Mel Gibson and "The Passion of The Christ"

[Sleeper]

After reading many articles and seeing a number of interviews with Mel Gibson about his movie, I have realized why there are so many against Gibson and his movie.

It will inspire thought and will also inspire people to read the gospels. The secularists in this country don't want that at all. They are wanting this country to move away from Christianity not embrace it.

What are your thoughts on why the Mel Gibson is receiving such harsh criticism over "The Passion of The Christ"?

[adherent]

I encourage all people to go see the Passion of the Christ. It has a rather high percentage of conversion. And even if you don't feel a sudden urge to convert, you can perhaps gain some insight into Christianity.
I did cry at this movie ... it was heartbreaking when I saw what Jesus went through for us.

[Shild]

Then there were the things in the bible that made me realise why I never much liked that book. Like when a crow picks out the eye of the crucified man moments after Jesus pleads forgiveness for all.

The raven thing is not in the Bible. This event is pure Gibsonian embellishment.

I disliked this event as well as many other abuses in the movie. Don't get me wrong, I think it is very well done, and it accurately portrays the extent of Jesus' suffering as recorded in the Bible.

However, the use of the devil hurt the production at times. For example, the movie makes it seem like Judas was made to commit suicide by Satan, which devalues the feelings of shame Judas probably experienced, in my opinion.

Also, the disappearance of all Jesus' scars excepting the five stigmata wounds is not consistent with the scripture.

[NuclearTBag]

"Jesus was the greatest ad man in history"
I for got who said that but it's true Jesus does sell, religion is one of those things where a lot of people follow, so there's a God movie now, so a lot of christians went to see it, just as a lot of Jews went to see Schindlers List. But I don't see what the Passion proved, what you have the Tina Turner of saviors? All this movie was is a production aimed at group to make money, no more no less. I saw the movie, it wasn't that good, just another excuse to talk about invisible men in the sky in public.

[otseng]

All this movie was is a production aimed at group to make money, no more no less.

First off, are not all movies made with the purpose of making money? I don't see many people making movies to give them away.

Secondly, nobody believed this movie would make any money. It was only after the fact did people realize it would make money. Nobody wanted to finance the movie, so in order for it to be produced, Mel had to finance it itself out of his own pocket (which I'm sure he does not regret).

And from what I understand, the movie was a personal dream of Mel's to produce. It was more of a single man's drive to create, rather than a desire to please any particular group.

[NuclearTBag]

When I say, this movie was aimed at a certian group to make money, I wasn't critizing Gibson for using his faith to make money, I have no problem with that. On to the comment that no one thought this movie would make any money, there were a few hollywood insiders that thought that thismoviee would be the one to break Titanic's record with inflation, and Gone With the Wind's record without inflation. On to the reason why no one would fund this, there is no Hollywood production company that would produce this out of fear of Anti-Semitism, Since, well lets face it most movie executives are Jewish, not to offend any one, A lot of people feared that this movie may offend some jews. And yes Mel Gibson created this movie to further his riches, and force his views on to humanity, despite what he says in public.

[Illyricum]

And yes Mel Gibson created this movie to further his riches, and force his views on to humanity, despite what he says in public.

A matter of opinion.

[Corvus]

And yes Mel Gibson created this movie to further his riches, and force his views on to humanity, despite what he says in public.

Although I take issue with the way Jesus is made to bleed buckets of blood in exchange for viewers' horror and sympathy, I really don't think money was his main intent when he went so far as to have the dialogue entirely in Roman and Hebrew.

As for forcing his views on humanity, I fail to see how this is true. Simply because of the pervasive influence of the media? You could easily have followed my example and avoided everything in the newspaper except the international news and the letters to the editor. You could change the channel on your television too, and even if you are subjected to his views, it's entirely up to you whether you listen to them or not.

[Angry McFurious]

I think the movie should have showed more of the life of Jesus. Jesus wanted to show us how he lived, not how he dies (even though still important).

[Angry McFurious]

After reading many articles and seeing a number of interviews with Mel Gibson about his movie, I have realized why there are so many against Gibson and his movie.

It will inspire thought and will also inspire people to read the gospels. The secularists in this country don't want that at all. They are wanting this country to move away from Christianity not embrace it.

What are your thoughts on why the Mel Gibson is receiving such harsh criticism over "The Passion of The Christ"?

Yes cause there is nothing better than turning people into christians that through the guilt trip. I'd rather learn the lessons of the LIFE of christ on the big screen than watching a man beaten. Jesus wanted people to see how he lived so we could follow his example.

And people in hollywood are mad because mel didn;t get the memo. Jews run hollywood.

[turtleguy]

i saw it . i thought it was pretty graphic and brutal but still touching and moving