 
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
|
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
So have you guys seen it? Comments?I have to say with all the hype I was very disappointed. It could have been much better, but it was the weakest storyline I have ever seen. If you want to see Jesus get whipped with a razorblade for 2 hours then this is the movie for you.
Follow Ups:
The movie has real genius. Cinematography and camera lines were superb, as was the editing. In terms of pure film making, I think it's among the best in recent years. The numerous flashback scenes were mostly gems. I thought the scene of Mary cleaning her Son's blood from the stone courtyard was more powerful than any of the action shots of the scourging or Jesus' flayed body. Gibson assembled a great film, but he did himself in with his adolescent compulsion for gratuitous and graphic violence that negates much of his expressive brilliance. On the other hand, maybe he simply knows what the audience wants.
(NT)
Well seems most at Rotten Tomatoes thought it was awful. I don't have a problem with the religious aspects of the film, it's the story telling I thought was very weak. Glad you liked it, I guess you like seeing someone get whipped for 2 hours with little else to speak of.
Well, I didn't see someone get whipped for 2 hours. I will rent the movie when it comes out but my guess is that the whipping scene lasted for about 10 min. That aside the story is the story. What did you want UFO's and Matrix like effects? It was the last 12 hours of Jesus' life. If the story is that he was whipped and beaten a lot in those last 12 hours then that's what the movie should show. As far as what other people think I don't care. My wife and I liked it and thought it was very moving. I don't recall another movie that I have seen where many people in the audience were crying. Someone liked it. It's now the 7th best selling movie of all time.
Of course, quite a few Christians are closet S&M freaks, so Mel does know his audience. ;^)AuPh
Too bad that there is no ONE word on the " Roman " cruelty in the Bible on Jesus, only they sought for some one to help his with his cross....
Actually, Pilate caught a break. He mandated a "severe chastisement" in order to help save his life. Logic: If he's beaten up bad enough the crowd will be shocked and satisfied. Didn't work.
No, and I donīt intend to. I saw the trailer. But still in The Bible there is no such thing as cruel sadistic Romans, and that is the biggest part of the film if I understood it well.
My son saw it, he was disgusted.
just saw the trailer that the power hungry religious people dole out on the unsuspecting and easily duped.If there was a God - he she it would not be a simplistic impatient dullard that the Christian power hierarchy make him out to be. Basic logic should rule out the Christian(and all other religious) versions of the Creator. But it's easier to ignore logic and just buy into doctrine. My sermon has endeth...and if it's annoying to you - well now you know how the athiests/agnotics feel listening to the endless religious tripe with a one shred of unbiased relevant fact to support their versions of God. But hey it's good that people control the population with wars over such silly beliefs.
Play Black Sabbath at 78. Grand Funk has also been noted to work.
Somehow I thought the lesser lights would take this debate to the religious side. It's unfortunate, I really only wanted to rate the film as, well, a film.
Sorry this was not to you but others are attacking the film based on it's credibility versus the bible like the Bible was some sort of truth?It's ridiculous to argue a historical film's accuracy - there is no such thing. SO long as any interpretation of history is reasonable and the main points are correct then that's a fine interpretation. Anyone who gets history SOLELY from a film is a Wanker - or throws the entire film out over minutae is an even bigger Wanker.
Unlike some other posters on the forum I am not going to poo-poo Mel Gibson's work without seeing it. Presumably it's a pretty fair film and has not taken wrath from either side of the religious folks - well some of course.
A religious film should generate discussion on religion. Contact did despite some flaws. If that film was correct that there are only 5% of Americans who are NOT "religious" then frankly it is worrisome. No wonder there is so much consumerism and wars. You can lead a sheep anywhere - even over a cliff.
So whiping and nailing someone to a cross is not cruel and sadistic? By the way I said my wife and I liked the movie. I didn't say it was or was not accurate.
Did I said so? Yes in fact you said nothing.
.
Mon petit vautour.
What's your point in reverting to a different language? Do you snicker after writing it?
"Tee hee, they'll never know what I'm talking about."
I was just philosophinzing about the profound meaning of " Independance Day, " then I must have lost my head...
Sorry,
Stand by me in the future, Thank you!
I now recall you saying you wouldn't see it. It is such a social phenomena you should see it. Decide for yourself. You will see what you want to see: rorschach city.
I donīt think I will,because I am still fed up with " Braveheart " and I saw previews and what I saw was what I expected.... but you are right I should see it as such.
Dvd will have a director version, till then maybe..
The level of violence in this movie puts Braveheart to shame. Picture Braveheart as one big fighting scene that goes on for two hours and you'll have an acurate description.By the way, I didn't mind Braveheart.
Neither did I...It was a present from Amazon.com....
NT
That was the comment a friend of mine, a professor teaching History of Art, who has just come back from the States, about this film.In the old days it was not unusual for painters or sculptors to receive orders from the Church to paint, or to make a sculpture of Christ in the Cross, or being flogged under Pilate. There are some really good works on both, as we all can check by looking at any good book about History of Religious Art. And there were quite a few which were just so so, because the artist was not at the height of the circumstances and, in these cases, the poor art work frequently was disguised under a heavy layer of red streaks, hiding under that "blood" the poor talent of the author...
In Spain, some witty critic coined the phrase "A mal Cristo, mucha sangre" which can be translated as "When you are not able to picture (or sculpt) a worthy image of Christ, hide it under lots of blood"...
And thatīs the impression he got from Mr. Gibsonīs "artwork".
My (borrowed) 2 cents
Regards
... for describing something so accurately that I could not. I didn't want to comment on the religious aspects of the film, but rather the film itself. Your statement is most appropriate for this film. It reminds me of the Hollywood symdrom, where the story matters less then the explosions or glorified violence.
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2025, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
