this is the beauty on the screen.
this is a poem, outstanding, deep.
you will cry and feel yourself a human being by watching it.
this is pure art.
and that guy shouldn't have made that stupid passion, not at all..
mel, go and see this!
I agree completely
a brilliant film, unbelievably succesful combination of naturalizam and stylization
and I like your message to Mel 8)
[deleted]
[deleted]
[deleted]
The Gibson film was nothing but torture porn with a heapin helping of anti-semitism. I don't know what being Christian would have to do with it, except that any real Christian would be generally appalled.
shareReal Christians believe the Passion and Resurrection of the Christ are central to their faith.
shareGee, thanks for the news flash, Cronkite. Nevertheless, the film was torture porn and any real Christian would be appalled.
shareIf you thought that could qualify as porn... I can only wonder...
shareHe said "torture porn", not porn. There's a big difference, you know.
And yes, I don't get the need for a film that emphasises on the violence of the story. To me, it seems like an exploitation movie in the form of a religious one. Quite pretentious stuff...
I Sympathize with Lars Von Trier.
"He said "torture porn", not porn. There's a big difference, you know."
It's not that either. If it were "torture porn" the violence would be there solely for the sake of deriving sensual pleasure from it...which it obviously wasn't.
You can't effectively capture what Christ was willing to endure without it being extremely brutal and hard to watch.
+++by His wounds we are healed. - Isaiah 53:5+++
Shove it, imbecile. A lot of revolting things qualify as porn for sick people.
shareWe shouldn't even be discussing that vulgar Mel Gibson movie on THIS board.
"IMdB; where 14 year olds can act like jaded 40 year old critics...'
Actually Gibson did see this movie. This is the movie that inspired him to make "Passion Of The Christ". From what I've found out Mel Gibson shot this movie in the exact same location where this movie was shot. I found this on Ebert's website; there was a 'Great Movie' article on it.
shareI'm sure Gospel According to St. Matthew inspired the Passion of The Christ, but probably not as much as another film, The Passion of Joan of Arc...a movie that focuses on the last hours of Joan's life, as Judges and Theologians persecute and torture her in an effort to elicit a confessional from her.
Passion of Joan of Arc is way more smart than Mel (Riggs)Gibson's movie, by the way. The director, Carl Dreyer, doesn't show the torture in a literal sense. He shows it through Joan's face and the faces of her tormentors. He shows it to your subconcious. There's no blood that you have to turn your face from...instead there is pain of the spirit, pain of the soul, not pain of the body.
Actually, I do remember, very well in fact, having to look away at least once during THE PASSION OF JOAN OF ARC. The scene where the blood squirts out her arm, and just the fact that we've all heard stories about Dreyer hiring a prostitute so he could really cut her and film that scene. Pretty *beep* gruesome if you ask me. More than some of Mel's film, but Mel's is pretty much pure exploitation. APOCALYPTO was not anything more, either. At least BRAVEHEART had good photography.
Now Playing ... The Wire #3.09 "Slapstick"
Firstly I've got to say. I wasn't bowled over by this film. It was certainly alot easier to watch than the POTC, but in the age of special fx I guess the of using lots of blood was just too great. That and the fact that Mr Gibson wanted to make it difficult to watch, to highlight the suffering Jesus went through.
So what was my problem with this film....Firstly, the setting was stunning, (can anybody tell me where it was filmed), secondly the story was great. But its a great story! That has nothing to do with the filmmaking process. Ok, screenplay was simple and straightforward yes.
But take away the story and the location, you're not left with too much. Some of the camera work was I guess quite innovative for its time, but alot of it was very shaky....Some of the acting was shabby, none of it awe inspiring.
Now I don't want to go over the top on the criticism....I did enjoy the film, but I'm also very wary of films living on their reputations....For me this is one of them...sorry!
Oh, and as an example of the bloody mindedness that illustrate how I believe films can live on their reputation....check this statement out...
"I must be the only person in the world who hasn't seen The Passion Of The Christ. I will never watch it, why should I" - To get whats called an informed opinion, cretin!
[deleted]
pj taylor2003,
If you want to know where this movie was filmed, just click on "filming locations" under "Other Info" on the left hand side of the main page for this movie here on IMDB.
i agree with every word you say, shame on gibson. this is the movie to watch.
shareThis film is a masterpiece.
I do not think this can be compared to Gibson's "Passion" - these are two very different movies that serve two very different purposes. They highlight different parts of the life of Jesus.
Cheers
Everyone made such a big deal about Mel Gibson filming "The Passion" in Aramaic and Latin. Actually, he should have filmed it in Greek, the language used by the Romans in their eastern provinces and the language the Gospels are written in. Even after the Romans conquered most of the Middle East Roman never replaced Greek as the international language of the region, as it had been since Alexander the Great's conquest of the Persian empire. Interestingly enough there are still a few Greek-speaking enclaves in Calabria, the region where "The Gospel According to Saint Matthew" was filmed. I would like to see the life of Christ filmed in Greek, with Greek actors. Why not?
Little is known of the historical Pontius Pilate before his appointment as prefect (not procurator) of Judea, but the name Pontius is Samnite in origin and the Samnites were from southern Italy. I would like to see someone like Al Pacino or Robert DeNiro play Pontius Pilate. How about it, Hollywood?
hmmm i'm not so sure about this. i watched it for the first time last night at melbourne's cinemateque. i was impressed it was such a true representation, without glorification, but i thought there would have been more than just the life and death of jc. maybe it was my expectations that let me down, but for me, there wasn't anything in the film that i didn't already know or have an idea about. i haven't seen many biblical films, nor am i that interested, the main reason i wanted to see this is cause of it's praise as a classic. i give pasolini credit for a passionate and tasteful depiction that hollywood would probably never be able to achieve, but i was struggling to stay interested cause there wasn't anything unknown throughout... i guess that's it's power, the facts as we know them...
shareThis is definitely the finest film dealing with the Gospel accounts I have ever seen. Everytime I watch the film I am totally amazed by the camera work, the close ups on the faces always move me. I beleive all the actors are amateurs, well maybe thats what makes this film so good. I have to say that the soundtrack is inspired as well.
I don't think this could ever be beaten for heart, passion, and true story telling.
I've heard that The Gospel According to St. Matthew is perhaps the best movie about the life of Christ. I'm going to have to see this film very soon.
"Dry your eyes baby, it's out of character."
I agree, one must be a poet into his soul to create this marvel
share