The Passion of the Christ (Widescreen Edition) | James Caviezel, Maia Morgenstern

The Passion of the Christ (Widescreen Edition) | James Caviezel, Maia Morgenstern | The Great Love Story

DVDs:

The Passion of the...

	The Passion of the Christ (Widescreen Edition) James Caviezel, Maia Morgenstern 20th Century Fox, 2004 average customer review:based on 1995 reviews view larger image
	for more information click here

highly recommended

Exceptional

An exceptional achievement by its emotion and spiritual depth. The only regret, not minor for a Christian is that the resurrection of Christ, commencement of the Faith, is only too quickly raised. Without the Resurrection, the mystery of the Passion does not make sense.

The Great Love Story

The Passion of the Christ is the greatest and most important story in the history of the universe. I have owned it since the DVD was first released. I recently bought it for the second time since I loaned my first one out and it has stayed in circulation. It is my belief that everyone should watch this at least once a year for life. No matter how many times I watch it, I'll never know how much it cost to see my sin upon that cross.

for more information click here

A powerful revelation

I saw this movie and I was blown away. While I can understand the controversy, I never fully understood just what Jesus did for us until I saw this film. This was truly a great man. As a bible belt resident who spent 18 years in Sunday School, I already knew about Jesus dying for our sins so that we may enjoy eternal life, so I was not too impressed with this part of the story, no, what amaazed me was that Jesus was the inventor of the modern table. I have read the new testament and never knew that Jesus first had the idea for the modern table. I have two bad knees, so this really raised my opinion of Jesus. Eternal salvation is great, but not having to kneel down when i eat, wow, now that's something to worship a man over. Also I would like to thank the good people at AMC Theatres for reminding me that nothing goes better with incredibly graphic images of our Lord being crucified than popcorn, Diet Coke, and some penut butter M&Ms.

for more information click here

the scourging alone would have killed him

This is a good film which closely follows the testimony of the New Testament Gospels. The filming is graphic and detailed and the decision to have people speak in their original languages was very intelligent. The film has been accused of being antisemitic--partly because of Gibson's escapades-but I don't see it. It is no more antisemitic than the Gospels, themselves. Yes, I think it can be argued that the Gospels show an anti-Pharasee bias--make that an anti-establishment bias--but they can't be antisemitic. The early Christians, precisely the ones who wrote the New Testament, were all Jews. It is hardly credible that they were antisemites. They were, however, members of a new wave of Judaism, a wave that witnessed the destruction of Jerusalem and the razing of Herod's Temple. They didn't like the Temple Establishment and their writings show it, sometimes even glossing over the Roman responsibility for Jesus' crucifixion.

The film is both detailed and excruciating. It emphasizes Jesus' suffering for mankind. It's difficult to 'overdo' something as hideous as death by crucifixion but I think the directors come close. The scourging is overdone to the point of unbelievability. It goes on far too long and is laid on with too much force. The scourging of the type depicted may have killed a man without the necessity of a cross. Of a near absolute certainty, a man so scourged would never be able to pull--even with help--the cross up to the hill of Golgotha.

Other than that I have only one other technical comment and that involves the cross, itself. The cross has become the living symbol of many Christian faiths but many people believe that there was never a cross. There is evidence that, in some places, the uprights were always kept in place on the execution ground. The condemned man carried the crosspiece on his shoulder to the place of execution.

In A.D. 70, Jerusalem fell to a Roman army and thousands were crucified around its walls. It seems highly unlikely that full crosses were used in the executions.

Ron Braithwaite author of novels--"Skull Rack" and "Hummingbird God"--on the Spanish Conquest of Mexico

for more information click here

Preaching to the converted

The other night, I went to see Mel Gibson's "The Passion of the Christ" again. I must admit I didn't like it any better this time. I thought that, on second viewing, the movie would just fly by, as so often happens when you resee a film. On the contrary, I found it long and, at one point, I actually started nodding off. (Not during the flogging scene, I can assure you of that. I felt more distant and remote then, less viscerally affected by the violence.) While I didn't like "The Passion" any better, I did come away with a greater understanding of the imagery Gibson uses -- more specifically, its roots in scripture. For instance, I realized that he was portraying Judas as mad -- possessed, in fact -- based on the gospel verse that says, "The devil entered into him." At the beginning, when Jesus steps on the serpent and kills it, that echoes a verse in Genesis: "He shall crush thy head, and thou shalt lie in wait for his heel." This verse has traditionally been seen as God's promise of a Redeemer for a fallen humanity. The problem is, how many moviegoers today will be aware of these biblical references -- even Christians? Gibson's film is obviously a testament to his own faith. But he has made the assumption that everybody else shares that belief, and has thus made a film that, in effect, preaches to the converted. What about those who do not believe, or who simply do not know about Jesus? Gibson's "Passion" will not reach them because it does not speak, does not even try to speak, their language. The other problem is that Gibson's version of the death of Christ is a hodge-podge of biblical influences, popular piety and his own idiosyncratic touches. Jesus's trek along the Via Dolorosa reflects, not the gospels, but the Stations of the Cross you find in every Catholic church. Many of the 15 stations portray events not mentioned in the gospels. Again, how many people in the audience will be able to separate fact from fiction? One final note: "The Passion" has been accused of fostering anti-Semitism, yet it tells the story of One who was Himself a Jew. More than that, His death took place against the backdrop of one of the holiest days of the Jewish calendar, Passover. When Mary says, "Why is this night different from all other nights?" she echoes the question asked by the youngest male member of every observant Jewish family on Passover night. And Jesus's Last Supper was a Passover meal. This is hinted at, but not fully brought out in the film. In short, Gibson takes too much for granted, assumes that his audience shares his knowledge of the Christian faith -- and misses a golden opportunity to explain that faith to others.

for more information click here