यह कहानी ईसा मसीह के जीवन के अंतिम बारह घंटो को दर्शाती है.यह कहानी ईसा मसीह के जीवन के अंतिम बारह घंटो को दर्शाती है.यह कहानी ईसा मसीह के जीवन के अंतिम बारह घंटो को दर्शाती है.
- 3 ऑस्कर के लिए नामांकित
- 30 जीत और कुल 24 नामांकन
Christo Jivkov
- John
- (as Hristo Jivkov)
Hristo Shopov
- Pontius Pilate
- (as Hristo Naumov Shopov)
Aleksander Mincer
- Nicodemus
- (as Olek Mincer)
फ़ीचर्ड समीक्षाएं
10DrTuvok
...which is precisely why so many people can't handle it. Gibson could have toned everything down, but then would have been met with apathy or mockery. Both the absurd accusations of antisemitism (in a movie where almost all the characters are Jewish, and where the Romans soldiers are more brutally inhuman than anyone else), and the hypocritical criticism of the violence (there are only TWO sequences in the movie that are difficult to watch, and the first---the scourging---happens around 50 minutes in) are overblown and hyped up because these are the only criticisms people can latch on to. You can't fault the dialogue and line delivery because it's not even in English. You can't fault the direction because the minimal dialogue leads to a more visual story. The soundtrack is criminally underrated by itself. And so on. It is too well made and was way too popular to simply dismiss, and that's why it was so controversial.
The violence criticisms are especially silly given that we live in this culture where audiences and critics regularly gush over shows where graphic violence is played for laughs (Fight Club), nihilism (Game of Thrones), or both (Tarantino). Is it so horrifying that a film appears which demands you take the implications of brutality seriously? Who is really the degenerate here, Mel Gibson or American society as a whole? That being said, there is an anguish which pervades every frame of this film and I could maybe see how that can color people's perception and memory of the violence. Even Roger Ebert, one of the few critics who 'got' the film, estimated that '100 minutes, maybe more' of this two hour film was concerned with graphic torture. His calculations are way off. The people calling this a 'snuff film' obviously haven't watched it and are just parroting that one loser critic. (The Passion is obviously not a 'snuff film' anyway--you're supposed to feel emotional connection to the characters and not just sadism. Some of the Rotten Tomatoes critics are obviously very anti-Christian, and expecting them to give a reliable evaluation to this movie would be like expecting anti-Semites to review Schindler's List fairly.)
Do you have to be religious to 'get' this film? Not particularly, the same way you do not have to be religious to appreciate Renaissance art, much of which seems to have influenced the film. It's also interesting how relatively influential it was, given the smattering of 'visionary' Biblical epics that sprang up in its wake but were consigned to mediocrity. (Ridley Scott's Moses film and Aronofsky's gnostic Noah film).
Side note: The soundtrack for this film is on another level. If you like lots of percussion and vocals in your epic soundtracks, try checking it out. Even if you don't intend to watch the movie.
The violence criticisms are especially silly given that we live in this culture where audiences and critics regularly gush over shows where graphic violence is played for laughs (Fight Club), nihilism (Game of Thrones), or both (Tarantino). Is it so horrifying that a film appears which demands you take the implications of brutality seriously? Who is really the degenerate here, Mel Gibson or American society as a whole? That being said, there is an anguish which pervades every frame of this film and I could maybe see how that can color people's perception and memory of the violence. Even Roger Ebert, one of the few critics who 'got' the film, estimated that '100 minutes, maybe more' of this two hour film was concerned with graphic torture. His calculations are way off. The people calling this a 'snuff film' obviously haven't watched it and are just parroting that one loser critic. (The Passion is obviously not a 'snuff film' anyway--you're supposed to feel emotional connection to the characters and not just sadism. Some of the Rotten Tomatoes critics are obviously very anti-Christian, and expecting them to give a reliable evaluation to this movie would be like expecting anti-Semites to review Schindler's List fairly.)
Do you have to be religious to 'get' this film? Not particularly, the same way you do not have to be religious to appreciate Renaissance art, much of which seems to have influenced the film. It's also interesting how relatively influential it was, given the smattering of 'visionary' Biblical epics that sprang up in its wake but were consigned to mediocrity. (Ridley Scott's Moses film and Aronofsky's gnostic Noah film).
Side note: The soundtrack for this film is on another level. If you like lots of percussion and vocals in your epic soundtracks, try checking it out. Even if you don't intend to watch the movie.
Having avoided this film during its cinema release - partially thru fear as to whether I would be able to handle the violence etc I did eventually catch this on DVD. Bye the way - I write this as a non-religious person. The film was very watchable, never boring and Caviezel was superb in the main role. Your heart really went out to him - even as a "non-believer". I have to say that after all the acres of print I had read about the violence and bloodshed in the film, I actually felt it was rather less nasty than I may have feared. Certainly more visceral than, King of Kings, Greatest Story ever Told etc, a lot of the worst scenes took place in slow motion, off camera etc which somehow did make things easier to stomach. I can imagine if Mike Leigh or Ken Loach had made this it would have been far more unpleasant!
Powerful, moving, even if you don't actually "buy" the central storyline. Jim C truly looks as if he has gone thru hell. Respect is due - to him and all.
I think that the final few moments, segueing into the closing credits would have been quite something to experience in a full cinema!
Powerful, moving, even if you don't actually "buy" the central storyline. Jim C truly looks as if he has gone thru hell. Respect is due - to him and all.
I think that the final few moments, segueing into the closing credits would have been quite something to experience in a full cinema!
I watched first time at a special premiere for my church. We got to see it before anyone else since we saw it two days before it premiered nationwide.. To watch the reactions of my fellow church members was amazing. Many sat in stun silence, while others just bawled openly.
Now, all these years later, I can say this film is still probably the most powerful, and brutally honest film that I have ever seen. If you are a Christian as I am, this film shows everything that we ever need to see about Jesus's last 12 hours, but even if you are an atheist, this film is just plain powerful in the way it was made, and created.
Mel Gibson did as a Director in this film something I doubt that the great Martin Scorsese or Francis Ford Coppola, or Quentin Tarantino could never do.
From the cast, to the direction, to the sets, to the costumes, I believe this is al near perfect a film as you will ever see.
Now, all these years later, I can say this film is still probably the most powerful, and brutally honest film that I have ever seen. If you are a Christian as I am, this film shows everything that we ever need to see about Jesus's last 12 hours, but even if you are an atheist, this film is just plain powerful in the way it was made, and created.
Mel Gibson did as a Director in this film something I doubt that the great Martin Scorsese or Francis Ford Coppola, or Quentin Tarantino could never do.
From the cast, to the direction, to the sets, to the costumes, I believe this is al near perfect a film as you will ever see.
Director Mel Gibson brings the last day of Jesus (Jim Caviezel) to the screen. It is after the last supper and Judas betrays Jesus to the authorities for 30 pieces of silver. Jesus is arrested, beaten, convicted of blasphemy and sentenced to death. Roman Governor Pontius Pilate sends him to King Herod. Herod sees Jesus as a fool and releases him back to Pilate. Fearing a revolt, Pilate offers a choice to the crowd between Jesus and Barabbas.
This is a relatively literal interpretation of the passion play. Mel even uses Aramaic. It is expertly made and delivers the material. There is a vein of anti-semitic bend while Pilate is excused with more humanity. I don't think the film can force modern values on the 2000 year old text. For true believers, this is heaven. Every whip mark is felt. For non-believers, this is a good representation of the text.
This is a relatively literal interpretation of the passion play. Mel even uses Aramaic. It is expertly made and delivers the material. There is a vein of anti-semitic bend while Pilate is excused with more humanity. I don't think the film can force modern values on the 2000 year old text. For true believers, this is heaven. Every whip mark is felt. For non-believers, this is a good representation of the text.
A lot of critics I have heard disliked or even dismissed this movie. They seemed to think that the movie should have focused on Christ's ministry and his teachings, and not on the crucifixion and the events leading up to it. These critics miss the point of this movie. As with all movies, The Passion was directed at a target audience, in this case Christians. The point of the movie was simply this: to make Christians understand, in a visceral way, what they knew intellectually from reading the bible: that Christ endured a horrible and brutal death in order to save us from our sins. It was completely successful in this, and was, perhaps, the most powerful movie I have ever seen.
क्या आपको पता है
- ट्रिवियाJim Caviezel experienced a shoulder separation when the 150-pound cross dropped on his shoulder. The scene is still in the movie.
- गूफ़Satan moves through the crowd while Jesus is being beaten. Jesus is the only one who is supposed to be able to see Satan. However, one man in the crowd follows Satan with his eyes as Satan moves past him.
- क्रेज़ी क्रेडिटThe movie doesn't begin with credits, but only with a verse from the Bible: "He was wounded for our transgressions, crushed for our iniquities; by His wounds we are healed." Isaiah 53; 700 B.C.
- इसके अलावा अन्य वर्जनIn January 2005, Mel Gibson announced that a slightly (5-6 minutes) shorter version would be released to theaters in March 2005 (just in time for Easter), under the title "The Passion Recut". The new version features no new scenes, but trimming of the most graphic scenes, particularly the scourging.
- कनेक्शनEdited into The Arrivals (2008)
- साउंडट्रैकAzeri
Written and Performed by Göksel Baktagir (as Goksel Baktagir) and Yurdal Tokcan
टॉप पसंद
रेटिंग देने के लिए साइन-इन करें और वैयक्तिकृत सुझावों के लिए वॉचलिस्ट करें
विवरण
- रिलीज़ की तारीख़
- कंट्री ऑफ़ ओरिजिन
- आधिकारिक साइटें
- भाषाएं
- इस रूप में भी जाना जाता है
- La pasión de Cristo
- फ़िल्माने की जगहें
- उत्पादन कंपनी
- IMDbPro पर और कंपनी क्रेडिट देखें
बॉक्स ऑफ़िस
- बजट
- $3,00,00,000(अनुमानित)
- US और कनाडा में सकल
- $37,07,82,930
- US और कनाडा में पहले सप्ताह में कुल कमाई
- $8,38,48,082
- 29 फ़र॰ 2004
- दुनिया भर में सकल
- $61,00,63,438
- चलने की अवधि2 घंटे 7 मिनट
- रंग
- ध्वनि मिश्रण
- पक्ष अनुपात
- 2.39 : 1
इस पेज में योगदान दें
किसी बदलाव का सुझाव दें या अनुपलब्ध कॉन्टेंट जोड़ें