← Back to Reviews
in
Day 148: September 25th , 2010
The Passion of the Christ
By his wounds, we were healed.
Passion of the Christ is a grueling experience. I saw this in theatres and while I did not faint or find it extreme, there were points that had me closing my eyes. Mel Gibson goes a little bit over the top in these scenes, such as the eye pluck and the skin ripping, but the message he wanted to deliver is still clear. Christ suffered for our sins. I don't want to bring religious beliefs into this review, so I'll just steer clear of that stuff.
A lot of people complained that the film was too violent and had no meaning behind it. It was a film about his crucifixion, I don't really see what else people expected. Those knowing the story, knew what was going to happen. They might not have expected the amount of bloodshed that appeared, but the story is still there.
I was impressed that Gibson decided to have the film not be in english, instead he opted for subtitles. A film that was geared towards a specific audience, not in english? A big gamble, especially in 2004. Yet it paid off. The film felt more 'true' to the life of Jesus, not being in English. Going with a relatively unknown actor (at the time) for Jesus was also a smart idea.
Indeed a powerful film, with performances that ring true. Say what you want about Mel Gibson as a person, but the man is talented behind the camera. The troubles the film went through while filming are interesting. Caviezel getting struck by lightning, separating his shoulder and getting whipped. An AD was struck by lightning twice as well. Did God approve or disapprove of the film?
The Passion of the Christ
By his wounds, we were healed.
Passion of the Christ is a grueling experience. I saw this in theatres and while I did not faint or find it extreme, there were points that had me closing my eyes. Mel Gibson goes a little bit over the top in these scenes, such as the eye pluck and the skin ripping, but the message he wanted to deliver is still clear. Christ suffered for our sins. I don't want to bring religious beliefs into this review, so I'll just steer clear of that stuff.
A lot of people complained that the film was too violent and had no meaning behind it. It was a film about his crucifixion, I don't really see what else people expected. Those knowing the story, knew what was going to happen. They might not have expected the amount of bloodshed that appeared, but the story is still there.
I was impressed that Gibson decided to have the film not be in english, instead he opted for subtitles. A film that was geared towards a specific audience, not in english? A big gamble, especially in 2004. Yet it paid off. The film felt more 'true' to the life of Jesus, not being in English. Going with a relatively unknown actor (at the time) for Jesus was also a smart idea.
Indeed a powerful film, with performances that ring true. Say what you want about Mel Gibson as a person, but the man is talented behind the camera. The troubles the film went through while filming are interesting. Caviezel getting struck by lightning, separating his shoulder and getting whipped. An AD was struck by lightning twice as well. Did God approve or disapprove of the film?