I'm going to see The P@$$ion tomorrow. Think I'll take some meth before I go. Should be a blast.

Go down to Anderston, find a hooker, ask her how much to shit in your mouth. Then go and watch a late show of TPOC.

Youll much prefer the taste of shit in your mouth.

---
"Life Sucks, Then you Die. The bit inbetween isnt very funny either"

quote:

---

Go down to Anderston, find a hooker, ask her how much to shit in your mouth.

---

Now when they sing, "Were you there when they crucified my Lord?" millions of people can answer, "No, but I saw it at the multiplex!"

---
I has a flavor!

South Park lampooned the shit out of this whole topic last night.

---
The giant three-phallused phallus of Uzbekistan will one day squirt the cosmic jizz of revenge all over Canada.

[Click to view comic: 'Lethal Passion']

---
What others say about boorite!

Boorite , go mow the fucking yard. Youve had that sig longer than Bunners been alive.

---
"Life Sucks, Then you Die. The bit inbetween isnt very funny either"

Nope. Yard still ain't mowed. I'll update everyone as soon as the yard situation changes.

---
What others say about boorite!

This is America, Perm. You don't just go out an "mow the yard". First you have to take the rusted out 87 pick-up down off its blocks. Then you have to find a place to go with the discarded loveseats and 55 gallon drums full of chicken bones and junkyard salvage. It's a whole operation.

---
I was gonna send a robot back in time, but I got high.

I went to see the Passion last night and I would say that it was an "okay" film, hugely overrated, not at all anti-semitic and containing rather more than its fair share of Hollywood exaggerations.

To begin with, the whole "Satan" thing was pointless, unbiblical and stupid. It detracted from the plot and had no place in the story of the Passion. Why was Satan cradling Gollum as Christ was being scourged? What was that ridiculous bit at the end with Satan screaming in Hell (I was actually dreading a Christ vs. Satan showdown at this point)? And why on earth was Judas pursued by demon-kids? All of these features were poor, and the film would've fared a whole lot better without them.

There were the obvious biblical inaccuracies - Mary Magdalene was not the same woman caught in adultery who Jesus protected from being stoned, Peter did not deny Jesus during his arrest, the temple did not split in half ala Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade (the veil was merely torn asunder), the second thief did not have his eyes plucked out by a crow, Jesus would only have been made to carry the crossbar of his cross, not the whole thing etc. etc. These were done for dramatic effect, perhaps, but since Gibson claimed to be making a film that "remained true to the Gospels", these inclusions did not aid his cause.

That said, I think the film did work on some levels. Whilst a few of the flashbacks were heavy-handed and contrived, the scene where he carries the cross through the streets and he remembers coming to Jerusalem with the people waving palms was particularly well done. I was moved by the scene in which Simon cries out to the Romans and Jews to "Stop" beating Christ, and the actual scourging did make me wince. Pilate's character was handled well, and it was nice to see that not all the High Priests were united in their condemnation of Jesus (Nicodemus et al.).

All in all, the film does not deserve the hype it has received, but it was nevertheless a thoughtful piece which deserves to stand shoulder to shoulder with other epic Life of Christ movies.

Incidentally, on the point about anti-semitism: if people see this film and suddenly find themselves consumed with rage towards Jews, then that is because they are fucking idiots.

The film doesn't promote anti-semitism in any way, it merely tells the story of Christ's 'trial' and execution. His disciples are Jewish, *HE* is Jewish, various high priests who are Jewish disagree with his being tried, and it is the Romans who actually beat, torture and kill Jesus. Where in any of this is the anti-semitism? The truth is, there isn't any.

Mel Gibson and his Dad may have screwy views, but those views do not enter into this film.

I thought the demonic kids chasing Judas around was actually quite an effective touch, as was the dead donkey. Added a kind of Exorcisty feel which fits with the whole Catholic bit.

Also, I'm not sure how you can say the film is "not at all anti-semitic". I doubt it's going to convince anyone that Hitler had the right idea or anything, but it's certainly racist. Take the scene after Jesus has been flayed. Pilate is very reasonable and suggests that he's endured punishment enough: but then the hook-nosed villains that make up the crowd start shouting, as one voice: "CRUCIFY HIM!" Caiphas and especially his right-hand man were total stereotypes, too.

The movie was a lot less gory than I'd expected. Roger Ebert said it was the most violent film he'd ever seen, which makes me think he must've led a sheltered life.

quote:

---

Also, I'm not sure how you can say the film is "not at all anti-semitic". I doubt it's going to convince anyone that Hitler had the right idea or anything, but it's certainly racist. Take the scene after Jesus has been flayed. Pilate is very reasonable and suggests that he's endured punishment enough: but then the hook-nosed villains that make up the crowd start shouting, as one voice: "CRUCIFY HIM!" Caiphas and especially his right-hand man were total stereotypes, too.

---

Thank you both for providing me with some more information on the film. I won't lambast it again until I have seen it.

---
The giant three-phallused phallus of Uzbekistan will one day squirt the cosmic jizz of revenge all over Canada.

I agree with Chi. That part about the eagles coming and saving Christ just before he died on the cross TOTALLY was not in the Bible at all. What the hell. Really most of the movie I felt like I was watching some bizarre fantasy world, and not a story of the Bible. I did like the part where Judas bit of Jesus's finger though.

I think that part illustrates what part of human nature Jesus was supposedly trying to save humanity from. It's more the point that the people he was helping suddenly turn on him, which amplifies the sacrifice that is supposed to have been made (for people that are crying for your blood, not people following you around in adoration). I don't think the point is "and then the dirty Jews killed Jesus". The garden interchanges pretty much illustrate that Jesus knows it is God sending him to die and not the Jews.

I think saying people are "hook nosed" is itself sort of racist. Are they supposed to cast a bunch of blond caucassians because that's the only people you are allowed to show doing bad things? I don't understand your complaint there. (Nose jobs weren't invented in 33 A.D. so don't try and pull that on me either).

---
Vote Jeb Bush 2008

[Click to view comic: 'Observances']

[Click to view comic: 'Halloween in April']

---
I was gonna send a robot back in time, but I got high.

I don't remember if their noses really were hooked or not. That was just a loose way of referring to the mob of nameless Jews who all cry in unison for Jesus to be killed.

I guess you could make the argument that the movie illustrates something needs to be done about all the jew on jew violence in society.

---
Vote Jeb Bush 2008

Paul and his followers exonerated the Romans and vilified the Jews for the crucifixion of Jesus. In some people's opinion, this account is both antisemitic and historically incorrect. In my opinion, it's the reason Christianity survived the Roman Empire. In any case, if the film is in fact taken straight from the Gospels, and the Gospels can be called antisemitic, then the same can be said of the film, on the same grounds.

---
What others say about boorite!

The Holocaust was anti-semitic. Are movies based around the Holocaust anti-semitic?

---
Vote Jeb Bush 2008

If they tell a Holocaust story that exonerates the Germans and vilifies the Jews, then yes, that would be antisemitic.

---
What others say about boorite!

But surely the Gospels exonerate some Jews (Jesus, his disciples, thief on the cross etc.) and villify... some other Jews (and some Romans) - I'm not sure how that could be construed as anti-Semitic

Your analogy would only work if a Holocaust film exonerated some Germans and villified some other Germans... which in the cases of both "Schindler's List" and "The Pianist" is just what happens, and I don't think those are held up as anti-Semitic films either.

Paul didn't even write any of the Gospels, so your claim that he and his followers are anti-semitic therefore the movie is anti-semitic for being based on the Gospels is just plain wrong.

Gibson said he played down any scenes that could be interpreted as anti-semitic after the uproar. The context of those books are the Jewish people, so if you criticize your own people, you are referring to the Jews. Are you anti-American for criticizing Americans?

---
Vote Jeb Bush 2008