of got big headed and wanted to take control. But being God, he knew and sent Lucifer and the other angels who joined him down to hell. Thus you get Satan and his demons. That's about all I know.
Saw it last night and I will never see it again.
There was something of a war, and uprising against God, and Lucifer either coerced or forced other angels to fight on his side. Lucifer was the one to take them with him, when 'he swept one third of the stars from the sky with his tail'.
>>> I wasnt interested in this movie until I saw a trailer of it.
I wonder if this one can surpass the awesomeness of Braveheart..
Why is that? Too violent or what?Quote:
Originally posted by Jewels
Saw it last night and I will never see it again.
On the subject of Satan being the morning star, I found this quite interesting.
That's very interesting......now I'm more confused! Yay for being confused!
Besides the scene in which he outlines his "love thy enemy" philosophy, he exudes the principles of his teachings throughout the entire film through his reactions to the weight set upon him.Quote:
Originally posted by King Bahamut
Well, I do recommend that you do see it, but the religious aspect is pretty much the whole thing. There isn't much about his teachings, simply his arrest, crucifixion, and resurrection.
Correct, Kishi. I forgot about that part. Wasn't that the Sermon on the Mount?
Yeah, that was the Sermon on the Mount. It also included the passage where Jesus says "Let he who is without sin throw the first stone", and shows the pharacees dropping their stones. Being a Christian, I thought the movie was very good and well done. It was true and showed how it actually happened instead of leaving it up to your mind to imagine it. There was a serious tone to the movie, yet Mel also was able to add some funny parts, like the scene with Jesus making the table. Mary then replies "oh, this will never catch on", referring to the height. Another funny part was where the little demon children chase Judas Iscariot out of town. That wasnt supposed to be funny, but, admit it, a bunch of albino demon children beating a grown man is funny.
I found the little satans terrifying, but Barabbas was a go-getter.
Those demon kids freaked me out. Barabbas was pretty funny, and the scene between Mary and Jesus was very sweet and amusing.
I wanted to laugh at the demon part, but I refused to embarass myself that way. I'd like to see it again, but I'm not old enough to drive myself yet (only 2 1/2 months!) and my dad or anything wouldn't want to drive me.
Barrabas looked a tad ... how to say... dumb. Does anybody know what was up with the demon baby in satan's hands while Jesus was being beaten at the post?
I still haven't figure the baby thing out yet.
I went to go see The Time Machine while it was in theaters with my then-girlfriend, and after the inventor goes back in time, he goes across the street to buy flowers for his revived girlfriend. When he is in the shop, she can be seen through a window.Quote:
Originally posted by King Bahamut
I wanted to laugh at the demon part, but I refused to embarass myself that way.
She got hit by one of the old-fashioned cars that were around when automobiles were first invented, and I laughed loudly.
I was also the only one in the theater to laugh at all, which made me laugh even more. My girlfriend hit me (on the arm) and told me to be quiet...which made me laugh more.
I did the same thing, nevermind. I also laughed when Neo flipped off the Architect. Me and my friends were the only ones to do that. But anyway, enough with the off-topic jam.
I saw the movie last week, and I have to say that it really touched me. I'm glad I went to see it. :)
I gonna see it.
And by the way, it's not for kids to see.
I really do NOT understand this whole anti-semitism deal.
An online magazine reviewer said it best:
I feel, that anyone who thinks this movie (or Mel Gibson himself) is Anti-semitistic (sp?) should go watch it again and shut the fudge up about it.Quote:
My own feeling is that Gibson's film is not anti-Semitic, but reflects a range of behavior on the part of its Jewish characters, on balance favorably. The Jews who seem to desire Jesus' death are in the priesthood, and have political as well as theological reasons for acting; like today's Catholic bishops who were slow to condemn abusive priests, Protestant TV preachers who confuse religion with politics, or Muslim clerics who are silent on terrorism, they have an investment in their positions and authority. The other Jews seen in the film are viewed positively; Simon helps Jesus to carry the cross, Veronica brings a cloth to wipe his face, Jews in the crowd cry out against his torture.
A reasonable person, I believe, will reflect that in this story set in a Jewish land, there are many characters with many motives, some good, some not, each one representing himself, none representing his religion. The story involves a Jew who tried no less than to replace the established religion and set himself up as the Messiah. He was understandably greeted with a jaundiced eye by the Jewish establishment while at the same time finding his support, his disciples and the founders of his church entirely among his fellow Jews. The libel that the Jews "killed Christ" involves a willful misreading of testament and teaching: Jesus was made man and came to Earth in order to suffer and die in reparation for our sins. No race, no man, no priest, no governor, no executioner killed Jesus; he died by God's will to fulfill his purpose, and with our sins we all killed him
Also...
I read some opinions from people who object against this movie, because it is a 'faulty interpretation of the Bible'.
Up yours. Anyone is allowed to portray his opinion or views in ANY WAY, its part of our freedom of speech. If you want a clean translation of the Bible, go somewhere else. This movie is obviously not intended to teach people about the story of Christ, it's to show how Jesus died for our sins.
The ignorance of some people really ticks me of. Grr.
I, by the way, feel that the enormous amount of violence is a good way to tell the story of the crucifiction. It will definetely shake things up a bit. =)
Don't you ever know that one way to execute traitors in Roman Empire about 2,000 years ago is crucifixion? It does not mean that Jesus is the traitor, okay.