|
|
Post by ducky112 on Feb 28, 2004 9:11:21 GMT -5
ok. i was just saying that because thats not the only review like that. where i live, the critics said that the moral content was questionable....how in the world did they come up with that? Others said that Mel added "demon possessed childen" if you watched the movie, you could clearly see that it wa Judas' immagination! I just dont understand where theyre coming from!
|
|
|
|
Post by Celinra on Feb 28, 2004 19:09:21 GMT -5
I get to see it tomorrow (with my parents and my Kung Fu teacher and his wife). I'm very excited. Swans, after I see it, I'll try to help you figure out what they were doing with the part you explained (with the deformed baby). I found this interesting: www.imdb.com/title/tt0335345/triviaI especially like the thing about how it's Mel Gibson nailing him to the cross... |
|
|
|
Post by Brian on Feb 29, 2004 13:43:41 GMT -5
First and foremost, I haven't seen it and I don't plan to until much later, if at all. I don't take violence well, I even freaked a little bit with The Pianist (one of the best movies out there, by the way). And also, for those that don't know this, I'm Jewish.
From what I've heard, the movie isn't anti-Semetic. It is Biblically accurate. My concern is that rural, uneducated Christians will interpret it differently than they should. Not everyone is as wise as the people on this board!
Oh, and for another movie that represents Biblical times accurately, try Monty Python's Life of Brian.
Just kidding.
But see it anyway. It's pretty dern funny.
|
|
|
|
Post by Celinra on Feb 29, 2004 22:11:59 GMT -5
If you don't handle violence well, don't see this movie, it is rather gross.
I thought it was an excellent movie. It makes you really think about what Jesus went through to die for people's sins.
The demon guy was creepy, which added a good element, what with him walking through crowds and whatnot. I still don't know what was up with the baby-ish thing (my parents suspect it was another demon, but they don't see the point of it either).
I also must rant about the fact that Mary Magdalene was not the adulterous woman, she was a woman who had been demon-possessed and Jesus sent them out of her. Also, she was also more likely around the age of Jesus' mother Mary (I learned this from 'Mad Mary,' by Liz Curtis Higgs, who is a very good author).
I think the snake was a burmese python (I held one once, and I have a picture, too, but that's irrelevent), it was an albino... come to think of it, this whole paragraph is irrelevent, but I like snakes, so... yeah.
|
|
|
|
Post by ŘỠßëřŦ on Feb 29, 2004 22:14:27 GMT -5
It's a very gory movie. it's WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAY to intense for a goody-goody like me.  |
|
|
|
Post by Nate2632 on Feb 29, 2004 22:26:34 GMT -5
I just saw this movie with my curch, and i must say, it was very emotional. I cried at least 5 times, because it was so strong. This is a very very good film. The "actress" that plays Satan, did a tremendous job. I would never have thought of Satan looking that way (batter than horns and a pitch fork).
|
|
|
|
Post by Celinra on Feb 29, 2004 22:55:39 GMT -5
Actually, I was kinda thinking Antichrist... especially looking at Revelation, and how both sides have their own trinity: The head (God the Father, and Satan), the incarnation (Jesus and the Antichrist), and the 'helper' (the Holy Spirit, and the False Prophet who will spread propaganda about the Antichrist). So looking at it that way, it could be the Antichrist, and a way of saying, 'look, people will be misled by this despite what you're doing'... or something to that effect.
*is very tired, so is hoping she makes sense*
|
|
|
|
Post by ŘỠßëřŦ on Feb 29, 2004 23:40:57 GMT -5
I'm sorry, swans, I feel I cannot agree with your theory.  |
|
|
|
Post by ŘỠßëřŦ on Mar 1, 2004 0:29:18 GMT -5
OMG that freaked the f**k out of me. I don't know I disagree with you, I just do.
|
|
|
|
Post by Amphagorey on Mar 1, 2004 0:32:16 GMT -5
It looks like a load of crap to me. And not because I'm a bitter child, only because it seems so over done. Man, Jesus wasn't even a real person. Jeez.
|
|
|
|
Post by ŘỠßëřŦ on Mar 1, 2004 0:44:41 GMT -5
I'm not trying to dis your beliefs, but SHUT UP! There's more evidence than you can imagine proving that Jesus was in fact a REAL person and was REALLY crucified. What's the point in posting in this thread if you don't believe?
|
|
|
|
Post by BSam on Mar 1, 2004 6:43:38 GMT -5
I'm not trying to dis your beliefs, but SHUT UP! There's more evidence than you can imagine proving that Jesus was in fact a REAL person and was REALLY crucified. What's the point in posting in this thread if you don't believe? show us some of the evidence... please... |
|
|
|
Post by Rikku on Mar 1, 2004 15:41:57 GMT -5
I will choose not to comment on what Pinstripe said.
anyway, yes, i really want to see the movie. I hope to soon. My friend Lauren saw it and she said it was pretty good.
In my opinion, the whole thing about people saying it's anti-semetic is a load of BS.
|
|
|
|
Post by BSam on Mar 1, 2004 16:07:34 GMT -5
Well, actually there is evidence to support that Jesus was a real person however people who have found such evidence usually claim that yes there was Jewish carpenter named Jesus but they still don't believe in the miracles He performed or that He is the Son of God. Even if you do regard Jesus as a fictional story to say it is a load of crap just because Jesus isn't real, c'mon? You're on a website that obsesses over fictional stories (ASOUE). You're into LOTR.. I don't think it is a load of crap to go see a movie even if you think of it as fiction because that's basically what all movies/stories are. Anyways, as for evidence.. www.facingthechallenge.org/real.htmwww.jesus-messiah.com/studies/history.htmlthanks for providing some evidence, i might give it a look later when my brain is working... |
|
|
|
Post by Brian on Mar 1, 2004 17:07:06 GMT -5
As I said before, it's not that the movie is anti-Semetic, it's that some people will choose to interpret it that way. I don't think it is, from what I've heard of it. I haven't seen it. Not all people correctly interpret philosophical and religious art like this.
|
|
