Either a Freudian slip or he was being a jerk. :-\

I saw the movie.

I don't understand why the contraversy. It was pretty much all 'historically' correct. I dunno about the visions of satan/serpent or whatever, though - it just reminded me of Mini-me mixed with Gollum from LOTR :o

That aside, I thought the movie was very well put together. I'm extremely happy it wasn't a movie filled with famous actors/actresses as well as the fact that it was subtitled instead of Americanizing it with the English language.

I didn't like the fact that they still made Jesus white. Historically, he was of much darker complexion. Why people refuse to acknowledge this, I have no idea. But that's pretty much my only gripe about the movie.

It's a great movie to motivate discussion, whether you are a religious person or not.

You most definitely don't have to be a religious person to appreciate the heaviness of the film.

I thought it was one of the most amazing movies I have ever scene.

I saw it last night...

besides some of the inaccuracies in it it was pretty good... not somethin that I can see why folks would cry their eyes out over... maybe the over sensitive or overemotional.

but overall it was a good movie.

looks like shit, not interested.

What if it was directed by Chef Boyardee

I'm an Atheist but I'm really curious about this film and will probably check it out at some point. Guess I'll rent it.

I saw it and it was a really good movie... i dont know about anyone else but it made me think about some things in my life during the whole Jesus getting beat scene and the crucifixon scene... just knowing that he died for all of us... i dont know... if you havent seen it... go see it, its a really good movie...

and about the guy playing Jesus how he got struck by lightning after he accidently got whipped i guess he said some not very nice words... the dudes playing Jesus he shouldnt be swearing...but yeah he went threw alot... got whipped, struck by lightning and dislocated his shoulder... but it was all worth it...

The anti-Semitism claim lies on the part where Pilate asks the crowd will they take responsibility for Christ's death and (apparently unsubtitled in the film so as not to make it obvious) the Jewish crowd cry back with the infamous "let his blood be upon our children's heads" line. That line has been used for years as a reason to persecute and abuse Jewish people. It comes from only one gospel in the Bible, and only a hardcore Jew-hater like Gibson would think of putting it in there in a film that is supposedly historically accurate.

Gibson said he'd leave that part out too, but apparently he left it in but took away the subtitles. Thing is, people in certain parts of the world (Middle East, parts of Europe) will be well able to understand it, subtitles or not.

It's not out here yet, as far as I know.

Well ECG considering some hebrew guys where explaining that they couldn't translate the language from the movie very well, I'd say that's a stretch. Also because it only appears in one gospel why doesn't it have the right to be in his film. It's his money, his film, he can do as he pleases.

People seem to forget that Pilote did give the crowd the chance to set Jesus free. In fact before every cruxifiction he gave amnesty to one person, chosen by the people. Now I'm sure in hindsight the population would have spared Jesus over the fellow they did. Some footnote in history now. Someone that was a popular thief back then as I recall.

There were 4 gospels, if something only happens to appear in one of them, especially in one that is considered to have an anti-Jewish slant, it does not seem historically accurate.

Of course he can do what he pleases, did anyone say he couldn't? People are allowed to criticise a piece of work if they feel it is inflammatory or racist, also. Would you use the same excuse if a KKK member made a film consisting of racist propaganda dressed as historical fact? The fact is, he included a line that has been used for centuries as a crutch to beat the Jewish people with, when he said he wouldn't.

Also, the lines weren't spoken in Hebrew. They were uttered in Aramaic, from what I hear, which is still spoken in parts of the Middle East, including Syria which is none too fond of Israel.

He gave the crowd the option to pardon one prisoner, because it was the Passover. The rest of the gospels state that the people who plotted against Jesus Christ paid members of the crowd to lobby for the release of Barabbas the thief.

I'm not sure whether Gibson included this or not. If he didn't, but happened to leave in the "let his blood be upon the heads of our children" line, he would be wide open for criticism.

I know it was spoken in Aramaic, I should have pointed out this Hebrew fellow was a scholar of languages. The thing about the language used in this film is that it's a dead strain of the language. Also Arabs aren't Christians, at least not +99% of them. Jesus was a prophet not the son of god like the west implies.

This passage, I did not know. It would make some sence though...

...But I don't see it's significance it it was ommited however :?:

I haven't seen it yet, I'm going by summaries of the film I have heard, and one of them stated that this line would be well understood by people in certain parts of the Middle East.

Without getting too far away from the point, the fact that Gibson lied about not including this particular line, and that he belongs to a Catholic sect that rejects Vatican II (apologies made by the Vatican council to the Jewish people for not recognising the Holocaust and for anti-Semitic beliefs), it would seem as if the anti-Semitism accusation is at least partially valid.

The significance of any omission of the bribery of the Passover crowds is that it means Gibson is placing the blame wholly on the Jewish people, rather than a certain group of people who happened to be plotting against Jesus Christ.

Pontius Pilate was also not without blame in the whole incident, since he shouldn't really have been convicting Christ in the first place. Pilate was actually removed from his position by the Emporer of the time for being too brutal in his rule of the region, which says alot about the nature of the man since kindness has hardly been a virtue of Roman emporers chronicled in history.

It seems to me you're confusing the son with the father. Mel's dad is the nutter. Or is this guilt by association?
Pilates tyranny isn't what this movie was about. It was about the last 12 hours of Jesus.
Guilt by association again, when you state that ommiting the bribbery claim places the blame solely on all the Jews.
I know it's speculation on your part. That that is what you and perhaps others will interpret. I just don't.

Mel claims the Catholic church isn't 'Catholic enough' due to ceremonies not being performed in Latin. That's his beef with the church. Arrogance on his part, for sure. But hardly anti-semetic.

I'm pretty sure he's an admitted member of the Catholic sect that rejected Vatican II. I'm not mistaking him for his father, either. His father simply has no couth, Mel is alot more subtle about it.

Like the "alot of people died in the war, and I'm sure some of them were Jews" comment Mel made when asked about the Holocaust. It isn't an outright denial, but it's a diplomatic skirting of the issue. Being a part of a sect that rejects the notion of the Holocaust and blames the Jews for the death of Christ is anti-Semetic by very definition. Whether he comes out and says it or not, being part of a group confirms that he accepts those beliefs. That's what being part of a church or sect is.

This, allied with the leaving in of this contentious line (and it is extremely contentious), the portrayal of the Jewish people as a bloodthirsty crowd who wanted to murder Christ, rather than as a group manipulated in to solving a problem for a small group of powerful men is at the very least negligent film making. He says it is historically, factually accurate. You never know how many people will buy that because it is Mel Gibson saying it.

<font color=seablue><i>So I went to see the movie the other day, after being asked to join some friends.

I can't say I liked the movie, cause it is hard to like a movie that moves you in such a way as it did. Perhaps - thought provoking would be a better description.

And as an agnostic, those that are atheists should still see this movie. My friend is atheist and she was the one that told me I had to go and see it. She loved the movie and was crying during parts of it. I can see why because it is a very graphic and powerful film :y:</i></font>

I loved it. I can see where the anti-semitic stuff came from, but then there's a whole lot of Jewish people who helped Jesus out too, so it seems like a mixed bag to me.

Possible anti-semiticsm aside, this movie was an excellently made movie. I nearly passed out from crying so hard.

I dunno, I think I'll give this one a miss given Mel Gibson's apparent takes on history. I'd probably get lost when Jesus kicks the ass of twenty Roman centurions in Rome.

:lol:

I just saw this movie, got it free from work on DVD.

The whipping part was a little disturbing, made me cringe a little bit.

Other than that I think it was a fair depiction. :y:

It's basically a snuff film designed to make people feel bad about what happened to Jesus Christ and strengthen their religious beliefs.

Oh yeah, and so Mel Gibson could have another pool of money to sleep in.

I agree with the whole "snuff film" analogy. Honestly, the movie has nothing to do with Christ as Savior. It has everything to do with Christ as torture victim. If they had called the movie "The Passion of the Chris" and kept the entire film exactly the same, people wouldn't be calling it a classic.