The Passion or The Last Temptation

[jadedeath]

Originally Posted by spolcyc

You call the Passion a snuff film, but you have no problem with The Midnight meat Train, Sin City, The Punisher or Friday The 13th.

The last couple of movies you mentioned don't try to hide that fact. The first one does, see the difference?

So do you have a problem with anything Mel Gibson or is it the movie, because I think some of the movies in your collection have more gore and are a lot more violent than the Passion. Just trying to figure out your argument. Maybe you're just trying to be funny or something.

I disagree, blood and gore getting splattered out of people that you can't actually see the strokes of the blade or the wounds on the victim {clearly anyway} in an environment in which you KNOW it's fake, is a totally different beast from a movie that folks brought their kids to see, just because they felt they HAD to see it.

Logan

[Beast]

Originally Posted by jadedeath

A totally different beast from a movie that folks brought their kids to see, just because they felt they HAD to see it.

Logan

*Just keeps his mouth shut about parents brainwashing their children*

[Pirate King]

Originally Posted by andyman1970

Neither. I find The Last Temptation to be sacrilegious and The Passion just didn't interest me, way to violent for a film about J.C. I would much rather see The Gospel of John or Jesus of Nazareth, two films that show the true Passion of Jesus Christ and how he lived as an example for the way we should lead our lives, released on Blu-ray.

Good examples. I also want to mention King of Kings (Hope it makes it to Blu someday) Then there are films that revolve around Jesus without Him being the main character like The Robe (Coming soon to Blu) and Ben Hur

[Ernest Rister]

Originally Posted by Beast

The Last Temptation of Christ. Because The Passion is a Snuff Film made by a Anti-Semite.

You do remember that Last Temptation was accused of anti-Semitism, too, right?

When the Last Temtpation debuted, it opened in four theaters in America, and I was there, in Austin, on opening day. I was there for the protests, and the people with their signs, waked right past them to see the film. Saw it twice in the cinema, saw it multiple times on home video, own it on DVD. Played the soundtrack endlessly.

I don't think either film is anti-semitic, I think certain people view the Christ story itself as an attack of Judaism, and any modern director who tries to tell that story in a serious and powerful way is going to be attacked as an anti-Semite. They accused Scorsese of anti-Semitism, and Gibson. Scorsese got it from all sides, the left and the right, while Gibson was celebrated by Christians and fiercely attacked from the left.

Which film is better? Well, Scorsese was working on a miniscule budget. The financing for the film had collapsed and it had to be radically rethought away from the epic Scorsese evisioned to a modest and small, intimate film. The fact it was made at all is amazing. Gibson, on the other hand, had ample resources, and his film brings the world to life in a way that recalls the best of historical cinema. People forget that Scorsese's Christ is every bit as blood-drenched and savaged and abused as Gibson's, we just don't see Dafoe receiving his wounds in real time. That's the difference.

[krazeyeyez]

i have not seen either yet but i am looking forward to checking out passion on blu soon! i in no way associate myself with any religion and instead consider myself to be spiritual, religulous was far more up my ally lol all though that turned out very disappointing imo if not good for a couple chuckles. But i have heard that passion is a pretty good flick and i really enjoyed apocolypto so im gonna have to give this one a rent soon.

[uziel5000]

I don't think you can compare both films. They are not even in the same category.

The Last Temptation is a work of fiction. A "what if". People (and many christian religions) were offended by it, which I don't understand because it was never meant to be viewed as fact. It's a great film, small budget and all.

The Passion on the other hand, is a pretty realistic depiction of what Jesus of Nazareth went through during his judgement, torture and crucifixion. It is af film that shows not only what Jesus went through, but what every condemmed to be crucified person went through at the time. Gibson showed the gore because thats just the way it was. He was unflinching. The result is a very powerful film.

As stated in previous posts, many feel that depicting the life of (or death) of Jesus can be viewed as anti-semitism because of how it went down (the Jewish priests sreaming "let his blood be on our hands" and so on) but that is simply stupid. Why would I blame Jews for something that happened 2000 years ago. Its as stupid as blaming Germans for what Hitler did in the 30's and 40's. Or Egypt for enslaving the people of Israel. It's in the past and done by specific persons. It has nothing to do with who they are as people.

Both films are awsome. They have to be viewed in the right context. I enjoy both but comparing them is like comparing The Matrix and No Country for Old Men. Apples and Oranges.

[jadedeath]

Originally Posted by uziel5000

The Passion on the other hand, is a pretty realistic depiction of what Jesus of Nazareth went through during his judgement, torture and crucifixion. It is af film that shows not only what Jesus went through, but what every condemmed to be crucified person went through at the time. Gibson showed the gore because thats just the way it was. He was unflinching. The result is a very powerful film.

I respectfully disagree.

The Passion should have something to do with it's title if it wanted to be powerful.

If I wanted to see someone getting his @$$ kicked for an hour, I'd watch the UFC.

If anyone were to make a movie called 'the passion' I'd lean it more towards the passion that they have for their teachings and showing some of the teachings themselves. Show actual passion. Passion does not equal pain and suffering.

Logan

[Bullseye]

Originally Posted by Beast

Or I'll just skip it entirely. If I want to watch a movie about torture, I'll toss in Saw.

Its obvious you don't have an interest in the film so why bother posting on the matter. If you hate Gibson so be it but the man makes great movies.

[Penitus]

Originally Posted by jadedeath

If anyone were to make a movie called 'the passion' I'd lean it more towards the passion that they have for their teachings and showing some of the teachings themselves. Show actual passion. Passion does not equal pain and suffering.

Or does it?

from wikipedia.com:
The Passion is the Christian theological term used for the events and suffering – physical, spiritual, and mental – of Jesus in the hours before and including his trial and execution by crucifixion. The etymological origins of the word lie in the Latin passus (stemming from pati, patior- "to suffer [to happen]", in the passive sense), and it first appears in second century Christian texts precisely to describe the travails and suffering of Jesus in this present context.

[kpkelley]

Originally Posted by Penitus

Or does it?

from wikipedia.com:
The Passion is the Christian theological term used for the events and suffering – physical, spiritual, and mental – of Jesus in the hours before and including his trial and execution by crucifixion. The etymological origins of the word lie in the Latin passus (stemming from pati, patior- "to suffer [to happen]", in the passive sense), and it first appears in second century Christian texts precisely to describe the travails and suffering of Jesus in this present context.

Similarly, La Passion de Jeanne D'Arc is about her trial and execution.

Of the two films, I like The Passion of the Christ more. That being said, my favorite JC movie is Jesus of Nazareth although I haven't seen The Gospel According to St. Matthew.

[bingtau]

Originally Posted by Bullseye

Its obvious you don't have an interest in the film so why bother posting on the matter. If you hate Gibson so be it but the man makes great movies.

Word, enough said, Mel is great director!

[Bullseye]

He has always had an element of gore in his movies as he has tried to make the film as believable as possible. There are horrific moments in Braveheart and Apocalypto just as there are horrific moments in Saving Private Ryan. Spielberg was not accused of making a snuff movie when he made SPR. He made a realistic movie about the horrors of war. Gibson has made a realistic movie about the last hours of Christ’s life. The moments in the movie between Jesus and Mary are very touching and balance the horrors of his torture and crucifixion.

[surfdude12]

this isn't even a comparision.

you can't make it.

last temptation is "not based on the gospels" (opening credits).

am i missing something??????????????

[Go Blue]

Originally Posted by surfdude12

this isn't even a comparision.

you can't make it.

last temptation is "not based on the gospels" (opening credits).

am i missing something??????????????

Agreed. I've seen both, and would go with Last Temptation hands down. I love the direction and different take they had in that movie.

[kpkelley]

Originally Posted by surfdude12

this isn't even a comparision.

you can't make it.

last temptation is "not based on the gospels" (opening credits).

am i missing something??????????????

No, you added your own assumption about what the OP was discussing. He was curious as to people's opinions on these films. He doesn't mention the Gospels anywhere in his orignal post.

Originally Posted by bingtau

Which film do you prefer. The Passion of The Christ or The Last Temptation of Christ? I think both films are very powerful and moving. I actually prefer The Last Temptation and hope that it gets a proper blu release on Criterion. A little more epic in scope and tells more of the story IMO. However I thought that James Caviesel was a better JC than Willem Dafoe. Not knocking Willem's performance.

[Gremal]

Originally Posted by Ernest Rider

You do remember that Last Temptation was accused of anti-Semitism, too, right?

Most of the accusations were that it was sacreligeous, not anti-semitic.

When the Last Temtpation debuted, it opened in four theaters in America, and I was there, in Austin, on opening day. I was there for the protests, and the people with their signs, waked right past them to see the film.

That's great, but what did the signs say? I doubt any of them had a thing to do with anti-semitism. Meanwhile, do you know what a sign put up on a church near Denver said shortly after Passion hit the theaters? http://www.thedenverchannel.com/news...95/detail.html

I don't think either film is anti-semitic, I think certain people view the Christ story itself as an attack of Judaism, and any modern director who tries to tell that story in a serious and powerful way is going to be attacked as an anti-Semite. They accused Scorsese of anti-Semitism, and Gibson. Scorsese got it from all sides, the left and the right, while Gibson was celebrated by Christians and fiercely attacked from the left.

Give me a break. Scorsese never blamed all war on Jews. Scorsese's father isn't a Holocaust denier and Scorsese never rejected the reforms of vatican II. Scorsese never went off on drunk anti-semitic tirades. Scorsese did not a have hooded satanic figure in his film mingling only among Jews, which is not supported in any story or book. Mel Gibson is guilty of all those things and clearly has anti-semitism in his bones, starting with prejudices and lies drilled into his head by his father.

Originally Posted by uziel5000

I don't think you can compare both films. They are not even in the same category. The Last Temptation is a work of fiction. A "what if". People (and many christian religions) were offended by it, which I don't understand because it was never meant to be viewed as fact. It's a great film, small budget and all.

While I don't care for either film, Kazantzakis is a very interesting writer and Last Temptation is an excellent novel. I still think this book can be made into a great movie in the right hands. Maybe even Scorsese should take another crack at it. His first attempt had the wrong cast and the studio support wasn't there.

The Passion on the other hand, is a pretty realistic depiction of what Jesus of Nazareth went through during his judgement, torture and crucifixion. It is af film that shows not only what Jesus went through, but what every condemmed to be crucified person went through at the time. Gibson showed the gore because thats just the way it was. He was unflinching. The result is a very powerful film.

While that may be the Christian view, there is little historical evidence to support it. The Romans crucified about 10,000 Jews after conquering Judea. They enslaved a million Jews, killed another million and sent yet another million into the diaspora. There are many movies that can be made based on "facts" from this era. Passion is based on the gospels, which are religious books, not historical or archeological books.

As stated in previous posts, many feel that depicting the life of (or death) of Jesus can be viewed as anti-semitism because of how it went down (the Jewish priests sreaming "let his blood be on our hands" and so on) but that is simply stupid. Why would I blame Jews for something that happened 2000 years ago. Its as stupid as blaming Germans for what Hitler did in the 30's and 40's. Or Egypt for enslaving the people of Israel. It's in the past and done by specific persons. It has nothing to do with who they are as people.

While I appreciate that, the fact remains that throughout the past 2,000 years Jews have been treated rather roughly by Christians because of the story of Christ and the "blood libel" affixed to Jews by Christians. This legacy was finally addressed after WWII by the Vatican which issued a set of reforms, absolving Jews of any blame in the death of Christ. Again, Mel Gibson and a growing number of Christians are rejecting those reforms and going back to the old ways. Which, as a Jew, I find disturbing. It is not only irresponsible but it is resulting in instances of violence. We need progress and we need to learn from the mistakes of the past.

[kpkelley]

Originally Posted by Gremal

Scorsese did not a have hooded satanic figure in his film mingling only among Jews

Nearly all the charcters in the film were Jewish, if he didn't have Satan mingling with jews, there woud be no one to mingle with.

Do you know who else was Jewish? Jesus.(My favorite defense to anti-semitic Christians, just watch them stutter.)

[jadedeath]

Originally Posted by Penitus

Or does it?

from wikipedia.com:
The Passion is the Christian theological term used for the events and suffering – physical, spiritual, and mental – of Jesus in the hours before and including his trial and execution by crucifixion. The etymological origins of the word lie in the Latin passus (stemming from pati, patior- "to suffer [to happen]", in the passive sense), and it first appears in second century Christian texts precisely to describe the travails and suffering of Jesus in this present context.

Got me there, I just take it as it's more up-to-date meaning.

You know the one without all the killing and stabbing, and flaying, and blood and gore.

Someone really should make the next Friday the 13th 'The Passion of Jason' just for kicks.

Logan

[quexos]

I'll say the Passion of Christ, cause I never saw The Last Temptation.
A good political movie The Passion was.

[Barnum]

There is a difference between gore for the heck of it and gore in reality. This time around the true events are depicted as they happened. It is called history.

Originally Posted by cynatnite

Last Temptation because Passion is more or less a gore fest. My mother wanted me to go with her and that was my impression of it. I'm not into gore movies.