(not my writing, from another forum)
"......How do you critique a film starring, essentially, cardboard cut-outs? The Passion of the Christ manages to plod along for two boring hours without a main character or any supporting characters. Instead, we get a handful of stereotypes and an infallible good guy. Let's face it, this movie isn't written any better than an action film. The action genre is famous for its infallible good guy and (most times) its ethnic enemy stereotypes. They are simply written so that the Average Joe can quickly make a value judgement and then sit in blissful ignorance for two hours while the pretty images explode before his eyes. Action film star, Mel Gibson, has done the exact thing with his film. He has, in fact, gone even further into the land of idiocy and immaturity.
The film opens with Jesus praying in the Garden of Gethsemane. After butchering some lines in Aramaic, Jesus kneels down and then, upon rising, it confronted with... THE DEVIL! Yes, the devil. And the devil just so happens to resemble that androgynous 80s New Wave singer from Dead or Alive. The Devil, always up to no good it seems, produces a serpent from his loins which Jesus crushes with his foot. Sadly, such extremely heavy-handed symbolism abounds in this film.
Gibson, in pre-release interviews, spoke of his desire to make an authentic film. Perhaps the only authentic aspect of this film is the Aramaic language. It is horribly spoken, but it is the language that most people spoke in First Century Jerusalem. Just about everything else in the film is inauthentic. In fact, I was shocked at the inaccuracies. The Roman guards would never have spoken Latin, rather they would have conversed in Greek. The Jerusalem set was so chintzy that you could almost smell the Plaster of Paris. And, most importantly, Gibson STILL resorts to filming the action in a Michelangelo-inspired pallete. When will someone wise up and realize that The Bible shouldn't be imagined through the eyes of Caravaggio?
Then there are the flashbacks. Some readers may think I am joking when I tell you that there is a dramatic flashback of a young Jesus tripping interspered with Jesus falling under the weight of the cross. Nope, I couldn't make up that up. There is also a great flashback of Jesus casting away the evil stonethrowers as Mary Magdelene kisses his feet. Did I mention that's all in slow motion? Pure action film heavy-handedness.
There really isn't much else to write about this film because, really, nothing happens and there are no interpersonal relationships to study. The Jews are bloodthirsty Messiah-killers, the Romans are sadistic animals, and King Herod is (I didn't know this) an effeminate cross-dresser. The film can best be summed up in this scene: Pontius Pilate is having a crisis of conscious because his wife (!) has asked him not to crucify Jesus. So he has placed the judgement upon the Jews, they can choose between condeming Jesus or Barrabas the prisoner. Barrabas is a savage, viscious animal - made up to look like a prehistoric man. And poor Jesus is a quiet, wise sage, beaten yet noble. The angry mob of Jews unhesitatingly calls for Jesus's death when confronted with both men. Barrabas is set free and Jesus is sent off for crucifiction.
The entire scene is written, staged, and acted on the emotional and maturity level of a third grader. How could the evil Jews have let Barrabas go when they could have accepted the noble Jesus as their savior?
There is no effort made to inject the film with any intellectualism. It is 100% immaturity. It speaks volumes about what is going on in Mel Gibson's mind. If one is to take this film as an extension of Gibson's mind, we see a man incapable of critical thought. We also see a man with an extremely limited view of humanity. Everything must be pretty black and white in Gibson's mind. And he is a horrible director without an original cinematic thought in his mind.
Any true biblical scholar will tell you that it was pretty much impossible for the events of the crucifiction to have taken place as written in the New Testament. The events fell during Passover, the holiest week in Judaism. The high priests would NEVER have had the time to try Jesus for blasphemy and then run around Jerusalem attempting to have him crucified. All the high priests would have been in the Temple sacrificing rams. And the angry Jewish mob would have been trying to get into the Temple with their sacrifical offerings. These facts are never discussed. In fact, most Christians have no knowledge whatsoever of First Century Judaism, the religion of Jesus. It's sad really, because it permits a man like Mel Gibson to pool the wool over their eyes yet again with his own take of the cruci-FICTION....."
"......How do you critique a film starring, essentially, cardboard cut-outs? The Passion of the Christ manages to plod along for two boring hours without a main character or any supporting characters. Instead, we get a handful of stereotypes and an infallible good guy. Let's face it, this movie isn't written any better than an action film. The action genre is famous for its infallible good guy and (most times) its ethnic enemy stereotypes. They are simply written so that the Average Joe can quickly make a value judgement and then sit in blissful ignorance for two hours while the pretty images explode before his eyes. Action film star, Mel Gibson, has done the exact thing with his film. He has, in fact, gone even further into the land of idiocy and immaturity.
The film opens with Jesus praying in the Garden of Gethsemane. After butchering some lines in Aramaic, Jesus kneels down and then, upon rising, it confronted with... THE DEVIL! Yes, the devil. And the devil just so happens to resemble that androgynous 80s New Wave singer from Dead or Alive. The Devil, always up to no good it seems, produces a serpent from his loins which Jesus crushes with his foot. Sadly, such extremely heavy-handed symbolism abounds in this film.
Gibson, in pre-release interviews, spoke of his desire to make an authentic film. Perhaps the only authentic aspect of this film is the Aramaic language. It is horribly spoken, but it is the language that most people spoke in First Century Jerusalem. Just about everything else in the film is inauthentic. In fact, I was shocked at the inaccuracies. The Roman guards would never have spoken Latin, rather they would have conversed in Greek. The Jerusalem set was so chintzy that you could almost smell the Plaster of Paris. And, most importantly, Gibson STILL resorts to filming the action in a Michelangelo-inspired pallete. When will someone wise up and realize that The Bible shouldn't be imagined through the eyes of Caravaggio?
Then there are the flashbacks. Some readers may think I am joking when I tell you that there is a dramatic flashback of a young Jesus tripping interspered with Jesus falling under the weight of the cross. Nope, I couldn't make up that up. There is also a great flashback of Jesus casting away the evil stonethrowers as Mary Magdelene kisses his feet. Did I mention that's all in slow motion? Pure action film heavy-handedness.
There really isn't much else to write about this film because, really, nothing happens and there are no interpersonal relationships to study. The Jews are bloodthirsty Messiah-killers, the Romans are sadistic animals, and King Herod is (I didn't know this) an effeminate cross-dresser. The film can best be summed up in this scene: Pontius Pilate is having a crisis of conscious because his wife (!) has asked him not to crucify Jesus. So he has placed the judgement upon the Jews, they can choose between condeming Jesus or Barrabas the prisoner. Barrabas is a savage, viscious animal - made up to look like a prehistoric man. And poor Jesus is a quiet, wise sage, beaten yet noble. The angry mob of Jews unhesitatingly calls for Jesus's death when confronted with both men. Barrabas is set free and Jesus is sent off for crucifiction.
The entire scene is written, staged, and acted on the emotional and maturity level of a third grader. How could the evil Jews have let Barrabas go when they could have accepted the noble Jesus as their savior?
There is no effort made to inject the film with any intellectualism. It is 100% immaturity. It speaks volumes about what is going on in Mel Gibson's mind. If one is to take this film as an extension of Gibson's mind, we see a man incapable of critical thought. We also see a man with an extremely limited view of humanity. Everything must be pretty black and white in Gibson's mind. And he is a horrible director without an original cinematic thought in his mind.
Any true biblical scholar will tell you that it was pretty much impossible for the events of the crucifiction to have taken place as written in the New Testament. The events fell during Passover, the holiest week in Judaism. The high priests would NEVER have had the time to try Jesus for blasphemy and then run around Jerusalem attempting to have him crucified. All the high priests would have been in the Temple sacrificing rams. And the angry Jewish mob would have been trying to get into the Temple with their sacrifical offerings. These facts are never discussed. In fact, most Christians have no knowledge whatsoever of First Century Judaism, the religion of Jesus. It's sad really, because it permits a man like Mel Gibson to pool the wool over their eyes yet again with his own take of the cruci-FICTION....."
