Incredible movie.

If Jim Caviezel, Mel Gibson, Monica Belucci, etc. get blackballed in Hollywood 'cause of it, it'll truly be a shame.

The last time a movie left me in such awe was over 10 years ago, when "Schindler's List" came out, and if it takes another 10 years for another such movie to impress me like those 2 did...so be it.

MKSECRETS Wrote: If Jim Caviezel, Mel Gibson, Monica Belucci, etc. get blackballed in Hollywood 'cause of it, it'll truly be a shame.

I never knew this, but Mel Gibson actually told Jim Caviezel 'If you take this role, you might never work in this town again.', but he still did it. I think it's safe to say a star was born.

blade-tsung Wrote: I never knew this, but Mel Gibson actually told Jim Caviezel 'If you take this role, you might never work in this town again.', but he still did it. I think it's safe to say a star was born.

I assumed as much, but when I read it in EW, it only confirmed it.

Excellent movie. It is exactly the same in the movie as the way it is written in The Bible.

This movie really did leave me in "awe"

Although I didn't watch it, I'm sure it was a great movie, even though the thought of jesus' crucifixion depresses me. But aside from that, seeing the ratings it got, It would have to be a good movie.

death

it was a very good movie. It was also horribly sad, I guarantee anybody of the Christian faith will cry when they see that movie.

I have not seen the movie. I have no beef with Mel Gibson, but I don't think he is brave for doing this movie. He made an easy choice to do it. My real beef is how the media reacts to this movie. Historically this movie is about as acurate as Gladiator. That's not to say it is a lie or misrepresents the truth, but its not based on any solid fondation.

Awesome movie. Very sad.

well im catholic (kind of) and the work is neat, the acting was really good and how close it is of what is written in the gospels it's very accurate, i dunno why ppl were so obnoxious about it, about that it's based on antisemitism feeling is very wrong, when ppl can differ when it's about religion and races it's when everything goes wrong, for example, here in MC (mex city) the movie got a mature rating (friggin extremists) and i mean the movie itself it's nothing but a vision of the story based on the bible i dunno ppl get fucked up, i think it's just a vision and it's not offending anyone, ill give it a 4 star (out of 5) on the freak scale.

I personally thought it was a great movie, it really let you connect with the people in the story. another great flick for mel

Here's a little bit of trivia that some of might not know about the movie. Jim Caviezel was struck by lightning in the filming of the movie, weird huh? I thought Jim Caviezel was excellent in the Count of Monte Cristo (he played Edmund Dantes). I haven't seen it yet but I plan to when it comes to DVD, thats what I did with Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon and it was better dubbed, if I wanted to read I'd read the book, what is it called again? Oh yeah The Bible.

mk_freak Wrote: here in MC (mex city) the movie got a mature rating

Here in Honduras, the movie has an "Above 12 years of age" rating, and I think it's totally wrong. The "R" rating is, IMO, well suited for what we see Christ go through.

And BAV, while it is your opinion (which I respect) that Gibson isn't "brave", I disagree. Like BT mentioned, Jim Kaviezel (and practically everybody involved with this film) risked the chance of losing their bankability by making it, and if it wasn't for Mel taking money out of his own wallet to make it, there's no studio out there who would've ponied up the cash to do so.

I know he did risk his career, and I actually respect that. But for him I don't think it was brave. That kind of conviction should almost be expected from people. Don't get me wrong, I don't think that takes away from his sacrafice, but I think this country needs a hero so bad we often use terms like hero, brave, evil, etc way too loosley thats all.

MKSECRETS Wrote: mk_freak Wrote: here in MC (mex city) the movie got a mature rating Here in Honduras, the movie has an "Above 12 years of age" rating, and I think it's totally wrong. The "R" rating is, IMO, well suited for what we see Christ go through. And BAV, while it is your opinion (which I respect) that Gibson isn't "brave", I disagree. Like BT mentioned, Jim Kaviezel (and practically everybody involved with this film) risked the chance of losing their bankability by making it, and if it wasn't for Mel taking money out of his own wallet to make it, there's no studio out there who would've ponied up the cash to do so.

Well, I have not seen it, but my issue is this. Being as it's a huge movie, if people pocket any money at all, to me its wrong. Capitalizing on Jesus and his story is terrible, and I'm agnostic. I dunno

ErmackDaddy Wrote: Well, I have not seen it, but my issue is this. Being as it's a huge movie, if people pocket any money at all, to me its wrong. Capitalizing on Jesus and his story is terrible, and I'm agnostic. I dunno

That's excusable, because until this movie was released, a lot of Christians really didn't understand the signicance of Christs Sacrafice, and how painful it truly was. I think this movie was a well-done wake-up call.

Really, the whole point of the movie was to show how much Jesus really loved us. I think a bit too many people are missing that point.

born-again-vampire Wrote: Don't get me wrong, I don't think that takes away from his sacrafice, but I think this country needs a hero so bad we often use terms like hero, brave, evil, etc way too loosley thats all.

NOW I get ya

I went and saw this movie and I just have to say that it was and is the best movie I have ever seen in my life. The cruxifiction part was the part that really got me. I hope that everybody will get a chance to see what happened to this innocent man O so many years ago. I'm also glad that I got to see it for myself.

It was average at best.

I'll watch it for the same reasons George Carlin will:

"I hear it's really violent, and I love my violence..."

I thought it was very good. Violence = cool. =D

It was OK. Jim Cavaziel was risking his career but really he's only starred in three major movies. He was excellent in Count of Monte Cristo, The Passion of the Christ & even J.LO couldn't make him look bad in Angel Eyes. I think this will be the start for him. They only said that he was risking his career because every actor that played Jesus never worked again since they played the ultimte part.

Willem DaFoe has been in several movies since "The Last Temptation of Christ", Spider-Man being the most recent (I think)...

The_Kosai Wrote: ...because every actor that played Jesus never worked again since they played the ultim(a)te part.

TemperaryUserName Wrote: ErmackDaddy Wrote: Well, I have not seen it, but my issue is this. Being as it's a huge movie, if people pocket any money at all, to me its wrong. Capitalizing on Jesus and his story is terrible, and I'm agnostic. I dunno That's excusable, because until this movie was released, a lot of Christians really didn't understand the signicance of Christs Sacrafice, and how painful it truly was. I think this movie was a well-done wake-up call. Really, the whole point of the movie was to show how much Jesus really loved us. I think a bit too many people are missing that point.

Yes, but all the more reason to get the message across without having to make Corporations money that should go to support churches. Mel spent 30 million dollars on the movie, which is nothing compared to the fact that this is reaching alot of people and opening eyes. Thats priceless. I just don't agree with the greed of it.

With the exception of Willem Dafoe
Most recently in Once Upon A Time In Mexico