[Enderet]

The credits read....

"The the characters and events depicted in this photoplay are ficticious. Any similarity to actual persons, living or dead, is purely coincidential".

[Enderet]

The credits read....

"The the characters and events depicted in this photoplay are ficticious. Any similarity to actual persons, living or dead, is purely coincidential".

[David Prahl]

Originally Posted by Enderet

The credits read....

"The the characters and events depicted in this photoplay are ficticious. Any similarity to actual persons, living or dead, is purely coincidential".

8O
I can't believe it!

[Pat Logsdon]

Originally Posted by David Prahl

8O
I can't believe it!

It's a legal thing. If that disclaimer wasn't there, some guy who looks like the guy who played Judas in that movie would sue the producers for slander and defamation of character. :roll:

[David Prahl]

I understand (from a legal perspective). But to word it that way almost dismisses the entire Passion as a myth - a folktale.

Stick in a few nouns and it reads:
"The the character of Jesus Christ and his death depicted in this photoplay are ficticious."

Some people would call that blasphemous.

[Kati Compton]

I suggest we stop discussing whether or not the events happened or not, and just stick to the movie itself. Thanks.

[karinatwork]

Originally Posted by PetiteFlower

One does not need to SEE or EXPERIENCE graphic violence in order to know it.

That's what I was trying to say earlier. I feel like I know the history, I've grown up with it, I have my own imagination to depict exactly what happened. I do NOT want to see it in every detail.

[Jimmy Dodd]

Originally Posted by karinatwork

That's what I was trying to say earlier. I feel like I know the history, I've grown up with it, I have my own imagination to depict exactly what happened. I do NOT want to see it in every detail.

I think that's a valid point of view for a decision that everyone has to make for themselves.

I believe the film is an attempt to portray accurately just how much suffering was endured which is an important fact of Christianity, especially considering that it could have ended at a single word from Christ.

[sublime]

I'm a little late, but I just saw the movie today.

The movie itself was well done, but slipped up artistically at the end. I really loved the use of flashbacks in the movie. That one when Mary sees Christ fall made me cry because it was so perfectly beautiful. Where it slips up is near the end where the flashbacks begin to lose relevance to the situation at hand. Near the beginning of the movie, Christ or someone else would see something specific, then a memory would be triggered. This was not true of the Last Supper memories, and because of its lack of a trigger they felt a little incongruous. As for the actual triggered memories, they were flawless.

The last scene wasn't what I expected. It was aggressively suggestive, rather than subtly and effectively intimated as the rest of the movie. We see Christ stand up with a serious face and then storm off screen with a hole in his hand. Gibson was really trying to drive his point home then, and I think it lost its taste for that. If Gibson would have cut that tiny part out, but left the sinking in of the wrap, and perhaps had the people (I forget who comes into the grave) say that "he's gone," then fade to black, it would have been perfectly subtle, and I would have praised it greatly.

That scene of Satan screaming when Christ dies is too much. Blah, just tasteless. It was perfect when Christ steps on the serpent's head, because it is a direct allusion to Adam and Eve's expulsion from Eden. But that Wizard of Oz-ish "I'm melting! I'm melting!" bit should have been cut out.

Overall: 7.7/10