Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Photo from "The Passion"
CNN ^ | 2/24/04 | Icon Productions

Posted on 02/24/2004 2:12:40 PM PST by Robert Teesdale

Edited on 04/29/2004 2:03:57 AM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]

I can't wait to see the film. Anyone who thinks that being put to death by the Romans was a clean, well-groomed exercise in peaceful passing to the next world, is an absolute idiot.

I suspect that people who complain that the movie is too violent, are somewhat ignorant of the facts of life. I want to ask them, what do you think you'd look like after a few hours of scourging and crucifixion?

(Excerpt) Read more at ...

TOPICS: Culture/Society
KEYWORDS: christ; gibson; passion
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-92 last
To: Modernman
Gnaeus Julius Agricola
In 75 AD II Augusta was transferred to Isca Silurum (Caerleon) in Southern Wales. Between 78 and 84 AD, Gnaeus Julius Agricola, the Governor of Britain, undertook invasions of the Celtic controlled regions in the north to stop raids on farms and towns. Legio II Augusta was involved in several of these campaigns including the defeat of the Ordivice tribe in north Wales and the destruction of the Druid stronghold of Mona (Anglesey). In 84 AD at the battle of Mons Graupius, (believed to be near Inverurie, Scotland) he defeated the last large Celtic Army. Tacitus, (biased in the favor of Agricola as he was his son-in-law) provided the only known literary evidence of the battle:

He [Agricola] sent his fleet ahead to plunder at various points and thus spread uncertainty and terror, and, with an army marching light, which he had reinforced with the bravest of the Britons and those whose loyalty had been proved during a long peace, reached the Graupian Mountain, which he found occupied by the enemy. The Britons were, in fact, undaunted by the loss of the previous battle, and welcomed the choice between revenge and enslavement. They had realized at last that common action was needed to meet the common danger, and had sent round embassies and drawn up treaties to rally the full force of all their states. Already more than 30,000 men made a gallant show....

The troops were made for action and ready to rush into it, but Agricola marshalled them with care. The auxiliary infantry, 8,000 in number, made a strong centre, while 3,000 cavalry were thrown out on the flanks. The legions were stationed in front of the camp wall; victory would be vastly more glorious if it cost no Roman blood, whilst, in case of repulse, the legions could restore the day. The British army was stationed on higher ground in a manner calculated to impress and intimidate its enemy. Its van was on the level ground, but the other ranks rose, as it were in tiers, up the gentle slope. The space between the two armies was taken up by the charioteers, clattering on in their wild career. At this point, Agricola, fearing that the enemy with their great superiority in numbers might fall simultaneously on his front and flanks, opened out his ranks. The line now looked dangerously thin, and many urged him to bring up the legions....

The spectacle that followed over the open country was awe-inspiring and grim. Our men followed hard, took prisoners and then killed them, as new enemies appeared. On the enemy's side each man now followed his bent, Some bands, though armed, fled before inferior numbers, some men, though unarmed, insisted on charging to their deaths. Arms, bodies, severed limbs lay all around and the earth reeked of blood; and the vanquished now and then found their fury and their courage again. Indeed, when they reached the woods, they rallied and profited by their local knowledge to ambush the first rash pursuers....Only night and exhaustion ended the pursuit. Of the enemy some 10,000 fell, on our side 360.

Despite this victory, Roman subjugation of the highland tribes of Scotland was never complete and occupation was near impossible. The Emperor Domitian, jealous of Agricola’s success, recalled him to Rome and forced him into retirement, ending the farthest reaching northern campaigns of the Legions.

The Hadrian and Antonine Walls
In 120 AD, Emperor Hadrian, understanding both the inability to conquer the northern tribes and the need to protect Roman territory from them, ordered that a 73 mile long wall be built from modern day Wallsend-on-Tyne in the east to Bowness on the Solway Firth in the west. For this unprecedented task of building a wall spanning the entire length of northern Britain, at 13 to 15 high and with interspaced forts; detachments of Legio II Augusta, XX Valeria and VI Victrix were given the job. The construction started in 122 AD and took 6 years to complete.

A further attempt to subdue southern 'Scotland' was made between 139 and 142 AD on the orders of Emperor Antoninus Pius. Across the narrowest neck of land between the Forth and the Clyde a second wall was built - this time of turf, stone and wood. The Antonine Wall was thirty-seven miles long, four meters wide and fronted by a ditch approximately twelve meters in width. It had forts on the same pattern as Hadrian's Wall but was occupied only for a short time. The years between 155 and 158 AD, brought a widespread revolt in northern Britain which involved heavy fighting by the British legions. They suffered severely, and reinforcements had to be brought in from the two Germanic provinces. By 160 AD, these losses and continued pressure by the northern tribes forced the Roman to abandon their gains north of Hadrian's Wall as too difficult to maintain and so returned to the first wall.

Clodius Albinus and Septimius Severus
In 196 AD, Clodius Albinus, Governor of Britannia, rebelled and claimed the Imperial throne for himself. The British legions were ferried to the continent, but were defeated in 197 AD by Emperor Septimius Severus. Several indecisive and destructive battles leading up to it would have serious consequences in Britain. When the British legions were returned, they found the province overrun by northern tribes. Punitive actions did not deter the northern tribesmen, and in 208 AD, Septimius came to Britain in an attempt to conquer Scotland. II Augusta moved to the north, where it shared a large fortress with VI Victrix, at Carpow on the river Tay. Severus’ campaigns were not to last and ended with the eventual abandonment of any gains and the re-fortification of Hadrian’s Wall.

Under Caracalla, Severus’ heir, II Augusta received the name Antonina, as a reward for faithful service to him and his father in Britain. Soon after the end of the Scotland campaigns the legion was moved back to Isca Silurum (Caerleon) and would remain on guard there until the eventual collapse of Roman occupation.

Withdrawal from Britannia
While Britain remained at relative comparative peace for centuries, the same could not be said of the rest of the Roman Empire. Political and religious unrest fragmented the empire into East and West in 364 AD. Rival claimants to the Imperial throne often pulled Legions out of the provinces to support their claims further weakening the borders.

51 posted on 02/24/2004 3:44:59 PM PST by frithguild ("W" is the Black Ice President - underestimated until the left completely loses traction.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: South40
Congratulations to Mel Gibson for doing what he wanted, with his money, in his way.

So did Michael Moore...the difference being Gibson's story is based in truth, Moore's is based on lies.

Maybe that is the entire reason so many in hollywood and the liberal media etc... don't want people to see it, and had no problem with moores piece of garbage.

52 posted on 02/24/2004 3:51:37 PM PST by fml ( You can twist perception, reality won't budge. -RUSH)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Modernman
"The Romans were harsh masters, but they had to be. They were trying to hold together a multi-ethnic, multi-religious empire that spanned from Scotland to the Danube to the Sahara."

Sometimes cruelty is calculated, but not always...remember the Coliseum.
53 posted on 02/24/2004 3:52:07 PM PST by Spok
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: frithguild
I was not biased. I only had the old blowhard's version of the story ;^)
54 posted on 02/24/2004 4:06:50 PM PST by NewRomeTacitus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: Saundra Duffy
It wasn't the Jews who killed Jesus; it was me.

This is the point that is probably missed by many Jews who are against the movie.

I can speak from a unique perspective, as a person raised in the Catholic church w/12 years of Catholic school who is now a Reform Jew, with convert classes and maybe 20 years of reading Jewish theology and history behind me.

As a Catholic, I was always taught that it was my sins that put Jesus on the cross. I don't have to blame anyone but myself; not the Jews, and certainly not the Jews of today. I don't know why Jews seem to have such a problem w/the movie as Christians 'know' what killed Christ and why he had to die.

Someone posted earlier about the difference between gentiles here and in Europe. We certainly have had enough Jew-bashing and discrimination in this country, but not pogroms and not a hatred that seems to spring from deep inside the very culture. I don't think American gentiles are going to start taking out their feelings about Christ's death on the Jews. I don't think Jews are going to be pulled from their cars because of Gibson's movie.

If you are a Christian, it seems to me the only answer to 'who killed Christ' is 'I did.' The Jews have nothing to do with it.

I plan on seeing the movie. It won't make me a Christian again, but I am going to take a secular Christian friend (she's European; I think they have secular Christians over there. Maybe she's a CINO?) in the hopes it will bring her closer to her faith as she seems to be searching for some meaning in her life.

55 posted on 02/24/2004 4:14:04 PM PST by radiohead
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: airborne
My pastor saw it also and said said we will never take communion the same again. I believe that.
56 posted on 02/24/2004 4:26:44 PM PST by luckymom (No more Clark!!! Kucinich outlasts the Clinton sock-puppet!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Ruy Dias de Bivar
What was it Gibbon(Fall of the Roman Empire) said about the reason Rome didn't want Scotland? I seem to forget.

"The problem with Scotland is that it's full of Scots."

Oh nevermind that was Edward Longshanks in that other Mel Gibson movie.

57 posted on 02/24/2004 4:29:04 PM PST by Rightwing Conspiratr1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: ElisabethInCincy
Thank you for posting those details of the crucifixion. It was most moving.
58 posted on 02/24/2004 4:32:29 PM PST by Ciexyz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Robert Teesdale
I want to ask them, what do you think you'd look like after a few hours of scourging and crucifixion?

Like this, of course:

59 posted on 02/24/2004 4:37:31 PM PST by Snuffington
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: tractorman
And few people understand that crucifixion was routine for the Romans.

Yes it's true that the Romans lined the Appian Way with crosses that stretched for miles, as they crucified the slaves of the Spartacus revolt. But that has nothing to do with the sacrifice of Jesus.

Jesus was horribly tortured before the actual crucifixion. And He took the weight of our sins on His shoulders. When He hung on the cross, he experienced the terrible despair of separation from the Father God. Our sins which Jesus voluntarily took unto himself, made the Father God turn away from Jesus -- this is Christian theology and someone could surely phrase it better than me. But a Holy God separated himself from Jesus, withdrew His comforting presence from His Son, because Jesus was polluted with sin, our sins, as He hung on that cross. When Jesus paid that ultimate price for our sins and defeated death and triumphed with the Resurrection, then we triumphed with Him.

60 posted on 02/24/2004 4:41:48 PM PST by Ciexyz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Ciexyz
But a Holy God separated himself from Jesus, withdrew His comforting presence from His Son, because Jesus was polluted with sin, our sins, as He hung on that cross.

Scripture please.

61 posted on 02/24/2004 4:44:09 PM PST by AppyPappy (If You're Not A Part Of The Solution, There's Good Money To Be Made In Prolonging The Problem.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: Robert Teesdale
This was just posted on CNN. I gather this is what so many folks are blustering about:

That picture bothers them .. but yet they don't have a problem watching someone's head get blown off??

62 posted on 02/24/2004 4:44:46 PM PST by Mo1 (" Do you want a president who injects poison into his skull for vanity?")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: AppyPappy
Scripture please.

I'm repeating the lessons I learned from sermons in church. I will do my best to research this and get you the scriptures.

63 posted on 02/24/2004 5:09:34 PM PST by Ciexyz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]

To: Mr. Lucky
Nice try, but you're asking him to prove a negative.

No, I'm not. I'm asking him if he has any support for his belief about the alleged hypocrisy of film reviewers.

Why don't you try a Google search for any of the negative reviewers of the Passion and refer us to reviews where they objected to the gratuitous violence in pop culture movies.

Piece o' cake -- how about three?

"So it is with Gibson's so-called Passion, defined as the "agony and suffering of Jesus during the Crucifixion." Don't be deceived - this orgy of death is just another Grand Guignol for Jesuit patsies. ... No sex. All violence. Think of "The Passion" as S&M for Christians - Sadism for those who love to inflict pain and Masochism for those who love the pain. Watching a pretend Jesus suffering a pretended agony is about as twisted as it gets."
-- Uri Dowbenko's review of Mel Gibson's "Passion"

"'Kill Bill' is the 21st century version of the Grand Guignol, gory special effects meant to titillate and shock. And ultimately bore. Hatchet in the head. A plank full of nails in the eye. ... 'Kill Bill' is the twisted expression of an arrested emotional and mental development. It's splatter-punk pornography for 14-year old boys, who don't understand psychological warfare or mind control. ... "If you was a moron, you could almost admire it," says a Texas cop looking at the carnage of the murdered wedding party in the movie. And sure enough, Time Magazine's in house moron Richard Corliss wrote a review which gushes at Tarantino's bad boy geek persona, "There's a daring, exhilarating spirit to the fights too," he writes. "These are gory production numbers, immediate but also abstract...Even the arcs of blood have the propulsion of crimson choreography." "Immediate but also abstract?" "Propulsion of crimson choreography?" Puh-leez. Corliss is so erudite and sophisticated Bet he can't wait for the remake of "The Texas Chainsaw Massacre." And Quentin Tarantino? I ain't no psycho-pathologist, baby, but this is one sick puppy.
-- Uri Dowbenko's review of Quentin Tarantino's "Kill Bill"

(Uri Dowbenko is the author of the book "Hoodwinked: Watching Movies With Eyes Wide Open".)


"In “The Passion of the Christ,” Mel Gibson shows little interest in celebrating the electric charge of hope and redemption that Jesus Christ brought into the world. He largely ignores Jesus’ heart-stopping eloquence, his startling ethical radicalism and personal radiance—Christ as a “paragon of vitality and poetic assertion,” as John Updike described Jesus’ character in his essay “The Gospel According to Saint Matthew.” Cecil B. De Mille had his version of Jesus’ life, Pier Paolo Pasolini and Martin Scorsese had theirs, and Gibson, of course, is free to skip over the incomparable glories of Jesus’ temperament and to devote himself, as he does, to Jesus’ pain and martyrdom in the last twelve hours of his life. As a viewer, I am equally free to say that the movie Gibson has made from his personal obsessions is a sickening death trip, a grimly unilluminating procession of treachery, beatings, blood, and agony—and to say so without indulging in “anti-Christian sentiment” (Gibson’s term for what his critics are spreading). ... Gibson is so thoroughly fixated on the scourging and crushing of Christ, and so meagrely involved in the spiritual meanings of the final hours, that he falls in danger of altering Jesus’ message of love into one of hate."
-- David Denby's review of Gibson's "Passion"

"We know that the non-stop violence is not meant to be real....Yet Tarantino is working in a photographic medium, and the real-world associations are not so easy to shrug off....The movie is what's formally known as decadence and commonly known as crap. Saying that it's an homage to long-established genres in Hong Kong doesn't reduce its pop-nihilistic stupidity."
-- David Denby's review of Tarantino's "Kill Bill"

"With “The Passion of the Christ” Mel Gibson doesn’t redefine the religious film so much as he redefines overkill. ... Christ’s horrible and excruciating death wasn’t enough for Gibson and writing collaborator Benedict Fitzgerald. They find ways to make crucifixion even more sadistic: After nailing Jesus to the cross, the Romans drop him flat on his face a few times before driving the cross into the ground. Earlier, after the Romans have finished scourging him, Jesus looks like the result of an explosion in a butcher’s shop. The brutality begins right away. As soon as they arrest Jesus in Gethsemane, the temple guards repeatedly belt him in the face, then drop him off a bridge and dangle him from the chains that bind him. These preliminary beatings do not occur in any of the four Gospels. ... That’s when they reach for the cat o’ nine tails and filet him for perhaps the 10 bloodiest minutes in film history. Why would Jesus need to prove how tough he was to these soldiers? Was he wearing a wristband with initials that stood for “What Would Rambo Do?” ... Gibson’s dedication to violence turns bizarre. Immediately after one of the thieves being executed alongside Jesus taunts him, a crow swoops down and devours his eyes. This happens even though Jesus already has said, “Forgive them, Father, for they don’t know what they do.”... Be warned: If “The Passion” weren’t based on a Bible story, it almost certainly would be rated NC-17.
-- Jeffrey Westhoff's review of Gibson's "Passion"

"We should all have Quentin Tarantino's racket. He is the Madonna of the film world: He's more shallow than talented, but he excels at promoting himself while stretching the limits of how much violence and offensive language can be tolerated in mainstream entertainment. That's enough for half the cinematic world to consider him a genius. ... "Kill Bill" is also Tarantino's most meaningless work, a union of two forms of schlock that tickled his fancy during his 1970s adolescence: kung fu movies and detective shows. ... And Tarantino's idea of paying tribute to old kung fu movies is to behead or dismember a few hundred extras and have the blood spurt like Old Faithful – it's Cecil B. DeMille's version of the Black Knight fight from "Monty Python and the Holy Grail," minus any sense of humor. "Kill Bill" is too gory and played too straight to work as a comedy. ... It's pity to see such great acting wasted on a character that is just the plaything of a stunted adolescent filmmaker getting paid millions to revisit his toy box."
-- Jeffrey Westhoff's review of Tarantino's "Kill Bill"

(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.")
64 posted on 02/24/2004 5:22:01 PM PST by Ichneumon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: Robert Teesdale
Too many people want a pet Jesus that they can use or put away depending on how it suits them. Fully realizing the horror he went through on one's behalf gives the lie to the pet Jesus. Some people don't want to let go of that. The alternative is to have to reject what he did or to accept it and then be as fully committed to him as he was to us. Either of these is too extreme for someone who wants the comfort of a Jesus idol--the former leaves one bereft of illusions; the latter requires one to lay down everything and to pick up his own cross.
65 posted on 02/24/2004 5:24:54 PM PST by aruanan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ichneumon
Please provide support for your belief that the same people who don't complain about the violence in Tarantino movies, etc., are the same people saying that the Passion is too violent.

Google "Kill Bill" and compare the reviews it received with the same reviewers views of "The Passion." I can only find praise for the violence in "Kill Bill."

66 posted on 02/24/2004 5:27:34 PM PST by FreedomCalls (It's the "Statue of Liberty," not the "Statue of Security.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: FreedomCalls
Google "Kill Bill" and compare the reviews it received with the same reviewers views of "The Passion."

See my post #64.

67 posted on 02/24/2004 5:52:18 PM PST by Ichneumon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies]

To: Ciexyz
Elizabeth posted an excerpt. Here's an in-depth analysis for anyone wanting to know more:
68 posted on 02/24/2004 6:05:21 PM PST by NewRomeTacitus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]

To: concerned about politics
I don't watch those slasher/horror movies, not to my taste. I prefer things like The Robe, Ten Commandments, Ma & Pa Kettle, John I dating myself? Guess I am, but they were GREAT movies/TV.

People have forgotten just how violent the Romans were. Holywierd hasn't reminded them in many, many years.

69 posted on 02/24/2004 6:24:37 PM PST by GailA (Millington Rally for America after action
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: ElisabethInCincy
The Roman legionnaire steps forward with the flagrum (or flagellum) in his hand. This is a short whip consisting of several heavy, leather thongs with two small balls of lead attached near the ends of each.

The Roman lash was often more like a cat of nine tails - a handle with multiple whips. The whips themselves might have chunks of bone, metal and glass tied into the cords. An expert with such a device could remove most of the flesh from a man's back in a single stroke and pull. I am told that most did not survive the thirty nine lashes. That is not hard to imagine between the shock, blood loss and the damage to vital internal organs. The pain would be unimaginable to most of us. The fact that Jesus survived to carry His cross at all was a miracle.

There is one other bit of information the soldier handling the whip was looking for during the scourging. He would listen for the convicted criminal to name his accomplices. If names were named, the soldier or soldiers would lighten up on the lashes. If the prisoner refused to speak, the lash would be laid on heavier and heavier. Jesus had no accomplices, but He was covering for someone. It was you and me. He could have said, "Mike did it! It wasn't me!". He would have been absolutely right in making that statement. But His love for us held His tongue and He endured the beating in silence.

The punishment Jesus endured should have been yours and mine. Spiritually we were dead. We could not help ourselves. We could not even ask for help. The sin nature we inherited from Adam and Eve separated us from God. The punishment for sin had to be paid and we could never have finished paying the debt. As we continue the walk to the cross, we will see more of how that price was paid on our behalf.

70 posted on 02/24/2004 6:31:24 PM PST by ATOMIC_PUNK (Luk17:2 It were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and he cast into the sea)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Ichneumon
"An exercise in style"
A.O. Scott, NY TIMES on Kill Bill

"The Passion of the Christ is so relentlessly focused on the savagery of Jesus' final hours that this film seems to arise less from love than from wrath, and to succeed more in assaulting the spirit than in uplifting it."
A.O. Scott, NY TIMES on Passion

"It oozes, drips, flows, gushes, splatters and geysers in lush crimson to oily black. Scalps, limbs and heads are freely removed from characters' bodies."
"Make no mistake: The film is hugely watchable"
Kirk Honeycutt, Hollywood Reporter on Kill Bill

"...near-pornographic violence and concerns about its potential to incite anti-Semitism..."
"The Passion of the Christ is the work of a Christian traditonalist....takes the gospels according to Matthew, Mark, Luke and John as literal truth."
Kirk Honeycutt, Hollywood Reporter on Passion

"Untold severed limbs spray gushers of blood so copiously you can't help but laugh."
"Kill Bill -- through sheer audacity and the brio spilling off the screen -- turns out to be an event. I've never seen anything like it."
"'Kill Bill' goes for the thrill"
Eric Harrison, Houston Chronicle, on Kill Bill

"Gibson's obsessive need to zoom in and linger on bloodletting, although this makes it difficult to watch. It's awful..everything he knows about storytelling has been swept aside by proselytizing zeal."
Eric Harrison, Houston Chronicle, on Passion

71 posted on 02/24/2004 7:53:23 PM PST by kcpopps
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies]

To: Shermy
I spoke to a friend who saw it. Not only "too violent", but scenes of violence and mistreatment absent in the Gospels

I saw the film over the weekend. There are so many scenes absent in the Gospel because the Gospels were second to Cathrine Emmerich's lurid fantasies, as source material. I felt the movie was powerful and effective, but the exaggerated scourging scenes coupled with the all too brief flashbacks were both distractions.

72 posted on 02/24/2004 8:27:45 PM PST by montag813
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Saundra Duffy
He said NOW he knows why Jesus died so fast - because of the beatings and torture.

Pilate was sending a clear message to the Jews: you f**k with Rome and you get THIS. The Jews did not listen and within the century, the 2nd Temple was destroyed and they were scattered to the far winds of the earth. Pity they followed a hothead like BarKochba into disaster instead of biding their time and working with Rome like the other colonies. The history of the Jews would have been very very different.

73 posted on 02/24/2004 8:31:48 PM PST by montag813
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: kcpopps
excellent post.
74 posted on 02/24/2004 8:34:04 PM PST by Tempest (<a href="" target="_blank">)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies]

To: kcpopps
Where in any of those reviews of "Kill Bill" do you find support for the view that "they only approve of violence when it's gratuitous and totally pointless", as Spok claimed?

While there's no doubt that some reviewers will find certain uses of violence in film to be done more successfully than others, that doesn't help support the original claim unless one can find an example of a reviewer lauding a particular use of violence in a film precisely *because* it's "gratuitous and totally pointless".

75 posted on 02/24/2004 9:02:42 PM PST by Ichneumon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies]

To: Ichneumon
Seems to me that you're nit picking Spok's grammer. Let's not argue the definition of "is", please.

In my opinion, "Kill Bill" was gratititous and totally pointless as a whole. (I admit that I have that opinion without ever having seen it - I don't have to.)

In general, these particular reviewers complain "The Passion" is bad because of violent content, but the violence in "Kill Bill" is thrilling. Seems hypocritical to me.
76 posted on 02/24/2004 9:46:07 PM PST by kcpopps
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 75 | View Replies]

To: ntnychik
77 posted on 02/24/2004 10:05:06 PM PST by potlatch ( Frankly, Scallop, I Don't Give a Clam)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: kcpopps
No bias here...
78 posted on 02/24/2004 10:20:47 PM PST by null and void (Never use a premonition to end a seance with)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies]

To: kcpopps
Seems to me that you're nit picking Spok's grammer. Let's not argue the definition of "is", please.

I'm not trying to. It's just that when he chooses to throw in the absolutes of "only" and "totally", it doesn't seem nitpicking to presume that he means them. I probably would have passed over his post without replying if he hadn't made it so strongly overgeneralized.

In my opinion, "Kill Bill" was gratititous and totally pointless as a whole. (I admit that I have that opinion without ever having seen it - I don't have to.)

I haven't seen it either, but I'm not about to say "I don't have to" in order to make conclusions about it. :-) Plus it's the first part of two, and the second part isn't out yet, so I'm not sure if anyone is yet in a position to judge whether the full work will be "totally pointless" or not.

In general, these particular reviewers complain "The Passion" is bad because of violent content, but the violence in "Kill Bill" is thrilling.

Violence (or any other film attribute) can be effective or ineffective depending on how well it's used, it's not just a matter of what end it's being used for, or "how much" there is.

I've read several dozen reviews of "the Passion", but I don't recall any that simply said that the film "is bad because of violent content", per se. Instead, most of the comments seem to be saying that it may have missed its mark by spending too much attention to the violence and not enough to the story, and/or that the amount (and especially the realism) of the violence is so extreme as either numb some audience members, or distract them from the narrative.

As for "Kill Bill", most reviews seem to give it a "pass" on the violence because the violence is done in an intentionally ridiculous way, and that it's a parody/homage to the violent Hong Kong films it's inspired by.

I haven't seen either film, but my point is that the reviews themselves give more complex reasons for their differing reviews than some people have given them credit for. It's not as simple as some movie critic judging things in such black-and-white terms as "violence is good" or "violence is bad".

Seems hypocritical to me.

It would only be hypocritical if the critics had declared that they always thought violence was a good thing in any film -- except this one. But in all the film reviews I've seen, the actual question is, does it work in a given film's specific context, and in the manner in which it was employed? For some films the answer will be yes, and for some it will be no.

79 posted on 02/24/2004 10:40:03 PM PST by Ichneumon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 76 | View Replies]

To: Saundra Duffy
Those people who said it took ten days to die by crusifiction knew nothing.
80 posted on 02/24/2004 10:49:41 PM PST by GRANGER (Must-issue states have safer streets.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: AppyPappy
"But a Holy God separated himself from Jesus, withdrew His comforting presence from His Son, because Jesus was polluted with sin, our sins, as He hung on that cross."

---Scripture please.----

1Peter 2:24 (with some lead in from 2:20 that seems pertinent to this thread)

For it is commendable if a man bears up under the pain of unjust suffering because he is conscious of God. But how is it to your credit if you receive a beating for doing wrong and endure it? But if you suffer for doing good and endure it, this is commendable before God. To this you were called, because Christ suffered for you, leaving you an example, that you should follow in his steps.

He commiteed no sin, and no deceit was found in his mouth.

When they hurled insults at him, he did not retaliate; when he suffered, he made no threats. Instead, he entrusted himself to him who judges justly. He himself BORE OUR SINS IN HIS BODY ON THE TREE, so that we might die to sins and live for righteousness; by his wounds you have been healed.

---- Christ is often called the lamb - and numerous other references as a sacrifice. I believe the whole idea of sacrifice from the Old Testement is that the sins of the person where dumped on the lamb (or "scape goat") or whatever the person could afford, and offered to God as a purification of sin.

I don't have a handy reference to Jesus "descended into Hell" in my Bible reference. I imagine it comes from the idea that the whole concept of sin is seperation from God. There are references to unrepentent sinful people suffering in hell (even angels - 2Peter, 2:4). So its not a huge step for me to believe that Jesus was seperated from God until he rose from the dead. He told Mary not to touch him as he had not yet ascended to the Father.

Not sure what heaven, Hell, death, etc. are all really about. And although I think the end game is important, I'm still young enough that I think what is important is how I live my life.

81 posted on 02/24/2004 11:09:53 PM PST by geopyg (Democracy, whiskey, sexy)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]

To: Robert Teesdale
Why is hollywood really really really really pissed?

They did not think of it first. They could have just done a bloody Jesus Christ movie and cashed in. They could have tweeked the script but the gore is marketing genius. (/s)
82 posted on 02/24/2004 11:50:49 PM PST by longtermmemmory (Vote!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: longtermmemmory
The man that plays Jesus, was raised in Mt Veronon, Wash. My Town. HIs folks still live here.
He said, he had a protective mat on his back to take care of the whip, but several times the guys striking him missed, and he felt the whole brunt of the whip striking him. He said the pain took his breath away, he could not breathe. He dislocated his shoulder, packing the cross, which weighed 150 pounds. He took a beating doing the movie, but was glad he got the chance to portray Jesus.
He is a devout Catholic, Mary is a Romanian Jew.
83 posted on 02/25/2004 12:02:17 AM PST by calawah98
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 82 | View Replies]

To: geopyg
Yes but there is no reference to God separating or divorcing Himself from Jesus while he was on the Cross. I have seen no Scriptural evidence of God ever abandoning Jesus.
84 posted on 02/25/2004 4:25:25 AM PST by AppyPappy (If You're Not A Part Of The Solution, There's Good Money To Be Made In Prolonging The Problem.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 81 | View Replies]

To: AppyPappy
When Jesus asks "My God my God, why have thou forsaken me" it could be assumed God had turned away could it not?
85 posted on 02/25/2004 4:46:37 AM PST by DainBramage
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 84 | View Replies]

To: DainBramage
Jesus was invoking a Psalm. It was common among rabbis to refer to Psalms by their first sentence since they weren't numbered. Read the Psalm and you will know why he invoked that one.

1 My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?
Why are you so far from saving me,
so far from the words of my groaning?
2 O my God, I cry out by day, but you do not answer,
by night, and am not silent.

3 Yet you are enthroned as the Holy One;
you are the praise of Israel.
4 In you our fathers put their trust;
they trusted and you delivered them.
5 They cried to you and were saved;
in you they trusted and were not disappointed.

6 But I am a worm and not a man,
scorned by men and despised by the people.
7 All who see me mock me;
they hurl insults, shaking their heads:
8 "He trusts in the LORD ;
let the LORD rescue him.
Let him deliver him,
since he delights in him."

9 Yet you brought me out of the womb;
you made me trust in you
even at my mother's breast.
10 From birth I was cast upon you;
from my mother's womb you have been my God.
11 Do not be far from me,
for trouble is near
and there is no one to help.

12 Many bulls surround me;
strong bulls of Bashan encircle me.
13 Roaring lions tearing their prey
open their mouths wide against me.
14 I am poured out like water,
and all my bones are out of joint.
My heart has turned to wax;
it has melted away within me.
15 My strength is dried up like a potsherd,
and my tongue sticks to the roof of my mouth;
you lay me in the dust of death.
16 Dogs have surrounded me;
a band of evil men has encircled me,
they have pierced my hands and my feet.
17 I can count all my bones;
people stare and gloat over me.
18 They divide my garments among them
and cast lots for my clothing.

19 But you, O LORD , be not far off;
O my Strength, come quickly to help me.
20 Deliver my life from the sword,
my precious life from the power of the dogs.
21 Rescue me from the mouth of the lions;
save me from the horns of the wild oxen.

22 I will declare your name to my brothers;
in the congregation I will praise you.
23 You who fear the LORD , praise him!
All you descendants of Jacob, honor him!
Revere him, all you descendants of Israel!
24 For he has not despised or disdained
the suffering of the afflicted one;
he has not hidden his face from him
but has listened to his cry for help.

25 From you comes the theme of my praise in the great assembly;
before those who fear you will I fulfill my vows.
26 The poor will eat and be satisfied;
they who seek the LORD will praise him-
may your hearts live forever!
27 All the ends of the earth
will remember and turn to the LORD ,
and all the families of the nations
will bow down before him,
28 for dominion belongs to the LORD
and he rules over the nations.

29 All the rich of the earth will feast and worship;
all who go down to the dust will kneel before him-
those who cannot keep themselves alive.
30 Posterity will serve him;
future generations will be told about the Lord.
31 They will proclaim his righteousness
to a people yet unborn-
for he has done it.
86 posted on 02/25/2004 4:50:47 AM PST by AppyPappy (If You're Not A Part Of The Solution, There's Good Money To Be Made In Prolonging The Problem.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 85 | View Replies]

To: AppyPappy
Jesus was invoking a Psalm.

Unless you have scripture reference to back that up I disagree. It doesn't make sense.

No one said God turned away from Jesus for good, but He did not use the power at his disposal to save His son from this horrible death, as was His perfect plan.


87 posted on 02/25/2004 5:21:48 AM PST by DainBramage
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 86 | View Replies]

To: DainBramage
So you think it is a coincidence that Jesus' words exactly mirror that of the Psalm? Interesting...
88 posted on 02/25/2004 5:23:41 AM PST by AppyPappy (If You're Not A Part Of The Solution, There's Good Money To Be Made In Prolonging The Problem.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 87 | View Replies]

To: AppyPappy
Yes but there is no reference to God separating or divorcing Himself from Jesus while he was on the Cross. I have seen no Scriptural evidence of God ever abandoning Jesus

Its at least a reference to it if not more.

89 posted on 02/25/2004 5:29:11 AM PST by DainBramage
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 88 | View Replies]

To: Ichneumon
Actually, open heart surgery is not very bloody. They divert the circulation to the machine.
90 posted on 02/25/2004 5:31:41 AM PST by Taliesan (fiction police)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: Robert Teesdale
AGREED! Well said.

Saving Private Ryan wasn't any walk in the park, but it was acclaimed as near genius.

Again, so interesting to watch the Dems be SO transparent, because they aren't "into" the subject matter.

91 posted on 02/25/2004 5:32:53 AM PST by NordP (While our nation is at war w/ worldwide terrorism, the democrat party is at war w/ the President.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Modernman
In any event, the Scots certainly would have been better off as part of the Empire than as dirty painted savages.

I disagree. Had the Scots been "Romanized", history would have been altered and the source of thought that culminated in the American Revolution might never have existed.

I am rather proud of my ancestors, "dirty painted savages" that they were.

92 posted on 02/25/2004 10:28:48 AM PST by elbucko
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-92 last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794 is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson