FR MOVIE REVUE: THE PASSION OF CHRIST (post your comments here)

2/24/04 | FR MOVIE REVIEWERS

[Liz]

All the world is waiting for the powerful message in Mel Gibson's ground-breaking film, The Passion of Christ.

Post here your own personal reactions after seeing the film set to open tomorrow, Ash Wednesday. Passion has previewed in some areas.

Also post reviews and pertinent comments from your state and area's newspapers and publications.

[The Black Knight]

I saw this movie tonight, courtesy Campus Bible Fellowship at UNC Charlotte. So here comes my review.

The movie is phenomenal. The flow is good, and not hindered at all by the subtitles. The acting was fantastic. I don't know where Mel got these people, but he did a good job with the talent. The scenery is also good. You feel as if you're in ancient Israel.

Now for the two important keys. Will it inspire anti-semitism? Nope. You'll be ticked at the Jews. Then you'll HATE the Romans mocking him. Then, when Jesus asks for forgiveness for all who have wronged him (forgive them for they know not what they do), you realize how pointless hate is. Very powerful stuff.

Second important point. Is it true to the gospel, and a powerful performance? Yes it is true to the gospel, and it is the most powerful movie I have ever seen. When the credits came on, nobody even moved a muscle. The whole theater sat there in silence. When people did start leaving, the only noise you heard was sobbing. Yup, that kind of movie. Two thumbs up, according to the Black Knight, a must see.

[Ichneumon]

Well, it seems you are the one being quite defensive

About what, exactly?

and I wasn't even posting to you, whoever the heck you are

Neither was MineralMan posting to you, "whoever the heck you are", but you still felt the desire to critique his post. So why do you object when I respond to yours?

(what? yet another atheist sniffing at the honey?)

I again suggest that some folks would benefit from being less defensive -- and add to it the advice that trying to force discussions into an "us versus them" viewpoint usually isn't a good thing either.

[Doctor Don]

I saw the movie last night. The point of the movie is that perfect sinless Jesus, God's Son, submitted himself (thousands of angels could have rescued Him if He asked) to mindless torture and execution to tell you and me how very much God loves each one of us! He paid the price for our sin for all time. The penalty for sin is eternal death. Jesus died for me.........I don't have to die.......He saved me because I accepted His gift of eternal life.

[Skooz]

Sighing at your attempt to shut down discussion by being defensive and sarcastic.

Sarcastic, yes. But no one here but you is "attempt[ing] to shut down discussion." You have belittled and ridiculed post after post because they failed to grovel at the feet of your atheistic brother.

I have had discussions with MineralMan before and he is quite capable of handling himself. He doesn't need an incomprehensibly smug and superior fellow atheist flaming those who have posted disagreements with his words.

Smugly dismissing someone's faith, for which they would die, as a mere "myth" is deeply offensive to some. The fact that they would have the audacity to post that within your eyesight is no invitation for a wannabe-intellectual smackdown. We have all come to this thread to read reviews by those who have seen the movie. You came here to be a hall monitor to keep the small-minded little superstitious Christians in line.

[Skooz]

Thank you for an excellent review.

[Ichneumon]

Seriously though, If you are interested, check out "The Greatest Story Ever Told" -- It is a great movie which covers much more than just Jesus teachings. Another good one is "Jesus of Nazereth". Finally, if you can put up with 5 hours worth of movie, "The Gospel According to John" is a magnificent retelling of Jesus life and ministry.

Movie reviewer Jeffrey Westhoff has written a very good overview of all available prior "life of Jesus" films here: "Screen Savior: Films about Jesus have ranged from sacred to profane ... to downright silly."

[NYC Republican]

Scarborough just asked a rabbi, point blank, which part of the movie was factually incorrect, or unfairly harsh to the Jews... He stumbled and said "I'm not a Christian scholar but"... He didn't see the movie, doesn't know the teachings of the bible... He should just STFU.

[plain talk]

Another "debater" attempt to hone his 'skills'. Ah jeez.

[Captain Peter Blood]

It's called poetic license & Suspension of Disbelief. It's a movie. The church burning was put in for dramatic effect and to instill a greater hatred of the British.

[lonevoice]

Whoa. Thank you for your wonderful review. I find myself already reaching for the kleenex box when I read some of these early reviews, such as yours. Better take two boxes to the movie.

[Vets_Husband_and_Wife]

He is talking about the GOSPELS. Re-read his response.

[The Black Knight]

Please do. It was so powerful that I left the movie theater, and next thing I knew, I was at home. I don't even remember the 30 minute drive. You just wanna be alone after you see it.

[walden]

"Lewis' writings are used as a textbook example of exemplary Catholic teaching."

Interesting-- I didn't know that. Lewis is a BIG favorite of mine.

[Hank Kerchief]

Why can't you just leave the Christians alone?

I did not post to you! Free Republic is an open forum. No one made you read my post. You posted specifically to me. Why can't you just leave me alone?

By the way, where did I say I was not a Christian?

Hank

[Wait4Truth]

It is interesting to me that you feel fearful of seeing this movie. I am going tomorrow with my sister. She and I were talking about it tonight and while I am chomping at the bit to get to the theater, she is anxious, nervous and scared (although she very much wants to see it). She has not been able to express the reasons for her feelings and I want very much to understand where she is coming from. I do not feel nervous or anxious but only wish the moment was already here.

[bray]

Praise be to God! A new person in Christ!!!

Pray for W and The Passion of Christ

[gatorgriz]

Ichneumon:

So, I didn’t respond to your post within your defined amount of time… Well, I got your finally got your post. And I apologize for not being on your leash or contributing to your 15 minutes of fame; I do have a life… I have a family, and I do not have to answer to your beck and call.

I will pray for your soul Ichneumon; as trying as it might be; regardless of your arrogance; and your ignorance.

I'm sure you'll laugh and show your utter contempt for us simpletons; but you go through life knowing nothing; and having no spiritual life whatsoever. And so you shall pass; into the nothingness you so devoutly desire.

Enjoy your Nothingness Pal…

BTW; I’ve been here on FR since April 1998 and I’ve posted over 790 replies… Certainly not a Newbie; been here, seen your ilk many, many times before… And like I said, you will fade into the nothingness you so apparently and devoutly desire.

Adios!

[smokeyb]

I just got back from seeing it. All I can say is God has blessed us with Mel Gibson. I think the critics are only afraid of the impact this movie will have.

[Ichneumon]

Sarcastic, yes. But no one here but you is "attempt[ing] to shut down discussion."

I am in no way trying to shut down discussion. I am trying to promote it. Please learn the difference.

And if you think that "no one here" is attempting to shut down discussion, you have obviously missed the posts saying, "Why can't you just leave the Christians alone?", "Take a hike, Bunky. I don't think anybody cares what you think", "You disgust me... You truly do...", "I came to this thread to read reviews about the film, not wade through self-absorbed posts by atheists", and "Since most people on this thread are too kind, I will say it. I wish you weren't here."

What's that saying about motes and beams?

You have belittled and ridiculed post after post because they failed to grovel at the feet of your atheistic brother.

No, I have not. Again, try to be less defensive. When I haven't understood a poster's view, I have asked them how they arrived at that view.

I have had discussions with MineralMan before and he is quite capable of handling himself.

I don't doubt that.

He doesn't need an incomprehensibly smug and superior fellow atheist flaming those who have posted disagreements with his words.

And I don't need someone jumping to conclusions about what I do or do not believe, nor am I "flaming" people when I ask questions about their views.

But if that's how you feel, doesn't it cut both ways? Shall I point out that "[the people I'm responding to] don't need an incomprehensibly smug and superior fellow [Christian] flaming those who have posted disagreements with [their] words"? Beware the double standard.

And speaking of being "deeply offensive", as you do in this post, isn't that rant of yours rather plainly offensive?

Smugly dismissing someone's faith, for which they would die, as a mere "myth" is deeply offensive to some.

I don't see that he did so. He neither "dismissed" anyone's faith, nor called it a "mere" myth, in the sense of calling it a fiction.

myth    ( P )  Pronunciation Key  (mth)
n.

1. 1. A traditional, typically ancient story dealing with supernatural beings, ancestors, or heroes that serves as a fundamental type in the worldview of a people, as by explaining aspects of the natural world or delineating the psychology, customs, or ideals of society: the myth of Eros and Psyche; a creation myth.
   2. Such stories considered as a group: the realm of myth.
2. A popular belief or story that has become associated with a person, institution, or occurrence, especially one considered to illustrate a cultural ideal: a star whose fame turned her into a myth; the pioneer myth of suburbia.
3. A fiction or half-truth, especially one that forms part of an ideology.
4. A fictitious story, person, or thing: “German artillery superiority on the Western Front was a myth” (Leon Wolff).

You're choosing to be insulted by interpreting his usage of the word as having been meant in senses 3 or 4. From his post, however, it seems clear that he means it in sense 1. When used in that manner the word "myth" is nonjudgmental about the value or truth of the belief system being described.

Again, try to be less defensive about the fact that other people hold different views. Even if he had meant it in sense 3 or 4, it should not be "deeply offensive" for someone to merely express their disbelief in something you happen to believe, unless it is done in a truly disrespectful manner, which MineralMan's posts were not. He even prefaced his comment with "for me", clearly indicating that it was only his own view, and was not meant to be a claim about the absolute truth/falsity of the story. Surely no one should be surprised, shocked, offended, or "disgusted" by the mere reminder of the existence of nonbelievers.

The fact that they would have the audacity to post that within your eyesight is no invitation for a wannabe-intellectual smackdown.

Again, you presume much, and read things into text that aren't there, apparently due to the defensiveness I mentioned earlier. Nor was the issue someone being "offended", it was their declaring that they found him "disgusting", which is another thing entirely. I didn't understand how that reaction would be caused by the post to which he was replying, thus my question about why he felt that way.

My question was in no way prompted by any consideration of "audacity" nor was I trying for a "smackdown".

As for your accusations of "wannabe-intellectual", I find it interesting that you would consider attempts to understand someone's post as somehow worthy of derision. Are people who think about what they read intimidating to you somehow?

We have all come to this thread to read reviews by those who have seen the movie.

And so have I.

You came here to be a hall monitor to keep the small-minded little superstitious Christians in line.

WOW, that's a mighty big chip you have on your shoulder. No, I have no such belief or motivation.

But neither do I understand apparent attempts of others to play "hall monitor to keep the smug little Christian-hating atheists in line", if that's what the attempts are. Your post seems a good example, unless you can convince me otherwise.

In short, religious tolerance is a two-way street. Or at least it should be. I am as uncomfortable with attacks on Christians for being Christians as I am with attacks on non-Christians merely for being non-Christians.

[Ichneumon]

Another "debater" attempt to hone his 'skills'. Ah jeez.

You misunderstand me.