Posted on 02/28/2004 12:25:49 AM PST by kattracks
Edited on 05/26/2004 5:19:46 PM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
February 28, 2004 -- Mel Gibson's controversial "The Passion of the Christ" scored a second strong day and could take in a whopping $100 million at the box office in just its first five days, experts said yesterday. Thursday's reported take by distributor Newmarket was an estimated $14.7 million, a drop from Wednesday's opening-day number of $23.6 million.
(Excerpt) Read more at nypost.com ...
Of course, no film is for everyone. I did not like "Titanic." However, the personal attacks on Mel Gibson are outrageous. Yet if it weren't for the attacks on the film, IMHO the film would not have drawn this many people.
Awesome film. After the film, everyone stayed in their seats for a couple of minutes. Awe and Reverance.
I have to go see it again in the next couple of weeks.
Yes, it is amazing how many people are talking about the Passion..and Jesus Christ and what He had (and still doing) for us!
Yes. Please note that TLOR was also filmed outside of hwood, contained strong Christian themes and shattered accepted wisdom.
A fool has said in his heart there is no God. Look at hwood today. They have no idea what is happening.
This movie was absolutely mesmerizing. I was completely attentive every second.
Absolutely brilliant in production values. Every magnificent frame could be a Renaissance painting by Caravaggio.
My favorite scene?: The camera pans upwards, high above Jerusalem. You see the world from the perspective of a single drop of water, perhaps a tear of the Father, falling to earth upon the death of Jesus... and rips the world apart, sending the arrogant Satan screaming in rage over the forgiveness of sin.
Amen, and amen to that. As the front-running presidential candidate, Kerry's comments are loaded with meaning for the future of the United States of America. Kerry worships abortion, the homosexual agenda, and the stripping away of every Christian symbol in America. Kerry is against everything Christians stands for.
Kerry could have said so many things to assure the millions of Christians who are pouring into theatres to see the film that their concerns were going to be part of his campaign. Kerry prefers to kowtow to a tiny minority of secularists, the very same groups that have contributed to be the death of American culture.
Kerry is appealing to the lowest common denominator, a tiny minority of voters, a ragtag cadre of naysayers who are categorically against the Passion film.
Who's kidding who? Kerry is pandering to secularists in order to get campaign dollars and voting blocs. He is appealing to the Hollywood types who fear they will lose their chokehold on American culture.
Secularists have vastly profited from perpetuating the anti-Christian culture and would prefer to keep Christians subdued and marginalized. Kerry's ill-conceived remarks show that he will strengthen secularists power over Christian America.
Kerry's comments and his positions on social issues must reach every Christian pastor, church, and group in America. These are the things Christian voters are thinking about:
(1) Kerry's comments about The Passion movie have effectively disqualified him from holding the highest office in Christian America.
(2) Transparently anti-Christian candidates do not deserve Christian votes.
(3) Candidates carrying Bibles and going to church (the Clintons) but who vote against everything Christians believe in are not going to fool Christians again a they have in the past.
(4) Abortion, the institution of marriage, Christian symbols in American life are very important issues and must be addressed.
(5) The future of America depends on which candidate supports Christian issues. Kerry has demonstrated that he need not apply.
And the image of a bald Satan screaming in rage at the death of Jesus (sins are now forgiven by His sacrifice) reminded me unfortunately of an apoplectic combination of Hillary and James Carville on a rant.
The HC show emphasized that Jesus infuriated Caiphas by throwing the moneychangers out of the temple. This was Caiphas' reasoning for bringing Jesus before the chief priests of the temple....and the fact that Jesus was preaching things that Caiphas considered a challenge to his own power.
The chief priests had no power to get rid of Jesus. They needed Pilate --and Roman law that prevailed---to do that for them. But Pilate as a Roman leader had no say over Jewish (religious) transgressions and had in fact said he thought Jesus was innocent. Pilate was also sensitive to his wife begging him to save Jesus.
Instead, Caiphas cleverly changed the charge made against Jesus, and instead made Jesus' crime look to be, not a religious issue, but sedition against Rome: Caiphas told Pilate that Jesus said he was king of the Jews---an affront against Rome---which helped Caiphas turn Pilate again Jesus, and command the Crucifixion.
The Romans mocked Jesus by giving him a crown of thorns and nailing to the cross above His head the epitaph....Jesus of Nazareth, King of the Jews.
Yeah!
That is a troubling---but on the mark---mental pic. And now that we've seen The Passion of The Christ, we know what they're ranting about.
Yes! Newmarket distributed "Return of the King" as well as "The Passion of the Christ."
The king in Tolkien's movie represents Jesus or God, I believe, and the "Return of the King" preceded the release of "The Passion of the Christ."
It was God's way of saying, "The King is coming!"
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.