The Breakfast.info
General Discussions => Inner Glimpse => Topic started by: Yoda on March 01, 2004, 10:16:22 am
-
Did anyone else on the board see this movie. I tried to get tickets for this on Ash Wednesday, but it was near impossible. I got tickets for my fiance and I to see it Friday night.
Pre-Show
What is it with movie theatres and mobile consession stands. If you want some popcorn and a soda, get off your ass and go to the stand. They had 3 carts walking around like it was a baseball game, and all while the trailers were playing. I got in an argument with one of the guys because I wanted to watch the trailers and not hear if he did or did not have Diet Cherry Coke. But I digress.
The Movie
I thought that this was one of the best movies I\'ve seen in a long time, if not ever. And I have to say that I did not get any anti-semetic tones from it as some of the critics were pointing out. Most of the controversial moments were taken verbatim out of the Gospels. This movie was not for the weak stomach. This was probably the bloodiest and most violent movie I\'ve ever seen. It makes movies like Braveheart and Saving Private Ryan look like a disney flick. And the fact that the movie was in Aramaic, Latin and Hebrew, to me, made the movie more effective, more literal.
But I think that it was a great experience overall. I can\'t say that I enjoyed the movie, because how can you take enjoyment of someone being pyhsically abused for two hours. But it was moviing and powerful and people are definitely expressing that with $117 million at the box office in 3 days and 1 night.
Anyone have any thoughts?
-
i\'m gonna catch it next weekend, but just saw a commercial for "History vs. Holywood: The Passion of the Christ" tonight on History channel at 11pm. The history vs. Hollywood series takes movies and shows what really happened and what the movies got wrong/right.
an example: passion shows the nail going through palm of his hands to hold him on the cross, and it is known that this didnt happen. All roman crusifictions put the nail through the wrist between the two main bones. This way, the weight of the body rests on the wrist bones, which were strong enough to hold the body up. Putting the nail through the palm would have caused the body to fall off of the cross becasue the bodys weight would have ripped the hands appart.
-
Paul,
From what I\'ve read, normally arms were tied with just rope and there was a platform of some sorts under the legs because if the arms were hanging and the weight of the body was pulling down for any amount of time, it would cause a quick and timely death via axficiation (spelling) and the person would die. That is why a person could live on the cross for several days, slowly dying. If they were lucky, their legs would be broken so that there was nothing to sustain them and death would be quick.
Here are some intersting reads if you want to check out some controversial views.
Holy Blood, Holy Grail - Discusses the fact that Jesus may not have died on the cross and that he was in fact married to Mary Magdalene. There is some history that points to the fact that Mary was not a prositute and that her family was royal, descending from the tribe of Benjamin (which I belive was the tribe in which Soloman was from). It is suggested that they had a child, who by birth right could sit on the thrown of Jerusalem, since Mary was of the tribe of Benjamin and Jesus was a direct descendent of David.
The Gospel of Mary Magdalene - I haven\'t read this one yet, but have it in the collection of books to be read. This was part of the Gnostic Gospels that were found in the Dead Sea Scrolls. Supposedly there were over 30 gospels writting at one point.
Food for thought
-
GREAT MOVIE.......
Realistic
Great Drama
And I loved the Evilness and demons that were present....
Mel Gibson is an amazing film maker...
It\'s just a movie.....A story being told......and it did just that....
I dont see where there should be any controversy coming off of this, but I guess that people arent happy unless they have something to bitch about....Janets tit, Mel Gibson is an Anti-Semite, etc......
-
i heard that if you aren\'t of christian upbringing that you don\'t get it as much and that if it is just that a movie there is no back story to it
-
I\'m not sure if I buy that. Yes, it might have a deeper meaning to people who were raised Catholic / Christian, but I think that the message is quite clear. Mel Gibson was trying to get across to the general public the abuse, pain and suffering that this man went through for all man kind (depending on your beliefs. This movie is not strictly for Catholics / Christians.
-
It is not strictly for Christains....no, but if you were raised in the gulit smothering catholic religion, then you know the story, and if you know the story then you can easily relate and understand it..........and feel more guilty about Christ\'s suffering for "our" sins....
-
For a point of reference, I was raised Catholic, and now I don\'t really practice any religion. I\'ve decided to learn what I can about different religions and figure out what I believe for myself.
I was floored by this film. When it ended, I sat silently through the credits, and then for a few minutes afterwards. While I\'m sure that one\'s faith would change one\'s take on the film, whether these events are true, exaggerated, or completely false doesn\'t matter to me. Amazing.
I am getting annoyed by the reviews I have read of this film. People are complaining that it\'s too violent. First of all, it is a story about somebody being crucified. I don\'t think we should be expected Julia Roberts and Hugh Grant in a romantic comedy. Second of all, the second word of the title means SUFFERING. Thus, The Passion of the Christ means The Suffering of the Christ. Jesus suffered. It\'s a fact that most religious groups and historians agree on. Regardless of whether or not the man is the son of God, he suffered tremendously. He was beaten and then crucified. Not to mention that it is rated R for "sequences of graphic violence". Deal with it or don\'t see it.
And as far as the anti-Semmetism, I don\'t see it. The Jews (in the movie) wanted to kill Jesus, and the Romans (in the movie) wanted to kill Jesus. Where is the distinction?
My recommendation: Check everything you have heard at the door, don\'t bring young children or those easily disturbed, shut off your cell phone , and see this film ASAP.
-
though i\'m not too interested in seeing this movie, even with all the hype, i grabbed it today and will prolly watch it at some point this weekend..
-
Peck, I am assuming that you grabbed a pirated copy of the movie..... If that is, indeed, the case, I am horribly disappointed in you....
-
heh.. sorry to disappoint you, steve-o, but it\'s the only way i\'ll give it a shot.. but if i like it, i\'d surely pick up the dvd, and probably go see it in the theatre too..
-
Man....that is rough.....Fairfield County has great matinee deals on movies before 5pm....
For all you have done to preserve the "property" of PB, I am shocked that you would be down with anything pirated....
This movie is so full of visual and audio flavor, you are doing yourself a bigger injustice by watching some bootleg crap version....
Now I dont want to go off on a rant here, cause I dont necessarily live by and withing all Laws.....but when it comes to art, and artistic visions, wouldn\'t you be doing yourself a favor, by seeing the picture the way the director intended it to be seen?
If you can go through your sacraments, especially communion > confirmation, you can cough up the scratch to go see this in the theatre....
-
I\'d throw down a couple bucks for a copy of the flick.
Steve,
I disagree with you on pirated stuff. I get agravated when I see commercials with some LOTR characters and others saying that it is talking money away from them and from the industry when they themselves are making a load of money to do something that they enjoy. Maybe not for this movie since it was done on such a small budget, but I think it\'s time for actors to stop playing the poverty card unless they themselves are making scale wages.
I personally just got a copy of ROTK and Big Fish (both movies that I payed $9.00 to see) because I don\'t feel like waiting 6 months or paying another $9.00 to see it again. That\'s just my personal preference.
-
Its not the actors....Its the small people who work behind the scenes that are getting the royal screw job....who dont make the big hollywood dollars.......
Not to mentinon the quality...
To each his own....is fair indeed.
-
steve-o - i agree with you more than you know..
i\'m not your normal pirate. sure, i have access to pirate every movie known to man, but i don\'t. tPotC is a film that i really have no interest in seeing, other than for the hype-factor. awe-inspiring visuals and sound effects, while good, do not sell me on a movie. content does. as i said, if i\'m pleased with the content of this movie, i will gladly go see it in the theatre, AND buy the dvd (though it\'s likely that i\'ll buy the dvd anyways - those who have seen my collection know this). by the same token, if i don\'t like the content, and find out 45 minutes into the movie that it\'s not for me, i like having the option of turning it off, and rewatching season 4 of the sopranos in preparation for the premiere of season 5 this sunday. ;)
grand theft auto 3: playstation2 - hadn\'t played video games in a while. heard a lot of hype about this game. downloaded it, played it for 2 days straight, loved it. went out the next day and dropped my $50 on it. since then, i\'ve bought GTA3 for xbox as well, plus GTA: Vice City for ps2 and xbox. all this would not have been done if i hadn\'t originally downloaded the game. i loved it, and i supported it.
LOTR:TTT - i had a crystal clear 5.1 screener DVD a week after it came out in theatres. i saw it in the theatre twice, bought the 2-disc dvd in august, and the 5-disc collector\'s gift set in november. sure, i\'m a big LOTR fan, but still.. i didn\'t settle on the screener dvd, i bought the real thing when it became available..
-
I figured that was the case.......
just keepin the jewish carpenter thread alive....
-
Richness & wealth are relative things. Why should an actor work for $10 mil on a film when they could make $20mil? Sure, to you & me, $10mil sounds like all the money in the world... BUT to a high profile actor it\'s a week\'s pay.
Regardless of how much they are paid for a working on a movie, if royalties are part of their deal, they have every right to bitch, moan, and sue your ass for pirating their work.
There is a reason these people make as much money as they do.... they\'re good! If you think you can act as good as they do, move to L.A. & be the next mega star.
People need to stop playa-hatin\' on the rich. If you were in their shoes, I\'m sure you would be singing a different tune.................
-
Marcial,
I agree and disagree with you. I agree that a person should be able to earn what is being offered to them. I do however think that the salaries have gotten way out of hand. Someone like myself who busts his ass for over 50 hours a week for less than $50K a year might be a little grumpy when it comes to the subject. And then there\'s actors whether it\'s on TV or movies that get paid millions of dollars for a couple hours of work a week in which half of it gets left on the cutting board. Whether it is sports/music/movies or any form of entertainment, I feel that these people are being grosely overpaid. So if it pisses hollywood off that I\'d rather pay 10 bucks for a boot rather than wait 1/2 year to pay double that, so be it. I\'m just getting a little tired of the poor staying poor, the rich getting richer and the middle class continuously getting fucked up the ass when it\'s time for someone to the pay the bill, which by way is nearly $7 trillion and growing.
I have a simple solution. (Maybe someone running for president shoudl adopt some of these concepts)
1. Bring the boys back home - less money being spend on wars and peace-keeping missions around the world would put more money in our pockets and give us the resources to better our country, not other countries.
2. Cann the space program for a little while. Billions of dollars spent to find out that there are remains of salt on Mars is not my idea of a worthwhile investment.
3. Pay all actors/athletes/musicians/CEO\'s scale or whatever a reasonable salary might be for someone that holds their position. (millions of dollars is not reasonable)
Sorry for the rant as it is really not related to the topic, but it all flowed from the same place.
db
-
RYDB,
Again, don\'t hate the playa. Entertainment is not a god-given right. If you feel the price of a movie is too high, then don\'t go see it... but feeling that way doesn\'t give you the right to steal. The money that the actors make is a drop in the bucket compared to what the networks & producers make on the finished product. That\'s the nature of the Entertainment industry.... it\'s big money for everyone involved. That\'s why so many people go to Hollywood to try & "make it". I\'m a working stiff in corporate america just like you are.... if I thought I had the skills to go make movies & be rich & famous, I would go for it. I haven\'t seen you in a while, but last time I did, you looked nothing like Jennifer Anniston... that\'s why you bust ass to make $50K/ year & she gets a cool million / episode. Whether or not you think she is overpaid is really irrelevent to the core issue here.... paying all actors, athletes, and musicians on a scale is COMMUNIST... if you\'re part of something that generates $50million on opening weekend, you should get your piece of the pie.
Entertainment is no different than any other product... it pulls in what the market will bear. If you go into a car dealership looking for a car and don\'t like the price, you walk away without it... you don\'t steal it. You have just as much of a right to not go see a movie if you think it\'s over priced. There are millions of other people who have no qualms about paying & will line up around the block to see it....
-
I just cant wait for all the religious freaks to start getting on Mel Gibson...saying that he should give his profits to the roman catholic church....you know that this has to be comming, if it hasnt already began....
RyDB makes 50k a year? I thought he was a priest....
Oy I am so confused.......
-
Originally posted by Marcial
RYDB,
[...]paying all actors, athletes, and musicians on a scale is COMMUNIST...
Geeze Marcial, you say it like its a bad thing.
the main issue here as I see it is desire. People always want more stuff. Everybody does. we want to aquire and aquire untill we realize that we\'re living in a house surrounded by junk, and then we hold tag sales, or go on ebay and sell it to others as \'retro junk\'. Why? so we can get more money and buy more stuff! Its a vicuous cycle. I agree with marcial that if someone wants to bust there ass and make 50 mil per episode, good for them! I also agree with Deblock that it would be great if everyone had enough money and didn\'t have to bust there ass just to get by. There should be better checks and balances, but it aint happening (at least in the here and now). The issue you guys are arguing is basically this:
What if you knew that you were going to get paid a flat fee if you went to hollywood, made your movie, etc. Would you still have the same drive to become an actor/dir/musician/etc? For most people, money is a driving force in life (so they can get all there stuff), so most wouldnt even bother to try and become the actor/dir/musician/etc that they could be. So now your whole society starts to suffer because you have no entertainment industry. Only, in working practice, this happens in all industries, and the economy crashes as a result.
Like I said, you make communism sound like a bad thing :)