Anyone else seen "The Passion Of The Christ" yet?

[Big Troubles]

now sit boy...gooooood boy...roll over.

[Big Troubles]

I was wondering about the subtitles because i planned on fucking your girlfriend, and Id figure she'd be boring so this way I DO have something to read.

see. Thats humorous.

[DLRSLAVE]

Wrong again Big Guy/BT no girlfriend just one big ass mo fo
ass kickin take names later husband xoxo

[Big Troubles]

LMAO!

[Big Troubles]

Please to meet you...all over again!

[DLRSLAVE]

Good enough for a vote ? Very nice to meet you too.
Very interesting meetinng new people isn't it.

[Big Troubles]

Thank you

[Ally_Kat]

anyway, getting back to the point of this thread...


Say it yesterday and boy, that movie seemed to fly. The thing I was suprised at was that the only part of the movie where I flinched was when they were whipping him and the bones on the end got caught in his skin and they ripped it. The nails, the blood, everything else - I was cool with. The scenes that killed me and had my crying like a lil baby were the Mary ones. When they did the part where he's on the cross talking to her and before when he falls and she has the flashback to when he was a baby...I had to reach up and wipe the tears away.

The baby part with Satan I didn't get. I've read that it's suppose to represent the anti-christ, but i'm not too sure about that.

But all in all, it's a great movie! When we went to go see it, a 5th grade class from a Catholic school was coming out. Man, we never got to go on field trips like this!

[seenbad]

No, it's not supposed to be anti christ. I read that too. Mel said in an interview it was just a way to represent something from gods hands that is natural and beautiful (Mother/son relationship) being taken up by satan and made twisted and ugly. You have the contrast made by Jesus and Mary and within the same scene, satan and the ugly ass little hairy 40 yr old baby thing. Nasty. Anyways, I found myself looking for an explanation about that too, but it turns out there isn't much behind it.

[Susie Q]

Originally posted by Big Troubles
Im waiting for the video game to come out on the PS2. Kidding.
Actualy the sequel will be awesome...again. Kidding.

Seriously though was the Passion of Christ sub-titled? someone told me it was, and that was my only turn off. I dont need to hear them speak. But I hate reading and watching a movie at the same time.

Yah...see? That's my only drawback too. If I wanted to read, I would get the book. But....I am going to see it anyways. It will be interesting.

[chuckg34]

I saw the movie and I liked it. Yeah, it was graphic, but it served its purpose: to emphasize the suffering of Jesus. Churches go on and on about how Christ "suffered" for us, but there was not much emphasis on how he suffered. This movie truly shows us what Christ went through. All over the place, you'll see the symbol of Christ (the holy cross) all over the place.. but this movie shows that the crucifixion was not some beautiful thing. It was ugly and it hurt him really bad.

But I kind of think that the movie was a bit dramatized and exaggerated. I mean, come on... *if* it was the case that Christ was beaten that bad, he would have died long before he made it to the cross. And historically, i thought he was whipped 39 times.. but in this movie, he had to be whipped about 1000 times.

All in all, though.. it is worth seeing.

[Susie Q]

I saw the movie this afternoon. Honestly, it was half a story for me. Yes, we all knew the ending. But, we needed to know HOW he ended up on the cross. It was brutal to see this man so tortured. What I was more involved in was the relationship between him and Mary. His earthly mother. I felt that connection cause I am so close to my own son. How I would feel as his mother. I didn't come back from the movie a changed person. But, it made me know that my relationship with my kids are far more spiritual than I thought. My kids are my soulmates.

[seenbad]

Originally posted by chuckg34
IBut I kind of think that the movie was a bit dramatized and exaggerated. I mean, come on... *if* it was the case that Christ was beaten that bad, he would have died long before he made it to the cross. And historically, i thought he was whipped 39 times.. but in this movie, he had to be whipped about 1000 times.

Where did you hear that was a historical conclusion about the 39 times thing? I've never come across reference of that at all.

Historically, I think it was pretty accurate. I think there may have been a little more intensity put in to the lashing part, as a more catholic twinge to it, but Pilate was doing the lashings in hopes that it would be a replacement to crucifixion rather that in addition to it. The Pharacees pushed for it afterwards. Pilate was in a tough spot. Crucifixions normally didn't proceed lashings like that. You could say his payment was "double dipped". In that respect, it was historically accurate.

[Satan]

Pilate caved into political pressure. The Demoncrats of today would have loved this guy. Hell, if he came back today, he could be Kerry's running mate.

What's that? You gave the order to crucify Jesus Christ?? Oh, that's alright. He was a terrorist, after all.....

[Ally_Kat]

What's Up With the Ugly Baby?
Everyone's asking about the Passion scene where Satan is carrying a hideous infant.
by Mark Moring | posted 03/01/04


"Please explain the symbolism in the scene showing Satan holding a bald baby. Thank you."


That's just one of dozens of e-mails we've received in the last few days, asking about a surreal scene in The Passion of The Christ where Satan is shown cradling a hideous baby who looks like he's about 40 years old.

The scene occurs during the flogging of Christ. Satan is passing through a crowd of onlookers, cradling an infant in his arms. The baby turns to face the camera, revealing a sinister infant, creeping out audiences everywhere.

We took your questions straight to the source, e-mailing Mel Gibson's publicist for an answer.

When asked why he portrayed Satan—an androgynous, almost beautiful being played by Rosalinda Celentano—the way he did, Gibson replied: "I believe the Devil is real, but I don't believe he shows up too often with horns and smoke and a forked tail. The devil is smarter than that. Evil is alluring, attractive. It looks almost normal, almost good—but not quite.

"That's what I tried to do with the Devil in the film. The actor's face is symmetric, beautiful in a certain sense, but not completely. For example, we shaved her eyebrows. Then we shot her almost in slow motion so you don't see her blink—that's not normal. We dubbed in a man's voice in Gethsemane even though the actor is a woman … That's what evil is about, taking something that's good and twisting it a little bit."

But what about the ugly baby?

"Again," said Gibson, "it's evil distorting what's good. What is more tender and beautiful than a mother and a child? So the Devil takes that and distorts it just a little bit. Instead of a normal mother and child you have an androgynous figure holding a 40-year-old 'baby' with hair on his back. It is weird, it is shocking, it's almost too much—just like turning Jesus over to continue scourging him on his chest is shocking and almost too much, which is the exact moment when this appearance of the Devil and the baby takes place."