What is your opinnion on Mel Gibson's "The Passion of the Christ"?
460563
With anyone on a spiritual quest, anything that will allow them to think and consider the implications of the death of Jesus is a good thing.  It is a provocative movie.\n\nBut, I think it is generally overrated.  I don't think it's very biblically accurate.  The whole thing with Mary cleaning up the blood of Jesus, the demons with Judas at the end, the sparrow flying over Jesus before he dies, the part where Jesus falls while being carried and getting hung up in his chains, all of these were distractions.  I think the gospel is compelling enough without these distractions.\n\nIf you're ready to divide the "extra-biblical" content in the movie, it would be a good discussion starter.  If not who knows what the result will be.
7284
i like Mel Gibson because he acts very good & contacts with the role very well.when you are watching one of his films you actually forget that it's just a film!
498000
The movie is nothing more than religious propaganda, and not as ineteresting as propaganda like "Passion of the Christ".  \n\nThe movie was pseudoscientific crap, full of deliberate lies and urban myths.\n\nThe scientists who appearded were all outraged at the way they were presented in that movie.\n\nBy all means watch it, but be aware that it is just a work of fiction intended to gain converts to a religion. Almost nothing they say is true or accurate.
132456
I loved it!!!! It was one of my favorite movies of all time. The gospel was beautifully shown in the movie and that is what I loved about it. It is an awesome way to witness to a non-believer.
525331
I have read the book and I just saw the movie last night. I am a christian; however, I have read scripture and other religously based works, both fiction and non-fiction regarding almost every known religion in the world. I am a christian by choice, not because it is the only religion I have ever been exposed to or know anything about. \n\nThat said, I loved the book and thought the movie was way underwritten. Definately worth seeing, but the screenplay was terrible and character development was absent. How, people knew what they knew and when they knew it was absurd. And the stupidity (you don't have to let everyone know about your change in flight plans immediately after you decide to change them. You don't buy train tickets on a credit card when your running from the cops....) started to get annoying. The movie sped up when it should of slowed down and left things in that could have been omitted. On the other hand it also had a kindergardenish way of over explaining when it should have moved on (like the mansion scene). This may be okay for those who haven't read the book or aren't aware of who Mary Magdalene was.\n \nI didn't think it was boring, but I'm into this kind of material a lot. As for the fictional/nonfictional status. definately fictional, and I don't say this because it conflict with the Holy Bible whose origins and completeness have its own host of questions. To me, it just doesn't make sense for God to leave a bloodline through Jesus.  It makes sense for Jesus to have a wife or a 'companion' as much as it makes sense for any Jewish carpenter to have a wife. Was this fact entirely omited during the assembly of the Holy Bible???? Possibly.  Just one of many questions. I think the Da Vinci Code is a 'what if' type of work that does not try to affend anyone, but have fun with this question.\n\nI'll tell you what....What if...through DNA testing they found out that Mohammed suffered from severe BiPolar disorder? Imagine the Hoopla that movie would stir.\n\nExplore life...spread peace.
885565
Yes, I saw it... It was very good!! *smile*\n\nI cried after the movie, because it brought to remembrance how God loves His people so much and that He guides the paths of those that trust in Him....\n\nThe one who played Esther is so pretty. I will buy the DVD when they start selling them.
740587
he cinematography was great. I was blown away by the beauty of this film. Geez, the costumes were neat, too, and the sets. I really liked the Mayan temple and the action at the Queen of Spain's court.\n\nBut what was with that plot? Your guess is as good as mine but I think that it was basically set in the present, with the doctor and his wife existing somewhere around our timeline and being the only "real" characters. The bald Hugh Jackman was his (the doctor's) "higher self." He could have been the doctor in the future, hundreds of years from now because his discovery has made the human lifespan so very, very long or let people be immortal but I think the parts of him in the bubble were also dreams or fanatsies. TheQueen and the Conquistador were just the wife's story. C'mon, who believes a Spanish Queen will promise herself to a conquistador and offer to be his "Eve?"\n\nAnd, towards the end, when he went out to walk in the snow with her (even though, in reality, he'd kept working and let her leave without him) was just his wishful thinking and regrets, not an alternate timeline, right?\n\nWhen the Mayan went to kill him and then said "sorry, I didn't know you were 1st father" is where I think Hugh Jackman/the doctor was dreaming and trying to finish his wife's story. The Mayan priest saw the Conquistador turn into the bald Hugh Jackman in the meditation pose and assumed that he was "1st father," the man who died so that the Tree of Life could grow out of him and the universe begin. He was protecting the tree from everyone else and awaiting the day when "1st father" would come back. \n\nSince it was just a dream and the plants symbolized rebirth and, beings as this was like the doctor's fantasy of how his wife's story could end, it was a positive note where he had hope of eternal life. The guy in the bubble and the fantasies about the Conquistador were all ways for the Hugh Jackman "doctor" character to deal with the loss of his wife, Izzie.
764190
I loved it, I own it.  I have all of Michael Moore's film's and think he's a true American Hero.  A bit abrasive and annoying sometimes and over the top, but so are the right wingers.  \n\nThe part I liked most was when Bush sat there for 7 minutes while America was under attack and didn't do anything.  His dad would have been outta the chair in a heart beat, telling the kids, "sorry, I really loved spending time with you, but . . . "  and he sat there with a stunned look on his face, then went back to reading to them.  Just no leadership skills.  SAD.\n\nI also liked when they said Jeb Bush had just had dinner with bin Ladens brother the night before, etc.\n\nWhat do I not like about it.  Its a VERY tragic moment in our history.  It could have been less political and more coldly factual.  \n\nBut again, turn about is fair play.
308991
There is a difference between a zealous christian and an anti-semite.\n\nIt's not as if Mel Gibson wrote the gospels, he just made a movie based on them.  And I doubt very much that he made the movie only so that he could show Jesus being cruxified by the Jews.\n\nI think it's just a rumour that was started by a few people who were opposed to a national release of a movie based on the gospels.
671379
the plot:  a man gets caught up in a quest to find the "holy grail. Murder, deceit and high states adventure.\n\nThe underlying theme: The Bible is baloney and Christ was a married mortal man and not the Son of God. \n\nIn numerous places in the book scholarly looking persons with fancy degrees go into speeches about how the Bible is a bunch of bunk. To the average person they seem like powerful arguments but in reality NONE of the arguments (some could say blasphemies) about Christ hold up to the facts of History.\n\nWhats Real?\n\nThe names of places, artwork, historical figures, the names of documents like "Q" and the "gnostic gospels"\n\nWhat's false?\n\nEverything else, the conclusions and "facts" presented about the above people, documents, and artwork.\n\nThe book took great liberty with history (AKA LIED) in order to create a scenereo where the Christ of the Bible could be turned into a regular person. \n\nThe book says that a church council gave christ his deity a few hundred years after the fact; when the gospels were written well before that coucil was even a thought. The book also draws heavily on the errors and traditions within the Roman Catholic Church to attempt to discredit the bible. While the Roman Church did bring in pagan idols (re Icons, praying to saints) This does not alter the integrity of the Bible, but merely of the Church, since these things are in violation of the 10 commandments(ye shall have no other gods before me)\n\n\n(spoiler: (from book - i borrowed a copy)\nOne of the characters turns out to be a descendant of Christ, thus "proving" Dan Brown's point.\n\nAt the end, Langden (main character) bows and prays over the bones of Mary Magdaline\n\nEven most critics are giving the movie bad reviews\n\nBottom Line: \nAs a Christian, I cannot justify sending money to a person who tries deceitfully to destroy the Christ I worship.
653096
Not all "Church people" dislike the movie.  Only the ignorant ones who do not think that people should have an imagination or think that people should not question or wonder about life in general. I, myself have no problem with the book or the movie.
881935
I thought it was an OK movie.  It was cute, humorous, quirky in some parts.  It has a deeper meaning though, in my opinion.\nWe're always trying to fast forward through life, without savoring each moment we DO have with our loved ones.  He was lucky, he got a second chance.....because it was a dream.\nWe don't.  So don't waste your lives focusing & worrying about work, etc!!!  There's SO much more!!!
633363
Everyone that I have talked with think it was well worth the money...very true to the book. Hanks acts just like the guy in the book. He is not a super hero. Why the bad hype? Maybe because it shows Jesus as a man just like us, able to turn to God for help and shows us that we can, too. Most religions have made an idol of Jesus. The movie shows that we don't need priests and/or ministers for a go-between. Oh, no! That would mean they would lose their jobs, wonder why they are preaching against the movie?
1079759
Plot Summary for \nThe Passion of the Christ (2004) \n\nThe Passion of The Christ focusses on the last twelve hours of Jesus of Nazareth's life. The film begins in the Garden of Gethsemane where Jesus has gone to pray after sitting the Last Supper. Jesus must resist the temptations of Satan. Betrayed by Judas Iscariot, Jesus is then arrested and taken within the city walls of Jerusalem where leaders of the Pharisees confront him with accusations of blasphemy and his trial results in a condemnation to death.\nSummary written by Adam Ward\n\nThis film depicts the final hours of Jesus Christ, starting from His prayers in the Garden of Gethsemane and His betrayal at the hands of Judas Iscariot. It goes on to show the trials He endured under Pontius Pilate and King Herod as well as the torture and ridicule He suffered in between. Once the death sentence is pronounced, He carries a heavy wooden cross to Golgotha amidst throngs of jeering citizens and horrendous beatings, while a few citizens do what they can to help Him. Throughout this time, we are shown memories from His past with His mother and Disciples, where He gives His teachings. Finally, He is crucified, dies, and is buried, but resurrects from the dead on the third day.\nSummary written by Curly Q. Link
740933
I've seen the trailer; it looks like they tried really hard to make it look authentic and to express the emotions Mary and Joseph felt.  There probably won't be nearly as much violence as there was in the Passion of the Christ, and it's all spoken in English.
735967
Right!  I am with ya..\nit is not so good but have to admit that it's not so bad...\nSome of the scene may deserve better production..\nbut above all, I think that it's some kinda movie that is not very interesting but won't make u feel disappointed and turned off the dvd player.
375101
I enjoyed it. Anything that takes itself too seriously deserves to be put up to ridicule, and that includes the Church.\n\nBesides that, the jokes were funny and well-timed, the plot was coherent within its own setting, the casting was perfect enough that I couldn't see anyone else playing the parts (especially Linda Fiorentino and Alan Rickman), and the cynicism toed the line between mockery and adoration.