HeinleinFan
Regular
My GF and I saw the film yesterday (Sunday) at a late afternoon showing. We had wanted to see the 4 pm showing, but it was sold out when we arrived at 3 pm for tickets, so we saw the 5pm showing. The multiplex we went to (suburban Pittsburgh) was running two screens for each time slot, and all four screens were standing-room-only.
The film was beautifully shot and staged and was very cinematically pleasing to the eye. As PsionTen pointed out, the use of flashbacks was well done, although my GF and I both felt that more flashback scenes would have balanced out the brutality latent in the film. For instance, in one scene with his Mother, Jesus is portrayed as a bright, talented and playful man and loving son. It was the only scene in the whole movie which elicited any positive feedback from the audience (brief chuckles). The rest of the movie is so dreadfully, well, heavy, that sobs and quiet crying were the sounds heard most often in the theater. So, be prepared for that. This is not a “fun Saturday date movie.”
The acting was superb. The movie is subtitled, as has been mentioned, but the actors are able to emote so effectively, that the subtitles are almost unnecessary. The actors playing Pontius Pilate and Mary, Mother of Jesus give especially strong performances.
I have a degree in history from a liberal arts college run by the Benedictine Order of Catholics. Part of our required coursework included religious education classes, obviously. I took several that involved a historical treatment of the Four Gospels, which also dealt with the technical aspects of the crucifixion. This film is very close (though not perfect) to what I would consider “historical accuracy.” In an example of where he strays from strict accuracy, Mel Gibson obviously believes in the literal Biblical notion that Jesus was nailed to the cross via the palms of his hands (when Jesus appears to Thomas in the Bible, he encourages a “doubting Thomas” to place his fingers in the holes in Jesus’ “hands” though which the nails had been driven). In actual practice, the spike was driven into the arm, near the wrist, between the ulna and radius. But, I quibble. There is also a fantastic scene, which I won’t spoil, that I thought very ably demonstrated the “changing of the guard” aspect of the Messiah story. (You can PM me if you want to discuss it.)
I’m baffled by the inclusion of Satan as a character in the film. I though it was superfluous. I felt that its presence was demonstrated in the actions of those who sought Jesus’ arrest, tortured Him and crucified Him. Are we that unable to see evil when it presents itself in everyday life? Do we need the prompting of a black-clad demon to point it out to us? And, what if evil appears wearing a pretty face?
I’m not sure where those who pre-screened the film came up with their charges of “anti-Semitism.” I saw nothing of the sort in the film. I saw ass-covering politicians, power-hungry statists and bloodthirsty, overzealous government agents, but, hell, we have those among us even as I write this. Perhaps the arrow struck too close to home for some of those early reviewers.
Yes, there is graphic bloodletting in this film. But none more than in a typical slasher film (the original Nightmare on Elm Street comes to mind, as does Braveheart). I think the context of the violence is what shocks the senses. I also think that little old ladies, not normally exposed to this sort of in-your-face violence and expecting a “feel good“ movie about the Messiah, will have a negative experience at this film.
My experience was a positive one, however. In the end, I found myself thanking Him for going through all of that in my place.
The film was beautifully shot and staged and was very cinematically pleasing to the eye. As PsionTen pointed out, the use of flashbacks was well done, although my GF and I both felt that more flashback scenes would have balanced out the brutality latent in the film. For instance, in one scene with his Mother, Jesus is portrayed as a bright, talented and playful man and loving son. It was the only scene in the whole movie which elicited any positive feedback from the audience (brief chuckles). The rest of the movie is so dreadfully, well, heavy, that sobs and quiet crying were the sounds heard most often in the theater. So, be prepared for that. This is not a “fun Saturday date movie.”
The acting was superb. The movie is subtitled, as has been mentioned, but the actors are able to emote so effectively, that the subtitles are almost unnecessary. The actors playing Pontius Pilate and Mary, Mother of Jesus give especially strong performances.
I have a degree in history from a liberal arts college run by the Benedictine Order of Catholics. Part of our required coursework included religious education classes, obviously. I took several that involved a historical treatment of the Four Gospels, which also dealt with the technical aspects of the crucifixion. This film is very close (though not perfect) to what I would consider “historical accuracy.” In an example of where he strays from strict accuracy, Mel Gibson obviously believes in the literal Biblical notion that Jesus was nailed to the cross via the palms of his hands (when Jesus appears to Thomas in the Bible, he encourages a “doubting Thomas” to place his fingers in the holes in Jesus’ “hands” though which the nails had been driven). In actual practice, the spike was driven into the arm, near the wrist, between the ulna and radius. But, I quibble. There is also a fantastic scene, which I won’t spoil, that I thought very ably demonstrated the “changing of the guard” aspect of the Messiah story. (You can PM me if you want to discuss it.)
I’m baffled by the inclusion of Satan as a character in the film. I though it was superfluous. I felt that its presence was demonstrated in the actions of those who sought Jesus’ arrest, tortured Him and crucified Him. Are we that unable to see evil when it presents itself in everyday life? Do we need the prompting of a black-clad demon to point it out to us? And, what if evil appears wearing a pretty face?
I’m not sure where those who pre-screened the film came up with their charges of “anti-Semitism.” I saw nothing of the sort in the film. I saw ass-covering politicians, power-hungry statists and bloodthirsty, overzealous government agents, but, hell, we have those among us even as I write this. Perhaps the arrow struck too close to home for some of those early reviewers.
Yes, there is graphic bloodletting in this film. But none more than in a typical slasher film (the original Nightmare on Elm Street comes to mind, as does Braveheart). I think the context of the violence is what shocks the senses. I also think that little old ladies, not normally exposed to this sort of in-your-face violence and expecting a “feel good“ movie about the Messiah, will have a negative experience at this film.
My experience was a positive one, however. In the end, I found myself thanking Him for going through all of that in my place.
