Issues with your account? Bug us in the Discord!
The Passion...
A2597
Fanboy
in Zocalo v2.0
just got back from seeing it...
all I can say is "Wow". Not an easy film to watch, but I'm glad I did. As some here may know, I've very squeamish about blood, and tearing flesh, and that kind of thing, but I managed to watch this film, and I think it's fairly accurate.
I know there's ALOT of controversy over this film, first and foremost the claims that it is anti-sematic.
to that, I say absolutly not. Even if you someone missed the point that Jesus was sent to die for our sins, and that it was God's plan for this to happen, the only Jews yelling for his death numbered in the hundereds, while thousands were later yelling for it to end. And in every scene that people were yelling for his death, Saten was walking among them.
next, the argument that it was to violent....
well...yea it's violent. And as with Gladiator, Saving Private Ryan, or Shindler's list, it isn't a film you just bring your kid to see. But it wasn't over the top in any way, and from what I've studied of the Romans, it's pretty accurate.
To me, this is one of the must see films so far this year, whether Christain, Aethist, or somewhere inbetween.
Oh yes, bring a tissue. You WILL be fighting back tears for most the film, it IS that powerful.
all I can say is "Wow". Not an easy film to watch, but I'm glad I did. As some here may know, I've very squeamish about blood, and tearing flesh, and that kind of thing, but I managed to watch this film, and I think it's fairly accurate.
I know there's ALOT of controversy over this film, first and foremost the claims that it is anti-sematic.
to that, I say absolutly not. Even if you someone missed the point that Jesus was sent to die for our sins, and that it was God's plan for this to happen, the only Jews yelling for his death numbered in the hundereds, while thousands were later yelling for it to end. And in every scene that people were yelling for his death, Saten was walking among them.
next, the argument that it was to violent....
well...yea it's violent. And as with Gladiator, Saving Private Ryan, or Shindler's list, it isn't a film you just bring your kid to see. But it wasn't over the top in any way, and from what I've studied of the Romans, it's pretty accurate.
To me, this is one of the must see films so far this year, whether Christain, Aethist, or somewhere inbetween.
Oh yes, bring a tissue. You WILL be fighting back tears for most the film, it IS that powerful.
Comments
Not heard of this film yet.
I'm not sure if I'll go see it yet. I don't know if I'd be able to handle the bluntness of the violence, even though it's accurate.
[B]Have you been living under a rock? ;) The media hasn't shut up about it for half a year now.
[/B][/QUOTE]
Lol well I not heard of it. Parents run a Cinema and I can bet they haven't either! But then they probably wouldn't get The Passion anyway. :)
[QUOTE][B] and I heard so much good about it, that when I went to see it I was wondering the whole time why I wasn't sobbing like a 5-year old with a skinned knee. and RotK was a movie I was very excited about... this isn't.
[/B][/QUOTE]
Maybe your expectations were too high? I done that in many films and been greatly disappointed. Alot of films I've liked better when I've been opposite. :)
[B]Maybe your expectations were too high? I done that in many films and been greatly disappointed. Alot of films I've liked better when I've been opposite. :) [/B][/QUOTE]
This is true, but there's also the issue of my vehement disbelief of religion in any form. :)
IMO it SHOULD be on every forum. It's a great story that details out a key moment in one of the worlds largest religions.
It's a very powerful story, and yes, it will make you uncomfortable, I think it was ment to.
[B]your point Striker?
IMO it SHOULD be on every forum. It's a great story that details out a key moment in one of the worlds largest religions.
It's a very powerful story, and yes, it will make you uncomfortable, I think it was ment to. [/B][/QUOTE]
Frankly, I am a little tired of hearing about it. :) It's all over the news, on every talk show, on every web site...it gets tiring. :D
I have nothing against the movie itself, just against all the media hype. =)
[B]Sounds good! I don't mind abit of blood and gore. :) Anyone well known in it?
Not heard of this film yet. [/B][/QUOTE]
James Caviezel and Monica Bellucci are in it. Everyone's performances are good.
I find it very hard to believe you've never heard of this movie, but believe I will.
Anyway it was good; not as good as I hoped it would be, but it was still good.
With all I heard about it being a very moving movie, I expected to be moved. But I wasn't. A lot of it was torture, and displaying a lot of that is what Gibson was going for if I'm not mistaken. His presentation of that, and everything else, really, is excellent. But for me, it wasn't really moving.
I thought the movie could've used more reactions from other people to the violence (e.g. Mary during the scourging). That, to me, I think, would've made it a whole lot better and a lot more moving. But like I said, that's just me. I did react to the violence, and a lot of other people will as well, but it did very little for me in terms of me being moved.
There's a lot more violence than there is dialogue, I think (or maybe it just seems like it). I guess that's what happens when you try to make a movie in Aramaic and Latin that isn't supposed to have subtitles in English. Without subtitles, the movie still would've worked very well, I think, since all the focus would be on the visual violence. Adding the subtitles kind of introduced a whole new set of expectations, and you therefore watch it in a different way.
[B]Frankly, I am a little tired of hearing about it. :) It's all over the news, on every talk show, on every web site...it gets tiring. :D
I have nothing against the movie itself, just against all the media hype. =) [/B][/QUOTE]
There are only two things that bet it in the media here this week: The immigration minister making a boo-boo and "resigning", and the bloody oscars. Why won't they shut up about the oscars? WHY?
[B]I have nothing against the movie itself, just against all the media hype. =) [/B][/QUOTE]
The media hype is the only reason this movie is going to be seen by more than three people. If you ask me, Mel Gibson should send the Anti-Defamation league a bouquet of flowers. If they hadn't raised a fuss, this film would've been confined to the art-house crowd, and would've made less in ticket sales than if the production staff had just panned for loose change in the sofa cushions.
currently, the line for this film was as long as the one for Matrix Reloaded....
meaning LONG. we have a small, 12 screen theater, and X2 only got one screen. Matrix 2/3 got two.....and the Passion got two.
this tells me something.
[B]Frankly, I am a little tired of hearing about it. :) It's all over the news, on every talk show, on every web site...it gets tiring. :D
I have nothing against the movie itself, just against all the media hype. =) [/B][/QUOTE]
Don't take this the wrong way but maybe you shoud ignore the thread if its an annoying topic for you now. :)
[QUOTE][B]James Caviezel and Monica Bellucci are in it. Everyone's performances are good.
I find it very hard to believe you've never heard of this movie, but believe I will.[/B][/QUOTE]
Well my b/f's not heard of it either and he works in a factory all day with lots of ppl lol. ;)
As for the Oscars I do know about! Not by choice though. :)
Oh and thanks MT for the info. :)
FIRE !
~~~~~
Ahash, learn how to fucking spell, you lose what little credibility you have when you cant be bothered to use the written language properly.
~~~~~
Mel Gibson is someone to fear. His religious beliefs verge on the fanatical. What we don't need in this world is another standard under which another army of zealots can march to war with another bunch of zealots under another banner...
...Mel Gibson undoes what Jesus did in one fell stroke.
His movie is Evangelical, and even worse, Evangelical by stealth and coercion. If he wanted to make this movie true to its intent he wouldn't have given it a full theatric release, he would have distributed it free, to those who wanted to see it, with perhaps donations going to a Christian charity. Mel also incites the Jewish community by default. No-one wants to see thier religious ancestors commiting whats effectively a savage crime. Moreso with his choice of making it extremely graphic and brutal, he employs a standard tactic of cultists, the idea is to assault the fresh meat and break them down into something you can rebuild in your preffered image. Scary shit.... a subtle chameleonic actor with a shitload of money.... contacts with mass media and entertainment industries... with a real and obvious religious agenda. Mel Satan Gibson...:) I wonder which devil is riding him ?
I for one am not going to see it. I know what happened to Jesus, I talk to a Baptist mate of mine about theology in general, including Jesus. Jesus, if he was nothing else, was a shrewd and powerful diplomat and idealist. We all know what happens to outspoken idealists. 'They' might not use whips and crosses, or stab you in the guts with a pilum, but 'they' do make sure you keep quiet. Make no mistake, big 'respec' to Lil 'J', but I'm not about to join Mel's new crusade.
There's an article by Jewish film critic Michael Medvet about that [url="http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2003-07-21-medved_x.htm"]here[/url].
Edit: more contemporary (as in, from the last few days/weeks rather than last six months) article by Medved [url="http://www.beliefnet.com/story/140/story_14054_1.html"]here[/url].
[B]Ahash, learn how to fucking spell, you lose what little credibility you have when you cant be bothered to use the written language properly.[/B][/QUOTE]
cant - can't
thier - their
commiting - committing
whats - what's
preffered - preferred
Nobody's perfect. If you're going to tell someone else to learn 'how to fucking spell', at least have the god damn common courtesy to make sure you do so yourself, you hypocritical dick.
Now I apologize for the minor harsh language from my part, but can you (or anyone else) tell me what A2597 has done here to deserve what you said? Some typos do not take away from his credibility, but you, your blasting at someone for making typos sure as hell takes away from your respectability in a community like this. Jesus, man, get a grip on yourself.
"wow"
first off...I don't deny that my spelling isn't the best in the world. If I write a paper, I spell check, I dig out the typos/wrong word/fix grammer.
I don't do that here. here, and on other forums, I post what I think. I'm not writing a formal essay, and no one expects that from anyone else.
second...Mel Gibson a fanatical? Whow.... Frankly, he's no where near fanatical. Fanatical is, by definition:
"Possessed with or motivated by excessive, irrational zeal."
Mel is motivated, definately. But difinately not by an irrational Zeal. Irrational is blowing up thousands of people while following a loving religion. Not making an excellent film about the love of one Man and God.
[quote]His movie is Evangelical, and even worse, Evangelical by stealth and coercion.[/quote]
Evangelical, yes. By stealth and coercion? By what justification do you claim this?!? NO ONE can enter this film without knowing what it is about. And frankly, it isn't very evangelical. Yes, it revolves around Jesus dieing for our sins. But come on...really man. Statements like THIS are what cause an argument to lose credibility, not spelling errors.
Giving it out for free...great idea! OK, he just spent millions of his own money to make this thing, lets spend millions and millions more to send it to everyone that wants to watch it!
Oh yea, we can't show it in theaters, because no theater will show something for free. That means we have to send VHS tapes to each of the few hundered millions of people that want to see it, etc etc etc.
Just. isn't. Possible.
As for the anti-sematic crap...it isn't. If you stopped listning to the media hype and just watched the thing, you would relize that.
First off, This was Gods PLAN from day ONE. Jesus was to die for our sins, the jews that wanted Jesus's death are responsible. So is every other human on the face of the earth thoughout time. We all share equal blame for his death, and any Christain would say the same.
Second: Scenes where people wanted Jesus dead, Saten walked among them. Making it pretty clear saten was influencing these people.
Third: Hundereds wanted him dead, THOUSANDS were seen weeping as he carried the cross.
Going by plain numbers, NO WAY to concider it anti-sematic!
Standard tactic of cultist? Remodeling your opinion?!? Mel Saten Gibson?!?
Dood. Guess what?
and no, you ain't getting a Dell.
You just lost the last hair of a thread of credibility in your argument.
Where did all this anger towards God's message and his followers come from man?
[quote]I for one am not going to see it. I know what happened to Jesus, I talk to a Baptist mate of mine about theology in general, including Jesus. Jesus, if he was nothing else, was a shrewd and powerful diplomat and idealist. We all know what happens to outspoken idealists. 'They' might not use whips and crosses, or stab you in the guts with a pilum, but 'they' do make sure you keep quiet. Make no mistake, big 'respec' to Lil 'J', but I'm not about to join Mel's new crusade.[/quote]
We ALL know what happened to Jesus, But no one ever thinks about it. And THAT is the point of this film, to make people think. Unfortunetally, you can't think if you refuse to open your mind.
Idealist? Unrealistic and impractical then? Ooook. His teachings were for us to love one another, and he told us the means to get to heaven. And just WHAT did jesus do to "keep you quiet". ?!? I'm a follower of Jesus's teachings, and I doubt very much ANYONE can honestly say I'm "quiet". I question alot, if I want to know something I ask, I'm an inquisitive little pest half the time! Jesus NEVER told someone to not ask questions, he encouraged questions and readily gave answers!
Thanks for showing your ignorence on this subject.
and lastly, this isn't Mel's crusade, it started over two thousand years ago, and I somehow doubt Mel was around then.
[B]Rant cannon online....
FIRE !
I for one am not going to see it. I know what happened to Jesus, I talk to a Baptist mate of mine about theology in general, including Jesus. Jesus, if he was nothing else, was a shrewd and powerful diplomat and idealist. We all know what happens to outspoken idealists. 'They' might not use whips and crosses, or stab you in the guts with a pilum, but 'they' do make sure you keep quiet. Make no mistake, big 'respec' to Lil 'J', but I'm not about to join Mel's new crusade. [/B][/QUOTE]
ahem, Im about to return fire,
And brutaly so.
SB, your claiming to have expertise on the content on the movie when you havent even seen it? For the love of god, untill you have seen it to accurately provide commentary about it, your just pumping out bullshit and spewing hearsay, and thats not just legal jargon, its old fashion common sense, shit you hear from other people with axes to grind may or may not be accurate.
In short you personaly dont know shit about whats actually going on in the movie, neither do I till I see it, once we see it, then we can say what the hell is going on in it.
Personaly I think Mels shot is towards fair weather christians of certain whimpy protestant sects (such as the one Im a member of, the United Methodist Church) to understand what the hell it means when we say "jesus died for our sins" weve so sanatised it as to not have any meaning. But hell like I said, weve never seen it so how the hell do we know whats really going on?
And its evangalzing by stealth and coercison? its a movie, about jesus, by christians, thats as stealthy as fucking elephant in a china shop!
ok....
A# try spelling the KEY words to your arguement correctly. I'm sure SatAn is preparing nice little devil to meddle in your affairs as we speak when you cant even get his name right.
*waves butt in Curz general direction* Would you like a medal now ?
~~~~
Mel Gibson distributed his film widely before its cinematic release. With the right church connections you got to see the film well before. The guy has more money than he knows what to do with, (which in itself is technically a sin), with which he could have paid to have the film distributed, or called on the church to distribute it for him. He could have also asked the church to support him and have them book out cinemas... or taken to the fields with roll up screens and marquees...
He's not idealistic, he's a shrewd and cunning manipulator, he has the media eating from the palm of his hand. Without thier hype his film would have been 'arthouse' material and for 'hardcore' christians. He has targeted a much wider audience than the extant Christian population, every man and his dog is going to see it, to see what all the fuss is about. Thereby some of those who see it, go the next day to thier local tabernacle and join the choir....
...thats Evangelism. That's conversion, thats gathering the flock.
If you really believe in the tenets of religion, if you want to be religious, if you want to join a religious group, then YOU should be the one to seek it out...
...if the guy with the funny collar, or the guy in orange robes... or two guys arrives in impeccable suit bearing brochures... comes to you...thats evangelism, regardless of which imaginary friend he feels hes got a direct line to...
I haven't got any problem with the teachings of Jesus, the guy made some good points, did some good stuff, offered us some enlightened points of view... but I don't believe for a second that his version of the Universe is the only one.
Nor do I believe Allah, or Buhda, or Set, or Kali, or Ameratsu, or The Great Spirit, or the Loa, or the Wanjina have the market cornered on faith, belief or hope.
I believe an individuals faith should be thiers and thiers alone. They should seek thier own path, never one laid for them, by culture, by race, creed, socio-economic status, geo-polictial postion or 'just because'
Put it this way A#, if you were born in a Wadi in the middle of Africa... I doubt you'd be a Christian.
~~~~~
I digress, meaningfully, but still, a digression. Mel's actions are no better than that of the Pope... sitting atop a hill of wealth in Vatican city...
...the formalisation of religion into recognised and real bodies is by its very nature a paradox. As soon as you give your faith a label, define it, give it measure, you diminish it. The spirit by its essence remains an enigma.
All organised religion does is encourage division... Zealot A says 'Allah says this'... Zealot B says 'God says this'...*stab, shoot, maim, repeat for next two thousand years*
Granted socio-political omnipotence... I'd see that every church, synagogue, temple and place of worship around the entire globe would be transformed into a temple celebrating humanity, love, faith in one another...
...portraits of Jesus, Einstein, Florey, Da-Vinci, Ghandi, Mandela, Luther-King, Saladin, lining the walls...
...and a darkened ante-chamber, lined with other portraits... of Hitler, Stalin, Pol-pot, Mussolini... to remind us of our imperfection... and the need to remain vigilant and positive...
...and every gilt candlestick, icon and religious symbol would be melted down, recycled and the funds used to feed, house and shelter the needy...
....and no stone would be laid upon stone ever again, in worship of any god... large, small or in-different.
The preists and monks stripped of thier robes of office and given simple plain clothing and the chance to serve humanity, perhaps in much the same fashion as they have been, as counselors, as careworkers, to help those in need. Career Arch-Bishops et al... can choose to join thier 'lower' brothers... or find another path.
If some have faith's in higher powers... all well and good... talk to others... share your beliefs... but NEVER use them to define yourself, or anyone else as better, lesser, or even different from your brothers and sisters in the humanity.
Well, I haven't seen the film so I can't say what it is and isn't, but complaining about peoples spelling is pritty lame. Point it out in a nice way if you want a nice answer back.
And SB, if you were born in a Wadi in the middle of Africa... I doubt you'd be here ranting.
[url]http://www2.memlane.com/jmilner/stairwaybackwards.htm[/url]
[B]The guy has more money than he knows what to do with, (which in itself is technically a sin), with which he could have paid to have the film distributed, or called on the church to distribute it for him.
[/B][/QUOTE]
Where is it written that having more money than you know what to do with is a sin?
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by shadow boxer [/i]
[B]
He's not idealistic, he's a shrewd and cunning manipulator, he has the media eating from the palm of his hand. Without thier hype his film would have been 'arthouse' material and for 'hardcore' christians.[/B][/QUOTE]
I know art house material films. I watch art house films almost as often as I watch blockbusters and whatnot. The Passion can hardly be considered art house material, or for hard core Christians. And even if it had no subtitles, the movie would still be excessively coherent and very well made. An atheist could go see it and there wouldn't be anything to stop them from liking it.
Without the media hype, it would just be a good movie with little marketing, kinda like Equilibrium.
But I guess you would know more about what kind of movie The Passion is than I would, expecially considering you HAVEN'T SEEN IT YET!
Can not this film be a part of a bigger, wider problem ?
Wold you like me to continue and go past the religious ideology into the next level ?
And didn't I explain that I'm not going to see the film because of my ethical issues ? Why would I give 16 bucks to Mel Gibson with the issues I've raised ? I'll glady watch a bootleg if you think it will make any difference to the key arguement I'm putting forward. Did I at any stage say that content had any large bearing on what I'm saying ? Outside of the cultists barrage tactic and the semetic angle.. which has been widely publicised outside the actual movie itself, what of it ? I'm talking about the broader issues here, what the motives are behind even shooting the movie.
How much money and how many worldy posessions did Jesus have ? Did he tell anyone to hoard wealth way beyond there own personal capacity to spend ?? While I dont have a bible quote I do have one from Bono from U2...
"the God I believe in isn't short of cash mister"
Heh... and if I was in Africa... I'd still be ranting, but perhaps to a much more local crowd. The point is my key values are not, to a large degree, shaped by whats around me at the time. Perhaps I shouldn't single out A# in this instance, I guess this is something endemic to most societies... a sheepish mentality. All too ready to follow messiahs, and thier disciples, good or bad.
Follow a faith by all means... but not blindly.
Also note A#, the bible was written by atleast 4 different scholars, 80 years after the fact. Veracity is a hard thing to prove in this instance. Jesus could have told us to eat a new hatched chicken every Easter. Unlikely, but not totally beyond the realms of possibility.
Obviously my definitions of Arthouse is different to yours... I mean outside the mainstream cinemas, on limited seasons at limited cinemas.. not on the biggest screen in the biggest cinema for a long season, everywhere.
~~~~
and... (purportedly) from JC himself
'to thine own self be true'
a sheepish mentality, all to ready to follow messiahs? You think it was easy for early Christains? They were persecuted, executed, ridiculed, etc. Thousands saw Jesus after he "died" on the cross, if they haden't, they wouldn't have followed him. Yes, it's that simple.
You think it's easy to follow him NOW?!
Christains are still being persecuted, executed, ridiculed, etc. You really think that if this film was about an Islamic religious leader that it would stir this kind of controversy? Bah.
Your statement on the Bible being written by at least four different scholars = counter productive to your argument.
First off, if we are looking at the whole thing, it was written by over 40 authors.
If we are looking solely at the Gospel, Matthew, Mark, Luke and John....those were written by...you guessed it, the followers of Jesus, the ones that saw him crusified.
second, they came out 57 to 75 years after Jesus's death and ressurection. They would have no cause to write these books unless Jesus actually had risen from the dead, and other people could confirm their books. I'd hardly call Jesus disciples scholars, they were teachers and followers of Jesus, fishermen, etc.
Second, multiple people writing the same thing = confirmation of the others work.
I am going to watch it, though I am an ateist.
thier - their (this one is recurring, you might want to put some extra work on that one)
hes - he's
Buhda - Buddha (I'm sure, unlike Satan, Buddha doesn't mind you misspelling his name, so there probably won't be any consequences for that)
individuals - individual's
thiers - theirs (also recurring)
polictial - political
preists - priests
faith's - faith
Wold - Would
arguement - argument
semetic - semitic
posessions - possessions
there - their
dont - don't
whats - what's
atleast - at least
definitions of Arthouse is different - definitions of Arthouse are different (plural - are)
Hey, shadow boxer, why don't you learn how to fucking spell? According to your own logics, you should've lost any credibility you had (if you had any to begin with) when you can't be bothered to use the written language properly.
[B]How much money and how many worldy posessions did Jesus have ? Did he tell anyone to hoard wealth way beyond there own personal capacity to spend ?? While I dont have a bible quote I do have one from Bono from U2...
"the God I believe in isn't short of cash mister"[/B][/QUOTE]
So, in other words, you are excessively unqualified to make any kind of statement dealing with sin and money.