Is Mel Gibson insane?

Agreed. It's all probably due to their incisiveness to be emotionally excited by the movie, which does indicate the hellywood mentality running rampant amongst the churches of today. From the standpoint of propigating the Gospel, I concur, but with rationality to the gore of the content, I abstain.

Is it allright for me to do that? or will I be mocked, ridiculed, accused of being duoble-minded, crucified at the hands of the typists on BB?

 

"The Passion of the Christ" is by no means a big budget film. The cost was come 20 or so million dollars. The average cost of a movie these days is near $50 million.

As much as Christians like to complain about Hollywood, movies with strong sexual or violence content usually bomb at the box office. According to the American Family Association, the average cost to produce a movie in 1996 was $40 million. Sex films grossed on average only $700,000. Movies with strong Christian or family content each grossed over $40 million.

The top five moneymaking films of all time are: Titanic ($1.8 billion), Jurassic Park ($920 million), Independence Day ($810m), Star Wars ($780 million), The Lion King ($767 million). Notice that they all are family-type movies. Nearly all of the highest grossing films of all time are geared towards a family audience.

In fact, if you look at the top 20 films of all time, the only R rated movie you see is "The Matrix Reloaded".

 

Current movie topic aside, I've heard firsthand Jim Caviezel's testimony. He's a die hard spirit filled Christian, without a doubt (He's also Catholic, proving once again that Catholics can be Christians too, regardless of what legalistic Baptists have to say about it). My favorite movie of his is still "Frequency". I haven't seen "The Count of Monte Christo", but have heard good things about it, although it departs a bit from the book.

 

On that, there can be no disagreement. Of course, there's a difference between "good" debate and "bad" debate. Healthy debate and discusion must always produce fruit. That's one of the reasons I generally stay away from creation/evolution debates.

 

Vaspers, I'm not sure you understand the point of being an actor. You go from one role to the next. The gentleman playing Jesus isn't THE REAL Jesus, he's a mere man in the flesh who can, has, and will sin. Whatever other movies he or any actor playing in this movie does outside of The Passion really has nothing to do with this film.

Joan

 

You're referring to typecasting. What happens in typecasting is just the opposite of what you imply. Rather, an actor, say, Wiliam Shatner, will NOT be able to get a sexually suggestinve role because filmmakers see him as a starship captain. George Reeves was NOT able to get romantic or serious leads because he was typecast as Superman.

But, as far as what you're referring to, I have a seven year old who will watch X-Men and not say "Hey, that's Gandalf" or "Hey, that's Captain Picard". He's not likely to watch "Frequency" and say "Hey, that's Jesus". (I won't be taking my 7yo to see Mel's movie, btw, although I will be seeing it).

 

Vaspers, well perhaps in some bizzare fashion others might see him as Jesus playing in other roles, which in my opinion is really odd and I've never heard such a thing. Actually, I have to agree with you there Vaspers, I don't think I can sit through this movie eating snacks, perhaps some can do that, but I just don't think I could even see popcorn through tears streaming down my face.

Joan

 

Its taken the TV and movie world 50 years to soften society, and the church too,to bring us to the point that such a movie like this could be made.I wonder what our forefathers,those gone on before,would make of this movie?????????
Maybe we've grown to be more spirilual than them,I doubt it,i think they'd be shocked