I went to see The Passion of The Christ last night. I went by myself, which may not have been a good idea. Itís the kind of movie where you need to talk about it afterward. Lucky for me, I ran into some friends and we chatted over a pint. Mel Gibson did an amazing job telling this story through his use of symbolism and stellar cinematography.
As the whipping scene went on and on with gore, one older lady beside me remarked, ìThis is ridiculous.î Precisely. Scripture tells us that he was beaten beyond recognition, so Mel could have taken even more liberty in beating Jesus to a bloody pulp. I do believe the exposed rib cage was a nice touch.
What the hell was up with ìSatanísî disturbing little man-baby?! Kind of creepy if you ask me, but Iím guessing thatís the point. And the scene of Mary looking on to Jesus falling on the ground, and then flashing back to when he was little and falling down ñ the waterworks turned on for me as a Father myself, but Iíd think Mary would have become a little more hysterical at that point.
But never mind me. Iím not a particularly good critic. I tend to feel movies more than dissect them for there meaning, though this film wore itís meaning on the sleeve ñ Iím just so thankful that someone decided to tell it well, and not steer an agenda with slanted story telling. This film will certainly be known for itís accurate portrayal of Christ as well as its brutality.
I truly hope Mr. Gibson steps up and films the resurrection accounts. He stopped short of engaging the truly powerful side of Jesus by not diving head long into more of His acts of kindness and miracles, so to pick it back up with a sequel, ìThe Resurrection of The Christ,î would seem like a no brainer. Thatís where the real story of the Christian walk begins. Not left up on the cross.
Your thoughts?
As the whipping scene went on and on with gore, one older lady beside me remarked, ìThis is ridiculous.î Precisely. Scripture tells us that he was beaten beyond recognition, so Mel could have taken even more liberty in beating Jesus to a bloody pulp. I do believe the exposed rib cage was a nice touch.
What the hell was up with ìSatanísî disturbing little man-baby?! Kind of creepy if you ask me, but Iím guessing thatís the point. And the scene of Mary looking on to Jesus falling on the ground, and then flashing back to when he was little and falling down ñ the waterworks turned on for me as a Father myself, but Iíd think Mary would have become a little more hysterical at that point.
But never mind me. Iím not a particularly good critic. I tend to feel movies more than dissect them for there meaning, though this film wore itís meaning on the sleeve ñ Iím just so thankful that someone decided to tell it well, and not steer an agenda with slanted story telling. This film will certainly be known for itís accurate portrayal of Christ as well as its brutality.
I truly hope Mr. Gibson steps up and films the resurrection accounts. He stopped short of engaging the truly powerful side of Jesus by not diving head long into more of His acts of kindness and miracles, so to pick it back up with a sequel, ìThe Resurrection of The Christ,î would seem like a no brainer. Thatís where the real story of the Christian walk begins. Not left up on the cross.
Your thoughts?
