Korean Job Discussion Forums

[scarneck]

I saw it with the wife last night. It was a good movie; I wouldn't see it again. I didn't like the way it ended. Ben Hur or the ten Commandments were better. I understand the violence; but now it's time to come up with a movie that focuses on the other aspects of Jesus...some of the universal teachings...Well, at least it got people talking about Jesus again....

[PusanGrl]

I don't see how so many people are able to sit through this film. It allowed me to see just how much violence people are able to handle. I went this weekend and got so sick from the violence that I ended up nearly passing out and got sick. Had to pull myself together to crawl out of the theatre. I'm sorry but the part where that whip with the claw things rips his flesh off and you see his ribs, that did me in right there. And I heard it gets worse from there on. Unfortunately the violence didn't get all that bad until after the first hour, when it was too late to get my money back. Has anyone else left the movie?

[Arthur Fonzerelli]

I saw it last night and I was impressed with the details of the movie... looks like Mel Gibson went all out for authenticity..

Regarding the violence.. The Christian bible states all these things happened and I think the purpose behind the film was to show Christ's "passion" even through all the suffering he endured.. That NOTHING could keep him from fullfilling his passion...

I will definitely buy the DVD when it comes out...

[Cheyne]

I thought the movie was violent and pointless and confirms to me that religion is a crock.

[the saint]

Quite aptly caught this movie last night on Easter day. I thought it was tremendously thought provoking and I really appreciated some of the original and creative ways that Gibson has used to explore what Jesus went through.

I just don't understand what all the fuss about the violence is from everyone. You knew it was violent before you went so there's no point in complaining afterward. Also, the traditional meaning of "Passion" is suffering and so this is a film that focusses on that. There are plenty of other films that focus on other aspects of Christ's life. Go and watch those. The violence here is necessary to portray exactly what Jesus and thousands of other political prisoners of the Romans went through.

It does lay the blame squarely on the Jews for the crucifixion itself showing well how the Sanhedrin manipulated Pilate into having no other choice but to order his crucifixion (something the Jews were not allowed to do themselves). This follows the actual Gospels well - written themselves by Jews too. However, many critics of this miss the fact that the whole cosmic point of the crucifixion was not a result of a bunch of power hungry Jewish leaders 2000 years ago, but all of humanity throught history and on into the future. As a result, blame for the event is something of a moot point.

I saw it with Korean subtitles and hardly speak any Korean. It still worked for me, but then I do know the story well and so good guess what was being said line for line in most places.

One thing that I will remember for a long time from watching this film yesterday is that there were several people in the cinema who were bawling their eyes out, obviously very very moved by what they were seeing. That didn't happen when I watched Schindler's List.

[Yaya]

I saw this movie on Easter Sunday in Burbank, CA. It wasn't as moving as I thought it would be but it was moving nonetheless. I agree with critic Roger Ebert in that one should accept the movie as it is, and not complain about what it should've done and such.

Gibson simply wanted to make a movie detailing the arrest, torture and cruxifiction of Jesus. I think he went overboard on the violence, and to be honest, change brought about by emotions in people do not last forever.

That said, the movie has done some unique things. A guy in Texas who got away with murdering his pregnant girlfriend turned himself in after watching the movie, as did some Neo-Nazi in Norway who killed a few people.

All in all, it was a good movie but I've seen better movies on the life of Jesus. I also still have a problem with a religion whose symbol is a man in excruciating pain and suffering.

[the saint]

[Yaya]

[the saint]

[Juggertha]

for me the shock was that there were children of all ages sitting by me watching the brutality.

I talked with the theater manager and he said the rating in Korea was "15". That is anyone under 15 must be accompanied by an adult. So basically anyone can see it.

baffles the mind.

[Hagwon Muppet]

One of the most boring movies I ever sat through.

Well-made enough but there was no storyline there. Unless you have the whole christianity thing going on to fill in the blanks for yourself the movie is pointless.

[matthewwoodford]

Well I just saw it and one thing I noticed was that the good people are all good looking and the devils are ugly. Mel Gibson allows himself a good deal more dramatic license with the story than I, if I were a Christian, would dare to for fear of blasphemy but then he isn't short on ego. Apart from the nobly suffering Mary, whose example of stoicism seems to inspire Jesus with strength, and the androgenous devil, and the various flashbacks to Jesus as a kid or a young man doing manly stuff like making a table - apart from these things the film pays a lot of attention to all the details and to every station of the cross. Which led me to check the gospels for the authenticity of the brutal scourging scene and, to my surprise, I found they just say simply that he was scourged. They don't say every inch of him was beaten repeatedly with different implements or that he, just like Wallace, groaned a few times in a manly way but never screamed out loud like a girl. Not that the scenes portrayed aren't consistent with the gospels but am I the only one who sees an awful lot of Mel Gibson in this movie?