…and one of Michael Mann’s most formulaic and insubstantial films.
Still, it’s worth seeing. Here’s my review.
I have not yet seen “The Passion…” mainly because of the violence, and like the first commenter, I don’t know if I’d see the edited version either, but (assuming that it’s not a cynical attempt to milk more money out of moviegoers) I appreciate the gesture.
You got David Eugene Edwards (16 Horsepower) on your side, Jeffrey.
“That it was all represented so realistically doesn’t mean that the story has gripped me more than it had already done. When Jesus was still walking among the people, talking with them, touching them, even then most people didn’t want to have anything to do with him. The whole town turned out when the Romans caught him and they shouted: ‘Crucify him, crucify him!’ When he hadn’t done anything wrong. He cured the ill, performed miracles and spoke about love and forgiveness. If people didn’t believe him then, why would they believe him now just because they saw that movie? Has His story become more important because Mel Gibson filmed it?”This is from a recent interview with OOR, a Dutch music magazine. It’s an interesting read!
I’m not a big fan of the film. I admire Gibson for being courageous enough to tell the story on the big screen, but I found myself so bludgeoned by the heavy-handed depiction of the violence that I couldn’t muster the concentration necessary to think about the context. It is, I think, a problem with the movie, and one that a five-minute edit isn’t going to help much. But that’s just my opinion. Clearly I’m in the minority amongst Chrsitians who have seen the film.
Here’s my full review of the film: http://promontoryartists.org/lookingcloser/movie%20reviews/H-P/passionofthechrist.htm
And here’s the letter to Christians I offered at the same time:http://promontoryartists.org/lookingcloser/movie%20reviews/H-P/passionofthechrist-letter.htm
Other than a 10 minute clip I watched at a convention I have not seen the “Passion of the Christ” but having heard almost universal acclaim for the movie from my friends and acquaintances I found your earlier criticism puzzling. This latest barb borders on cynicism. Is there some great heresy here that I am too naive to understand.
Well, I can’t speak for his motivation behind re-cutting the film, but I can speak for some people who did not see the film when it was originally released due to the extreme violence. My wife is very sensitive to graphic presentations of violence, and she felt it would do her no good in watching the film. She has yet to see it, even at home, where I can warn her of the more violent moments. I doubt she will even watch this version, but some who were a little leery last time around, might be persuaded to give it a chance. Just my two cents.