The Passion

Rob Belics · March 2nd, 2004, 10:43 PM

The book is long with some pretty tough sledding and a lot of negativity. Thou shalt not this, thou shalt not that.

It reads like it was written by committee.

Jeff Donald · March 3rd, 2004, 07:01 AM

Probably lost a little something in the translation.

Rob Belics · March 3rd, 2004, 09:22 AM

I had an employee who was training to be a Lutheran minister. We were talking one day and he mentioned he "prefers to read the Latin version" (!).

Dustin Waits · March 3rd, 2004, 01:13 PM

I saw the movie last night. I though it was excellent. I did notice the changes in the the speed that you all have mentioned. At first it did kind of annoy me. But then I started to like it. It gives an interesting feel to the movie. One shot that really stuck out to me was when the lifted him and the cross up. I don't know what you would call the shot, but looked like they used a crane, it had an extremely shallow depth of feild and the camera was moving upward and the background was seperated really good. Ha, like I said I can't describe it really well but if you know which shot I'm talking about, I think it was really nice.

Christopher C. Murphy · March 3rd, 2004, 02:35 PM

I think the slo-mo was a little overused, but it must have been on purpose. If we take a moment and think like a viewer instead of filmmakers...it probably has a certain effect on people watching.

In my opinion, some of the filmmaking techniques were used because of the "test screenings". Apparently, there were tons of test screenings...and it must have an impact. People must have said..."give us a chance to breath".

Bob Zimmerman · March 7th, 2004, 12:35 AM

Well I saw the movie tonight. Mel Gibson did a great job of telling the story. The subtitle thing didn't even bother me. I thought when I first heard he was using subtitles it was kind of dumb. But after seeing the movie I'm glad it wasn't in english.

Randy Reyes · March 10th, 2004, 10:11 AM

Hello all, here's my two pennies... :] I thought that the movie was great. The slow motion didn't bother at all, but you're right in that it made the film look like Bravehart. Despite this, I think it worked, and it did so for millions of other (crying & spiritually touched) viewers. It certainly highlighted key elements in the story.

Yet, I must admit I was left confused at some parts of the movie. There were some parts of the movie that were left underdeveloped, like when Jesus marked the line in the dirt (in slo-mo). I didn't get that part. I've only read a few lines from the Bible and that's it. It would've helped to make the movie more accessible by explaining more behind that whole sequence.

But all in all, I think it was a beautifully crafted film. The color and the costumes were appealing. The use of Aramaic and Latin was a nice touch of realism as well. The flashback sequences were great too because it gave some important background to the characters. I really liked the sequence with the Mary and Jesus and the wooden chair as it made me smile.

But if you ask me if Mel Gibson told the story well? I'd say yeah, he did. I'd give him an A- since he did needed to clarify some story points. But in the end the movie is still powerful, disturbing, and beautiful. Anyone out who hasn't seen it, should watch it! :]

Bob Zimmerman · March 12th, 2004, 05:03 AM

They were going to stone the woman to death for having an affair or something. To make it short,,,,,if you have never done anything wrong, never sinned, cast the first stone. They all threw down their stones.

March 3rd, 2004, 07:01 AM	#17
Jeff Donald Warden Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Clearwater, FL Posts: 8,287	Probably lost a little something in the translation. __________________ Jeff Donald Carpe Diem Search DVinfo.net for quick answers \| Where to Buy? From the best in the business: DVinfo.net sponsors

March 3rd, 2004, 02:35 PM	#20
Christopher C. Murphy Trustee Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: Boston, MA Posts: 1,707	I think the slo-mo was a little overused, but it must have been on purpose. If we take a moment and think like a viewer instead of filmmakers...it probably has a certain effect on people watching. In my opinion, some of the filmmaking techniques were used because of the "test screenings". Apparently, there were tons of test screenings...and it must have an impact. People must have said..."give us a chance to breath". __________________ Christopher C. Murphy Director, Producer, Writer

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version Email this Page	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

March 2nd, 2004, 10:43 PM	#16
Rob Belics Major Player Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: St. Louis, MO Posts: 581	The book is long with some pretty tough sledding and a lot of negativity. Thou shalt not this, thou shalt not that. It reads like it was written by committee.

March 3rd, 2004, 09:22 AM	#18
Rob Belics Major Player Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: St. Louis, MO Posts: 581	I had an employee who was training to be a Lutheran minister. We were talking one day and he mentioned he "prefers to read the Latin version" (!).

March 3rd, 2004, 01:13 PM	#19
Dustin Waits Major Player Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: Ft. Myers Beach, Fl Posts: 243	I saw the movie last night. I though it was excellent. I did notice the changes in the the speed that you all have mentioned. At first it did kind of annoy me. But then I started to like it. It gives an interesting feel to the movie. One shot that really stuck out to me was when the lifted him and the cross up. I don't know what you would call the shot, but looked like they used a crane, it had an extremely shallow depth of feild and the camera was moving upward and the background was seperated really good. Ha, like I said I can't describe it really well but if you know which shot I'm talking about, I think it was really nice.

March 7th, 2004, 12:35 AM	#21
Bob Zimmerman Major Player Join Date: Nov 2001 Location: Illinois Posts: 888	Well I saw the movie tonight. Mel Gibson did a great job of telling the story. The subtitle thing didn't even bother me. I thought when I first heard he was using subtitles it was kind of dumb. But after seeing the movie I'm glad it wasn't in english.

March 10th, 2004, 10:11 AM	#22
Randy Reyes Regular Crew Join Date: Aug 2003 Location: Los Angeles Posts: 54	Hello all, here's my two pennies... :] I thought that the movie was great. The slow motion didn't bother at all, but you're right in that it made the film look like Bravehart. Despite this, I think it worked, and it did so for millions of other (crying & spiritually touched) viewers. It certainly highlighted key elements in the story. Yet, I must admit I was left confused at some parts of the movie. There were some parts of the movie that were left underdeveloped, like when Jesus marked the line in the dirt (in slo-mo). I didn't get that part. I've only read a few lines from the Bible and that's it. It would've helped to make the movie more accessible by explaining more behind that whole sequence. But all in all, I think it was a beautifully crafted film. The color and the costumes were appealing. The use of Aramaic and Latin was a nice touch of realism as well. The flashback sequences were great too because it gave some important background to the characters. I really liked the sequence with the Mary and Jesus and the wooden chair as it made me smile. But if you ask me if Mel Gibson told the story well? I'd say yeah, he did. I'd give him an A- since he did needed to clarify some story points. But in the end the movie is still powerful, disturbing, and beautiful. Anyone out who hasn't seen it, should watch it! :]

March 12th, 2004, 05:03 AM	#23
Bob Zimmerman Major Player Join Date: Nov 2001 Location: Illinois Posts: 888	They were going to stone the woman to death for having an affair or something. To make it short,,,,,if you have never done anything wrong, never sinned, cast the first stone. They all threw down their stones.