Well said porcupine.

"but sadly the movie is also very precise and historically correct"

This is not entirely true. Mel added quite a bit of embellishment, and the movie was historically inaccurate in places. A couple of examples stolen off the web:

"Jesus' cross is manufactured in the Temple. This unbiblical and a-historical scene is analogous to asserting that the ovens of Auschwitz were constructed in the Vatican itself under the watchful eyes of Pius XII."

"In first century Palestine, most Romans would have spoken not Latin but Greek." Another historical inaccuracy.

There are some other inaccuracies as well, which interested parties can research on their own time. I can't be bothered

Just because people dislike the level of violence of the movie, it does not follow that they want the Bible sugar coated. I could argue that some people who are so facinated by the clinical brutality of the film don't want to face some of the radical teachings of love and forgiveness Jesus gave us--give us the blood and guts, but leave out the forgive-our-enemies stuff (have you forgiven Osama?). My argument is silly, but so is the argument that "squemish people want the Gospel sugar coated" (I do think that many people do want the Gospel sugar coated--but I think that you will find some in both sides of this controversy--some evangelicals, some mainstream Protestant--maybe some conservative Catholics .)

I am not sure how historically accurate it is. Pilate was brutal and would not have needed and would not have allowed the Sanhedrin to push him into crucifying Jesus. He crucified thousands several years later for starting a different messiah movement.

This does not mean it is a bad film or that it will lead to anti-semetism but I still feel that in several months, once the controversy has settled down, we will see little impact on the evangelism of non-christians.

Of course, Gibson had to have it in Latin--it fits his radical beliefs.

Okay. I understand the importance of portraying the graphicness as it was, and I'm not opposed to it, but...............

This movie was more about the abuse of a human body than about the passionate sacrifice of Jesus. It may have been emotional because it is hard to see that happening to a person, but it is not emotional for the spirit of Jesus, the Passion of the Christ.

--DAN

hmmmm, can I just ask why the thread title says "possible spoiler alert?" I mean.......what is there to spoil? we all know the story.

Yeah, I saw this movie last night.

Like everyone is saying, it is extremely intense, throughout the whole movie. As a movie, it isn't much of your adventure, or thrilling ride, but it is at least what I believe.

Overall, I think it is good for people to know what Christ went through. His death WAS was one of the major reasons of his life. To die for our sins. To save us all. Yes, he was an awesome teacher, and the Son of God, but he saved us. He went through that pain, and ultimately edited, so we don't have to.

Christ might not tell us about those experiences in graphic detail, but as his followers, I believe it is important to realize.

I also agree, that it would be very hard to follow this movie without previous knowledge of the cruicifixion. It was quite experience though, and well made. Mel made the movie trying to portray what it would have been like in Jesus' last hours. He did an extremely good job. The movie is not supposed to be all about Jesus' entire life. How could you make a movie like that? I don't think you could.

For all of the Jewish controversy, I believe Mel made the movie as he believes it took place, as he read in the Bible. The Jews may have helped along his death, but Jesus begged forgiveness for them. They thought he was a criminal. I do not believe that all Christians watching the movie will think bad of Jews. Jesus loved them, as well as all Christians should.

And if one thing is great about this whole movie, IS all of the hype about it. Just one day after it released, I have heard conversations across the hall, in the lunch room, friends, all talking about the movie. This will be a tiem for many people to have the chance to come close to God. I believe we, as Christians, should realize this, and use it to our advantage!

Wow, long post. All in all, I might not have "enjoyed" watching Jesus being murdered, but it was quite an experience. I am sure I will be seeing it more times with friends and church though.

One word about it...AMEN!!!!

Jesus's Cross was manufactured at the temple...? either i missed it or i must have been asleep that time,... didn't catch it...

Well, i wasn't refering to the other details of the movie as much as i was on what Jesus would have endured. I was actually more leaning towards the meaning that the movie was accurate in the sense that the depiction of what Jesus went through was more or less historically accurate, unlike the 1970s Jesus film,....


Actually it is accurate. The film was in Arabic and Latin. The Jewish characters in the movie would have spoken Aramic, their language at the time, the Romans would have spoken "street latin" and the intellectuals of the day would have spoken Greek. Since the intellectuals were uninvolved in the story, there was no need for Greek. Therefore the movie was accurate.

Off the top of my head i could list some mistakes and inaccuracies:
1. When the romans crucified someone, it was through their wrists, not their hands, if they were nailed through the hands, when the cross was erected, the person would have just slipped off, the hands are simply not strong enough. It is a common assumption that the nails went through the hands because the bible have said 'hands' but the actual meaning of 'hands' in the original Greek Biblical text would include the fingers, palm, wrists and forearms. The person on the cross would have died of suffiocation rather than pain.
2. It was customary to flog someone 39 lashes (sometimes more, depending on the flogger's mood), before they were nailed to the cross. Jesus had probably endure more in the movie, also, the wooden cane like things would have never been used. The other two criminals beside Jesus in the movie was never flogged, nor did it look like they were actually crucified.

and Chrisrkline, i wasn't refering to people who disliked the violence, but people who thought it was unneccesary. Personally, i disliked it, but i would rather have it on full violence if it meant that it was historically accurate, than to have a watered down version of the truth.

drummer7, well said. or as shakespeare would put it, well saideth.

Dan, i'm going to be frank here, and please don't take this the wrong way, and i think that what you said was completely valid as an opinion. Just that perhaps you could look deeper into the film and look beyond the suffering into the meaning of it all... again, no hostility/patronizing/assholian behavior intended here...

Cheers

The movie was made to be about the last few hours of Christ's life. Well, they did that. That's what I went to see, that's what I got. I was quite satisfied.
Jesus came to earth to die, that was his purpose, to sacrafice himself. So I believe a movie just about his death is appropriate for those who can handle the graphic scenes.

Agreed Dan. As I said before though, my beef isn't that it shows graphic and violent images. It's the fact that, for the most part, that is the ENTIRE movie. Go ahead and focus on the death, show the torment of Jesus' last hours, but if your going to do that AT LEAST give the audience a why...and let the audience connect to the character through the movie. The movie doesn't really show the point of the death. The movie doesn't let us know about Jesus and how great he was, which is part of what makes his death so sad and so inspiring at the same time. In my opinion, if the movie was really good there would be no reason for all of us thus far to have felt the need to offer explanations and our own interpretations of the death of Christ. We would be able to have the understanding through the development of the story in the movie. We would be quoting the movie, not our own ideas.

The movie offered nothing but the showing of the beating of a man, whom we are expected to imagine for ourselves why it is happening. That is what makes the movie nothing but gruesome. There is no "movie" to it. The characters did nothing (cried and spoke a couple Aramaic one-liners), there wasn't really much story to it (opening credits, Jesus praying, then the never-ending beat down), no follow through, and definately no reason coming from the movie as to the importance of his death.

Just a graphic beat down film. The only thing that makes it special to anyone is that the one being beat down is Jesus.

The world has finally gone off the deep end....

The catalyst seems to be Nixon...I mean Bush.....

Ok, I'm going to try not to be rude here, but have you people no idea about your faith? The Passion is the events leading up to and including his death. It is not the rest of his life. If you've ever prayed the rosary you would know there are different 'sections' if you will, that you read. I frown upon myself as I do not remember now what the others are called, but there are 4. On one day you do the first, which includes Christ's birth, then the second, about his life, the third I believe is the Passion, and the fourth is his resurrection. Mel's intent was to make this about The Passion Of The Christ, and to show that it wasn't some hum-dingy easy thing Jesus did.
And as for all these people saying anti-semitism (not in here), Christ died for all of us, because of all of us. We are killing him to this day as we sin. ALL OF US are responsible, not just the people who chanted "Barabbas, Barabbas" all those years ago.
If i'm wrong on anything here please feel free to correct me, it's been a while since my last rosary section so i apologize, but Im sure I've got the gist of it right.

We all know what the passion is.

I think you missed the point some people were making, this being that the movie would have had wider appeal if it showed more than just the last 12 hours (or whatever) of jc's life.

There is a great cartoon by Matt Davis of the Journal News who shows two people leaving the theater after watching the Passion and the woman tells her husband, "I think I liked the Book better." I agree.