|
Grex > Cinema > #60: *<*<*<*<*< AT THE MOVIES >*>*>*>*>* |  |
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 306 responses total. |
richard
|
|
response 250 of 306:
| 
Mar 7 07:11 UTC 2004 |
Okay I finally saw The Passion of the Christ today at the multiplex
(Starsky and Hutch was sold out, so I figured what the hell) The movie is
well made and the special effects and makeup were great. That sure looked
like a REAL scourging to me. Jim Caviezel also puts in an oscar-worthy
performance as Jesus-- I read that he suffered hypothermia, a dislocated
shoulder and a lung infection during filming, and after seeing the movie I
can believe it.
I am worried about what the reaction will be to this film. The punishment
that Jesus endured and the crucifixion is so violent and so vivid and so
intense in this movie that I think some people could get worked up seeing
it to a point where they go looking to make acts of vengeance. I guess
Mel Gibson's point in emphasizing and making as explicit as possible the
scourging and torture of Jesus was to make Christians watching it feel the
proper (in the catholic view, of which Gibson is a catholic) sense of
guilt. But some people won't feel guilt. They'll feel anger. This is the
sort of film that Hitler, had it been made in the thirties, could have
used to stir up support for the Holocaust.
I am not sure therefore that it was necessary for Gibson to so explicitly
show the way Jesus was beaten. Viewers are smart enough to get the point
without being beaten over the head with it. Did we really need to watch
Jesus violently whipped, with the flesh coming off his back in chunks, for
twenty minutes? It was gratuitous, the sort of excess that is meant to
incite.
I'd rather have seen more flashback scenes with Jesus and the Disciples,
and more development of the other characters, like Judas and Mary
Magdalene. I also think that both the Romans and the Jews come off
looking really badly here. There were good Romans and good Jews, but the
sense you are given here is that the Romans were clueless thugs, and the
Jewish rabbis were conceited and arrogant. And when you see the ground
shaking after Jesus dies, and the rabbis who pronounced judgement and the
romans who carried it out suddenly are wide eyed with the fear of God and
run terrified for cover, the sense you are given is that they are getting
what they deserved. That they deserved vengeance. In spite of what Jesus
repeatedly says of, "forgive them, they know not what they do", the movie
shows them in such a bad light that they are the bad guys and you want the
ground to open up and swallow them. I heard a couple of people in the
back applaud when the black crow shows up and pecks out the eyes of the
guy on the cross next to Jesus who had been dissing him. He was getting
his. Vengeance not compassion. This is the problem I have with the
movie-- instead of concentrating more on who Jesus was and what he was
teaching, this movie mostly wants to show in gory detail his beating,
torture and death in order to incite emotions.
I didn't like this movie for the same reason I don't like hard porn
movies-- they show "the act" in too much detail and for too long at the
expense of character development and story telling.
|
richard
|
|
response 251 of 306:
|
Mar 7 07:31 UTC 2004 |
Last week there was a picture in the paper of a class of kids from a local
catholic high school marching down the sidewalk in their uniforms, on a school
sponsored field trip to see the movie. This movie was so violent, so
gratuitous, that it really should have carried an NC-17 rating. I find it
ironic that many of the same church leaders who scream about tv and movies
being too violent, and wouldn't want their kids going to the next Friday the
13th or Nightmare on Elm Street movie, let them see this. This was more
violent, and had more bloodshed than any movie I ever saw Jason or Freddy
Krueger in!
|
mary
|
|
response 252 of 306:
|
Mar 7 13:02 UTC 2004 |
This response has been erased.
|
mary
|
|
response 253 of 306:
|
Mar 7 13:09 UTC 2004 |
I suggest that those folks who are getting their panties in a bunch
over this piece of fiction should go see Judgement at Nuremberg, Shoah, or
Schindler's List. Then we can have a real talk about religious hate
crimes depicted on film.
|
jmsaul
|
|
response 254 of 306:
|
Mar 7 14:22 UTC 2004 |
I'm not sure what point you're trying to maje, Mary.
|
jmsaul
|
|
response 255 of 306:
|
Mar 7 14:22 UTC 2004 |
(Um, "make".)
|
jor
|
|
response 256 of 306:
|
Mar 7 14:47 UTC 2004 |
"This is the sort of film that Hitler,
had it been made in the thirties,
could have used to stir up support
for the Holocaust."
I appreciate Richard's remark, it helped
me understand why some people think the
film is anti-Semetic.
|
bru
|
|
response 257 of 306:
|
Mar 7 22:20 UTC 2004 |
you could also use it to stir up anti-italian (roman) sentiments. Or anti
Caucasian sentiments. Take your pick.
The same could be said about J.C. Superstar. Or Quo Vadis. Or the Robe.
If you want propaganda, pick a film and put your spin on it. Eall it to the
people you want to influence, adn off you go.
|
twenex
|
|
response 258 of 306:
|
Mar 7 22:21 UTC 2004 |
Roger-rabbit is anti-authority!
|
anderyn
|
|
response 259 of 306:
|
Mar 8 14:49 UTC 2004 |
I agree that the whipping scene was far too much. But something that you may
have missed, Richard, in all the spectacle, was the emphasis Gibson put on
Jesus' own willingness to be there. It was His choice. He knew it would
happen and chose to allow it. So there's no vengeance to be taken since He
could have stopped it at any time.
|
twenex
|
|
response 260 of 306:
|
Mar 8 14:51 UTC 2004 |
Stockholm syndrome.
|
tod
|
|
response 261 of 306:
|
Mar 8 16:10 UTC 2004 |
This response has been erased.
|
novomit
|
|
response 262 of 306:
|
Mar 8 19:27 UTC 2004 |
I wonder how many people left the theatre with tears in their eyes . . . this
was what Gibson was trying to do, right? Give everyone a sense of the
sacrifice that was made . . .
|
tod
|
|
response 263 of 306:
|
Mar 8 19:33 UTC 2004 |
This response has been erased.
|
mcnally
|
|
response 264 of 306:
|
Mar 8 19:58 UTC 2004 |
re #263: Who banned it? From what?
|
novomit
|
|
response 265 of 306:
|
Mar 8 20:09 UTC 2004 |
Yeah, you can get it online. Kinda boring, though.
|
tod
|
|
response 266 of 306:
|
Mar 8 20:54 UTC 2004 |
This response has been erased.
|
mary
|
|
response 267 of 306:
|
Mar 8 22:22 UTC 2004 |
If Jesus hadn't been killed per God's plan, if he had been spared by those
Jews, would God have been disappointed that plan A didn't go as planned? I
mean, he knew from before Jesus' conception that this innocent man, his
"son", had to be brutally killed so that He could forgive mankind for
being sinful. No brutal murder, no forgiveness. Not the kind of god I'd
respect but that's the beauty of religion, you get to choose what works
for you. Without God's help Jesus wouldn't have been on that cross, the
Jew's wouldn't be the fall guys, and Mel Gibson would be doing what he
does best, looking sexy.
Religion is a hoot.
|
twenex
|
|
response 268 of 306:
|
Mar 8 22:33 UTC 2004 |
Yeah, God is forgiving like that. That's why he smote Sodom and Gomorrah,
brought down the Tower of Babel, prevented people from communicating from one
another, subjected *his own Son* to (supposedly) "the greatest crime in
history"; drowned everything but one specimen of each animal (what about
plants?) and will "forgive" every sinner on judgement day by subjecting them
to eternal damnation and torture.
Maybe the "torture" envisaged will consist of being subjected to homophobic,
xenophobic, and Thatcherite rants /ad infinitum/.
|
bru
|
|
response 269 of 306:
|
Mar 9 03:04 UTC 2004 |
either that or we will have to sit chained to computer terminalsreading your
posts.
|
twenex
|
|
response 270 of 306:
|
Mar 9 03:33 UTC 2004 |
Or yours...
Sorry, two specimens of each animal.
|
aruba
|
|
response 271 of 306:
|
Mar 9 03:36 UTC 2004 |
Indeed. :)
|
richard
|
|
response 272 of 306:
|
Mar 9 07:23 UTC 2004 |
God said "thou shalt not commit adultery", and then went and impregnated a
woman to whom he was NOT married, and in fact an underage woman at that. God
was guilty of statutory rape and adultery if you want to be technical about
it. But He seems like a complex individual so He'd probably come up with a
perfectly plausible explanation for the hypocrisy if you asked Him :)
|
fitz
|
|
response 273 of 306:
|
Mar 9 09:09 UTC 2004 |
Mystic River D
Sean Penn's acting deserved some sort of award, but the best acting in the
world isn't going to help a poor screen play. Other actors acted up a storm
of fidgeting, gritting teeth, wringing hands. I don't see how tighter
editing could have improved it.
Penn, Robbins and Bacon were boyhood friends, until the abduction of
Robbins' character by a pair of molesters rather much ends the innocence
of youth for all three. Years later, the three are reunited by the murder
of Penn's nineteen-year old daughter. Bacon, a detective, is the
hub between Penn and Robbins as the investigation plods along. It's a
whodunnit: I canna say much more.
Look for an uncredited performance by Eli Wallach. I paid matinee prices for
this and felt royally ripped off. Eastwood the director is now on my shit
list. Nothing would be lost from this film by renting it. Waiting for it
to play on TNT for free would give the view the added bonus of frequent
bathroom breaks.
|
fitz
|
|
response 274 of 306:
|
Mar 9 09:49 UTC 2004 |
The Price of Milk - B
This was a rental. Novel character behavior makes this movie watchable.
Eccentric behavior can be overdone and ruin a film, but you gotta love the
screen's first agoraphobic dog. This is light, romandic comedy, filmed in
New Zealand.
After a farmer, Rob, asks Lucinda to marry him, she takes her friend's
advice to test his commitment by doing something to outrage him. The
initial attempt merely baffles him and she doesn't feel that she has yet
put him to the test.
When she finally suceeds, it is by selling his herd of dairy cows. The
loss puts him in a depression that Lucinda's friend would gladly take
advantage of.
|