ANSWERS: 25
  • As a christian, I didn't see it as exploitation. the gore was not as realistic as what probably happened. Crucixion was one of the most ugly ways you could kill anyone. however, that said, I would find it hard to watch it again...it upset me so that Jesus would go through all that for someone like me.
  • No, I don't feel that way at all. I really liked the Passion if liked is what you call it. I am disappointed in Mel Gibson's apparent anti-semitism, however. I guess he missed the whole point of Jesus's suffering even though he so thoughtfully portrayed it on film.
  • It would have been much more a disservice to him had they sugarcoated or sanitized the way he truly suffered
  • I thought it was a very well-made and interesting film, even though I am not a Christian. It's not one I would care to watch again, though. I think Mel Gibson probably made that film to make other Christians really, truly think about the sacrifice that they believe was made for them - the story gets glossed over, and I think he wanted Christians to open their eyes to the suffering of their Lord. I could be wrong, of course...
  • Not really, the actual story as it is written is quite gory if shown in a way that reflects how those crucifixions really were.
  • Yep and Mr. Mel has been called on it many times. Shame on him.
  • They have been making films about the Crucifiction since they started making movies and they always made it look like it was a nothing deal. He showed Christions what Christ endured for them. If you aren't Christian and you saw it you are either some sick sadistic voyeur or you didn't know what you were going to see, which seems doubtful since He is one of the most famous people that ever lived, if not the most famous. If you are Christian, it was for YOU! That's what he endured for YOU! Gibson has made some of the best films ever and taken crap for every one of them. If you don't like the films, don't watch them. They weren't meant for you anyhow. They were meant for those of us who appreciate his talent as an actor and a director.
  • Mel does know how to make a buck, that's for sure. However explotative non-christians see it, and a lot of us do, it's their movie about their savior and they're ultimately the ones who made it sucessful. As a side note however, the lead actor, was struck by lightning. I think that was his first negative review. Boy Mel's gonna have some splannin to do.
  • Well, I think it was a nice way to share the Good News of Christ. Someone who had never opened the Bible may have gone to the movie and decided to serve Christ. If just one person did that, it was worth it. As far as Mel Gibson's intentions, only he and God know them. Despite Mel's intentions, I think there was a greater good than harm done because God was glorified by many because of that movie.
  • I think it`s lame for any guy to make millions shooting a gore film. But The Passion of the Christ seemed like a pretty accurate account of what happened to Jesus The Christ. Jesus is as much a historical figure as he is a religious one. Whether you don`t give one fig about Christianity or religion in general Jesus was a man who was crucified for his beliefs and his preachings. He will forever be known as the most famous martyr in history. Either way it makes for a great story and a great film.
  • The Bible is filled with gore; the Passion of the Christ is just a tiny glimpse. Suppose the story of Noah's Ark were brought faithfully to the screen. It would not be a sunny story like an illustration out of a children's book, it would be one of the biggest disaster movies ever. Virtually every man, woman and child and every beast on earth is killed. Drowned like rats and rotting corpses everywhere. Anyone who had read the book would know that, the filmmakers are only making it accessible.
  • As opposed to someone making millions of dollars shooting a gore film about a regular persons suffering. You are an idiot.
  • I haven't seen the movie, as I don't think I could bear it. However, I believe that what Mel Gibson was trying to accomplish with the film was a realistic representation of what Christ suffered so that people could understand just how much He loved us and what He was willing to suffer in order to reconcile us to Himself. Many of my friends saw the film and were very moved by it.
  • Yeppers, but remember "christ" volunteered for the job.
  • The first half of the movie I enjoyed very much. I honestly thought that they had gone way too far with the second half. The craziest part is that the movie was rated PG-13! That makes me want to scream just thinking about it. There is something fishy going on here. That was the goriest thing I've ever seen in any movie! The funny part is that Mel Gibson got a DUI and in the police report, he was said to have been bagging on Jews, one of which was Jesus "Christ". I would like to think that much of the money from that film went to righteous charitable causes, and hopefully not some christian movement.
  • I see nothing wrong with the movie. In fact, I see it as a great witnessing tool and educational tool. It helps people to know exactly what Jesus went through and for non-Christians, it is a great witnessing tool as it shows them what their Savior went through and how He suffered and died for their sins. After viewing this movie with a non-Christian, one should witness to them about Jesus Christ or give them a Gospel tract.
  • I just re-read your question and am moved to re-answer it. He did not make a gore film about the suffering of many people's savior. He made a movie about HIS savior that accurately depicted the suffering that Jesus underwent accepting the sins of humanity because he felt that people did not appreciate the depth of Jesus love due to all the "sweet Jesus" films put out over the last 80 years. Not one ever really showed what Jesus suffered. I don't know one Christian that saw this that didn't feel their faith wasn't strengthened and deepened by this film.
  • it is lame and right after he did it his career went down the drain now he's getting a divorce.
  • The Christian Church has been exploiting it for 1,970 years, and making millions by doing so. But they have helped many people. So where's the harm?
  • I dont think it was a GORE film but I DO think it was wrong of him to benefit from the making of it... The money that film made shouldve went to help the less fortunate. P.s: Very good question.
  • No doubt Ill get a dr here but here goes anyway.... I actually really enjoyed the film, it hit every emotion possible, If Jesus did go through that then he deserves worshiping and if he did go through it for US then wow
  • I don't think it was a gore film...i think it captured just how brutal life was then. I also don't think it's lame for anyone to make money off of their work.
  • But the various churches and their administrators have exploited the story they made up for years - and they've made more millions out of their dupes than any film maker - and at least the people paying to see the film could afford it, which is more than can be said of the uneducated people who were conned into sacrificing what little resources they had to give the bishops and popes a good living.
  • Ok another winded answer, so bare with me. I think the point most people are missing about films like POTC is that, the movie wouldn't make millions if people didn't go watch it. Obviously there actually WERE people that wanted to see the film or it would not have made the money it did. With that being said, the option to NOT see the movie is every American's free will (god given free will, according to christians)so don't watch something if it offends you, of course...problem solved. Secondly, regarding those who did go see such a film, the reason why might be lost in the fact that the movie is intended to be horrible, grotesque, etc. The point in that is to show everyone visually just how gruesome it would have been to go through what christ went through. Sure, you've read about it and heard about it, "Christ died for our sins", christians are reminded of it every second of the day, your whole existence is based on the idea that you owe jesus big time, he suffered a lot for you...yeah, you've read it but you haven't seen it like this. Seeing it adds levity and weight to the concept that god/christ died for your sins. Obviously actually seeing it visually played out, drives the point home a little more for people. The whole point of the film is; Hey yeah that jesus guy died for your sins, and yes we all know that, but take a look at it as if you were there, see how much it must have sucked to be christ, actually see it..it sucked and he did it for you." All the arguemnts over interpretation and supposed anti-semitism and all that jargon is stupid, it's one man's interpretation of something, why should christians even be upset about something that goes against their exact beliefs when none of the Churches can agree on exactly anything either? IT makes people miss the point of the film, you were supposed to suffer through it, did you expect a musical, or a plot twist where jesus isn't crucified and beats up the Romans Matrix style? We all know the plot, the story, the ending...and so there was no need for anything but visually seeing what it was really like if christ did exist and this really did happen to him. I'm an atheist and I still watched it and get it better than most christians I know. Even though I consider it all fiction, to see any man go through that makes you think a lot about mankind.

Copyright 2023, Wired Ivy, LLC

Answerbag | Terms of Service | Privacy Policy