Looking at the Roman occupiers and the crowd of Jews who Mel Gibson shows, what do you think Jesus was to them? My guess is to the Romans he was a person stirring up rebellion, a possible figure for whom a temporal rebellion might rally behind. As an audience and as a viewer in that audience who is a believer, we have an advantage in knowing exactly how the most well known story in the western world comes out and what Jesus is supposed to represent. If you see the degradation that Jesus endured in other films, I don't believe the producers were at all squeamish in what they did, still a certain amount of decorum was observed. DeMille did with sex, Mel Gibson does with violence in his biblical story, the better to lure the customers in. So what Mel Gibson opted for was a cast of unknowns, though some like Jim Cavaziel and Monica Bellucci have certainly acquired a degree of fame since the film was released in 2004. With the collapse of the studio system, you couldn't do one like that today. I'm a sucker for star studded spectacles so I miss films like The Greatest Story Ever Told. The religious minded among us will see the film with any packaging as long as the basic message is not tampered with as The Last Temptation Of Christ did. with a bloody torture scene, the better to attract the audience which goes for that kind of thing. It replaces the reverential star studded stories of Jesus like The Greatest Story Ever Told and King Of Kings, etc. One reviewer is definitely right, The Passion Of The Christ is a movie unlike any other. Overall, maybe I need to see this film again, but I hated it and didn't see the point to it. The acting didn't fare much better either, Jesus was well portrayed but everyone else I couldn't give a tuppence about. Never once was I sympathetic or moved, any time I cried it was with disgust. The pace is meandering and slow, the dialogue aims to move and shock but does neither because it was so hackneyed and emotionally The Passion of the Christ is manipulative and perhaps hypocritical too. The story is never compelling either, it is very slow paced and is vastly overshadowed by the images every time it tries to get somewhere, while Gibson's direction is somewhat self-indulgent. I accept it was like that, but seriously some of it is sickening. But it is so brutal and sadistic in its violence I actually had to watch the film in chunks because of being sick in the toilet for what seemed like every twenty minutes. Granted, the cinematography and visuals are excellent and the score is great. Before I get flamed for this review, I really tried to like The Passion of the Christ.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. Archives
December 2022
Categories |