another review of The Passion . . .

[OneBlueSky]

both a yawner and a "splatterfest," according to this guy . . .

http://www.livejournal.com/users/picosecond/99463.html

(snip)

In the end, that's really all this is. It's a splatterfest, only with Jesus. Lots of over-the-top, gratuitous violence - like when the criminal on the cross next to Jesus gets an eye pecked out by a crow. It serves no purpose, it adds nothing to the story, but there it is. Christians are normally against this kind of thing; they used to feel it was immoral to pander to people's darker side like that, especially for money. I'll bet anything that since now it's Jesus who's pandering to that baser instinct, it'll be OK with them. I really don't have a problem with that -- write a blood-and-guts movie about anyone you want. But why is Braveheart acting like it's a holy thing?

(snip)

That's the payoff in Christianity - after you die, you get to "dwell with Him" forever. Mad Max either doesn't know, or doesn't care. Instead, he's focusing on the pain & suffering Jesus went through. If he needs to see that kind of thing before he can feel spiritual --or if he thinks anyone else has to-- then either he's a masochist, or he needs therapy.

It's like Gibson wants to shock you into being Catholic. Braveheart's telling the world: "Do you understand the horrible things He went through, just to save your soul? HOW CAN YOU POSSIBLY NOT LOVE HIM FOR THAT!!! He took all that pain for YOU!!!!! Now believe in Him, dammit!!!" Maybe some people will be affected by that, but not me. Christ dies on the cross to redeem us all, according to the story. But you don't get that moral. There was no redemption here, just lots of pointless blood & torture.

But he's making his point: Gibson is turning his wacko "more-Catholic-than-the-Pope" outlook into popular art. Hell, he got my money outta me - that's what really counts in the end. Plus, he made me think about Bible stuff more than I have in a long time. So indirectly, his film had the effect he wanted it to have. I guess that makes it a success.

http://www.livejournal.com/users/picosecond/99463.html

[AgadorSparticus]

1. no desire to see this movie whatsoever....

i didn't before the hype and i still don't. glad I didn't spend my $8 on it.

[GodHelpUsAll2]

2. Well I saw it

And it it was very moving. Don;t think I will EVER forget it. Some people just can't deal with "in your face reality" and are perfectly content to rose color things. I would recomend everyone see it.

[Karenina]

3. HALLO....

It's NOT REALITY. It's a FICTIONALIZED INTERPRETATION. It's a Hollywood MOVIE. It's ONE MAN'S sick, twisted and perverted imaginations projected onto the big silver screen. IT IS NOT REALITY. :eyes:

[OnceBlind]

6. Have you seen it?

Well, I have. It wasn't really as violent as we have been made to think. I have seen much worse. Oh, and it's not fiction. It is documented history. Jesus really did exist, according to historians.

[OnceBlind]

5. Thank you

Finally, someone around here who has actually seen it gives an opinion! I saw it, too, and it was actually a good movie, whether you're into religion or not.

[Tansy_Gold]

4. I think I was about 9 or ten years old when I saw

"The Vikings," with Kirk Douglas and Tony Curtis, IIRC.

The only thing I remember is Kirk Douglas getting his eye pecked out by a bird. I've been totally turned off by violence in film ever since.

If the purpose of Christianity is to make people be more gentle toward each other, how can a movie that promotes violence accomplish that?

There is no way I would spend one cent of my money or one minute of my time watching this outrage. It's enough to make me wish I had never named my plucked-from-the-road-when-he-was-just-a-lost-and-starving-little-Queensland-heeler-puppy Gibson. . . but he's thirteen years old now, so it's a bit late to change his name


Tansy Gold, sucker for lost puppies