All the films from all the editions, including those subsequently removed, presently totalling 1177. An easy way of seeing how…
The Passion of the Christ
By his wounds, we were healed.
"The Passion of the Christ" is a film about the last 12 hours in the life of Jesus. Director Mel Gibson received much criticism from critics and audiences for his explicit depiction of and focus on violence and on christs suffering, especially on the part of the jewish community. The films languages are Arabic, Latin and Hebrew and its actors are laymen which was controversially received as well.
The Jesus Christ Chainsaw Massacre.
Not as good as the book...
how has alejandro gonzález iñárritu not remade this yet
The Passion of the Christ was always bound to be a project to divide audiences and despite being an atheist myself I was actually fairly interested in the idea of the film, considering I thoroughly enjoy and connect to stories that thematically relate to faith. I do not want to go into the religious aspect behind Mel Gibson's directorial debut as it's frankly lost on me, but the huge problem I have with it is that I don't for a second believe in its intentions. Judged purely as a movie I think it doesn't succeed and in many ways downright fails miserably. Describing the last days and primarily focusing on the torture and execution of Jesus Christ it is a…
Forgive them, Father. They know not what they do.
This film has been hanging over my head for the longest time. I've always had a desire to see it, just to see how violent it really does get. I wish I could go back in time and strangle that little jerk who put that thought into my head. Or just slap Mel Gibson for making this film (and some other things). It's not the many biblical inconsistencies that really even bother me about the film. Sure, I can forget that Simon was more willing to carry Jesus' cross than this film says. Sure, I can forget the gratuitous use of slow motion. What I can't forgive, is the constant unflinching…
Mel Gibson’s adaptation of the spiciest chapter in the popular novel entitled ‘The Holy Bible’ made somewhat of a buzz a decade ago. I am not much of a reader myself and have as such only read bits and pieces of it, but judging from what I’ve just seen I think his take was quite faithful (pun intended) to the source material. Okay joking aside, I hope I didn’t insult anybody with this jokey opener, but if so forgive me for trying to lighten the mood a little after what must be one of the most horrific films that I ever endured. I respect Mel Gibson as a film-maker; his vision is grand and his productions are epic. Just like…
Friendly dude with beard has really shit day.
Mel Gibson shows Hollywood how to get church goers to watch hardcore brutal violence.
This has already been compared to torture porn so often that it's become a bit of a running joke, but quite frankly, it's hard not to think of that genre when the movie takes so much voyeuristic delight in watching Jesus get tortured and murdered. Problem is that the movie is seemingly unaware that it's a sleazy gore flick, or it's actively avoiding having to admit its true nature to itself, so we get a metric fucktonne of utterly bland scenes that try to tell the story we all know and maybe love in as shallow and black-and-white a manner as possible - no indication of any subtext, no insight into characters' motivations or any of the potentially rich themes,…
I finally saw this film after everyone has said all that can be said about it, so I'll be brief. Expecting the absolute worst from Mr. Mel "Sadist" Gibson, I have to say that this film is nowhere near as good as its idolatrous fan base would have you believe, but neither is it as repellent as its detractors claim. In short, it's just a movie, not a particularly good one, with absolutely no emotional content and nothing in it to either explain what's happening or to make you care. It looks terrific---Mel obviously has cash to spare for his film-director-as-God craziness. But that's about where the praise ends. The whole thing has a nasty tone; in Mel's version of…
This review may contain spoilers. I can handle the truth.
You do have to give Mel Gibson and the marketing behind this film credit; they made a film that is a very difficult to review as a film and not as a theological position. Their goal was to get people talking about Christianity and they certainly succeeded. All I can do is offer my critique and why I think this film fails.
This is an extremely simplistic portrayal of Jesus and all the events of the Crucifixion. Focusing so much on violence might have worked if the violence had at least been realistic and not excessive to the point of borderline slapstick. The dramatic slow-motion is so over the top, the portrayal of Satan feels like something out of a…
Neither as shockingly gory nor as aesthetically triumphant as I had been led to believe, it has a fair number of camp, theatrical flourishes that I enjoyed, despite walking a fine line between ridiculous and sublime. Most annoyingly of all, though, it's crashingly unsubtle and unsophisticated: there are sepia-toned flashbacks, more slow-motion than I've ever seen in any film before, pantomime cackling villains and even a CGI raindrop.
Wowza, I cannot agree with Roger Ebert more that "If ever there was a film with the correct title, that film is Mel Gibson's 'The Passion of the Christ.'" The film may not be fully even, but damn if it isn't, well, passionate; that alone goes along a way. Furthermore, Gibson has an extraordinary eye for casting, costuming, sets, and props, which—along with the wise choice for the dialogue to be in reconstructed Aramaic, vernacular Hebrew, and Latin—produces a sublime amount of period detail that does much for atmosphere. The extreme violence is striking in itself and pregnant with accusatory, self-reflexive implications directed towards the Catholic faith. Sure, the lack of driving narrative occasionally slows things down too much, but…
This review may contain spoilers. I can handle the truth.
The passion of the Christ is a difficult film to watch. The seemingly endless march of Jesus to the site of his crucifixion bordered on slapstick which I'm not sure is the point. The film is well shot and the dreamy aspects of the androgynous Satan were creepy. All in all this film isn't really saying anything though and that is really the problem.
My first problem was right off the bat that was Judas. Here presented as simply a greedy character that decided to sell out Jesus without any real motivation outside of that. The interesting thing about Judas is that without Judas Jesus wouldn't really be able to meet his destiny (to die for our sins). Here was…
Well made and effectively brutal to watch, but at a certain stage it just becomes too much and repetitive even if that is part of the point. This story may seem necessary to be told and made in to a feature film, but focusing so much on the torture robs Jesus of the noble sacrifice he was making. The ratio of him helping others/relationship with those close to him and watching him be tortured needed to be altered somewhat to have some balance and not become a chore to watch.
The first 1012 films are from The 1,000 Greatest Films list, and maintain the original order. The films that follow…
Complete list. :-(