| Author | Thread |
|
|
02/28/2004 07:17:32 PM · #51 |
I took my 13 year old to see it. I think it is sutable for 13 and maybe some 10-12 year olds but not younger.
Originally posted by casualguy:
Quick question about the movie (to those who have seen it).....
Do you feel this movie is suitable for a teenager (13/14) to see?
(TO LATE.....) |
|
|
|
|
02/28/2004 07:28:58 PM · #52 |
I plan to see it soon...
As this is a photography site, and there are no photos in this thread, I thought I would add one.
I shot this at the Grace St Stephens Episcopal Church in Downtown Colorado Springs.
|
|
|
|
02/28/2004 09:37:32 PM · #53 |
I was so moved with the emotional impact of the film that I forgot to mention the awesome photography. The cinamatography was exemplary, using various and fresh perspectives. An example is when Jesus fell and the camera showed people towering over him as he would see it. Another example is the use of very tight crops of people's faces, which became intimate. The lighting was so good too.
The makeup artists were top notch all the way, creating extremely believable wounds.
Just wanted to add my two cents about all these techniques and artistry.
|
|
|
|
02/29/2004 12:08:36 AM · #54 |
My sister took her 15, almost 16, yo daughter, and her 13 yo son. The daughter is very sensitive to things, but my sister had discussed it with her and they had watch the interviews and stuff on TV. My brother took his 10 yo son, and is planning on taking his 7 yo.
As far as what is too young, it really depends on the child and relation to the story being told. I haven't seen it, yet, but my mom, sister, and brother have, and having been brought up in a Christian home, we were very familiar with the story. And maybe we are just weird, but the brutality they saw wasn't a surprise, partially because we have all studied the crucifixion (and how it was done) before. Therefore, the aforementioned kids could deal with it.
If your kids have never been exposed to the story, I definitely wouldn't take them in "cold turkey." Do some research on the Internet, find some recordings of the TV stuff, and maybe see it for yourself. Again, I have not seen it, and am basing all of this on secondhand experience, so I may just be crazy.
|
|
|
|
02/29/2004 12:20:49 AM · #55 |
My wife and I saw it saturday, it was very moving...
I am going to see it again today and will be taking an 11, 13 and 16 year old with me...It depends on the maturity of the child, wether they should go or not...
I also would like to see a follow-up movie about the resurrection... |
|
|
|
02/29/2004 04:26:41 AM · #56 |
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
I'm not a biblical scholar, but the opinions I have read that were written by scholars and historians agree that there are significant deviations from history in Mel Gibsons account. |
Not from Biblical history.
I don't know what movie they saw, but obviously not Mel Gibson's The Passion of the Christ.
I just saw it today and both my mother and I (she has studied the gospels more than I have) agreed that there were NO significant deviations.
Yes, he leaves out a couple of the trials (most likely to save time and avoid repetativeness), he added scenes between Mary and Jesus (to establish the Mother & Son relationship), and he gave other characters more life. But those are all small things, they do not interefere with how it acurately depicts the Gospel accounts.
As for the Pilate not being ruthless enough and too conflicted. Given that his wife sends him a message not to have anything to do with Jesus (Matthew 27:19), it is logical to assume that they had a close and trusting relationship because of how he reacts, he does not blow it off, but listens. If your wife told you not to do something and you trusted her, but you did not want to get in trouble with your boss (Caesar), you would be conflicted too, no matter how ruthless you were.
It is incredibly powerful, whether you are to see it from a non-Christian or Christian viewpoint. The cinematography is FABULOUS (wonderful eycandy for all of us here). The way he intersperses flashbacks is perfect to give you a break from the violence. Also, there is about 40 minutes of violence, yes, but about 15 minutes around 1/3 the way through and 25 minutes at the end. In both he worked in other scenes to give breaks from it.
Message edited by author 2004-02-29 04:28:41.
|
|
|
|
02/29/2004 11:47:05 AM · #57 |
I think I'll wait to see it as a double feature with the sequel, Inquisition: The Life and Times of Tomas de Torquemada
I do hope he goes with this site's revised estimate, that he burned alive "only 2000" Jews and heretics and not the 8000 previously attributed, I think 8000 would be over the top even for Mr. Gibson. He can check here for technical details to ensure historical accuracy. |
|
|
|
02/29/2004 10:21:52 PM · #58 |
I didn't notice any serious deviations from the gospels. Sometimes minor points will be blown up to suit someone's agenda...lol Some of the so-called scholars MAY fall into that category.My Photo Gallery
|
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 08/24/2025 10:00:54 AM EDT.
