[Carlman]

From Hollywood's perspective, I think this movie's only point is to move or otherwise emotionally appeal... and generate sales.

The emotional response triggered sales in the highest degree... .especially since emotions have run high with people protesting against and rallying for it at the same time.  People want to see what all the fuss is about.

I've gotten emails from my evangelical relatives explaining that it's mandatory viewing.  

I'm just not that emotional of a person to 'need' to see it.  I think it'd be interesting to see, though.  So, I may watch it when it comes to DVD.  I never thought I'd see the day where I could watch Jesus crucified in surround sound.  I find that interesting.

I do like that this movie (apparently) provides an accurate story (or true to the source) for a lot of people to see.  It's a gateway drug into Christianity.  Of couse, it's kind of like starting with cocaine but it's still something that gets people asking/talking and thinking about Christianity and/or other religions.  I'd like to see more people less cynical about religion and a little more open to it.  I've argued points on both sides of the merits of religion... believe me I don't mean to start anything about this here... just stating what I like about this new slant on movie-making.

Also talking about this movie beats the political discussions lately.  Which rich weirdo do you want as president?

How many cans of worms can I open with 1 post?  

[Rob Babcock]

I'm not sure that Gibson is canny enough to have foretold that this movie would be so successful.  I think it's surprised a lot of people.  He certainly has the luxury of having "fuck you money"- that's to say he's rich enough already to put out whatever he wants (at least with as low a budget as this one) without any concern as to whether anyone watches it.

I should watch it before I make many assumptions, but from the sound of it the project was basically done out of Gibson's strong religious convictions and desire to see it made.  You don't need to be Christian to admire that.

[BenF]

Go and see it because it is art in a movie. You don't have to be religious to appreciate how well done this is. People I know who know movies were amazed at the whole piece of work and the details. It is a very facinating film. You can't get it from clips either. I saw the PAX show about it (happened on it while channel surfing before I saw the film) and it really doesn't give you any of the same effect broken up into film bytes.

And the violence is not gratuitous, arbitrary and impersonal and a way to get what you want out of life, like many movies show it. Besides, it is clear in the film that Jesus knew it was coming, accepted and embraced it. This makes it really different. As Monica Bellucci said, it's a violent film against violence.

We should all experience more art and this film has it.

Ben

[Carlman]

I'm not sure that Gibson is canny enough to have foretold that this movie would be so successful.  I think it's surprised a lot of people.  He certainly has the luxury of having "fuck you money"- that's to say he's rich enough already to put out whatever he wants (at least with as low a budget as this one) without any concern as to whether anyone watches it.

I should watch it before I make many assumptions, but from the sound of it the project was basically done out of Gibson's strong religious convictions and desire to see it made.  You don't need to be Christian to admire that.

So, this movie wasn't manufactured by the generic Hollywood engine?  And instead was a movie from the heart?  That's AWESOME!  

If that's the case, I retract what I said about it being a sales getter...

As to Ben's point...

Producing something you feel is important, sticking to your convictions, and giving a general 'Fuh-Q' to the standard industry drones MAKES it ART!  That's really cool if this is the case.

-C

[jackman]

Hi,
I haven't seen this movie yet.  Heck, I haven't seen the third installment of LOTR or any of the oscar nominated films (best pix) except Lost in Translation.  I will see this one because it seems like a very powerful film.    Regarding Gibson's motivation, I believe his motives were sincere.  He took a lot of heat and shelled a lot of his own cash to get this one made.  That's saying a lot since there was a really good chance he would lose big on this one.  A $25-30 million dollar loss is big for anyone, even someone with Gibsons bankroll.  

I have a lot of respect for Mel Gibson for having the balls to make this movie.  People were on the attack long before the movie was released and long before most people actually viewed it.  I also sincerely doubt he had any commercial motivation for making it.  Haven't heard about any "test viewings" with demographic groups to see if it would play well to target audiences, etc.  If nothing else, this movie has provided a forum for people to voice or share their views on a very important topic.  Some may use it to voice their hatred or short-sightedness, however I don't think that's the intention of the film.  There will always be these types of people who will seek excuses or justification for their views.  The movie's message seems to be one of great sacrifice, faith, love and forgiveness.   If it accomplishes the task of spreading these important messages, it will have done something that is very rare in modern cinema.  

Since there is very little original thought or creativity in Hollywood these days, I wonder if the commercial success of this movie will lead to other similar biblical movies on the horizon.  I also wonder if there will be backlash to Mel Gibson for putting out a movie of this nature.   I hear he is having a lot of difficulty getting distribution in foreign markets...i.e. France.  This is a bit confusing because France is a predominately Christian (Catholic) country and one of the biggest (per cap) movie going countries.  

I have a question.   The box office gate has been much higher than most people anticipated.   What do you think the total box office take for this movie will be?  $400 million?  $500 million?  It's already at $117 mil. and hasn't even been out for a week.  I wonder if it will play as well in other countries?

Jack

[Figo]

I just saw it saturday, and can say its easily worth the $9 it costs.  I'm catholic, yet by no means devout(don't even go to church).

It is gory, and bloody - but not as much as people make it out to be.  Most of the gore is implied: ie it never actually shows the spike driving into his hands etc.  no where near Saving private ryan, etc.  the gore is mostly whippings and the like.


It was probably the most emotionally moving film i've ever seen:  there were people literally sobbing in the theatre.  When it was over noone spoke a word; everyone just got up and walked away.  The only other movie I've ever seen this before was when I saw schindler's list.

so:  go and see it. it's worth it.  And you don't have to be religious to enjoy it.  heck - it may even make you religous.

[Rob Babcock]

The Century has a 9:55 PM showing, so I'll be heading out in about an hour.  Then I'll see for myself, I guess.

[bubba966]

I have a question. The box office gate has been much higher than most people anticipated. What do you think the total box office take for this movie will be? $400 million? $500 million? It's already at $117 mil. and hasn't even been out for a week.

I'm going to guess it's not going to do much more than $250-$300 Mil.

To do much more than that would mean that people are seeing it multiple times. And I don't think that'll happen with this.

What'll it do internationally? Who knows....

[Rob Babcock]

Well, after watching it, I'd have to concur, Brian.  This isn't a mulit-showing repeat viewer.  It's intense, draining, and frequently shocking.  But also possibly brilliant.  Cerainly something I think is well worth experiencing.

First of all, yes, it is brutal.  But the violence is greatly overexagerated.  Certainly it's not in the same galaxy as a gore fest like Saving Private Ryan.  No one had a problem with that one because we expect war to be hell.  But those who grew up watching Charton Heston part the Red Sea are in for a shock- this is to Biblical stories what Private Ryan was to WWII movies.  That is to say the ultimate portrayal of the biblical event.

I certainly don't think this film is anti-Semetic in any way.  Sure the Jews that conspire to have him killed did seem conniving and cunning.  But certainly his teachings did challenge the status quo, both that of the Romans and the Pharasia's (jump in anywhere, Sa-Dono, I know I misspelled that).  And his words certainly were blasphemous in the extreme.  But along the way many other Jews show great compassion for Jesus.

The one complaint I have is how the movie treated the Romans- sure, they were conquerors and ruled Judea by the sword.  But the soldiers tormenting Jesus were really one dimensional characters, almost cartoonish.  I imagine they were supposed to seem irredeemably wicked, and the bible doesn't really "develope them as characters."  But their behavior and actions seemed a bit out of place to me.

The film does really portray the Roman governor as trapped in a situation he doesn't really want to be in.  Passover can be a very volatile time, especially with talk of a Messiah about.  And Caesar has made it clear he'll brook no further rebellions in Judea.  He's torn between letting Jesus go and inviting rebellion by the Orthodox Jews or killing him and sparking an uprising among his followers.  Perhaps in "reality" he didn't particularly care one way or the other, but it works in the film.

Caviziel is superb as Jesus, and I thought the whole cast was superb.  Someone from a non-Christian culture unfamiliar with the mythology would find the movie totally baffling as there's really no exposition or introductions.  We know who all the characters are although almost none are introduced.  That simply isn't necessary- we get right into the action and immediately understand what's going on.

Whether or not you're Christian this movie does paint a compelling portrait of Christ's final hours and explains why he born to die on the cross.  I highly recommend it to someone who's not extemely sqeamish and who can go into the movie with an open mind- someone who's willing to just accept the movie on its own terms and experience it.

[tull skull]

I hope you don't mind some comments from the shadows. I'm pretty much a lurker here, but if you don't mind I'll throw in a couple cents worth of blabber.

 I had very little interest in going. Was drug along by the wife. I was suprised in a positive way. Not sure where to begin, but from the opening music, this film grips you and you feel it. The tension is incredible. The movie only seemed like it was an hour long to me. This movie is intense and I could feel the tension in my body untill well after the movie.  

It is a well done, well told, and  important to me, incredible looking movie. Don't know who is responsible for the "look" of the movie, but that cinematographer is a genius.

The hype is all empty. You would have to be anti-semetic to even find anything to comment on. The jewish politicians that are causing all the controversy sound like they expect Gibson to change the biblical account for their best interest in the name of sensitivity! It seems like he has tried to get a lot of feedback from many different perspectives and made changes accordingly. We wouldn't know anything about who Jesus was if it weren't for the gospels and yet they have the nerve to say the script is biblically inaccurate. Ridiculous! Make your own Jesus movie!

The Jewish leaders put in negative light  in the movie simply look like corrupt politicians. You could take them out of this story and put them in a hundred other movies, their role would be the same. Talking about the corruption, not the ethnic background!  There were a number of jews who were "good guys" in the movie as well. The Romans, to me, were depicted as the badder of the "bad guys".

Violence; yes. It's rated R for a reason. But I think what people don't like is the uncomfortable ride you are taken on. A character portrayed as undeserving of this punishment is given the full treatment of roman torture. There is a sense of the injustice of it all that was, for lack of a better term, frustrating.

Another thing I liked was that Jesus wasn't a white guy with blonde hair and blue eyes. He was jewish after all. He also wasn't a wimp. I would imagine carpenters in that day were typical workman, and to endure the roman punishment would have taken significant upper body strength.

I do think that large numbers of churches buying groups of tickets have contributed to the opening salvo of impressive numbers. But I really doubt that the bitterest of antagonists will be able to keep this movie from being respected for it's excellence. And you know what Bubba, I would be willing to see the movie again. But not right away! You might want to wait to wager your guess untill after you see the movie. It's that good.  Just thinking about that music gets me a little tense.

I came away from this movie with some kind of parrallel to "saving private ryan" I mean no disrespect, but they didn't use real tiger tanks in that movie, and they changed lots of detail in the movie relative to the real story. But it didn't keep me from appreciating  what men in real combat experience.  There was "flesh and blood" reality. People who were whipped with the cat'o 9 tails didn't end up with a couple red streaks on them. I can more fully appreciate what Jesus must have physically suffered. There was a "flesh and blood" reality. Literally.

I don't see the movie as being written to "make people religious". I think it is too narrow in it's scope to convey the neccessary information. It might be a valid stepping stone to further investigation. I guess we will have to wait and see. I find myself thinking of the movie often.

Guess that's about it. The movie is simply what it is. One of the best movies I have seen. But it is just a movie. I think the hype is from those trying to make it more than that.

[tull skull]

Hey rob,
I swear I wasn't looking over your shoulder! My problem is it took me quite a while to write my stuff out and it probably took you about 10 minutes! I appreciate your insights. I had actually had a couple of the same thoughts but the old attention span aint what it....... What was I going to say?
Anyway, my take on the Romans was that they had to be seasoned pros who had long since hardened themselves to stay sane. If they were specialists, who had to do this periodically, it could almost become a point of pride to do it well, as horrible as that sounds. I do remember noticing some winces and "uncomfortable" facial expressions on some of the guards.
Then you have the whole classic theological take that you alluded to, as mankind itself unleashes it's fury on Jesus through the punishment, as darkness and it's child watch with glee. When you think about it, it's a pretty tough concept to pull off simultaneously. Guess maybe Gibson didn't pull it off that well after all?
Wish I could express my thoughts as well as you!

[Rob Babcock]

Well, that post actually took me quite awhile, too!   I've done that- went to respond to a post only to find 3 posts already made by time mine posts.  I think we had a similar response to the movie.  My problem with the portrayal of the Roman soldiers was the cheesy laughing and overall attitude; they seemed like the hillybillies from deliverance to me.  Perhaps their soldiers really were this way, but they showed no trace of humanity at all.  They were just like the enemies you face in a videogame.  A minor gripe, to be sure, since the movie wasn't really about the soldiers but about Jesus.  I only point it out because it's a bit of an inconsistancy in an otherwise meticulously crafted film.  I did think that some of them were uncomfortable with the way Jesus was being treated, but I'm mostly referring to the ones that first scourge him.

Is this an Oscar-worthy film?  It's hard to imagine a movie winning an Oscar coming out this early; the leading candidates are almost always released shorty before the end of the year.  Still, this is a potent film, well worthy of consideration next winter.

I'm not sure if this is Gibson's first crack at directing, but if it is he's spent his whole career on the wrong side of the camera.  And I mean that as a compliment.

[Woodsea]

Rob-
Check out a little known movie called Braveheart.  This movie he directed put him on the brink of madness.
-Eric

[tull skull]

I know the film was released to coincide with a specific religious "season". But do you think that there could have been some strategy to release it this early to make the oscars a moot point? I haven't heard any comments relative to any hollywood recognition for the movie. The things I have heard him(Gibson) say would lead me to guess it's not high on his wish list. He has even shot down several merchandise offers as unappropriate.

 I had heard that Gibson has basically had the ideas for the movie for ten years or more, so that might be why alot of the scenes seem well thought out and executed. Now that I think about it, not knowing Gibson's personality at all, maybe the early release could be like a dare for the academy to ignore it, if he's a contentious sort of fellow.

Personally, I think the impact will have smoothed out by this time next year, the anti jewish attacks are already dying down and so they are really hammering on the violence now. But like you said, movies that are to be seriously considered aren't even released yet.

 I think it will be hard to ignore the cinematography though.

[Rob Babcock]

I loved Braveheart, but I'd forgotten/didn't know he directed it.  That was a great flick, too.

BTW, was that about the creepiest Lucifer ever committed to film or what?

[tull skull]

thanks alot Rob, it's 3:30 am, and I'm going to try and get some some sleep now with thoughts of lucifer dancing in my head!

 I don't know if you thought about it, but the anguish Jesus felt would have been beyond comprehension if indeed he willingly subjected himself to 1st person dialog with lucifer. I was wondering if Gibson was going to draw that out more, but after the garden scene there's not much interaction. I think that could have been developed more. It certainly would have contributed to understanding the mental torture he had to endure as well.

[Kevin P]

In Christian circles there has been Passion plays that focus on the death of Jesus (as told by the four Gospels) for some time.   Gibson just made them into a movie.   While I can understand that many people won't have a desire to see it due to their world view/religious make-up, I think that the critics are full of crap.   The only motive for throwing so much criticism at the movie is that you are against the message that it sends.  

I think the reason you have so many divergent opinions of the movie is that it really strikes to the heart of how you view the world.   I'm a Christian who used to be an agnostic and critical of Christianity so I can envision how I would have perceived the movie years ago.  

Anyway...  I think the real intention of the movie was to give people the understanding of the sacrifice that was made by an innocent party for the undeserving.  Gibson is a believer and part of that is selling the message of Christianity to unbelievers.   The purpose of the Passion plays has always been the same.  It is to shock people with the sacrifice and the injustice of it.  It is an effective ministry tool because it is an emotional experience and faith is two parts emotion, one part reason.

[nathanm]

I hadn't heard of this movie until last week.  Anyone know why it's "the Christ" and not just "Christ"?  Sounds a bit odd to me.

[tull skull]

Not meaning to minimize anything you are saying, Kevin, all good stuff there, but from what I've heard the opinions are fairly well seperated.
Anti semitic, too violent, with biblically inaccurate bringing up the rear. With maybe a handful simply thinking the movie sucked. The violence and quality issues are both pretty subjective and I think deserved to be taken respectfully as one's opinion. The other two carry no weight with me and those still trying to use that attack are starting to look silly, in my opinion.(sorry couldn't resist)
Nathanm, I don't know if I am answering the question you are asking, but I think you know that "the christ" is actually a title. I think latin for the annointed one or maybe messiah. It's not like it's his last name. Is that what you mean? Only example I could think of off the top of my pointed head is a song title: "bob the drummer" from the excellent band, dada.
I think capitalising the "the" ,  might be proper grammer. It's just too much to go through, however, after you hit your thumb with that hammer! It's an acceptable fopah in the same spirit as triple dog daring someone before you have triple dared.

[nathanm]

You mean "faux pas"?  Ahh, so if Christ is a title then that makes sense, otherwise if it was a name it would be goofy.  Thanks!

I think capitalising the "the" , might be proper grammer. It's just too much to go through, however, after you hit your thumb with that hammer! It's an acceptable fopah in the same spirit as triple dog daring someone before you have triple dared.

Hmm, no idea what you're talking about there.  I simply capitalized it for emphasis, as if I was speaking.  Italics would've been better, but no emphasis would've worked too.  I will change it.