Well, I'm off to watch the movie...I'll post a review in the morning.

Same here.

Bring your hankys... i hear it's brutal.

I watched in Monday. My church rented out 6 screenings on monday/tuesday.

very sad, half the audience was crying half the time.

Bring your hankys... i hear it's brutal.

I've only seen clips on the Ebert & Roeper show and it certainly is. It was a very good review, too, if anyone wants to check it out. Here's Ebert's print review, for anyone who's interested. Oh, and according to him, it "...is the most violent film I have ever seen."

I was going to watch it, but it has been getting some pretty bad reviews: http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/ThePassionoftheChrist-1129941/

I saw the movie last night in a sold out theater here in Richmond. Obviously, there were a lot of church-goers in attendance - the majority of the crowd, I'd assume. There were no previews before the movie, but the began a pre-movie twenty-minute commercial series during which they aired a 5 minute behind-the-scenes sneak preview of Van Helsing. I considered this slightly ironic considering the opposing subjects of these two very different movies.

The movie opens with an introductory passage from Isaiah 53, a prophetical passage of Christ's death written 700 years before his birth. This fades to the Garden of Gethsemane on the night of Jesus' betrayal. Gibson takes a bit of creative liberty by introducing an androgenous Satan, who tempts Jesus through taunts and doubtful thoughts. While there is no record of Satan being present in the garden in the gospels, it is hard to believe that he would be anywhere else on the eve of his anticipated "victory." After all, there was much work to be done, and plans were going full steam ahead (as evidenced by Judas' betrayal of Jesus to the Pharisees, the disciples inabiltity to stay awake and pray, et al.).

The film continues to march unflinchingly through the suffering and death Christ endured on our behalf, using flashbacks to relieve tension and offer insight into his humanity. A personal favorite was a flashback when Jesus recalls carefree days of crafting furniture in Nazareth and his interaction with his mother, Mary. It provides a natural and human feel to a character who is generally portrayed as stoic and judgemental.

Other flashbacks provide highlight and context into the life of Christ, often transitioning between his peaceful ministry and his cruel death. For example, Peter denies him, and we jump to the moment when the bombastic apostle vows his allegiance unto death. A glimpse of Pilate’s water bowl launches a memory of the Lord washing his disciples’ feet in the upper room. There is the stark transition from Jesus’ scorned march down the Via Dolorosa to images from his triumphal entry into Jerusalem on Palm Sunday. Then there’s the flash from the removal of Christ’s robe at Golgotha to the unwrapping of the bread during the Last Supper (“This is my body, which is broken for you”).

Not much is seen of the disciples. Out of the twelve, only four are mentioned by name, with John receiving the most prominent camera time. Peter is correctly portrayed as impulsive and outspoken, first in his act of cutting off the ear of the high priest's servant and later in his denial of knowing Christ. While these events are accurate, they stop short of telling the rest of the story: Peter's forgiveness, restoration, and eventual position as the "rock" of the New Testament church. Judas, after his betrayal of Jesus, slowly succumbs to the temptation of suicide. The film takes a few creative liberties during his maddening descent of mental anguish, showing the taunting of Satan and his minions which eventually leads to Judas hanging himself over a putrefying animal carcass.

The brutality and violence of the movie was often painful to watch, but I would venture to say that the movie was no more graphic than Braveheart or Saving Private Ryan. The difference is that, in this case, the brutality is a senseless act performed to an innocent man as opposed to violence in a war-time situation. Scenes show soldiers continually striking and spitting at Jesus. They press a crown of thorns onto his head, drawing lots of blood. Guards relish the punishment they’re dishing out, and what begins as a mean-spirited caning leads to an inhumane whipping that tears the flesh from Christ’s face and body. He is literally shredded - exposing ribs and vital tissue - and then is dragged across the floor through pools of his own blood. Jesus' arms are dislocated as nails are driven through his flesh, into the cross beams, and out the other side. Gibson has portrayed the physical abuse much the way it is described in Scripture.

Christians will experience a bizarre emotional paradox while viewing the brutality. Each blow to the face, lash with the whip and nail through his flesh is simultaneously repellent and indisputable testimony of divine love.

Gibson spend a lot of time focusing on Simon of Cyrene, the man commanded to carry Christ’s cross when the weight becomes too much for him. Much of that interaction is speculation, but the prevailing point is that those who carry his cross are forever changed.

There is an odd point during Christ's flagellation when Satan appears triumphantly confident, holding an ugly "baby" which seems to be equally developed and yet not quite so. I'm not sure if Gibson was implying some sort of spiritual significance, but based on the way that Satan was cradling and flaunting the baby, and the smirk on the baby's face upon seeing Jesus in his weakened state, I'm assuming that the portrayal was of the grooming of the coming antichrist.

Parts of the movie tended to drag out, portraying the agonizing length of time of the crucifixion process. Conversely, the final moments of the film offer only a brief glimpse of the resurrected Christ, which fade quickly to the credits. The implications are that Christ's death becomes more powerful than his resurrection and victory. I can't help but wonder if Gibson might have abbreviated some of the longer, drawn-out scenes, substituting them for some post-resurrection experiences (Jesus' interaction with Mary Magdelene, his revealing of himself to his disciples and hundreds of others, the reaction of the Pharasee's when they discovered their failed plan, and Jesus' triumphal assention into heaven).

It's difficult to measure the success of such a movie. If one were to classify it by its earnings, critics are likely slam it for its monetary gain. At the same time, Gibson's attention to detail and accuracy in an attempt to illicit emotional response has put him under fire claiming the movie contains senseless brutality. And while the church is hoping to see spiritual awakenings from the movie, only time will tell whether that is to happen.

The thing to remember in the end is that, while this movie is faithful to the essentials of the biblical account, it is not a substitute gospel. It is still just a movie.

Very well said.

It occurred to me that I'd be interested to know what you Christians thought of The Last Temptation of Christ.

I watched in Monday. My church rented out 6 screenings on monday/tuesday.

very sad, half the audience was crying half the time

It was sad eh? Weird.

Cybjorg--

As far as the review, what are your thoughts on the anti-semitic stuff?

There’s a vivid spiritual dimension in the movie. The anthropomorphic portrayal of Satan as a player in the events pulls the proceedings into the supernatural realm - a fact that should have quelled the much-publicized cries of anti-Semitism since it shows a diabolical force at work beyond any political and religious agendas of the Jews and Romans.

It seems that the charges of 'anti-Semitism' are just a smokescreen in an attempt to malign a movie that has the audacity to portray Christ as not only as an historical figure, but as the Savior of mankind. The fact that Mel Gibson actually hopes to use his movie as a vehicle for evangelism only adds fuel to the fire. But is it ever surprising when the story of Christ - depicted in any medium - creates controversy?

Is Gibson interested in using it for evangelism? I never got that impression, only that churches were interested in that. I don't understand how a movie that everyone claims to be so repellent on the surface could encourage people to join up, but whatever.

I was going to watch this movie, but after finding this crap I decided I don't want to see it anymore.

Obviously the merchandising of such a film is a huge detractor, one that I am not in favor of nor have any control over.

I was going to watch this movie, but after finding this crap I decided I don't want to see it anymore.

I dunno, I don't think that crap's that much cheesier than the Lord of the Rings crap. "Witnessing Tools", indeed. Yup, I'd say that's exactly what we're witnessing...

Peter

I don't really care about movies being vehicles for selling stuff, but Passion is suppsed to be "above" this type of stuff I thought. You know, a movie with a message or something.

Our mission is to reach the world with the message of hope by creating jewelry and gifts

Classic.

Oh, and they're the same folks that do the WWJD crap.

As far as the review, what are your thoughts on the anti-semitic stuff?

The anti-semitism accusation is completely unfounded. You can't change the historical fact that Jesus was Jewish and that the events took place in Israel. You can't change the fact that there were Jews involved in the proceedings. Just like you can't change the fact that Stalin executed millions of his own people. That's not viewed as an anti-Russian statement. It just happened.

Furthermore, Gibson took the extra step of making sure that there were Jewish people that were sympathetic or supportive of Christ throughout the film. They appear from the beginning where Christ was brought before the court of the high priests, and some of the priests were loudly proclaiming the trial to be a mockery, illegal and unjust. From there, there were supporters in the streets and at the crucifixion all along the way. He portrays Christ's triumphal entry to Jerusalem and the support he was given by many of the Jewish people.

The bottom line is that he accurately portrays the events as recorded in the gospels - that some of the influential religious/political rulers of the day (including the high priest) had Christ executed because of personal animosity, threat to their controlling rule, and a false religious piety in which they were unwilling to recognize the Messiah.

Anyone willing to take an honest look at the film can see this...the Jews as a whole are not portrayed as "Christ-killers" at all. They are portrayed as any other people would be, with vastly different goals, religion, politics and so forth.

I was going to watch this movie, but after finding this crap I decided I don't want to see it anymore.

I'd strongly urge you to reconsider. The film stands on its own merits. It is very well made, tells an interesting story, and is well acted. It is not "preachy" at all. As a film fan, I would urge you to see it simply because it is a great film, regardless of my religious leanings. As Peter so eloquently pointed out, most films nowdays have ridiculous merchandising, but rarely does that stop me from seeing a film that merits watching.

As I understand it, there are a few things here and there that could be viewed as anti-semitic. Caiphais is portrayed as bloodthirsty and never has the qualms that are in the Gospels. Pilate is portrayed as namby-pamby, which is probably in keeping with the Bible, but not history. There are apparently scenes where the Jews try Jesus that aren't in the Gospel. And so on.

It doesn't help that Gibson's father is a raging anti-semite.

But, regardless, it's important to point out that Jesus and his followers were Jews, so if all Jews are responsible, so were they. And, more importantly, if Jesus hadn't died, Christianity wouldn't exist.

That being said, I think it was well construed somewhere that for those who are anti-semitic anyway, there's going to be fuel. But for those not, it's just a story, regardless of its importance.

I'm gonna have to call you on some of that:

Caiphais...never has the qualms that are in the Gospels.

Where?

Pilate is portrayed as namby-pamby, which is probably in keeping with the Bible, but not history.

I think "conflicted" would be a better word. The Bible is the only historical source we have on the matter, and it has stood up resoundingly to historical scrutiny over the years. Do I think Pilate had people executed on a whim? Sure. Do I believe it's possible he didn't at times? Sure.

There are apparently scenes where the Jews try Jesus that aren't in the Gospel.

I'm no theologian, but I know the Bible pretty well, and I didn't see any. I'd love to be proven wrong.

It doesn't help that Gibson's father is a raging anti-semite.

Lemme guess, you got that from the news?

I'm not trying to be a jerk or anything...just pointing out that there's a lot of mis-information out there. I do however agree with your conclusion:

...those who are anti-semitic anyway, there's going to be fuel. But for those not, it's just a story, regardless of its importance.

About the anti-semetic thing. I think it is being blown out of purportion. I haven't seen the movie yet, but even if it does blame Jesus' death on the jews, why would that be an inaccuracy? Jesus was perhaps one of the bigger threats to Conventional Judism. IF Jesus was the savior that was prophecied about, then he would mark great change and perhaps a shift in power. I'm sure that many Jewish leaders weren't into that. Religion seems to be about power and control.

Why not just admit that a people did something heneous. Most white Americans are perfectly able to admit that their people had slavery. They are ashamed of it, but they are not dishonest about it.

WWJD = Who Would Jesus Do

Maybe Mary Magdelene

I've known about Gibson's dad for quite some time. He's a well established Nazi apologist. I think he's just a nut and that it doesn't reflect on his son, but the fact that he is remains the same.

Caiaphas

Okay, I totally got confused here. It's not qualms, rather, but the idea that he's doing it for the good of the Jewish nation. Apaprently this line doesn't appear in the movie:

Then one of them, named Caiaphas, who was high priest that year, spoke up, "You know nothing at all! You do not realize that it is better for you that one man die for the people than that the whole nation perish."

He did not say this on his own, but as high priest that year he prophesied that Jesus would die for the Jewish nation, and not only for that nation but also for the scattered children of God, to bring them together and make them one. (John 11:49-52)

I suppose it's possible that I'm misrepresenting that quote, and I've not seen the movie (yet).

I think "conflicted" would be a better word. The Bible is the only historical source we have on the matter, and it has stood up resoundingly to historical scrutiny over the years. Do I think Pilate had people executed on a whim? Sure. Do I believe it's possible he didn't at times? Sure.

By Flavius Josephus' and Philo's accounts, he was supposedly terribly ruthless in general, often condemning people without trials of any nature. In fact, he was apparently recalled to Rome because he killed too many people. That he would get all weepy over this one Jew seems unlikely.

I'm no theologian, but I know the Bible pretty well, and I didn't see any.

I think you misunderstood my point because you made it for me. There are Jewish trila scenes in the movie not in the Bible. Or maybe I misunderstand what you're saying. But, again, I haven't seen the movie yet and don't know that there are.

I'm not trying to prove that the movie is anti-semitic. I doubt that it is, intentionally, at any rate. I was just pointing out some oddities that I heard that seem to support that idea.

I haven't seen the movie yet, but fark.com has been calling it the "Jesus Chainsaw Massacre", which I think is pretty hilarious.

I think you misunderstood my point because you made it for me. There are Jewish trila scenes in the movie not in the Bible. Or maybe I misunderstand what you're saying. But, again, I haven't seen the movie yet and don't know that there are.

My point was that I know the Bible pretty well, and I did not see any discrepencies between the various trials in the movie and the Biblical account. According to Luke's gospel account he went to Caiaphas and the chief priests (the Sanhedrin), Pilate, then Herod, and back to Pilate.

Don't go see it.... you might die!

Maybe it was that there was a trial conducted by the Sanhedrin in the movie that's not in the Bible. But I'm working from memory. Lemme see if I can find it when I get home.

Extreme Stigmata! Ride the Wave!

Okay. Here are the complaints, as reported by Newsweek:

Movie: Magdalene tries to get help from Roman soldiers when Jesus is taken away to be tried by the Jewish priests
Facts: The scene, which could suggest greater Jewish culpability and control, is not in the Gospels

Movie: Caiaphas and other priests ("the Jews" in the Gospels) are in charge, convicting Jesus of blasphemy in a trial the Romans do not appear to know about
Facts: Caiaphas was Pilate's subordinate, only Rome could execute, and the Gospels' trial scenes do not justify the 'blasphemy' charge against Jesus

Movie: Gibson portrays Pilate as a sensitive ruler who is pushed into crucifying Jesus by a chanting Jewish mob
Facts: Pilate was a bullying, bloody-minded prefect who, a contemporary noted, was of 'inflexible, stubborn and cruel disposition' who executed untried Jews

Movie: Jesus told Pilate that Caiaphas bore the 'greater sin' for delivering him over to a Roman execution
Facts: The sentence was Pilate's to hand down, and the Roman Catholic Church holds that while 'Christ underwent his passion freely,' all sinners are culpable

I remember them as being more significant when I first read them. Shows you what memory will do.

I'll make no further comment about it at least until I can verify some of it.

That doesn't sound much different to the musical Jesus Christ Superstar, which features a Jewish mob practically blackmailing Pilate into crucifying the title role. In an earlier scene it is indicated that the Jewish establishment plotted to exploit the Romans for the purpose of disposing of their troublesome radical.

Was the musical also slated as anti-semetic?

Rob