xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Backing up just a bit. I bought "The Passion of the Christ" because I wanted to be able to watch it without having to listen to comments of other theatre goers. I am so sorry I spent that money and contributed to lining the pockets of Mel Gibson.

That movie should be just what TOM suggested it should be, rated XXX!!! That was the most disgusting display of gratutious violence I have ever experienced. It was dispicable. There was scene after scene of flesh flying everywhere from the whips. If a man were to be whipped and beaten the way that Jesus was in that movie, he would never have made it to the mountain to be nailed to the Cross. NEVER!

It reminded me of some of the Sam Peckinpah movies where people were shot 50 times and got up to shoot back some more. There was more bloodshed from one man than a man has blood in his entire body.

Lets face it. That crap sells tickets. If it didn't, why would movie makers depict violence that way?

I am sure that many fanatical Christians were inwardly pleased to see Jesus treated that way in the movie. Somehow they hoped it would make non-believers feel guilty. I am sure there were more reasons why extremeists enjoyed that movie. I think that God would be completely disgusted by it and ashamed of Mel Gibson for using the story of Jesus to sell tickets by showing that kind of gore. He's obviously done it to make money and to shock and shame people. It was utterly revolting.

My friend used that famous, "I never knew Jesus suffered so much for us" line and I replied, "With the biggest crucifix in the world around your neck, that is so big that you can see the spikes in Jesus, you know how much he suffered every time you comb your hair".

He didn't talk to me for over a week and when he did he asked, "do you think this cross is over the top?"

He had it specially made a fews years ago. It cost thousands of dollars and reminds me of something from an early Madonna video.

Backing up just a bit. I bought "The Passion of the Christ" because I wanted to be able to watch it without having to listen to comments of other theatre goers. I am so sorry I spent that money and contributed to lining the pockets of Mel Gibson.

You should have been like Kenny and Stan, and gone to Mel Gibson's home to get your money back.

:heh: :heh: :heh: :heh: :heh: Yeah, Tom!

There was no need for the bloodshed. It was desensitizing and revolting. It didn't highlight the love Jesus had for us.

Kida off topic, but this is the exact reason I didn't and never will see that movie. As a Christian since I was about 8, I GET that he sacrificed. But why so much gore???

Don't you think that Mel Gibson knows what sells. He knows all about Christian guilt. A lot of people feel they need to be reminded about their sins and the pain that Jesus suffered for them. This movie was a home run in that department. They like to be shown that it all works out for them. They sin, Jesus died for their sins, they believe that He did, and so even though they are sinners, perhaps even committed some unspeakable sins, they will go to heaven.

Backing up just a bit. I bought "The Passion of the Christ" because I wanted to be able to watch it without having to listen to comments of other theatre goers. I am so sorry I spent that money and contributed to lining the pockets of Mel Gibson.

That movie should be just what TOM suggested it should be, rated XXX!!! That was the most disgusting display of gratutious violence I have ever experienced. It was dispicable. There was scene after scene of flesh flying everywhere from the whips. If a man were to be whipped and beaten the way that Jesus was in that movie, he would never have made it to the mountain to be nailed to the Cross. NEVER!

It reminded me of some of the Sam Peckinpah movies where people were shot 50 times and got up to shoot back some more. There was more bloodshed from one man than a man has blood in his entire body.

Lets face it. That crap sells tickets. If it didn't, why would movie makers depict violence that way?

I am sure that many fanatical Christians were inwardly pleased to see Jesus treated that way in the movie. Somehow they hoped it would make non-believers feel guilty. I am sure there were more reasons why extremeists enjoyed that movie. I think that God would be completely disgusted by it and ashamed of Mel Gibson for using the story of Jesus to sell tickets by showing that kind of gore. He's obviously done it to make money and to shock and shame people. It was utterly revolting.

Green didn't see the movie because she already knows how the story ends. :rolleyes And Smell Gibson is a disgusting anti-Semite!:girl_hug:

Never saw it but Mel Gibson is scary.

From what I have read that movie was in the way of being a religious snuff flick....

I too, think some of the scenes could have been less violent. I cringed many times and it broke my heart to try to even fathom what Christ suffered. Mel attempted to bring that home, in the same way He made Braveheart as violent as it was. Because he has said many times he wants his movies to be as true to life as possible. So people get parts cut off in battle and blood does splash. Maybe it's too real for our sensitivities, but it is real nonetheless.

I bought the Passion of Christ, but haven't watched it. Because of the violence. I got just a little way through Braveheart and had to leave the room.

I know that Christ suffered. I know that battles are horrible and bloody. I just don't need to see it on a screen, esp. as "entertainment". Just like I know rape happens, but I don't want to see it graphically/realisticly protrayed on a screen either.

I'm not saying Mel was right or wrong, just how I feel about it.

I very much appreciated reading your thoughtful answer to my rather flip comment, leatha. It is always a wonderful thing to hear another's point of view. Thank you for your reply.

I still must admit to having an antipathy for Gibson as an individual and this has to do with his stated anti-Semitism of course. This is a sore point with me: my father's side of the family is Jewish and most of them perished in the Holocaust.

Realism is one thing... extremism for the sake of shock value is another. I know that Jesus was beaten and whipped and ridiculed. I do not believe that he would have survived some of the graphic, flesh flying events portrayed in Gibson's film long enough to be nailed to the cross.

It is not surprising that Mel Gibson has demons so prevelant in his psyche that they have driven him to drink and exhibit other manic behavior in public. He seems to be a pretty twisted individual.

speaking of "acceptable" bigotry

I am hearing impaired but I can speak just fine, 99% of the time unless I bring it to light most people do not even notice that I wear hearing aids.

I have been turned away for so many jobs, dates, etc. because of these things in my ears.

Brave Heart was a great movie but to say is was an accurate depiction of an historical event is incorrect. Brave Heart is at best a sensationalized version of a specific period in Anglo/Scotish History with a whole lot of gratuitus violence thrown in to sell it to the movie going public of the day.

Don't get me wrong, I loved it but as a student of History I would be remiss if I did not point out how incredibly inacurrate it is not only in it's interpretation of history but also it's depiction of the battle scenes.

Mel Gibson is a profit driven movie maker, end of story.

As far as acceptable bigotry, I believe there is no such thing. There is however a need for people to be able to disagree with Intolerance, Racism, Hatred, Sexism et al.

So if you are Gay and you espouse intolerance I am able to say that you are intolerant. Likewise if you are a fundamentalist Christian and you are intolerant it is acceptable for me to call you intolerant.

Maybe the Christian right should stop being so intolerant and then there would be less people calling them those names.

Just a thought