Le ultime dodici ore della vita di Gesù di Nazareth, nel giorno della sue crocefissione a Gerusalemme.Le ultime dodici ore della vita di Gesù di Nazareth, nel giorno della sue crocefissione a Gerusalemme.Le ultime dodici ore della vita di Gesù di Nazareth, nel giorno della sue crocefissione a Gerusalemme.
- Regia
- Sceneggiatura
- Star
- Candidato a 3 Oscar
- 30 vittorie e 24 candidature totali
Christo Jivkov
- John
- (as Hristo Jivkov)
Hristo Shopov
- Pontius Pilate
- (as Hristo Naumov Shopov)
Aleksander Mincer
- Nicodemus
- (as Olek Mincer)
Recensioni in evidenza
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.
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!
For the first time in my life, when it comes to discussing a film, I've been rendered nearly speechless. Mel Gibson's `The Passion of the Christ,' which depicts the last 12 hours in the life of Jesus, defies the typical `it's good' or `it's bad' mentality of a review. It's so visually gripping, so heart-wrenching and so emotionally draining that writing about it simply can't do it justice.
Gibson, who directed and co-wrote the screenplay, went to great lengths to make sure his film was Biblically accurate and it shows. Jesus (played brilliantly by James Caviezel, `Frequency') looks Jewish, instead of the blond-haired, blue-eyed man usually seen in the role. Every line spoken is in Aramaic or Latin (with English subtitles). Every prop used, from whips and swords to clothing and wigs, looks stunningly authentic. What emerges is the most realistic depiction of Christ's suffering ever put on screen.
Most films about Jesus begin at His birth, give a kind of Cliff's Notes glance-over of His life, and make crucifixion seem slightly unpleasant - not `Passion.' The film is entirely about the journey to that specific event and shows it's possibly the most horrific method used to kill someone. `Passion' begins as Jesus agonizes in the Garden of Gethsemane, so troubled by His upcoming duty that His sweat turns to blood.
As He prays, He fights a spiritual battle. He knows He must die and, despite leading a sinless life, take on the sins of mankind so they can be saved. He has been abandoned by His followers. He is constantly tempted by Satan, who tells Jesus that one man can't possibly die for everyone's sins. After setting aside His own will and seeking His Father's, Jesus is betrayed by Judas Iscariot (one of His disciples) and handed over to Jewish authorities and eventually the Roman government.
What follows is an unflinching look at the way Christ was killed. His beatings, scourging and eventual crucifixion at the hands of Roman soldiers is shown in graphic detail. Where other films would cut away, `Passion' zooms in - every punch, every piece of flesh ripped away, every drop of blood, every thorn in His crown and every nail driven into His body is vividly captured on camera.
The film is slightly over two hours long, starts with Christ's arrest in the Garden and ends with His resurrection (covered in about 12 seconds). Everything between is His brutal suffering and it is relentless. There are several brief flashbacks to earlier times in Christ's life to provide a short relief from the violence, but none long enough for the audience to forget what they are watching.
The controversy that has surrounded `Passion' in recent months (consisting mostly of claims that it's anti-Semitic) is unfortunate. Yes, some Jews are responsible for the death of Jesus. But so are some Romans and, most importantly, so are the rest of us. Everyone, whether literally or symbolically, placed Jesus Christ on that cross to die. The film in no way implies that the Jewish nation as a whole is to blame for killing Him.
As a Christian, this film is a wake-up call. I've always known that Jesus suffered and died for me. I even know the physical things that happen during a scourging and crucifixion. Seeing the process right in front of you, however, is a completely different matter. I have never cried as hard as I did during `The Passion of the Christ.' As I watched Jesus being beaten, spit upon, whipped to near-death and ultimately nailed to a piece of wood, all I could keep thinking, over and over again, was `He did that for me. He did that for all of us.'
C.S. Lewis once said that Jesus could only be one of three things: Lord (as He said He was), a liar or a lunatic. Before viewing `The Passion of the Christ,' and strongly reinforced afterward, there is only one option for me. Whether Christian or non-Christian, I strongly urge you to see this film.
Gibson, who directed and co-wrote the screenplay, went to great lengths to make sure his film was Biblically accurate and it shows. Jesus (played brilliantly by James Caviezel, `Frequency') looks Jewish, instead of the blond-haired, blue-eyed man usually seen in the role. Every line spoken is in Aramaic or Latin (with English subtitles). Every prop used, from whips and swords to clothing and wigs, looks stunningly authentic. What emerges is the most realistic depiction of Christ's suffering ever put on screen.
Most films about Jesus begin at His birth, give a kind of Cliff's Notes glance-over of His life, and make crucifixion seem slightly unpleasant - not `Passion.' The film is entirely about the journey to that specific event and shows it's possibly the most horrific method used to kill someone. `Passion' begins as Jesus agonizes in the Garden of Gethsemane, so troubled by His upcoming duty that His sweat turns to blood.
As He prays, He fights a spiritual battle. He knows He must die and, despite leading a sinless life, take on the sins of mankind so they can be saved. He has been abandoned by His followers. He is constantly tempted by Satan, who tells Jesus that one man can't possibly die for everyone's sins. After setting aside His own will and seeking His Father's, Jesus is betrayed by Judas Iscariot (one of His disciples) and handed over to Jewish authorities and eventually the Roman government.
What follows is an unflinching look at the way Christ was killed. His beatings, scourging and eventual crucifixion at the hands of Roman soldiers is shown in graphic detail. Where other films would cut away, `Passion' zooms in - every punch, every piece of flesh ripped away, every drop of blood, every thorn in His crown and every nail driven into His body is vividly captured on camera.
The film is slightly over two hours long, starts with Christ's arrest in the Garden and ends with His resurrection (covered in about 12 seconds). Everything between is His brutal suffering and it is relentless. There are several brief flashbacks to earlier times in Christ's life to provide a short relief from the violence, but none long enough for the audience to forget what they are watching.
The controversy that has surrounded `Passion' in recent months (consisting mostly of claims that it's anti-Semitic) is unfortunate. Yes, some Jews are responsible for the death of Jesus. But so are some Romans and, most importantly, so are the rest of us. Everyone, whether literally or symbolically, placed Jesus Christ on that cross to die. The film in no way implies that the Jewish nation as a whole is to blame for killing Him.
As a Christian, this film is a wake-up call. I've always known that Jesus suffered and died for me. I even know the physical things that happen during a scourging and crucifixion. Seeing the process right in front of you, however, is a completely different matter. I have never cried as hard as I did during `The Passion of the Christ.' As I watched Jesus being beaten, spit upon, whipped to near-death and ultimately nailed to a piece of wood, all I could keep thinking, over and over again, was `He did that for me. He did that for all of us.'
C.S. Lewis once said that Jesus could only be one of three things: Lord (as He said He was), a liar or a lunatic. Before viewing `The Passion of the Christ,' and strongly reinforced afterward, there is only one option for me. Whether Christian or non-Christian, I strongly urge you to see this film.
This film is neither preachy nor pedantic, and was a welcome surprise for me. As a non-Christian who nevertheless respects the historical figure of Jesus Christ and the beauty of his philosophy and teachings, I found The Passion to be a powerful portrayal of much that I think is worthwhile about the Christ story. I know the film has been maligned for anti-semitic content (perhaps because Jews make mistakes in the film and are seen as persecutors instead of victims? - it could have been anybody!), and for various other problems - but let's face it - any movie portraying this subject was bound to face strong reactions. And kudos to Mel Gibson for not shying away from the subject by creating a sterile, gutless, Disney story out of what really was a good example of the everyday horror of life on the fringes of the Roman empire. Gibson invents a new genre with The Passion - that of historical horror.
The performances in this film are inspired. I felt that the film brought out the cowardice of the apostles very forcefully, and the courage and love of the two Maries in Jesus' life was palpable to the very end. The effect of Aramaic and Latin, with the moody soundtrack, was spellbinding. Again kudos to Mel Gibson for his courage and artistic integrity on the decisions involved in these elements of the film.
Final word - this is not a film for the whole family nor is it a feel-good film. Don't see it if you're not willing to confront the worst aspects of human nature up close. And don't go in looking for your own version of the story - it's not your film! This is what Mr. Gibson believes, and it's his own revelation, not necessarily to be shared by all.
The performances in this film are inspired. I felt that the film brought out the cowardice of the apostles very forcefully, and the courage and love of the two Maries in Jesus' life was palpable to the very end. The effect of Aramaic and Latin, with the moody soundtrack, was spellbinding. Again kudos to Mel Gibson for his courage and artistic integrity on the decisions involved in these elements of the film.
Final word - this is not a film for the whole family nor is it a feel-good film. Don't see it if you're not willing to confront the worst aspects of human nature up close. And don't go in looking for your own version of the story - it's not your film! This is what Mr. Gibson believes, and it's his own revelation, not necessarily to be shared by all.
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.
Lo sapevi?
- QuizJim Caviezel experienced a shoulder separation when the 150-pound cross dropped on his shoulder. The scene is still in the movie.
- BlooperSatan 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.
- Curiosità sui creditiThe 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.
- Versioni alternativeIn 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.
- ConnessioniEdited into The Arrivals (2008)
- Colonne sonoreAzeri
Written and Performed by Göksel Baktagir (as Goksel Baktagir) and Yurdal Tokcan
I più visti
Accedi per valutare e creare un elenco di titoli salvati per ottenere consigli personalizzati
Dettagli
- Data di uscita
- Paese di origine
- Siti ufficiali
- Lingue
- Celebre anche come
- La pasión de Cristo
- Luoghi delle riprese
- Azienda produttrice
- Vedi altri crediti dell’azienda su IMDbPro
Botteghino
- Budget
- 30.000.000 USD (previsto)
- Lordo Stati Uniti e Canada
- 370.782.930 USD
- Fine settimana di apertura Stati Uniti e Canada
- 83.848.082 USD
- 29 feb 2004
- Lordo in tutto il mondo
- 610.063.438 USD
- Tempo di esecuzione2 ore 7 minuti
- Colore
- Mix di suoni
- Proporzioni
- 2.39 : 1
Contribuisci a questa pagina
Suggerisci una modifica o aggiungi i contenuti mancanti
Divario superiore
What is the streaming release date of La passione di Cristo (2004) in Japan?
Rispondi