| New Releases |  | charlie brown set 5 vhs: Peanuts: ,a Charlie Brown christmas, It's the Great Pumpkin, a Charlie Brown christmas vol 2, It's the Easter Beagle, Charlie Brown, You Can't Win, Charlie Brown | | the beginner bible set 3 vhs: The Beginner's Bible: The Story of Noah's Ark, Beginner's Bible Video Series: The Story of Easter, | | the beginner bible set 4 vhs: The Beginner's Bible: The Story of Noah's Ark, Beginner's Bible Video Series: The Story of Easter, Beginner's Bible Video Series: The Story of David And Goliath, Beginners Bible-The Story of Daniel and the Lion's Den: Children's Bible Story Video | | The Animated Stories from the New Testament: The Miracle of Jesus |
|
|
|
|
The Passion of the Christ (Spanish Subtitles) | 
 enlarge | Director: Mel Gibson
Actors: James Caviezel, Monica Bellucci, Maia Morgenstern, Christo Jivkov, Francesco De Vito
Studio: 20th Century Fox
List Price: $14.98
Buy New: $14.23
You Save: $0.75 (5%)
New (3) Used (6) Collectible (1) from $8.99
Rating:  1997 reviews
Format: Closed-captioned, Color, Subtitled, Ntsc
Languages: Hebrew (Original Language), Latin (Original Language)
Rating: Unrated
Media: VHS Tape
Number Of Items: 1
Running Time: 127
Shipping Weight (lbs): 0.6
Dimensions (in): 7.4 x 4.2 x 1.1
UPC: 024543140412
EAN: 0024543133551
Theatrical Release Date: February 25, 2004
Release Date: August 31, 2004
Availability: Usually ships in 24 hours
|
| Editorial Reviews:
Amazon.com
After all the controversy and rigorous debate has subsided, Mel Gibson's The Passion of the Christ will remain a force to be reckoned with. In the final analysis, "Gibson's Folly" is an act of personal bravery and commitment on the part of its director, who self-financed this $25-30 million production to preserve his artistic goal of creating the Passion of Christ ("Passion" in this context meaning "suffering") as a quite literal, in-your-face interpretation of the final 12 hours in the life of Jesus, scripted almost directly from the gospels (and spoken in Aramaic and Latin with a relative minimum of subtitles) and presented as a relentless, 126-minute ordeal of torture and crucifixion. For Christians and non-Christians alike, this film does not "entertain," and it's not a film that one can "like" or "dislike" in any conventional sense. (It is also emphatically not a film for children or the weak of heart.) Rather, The Passion is a cinematic experience that serves an almost singular purpose: to show the scourging and death of Jesus Christ in such horrifically graphic detail (with Gibson's own hand pounding the nails in the cross) that even non-believers may feel a twinge of sorrow and culpability in witnessing the final moments of the Son of God, played by Jim Caviezel in a performance that's not so much acting as a willful act of submission, so intense that some will weep not only for Christ, but for Caviezel's unparalleled test of endurance. Leave it to the intelligentsia to debate the film's alleged anti-Semitic slant; if one judges what is on the screen (so gloriously served by John Debney's score and Caleb Deschanel's cinematography), there is fuel for debate but no obvious malice aforethought; the Jews under Caiaphas are just as guilty as the barbaric Romans who carry out the execution, especially after Gibson excised (from the subtitles, if not the soundtrack) the film's most controversial line of dialogue. If one accepts that Gibson's intentions are sincere, The Passion can be accepted for what it is: a grueling, straightforward (some might say unimaginative) and extremely violent depiction of the Passion, guaranteed to render devout Christians speechless while it intensifies their faith. Non-believers are likely to take a more dispassionate view, and some may resort to ridicule. But one thing remains undebatable: with The Passion of the Christ, Gibson put his money where his mouth is. You can praise or damn him all you want, but you've got to admire his chutzpah. --Jeff Shannon
|
| Customer Reviews: Read 1992 more reviews...
 How can you not love the Lord? November 26, 2008
My whole life and purpose as a christian is to follow Christ, there is no peace like the peace I know when I am in close relationship with Him. He is my all, my everything, my provider, I do, I truly love the Lord. I was 24 when I watched this with my husband and I still can remember how quite the movie theater was, all I could hear where muffled cries, sniffing and I was broken beyond words, I was touched, I was renewed, I was blessed. Mel Gibson did a perfect job. This is by far the best movie and most important movie that will ever be made. To know that there are some who are repelled by such love is incomprehensible, but you know Gos is love and He still and always loves us all, the weak, the strong, the christian, the non-christians, that's how Amazing He is, love unconditional, love supreme. And as for I and my family, we will worship Him as long as we live. To Him be the Glory forever and ever. Amen!
 Blue Passion -- the triumph of anti-Semitism November 18, 2008
0 out of 1 found this review helpful
Let us surmise that in the heady early days of the Third (or Temporary) Reich, Herr Doktor Gobbles commissioned ... um ooops ... Doktor Goebbels commissioned a film the purpose of which would be to discredit Christianity. Let us further surmise that the result was a film called "The Passion of the Christ". Given these results, the filmmaker would have been awarded German filmdom's highest award, the Adolf, plus a special thorn cluster authorized by Herr Doktor Goebbels. That was then.
This is now. And here it is at last: a new technologically advanced edition of the world's slimiest "Bible" travesty in all its Gospel-bashing, anti-Semitic, and fantasy-pushing glory.
Aside from its propagandistic purposes, "Passion" is so full of inaccuracies, it's hard to know where to start. Let's start by noting that the only historically worthwhile (if not necessarily accurate) narratives we have of the so-called "passion" are the 4 canonical gospels. Nothing else of a non-scholarly nature is worth the paper it's printed on. This film depends on apocryphal (and useless) narratives, the ravings of a 19th-Century hysteric nun, and other fraudulent "sources". In addition there are other solecisms of a purely stupid nature.
For instance, Gibson thinks he's really clever by having people speak the languages they would have spoken at the time. And then, laughably, he has Jesus and Pilate conversing in Latin. Latin was not the lingua franca of the Roman East ... that was Greek. Furthermore, Jesus was born (at Bethlehem-in-Galilee, not Bethlehem-in-Judea) and raised in Galilee, an area which was under the Hebrew- and Greek-speaking rule of various Herods. Jesus and Pilate would have spoken in Greek. (The argument that Jesus would have learned Latin from Roman soldiers is just silly ... Galilee was part of an autonomous kingdom and Roman soldiers didn't enter the area until after the exile of Herod Antipas in 39 CE. Besides, the Roman military spoke a patois of Italic - related to Latin - that was widely used in northern Italy.)
Gibson's contempt for the canonical gospels is a main theme of the film. In Gethsemane, Jesus is shown not so much praying to his god but having a conversation with Satan - something the gospel writers seem totally unaware of. Later on, the soldiers that arrest Jesus throw him bodily from a bridge - an event utterly absent from the gospels.
The events between Jesus' arrest and his crucifixion show not only Gibson's contempt for the gospels, but also his utter ignorance of the practices of Roman law and the evidence of archaeology. The bit covering his appearance before the Sanhedrin is hilarious. The charge - the only charge - was actually a term totally misused these days, "blasphemy". That is, in the Greek, "blasphemia", which means treason, in the sense that Jesus has claimed to be King of Judea. Despite pathetic attempts by Christians, from the First Century CE on, to give this term a religious connotation, it is a political crime, pure and simple. Gibson's failure to recognize this fact is stupid - as is everything else in this film.
The scourging of Jesus is a good example of Gibson's contempt for facts. Roman judicial procedure is well known and the gospels in fact do a fair job of showing it correctly. Gibson's version is not only inaccurate, it's trashy. The pronouncing of sentence of crucifixion ends with this sentence: "Let him be scourged." No person to be tried before a Roman court was whipped until that sentence was uttered.
Furthermore, the whip shown in this film wasn't the one used in these cases - it was employed by Gibson solely for its shock value, not in any interest of accuracy. The actual whip (Latin: flagellum) consisted of several strands of leather of varying length, each tied to a small lead ball. If you believe the Shroud of Turin is any sort of genuine artifact, please note that it is that whip whose marks appear on the back of the individual portrayed in the shroud. This tool of punishment also appears in archaeological contexts.
The number of strokes was limited to a those needed to start a flow of blood - the purpose of scourging being primarily to weaken the victim and shorten his/her time on the cross. They were delivered by a trained professional. What Gibson's film shows is not only ridiculously excessive but incomprehensibly and improbably brutal. This portrayal is clearly for salacious shock value and not any concern for truth. It is at this point (if not before) that the film degenerates into a work of pure fiction.
There is, however, more degeneracy to come. In a scene that occurs nowhere in the gospels nor any other creditable source, Mary is wandering among the pools of blood in the courtyard in which Jesus was scourged. We'll forego questioning how she got past all those guards into a secure area of a Roman fortress. Then out trundles Mrs. Pilate with an armload of bedsheets or used togas or some such. She vanishes and Mary begins to mop up all the blood with togas or sheets or whatever. Say what? Is she collecting souvenirs? I can see a framed slice of sheet on a humble wall in Nazareth. "There's a toga of actual blood!" What ... you don't like the bit about the frame on the wall? That's just as disgusting and stupid as somebody mopping up blood in the first place. No wonder the gospels ignore the whole silly story in the first place. Not only is it silly, it's a fairy tale insulting to the intelligence of anyone whose cerebrum's weight exceeds 1 ounce.
Ah, but wherefore Herr Dr. Goebbels' award of the prestigious thorn cluster? Well, of course: the film's stunning if subtle anti-Semitism. We could point to the film's zeal in promoting the old canard that the Jews "forced" a conviction on a Roman governor who in fact would just as soon crucify people as look at them.
We can and do point to one of the film's most prominent characters - one who actually appears only once, in a brief sentence, in the gospels' passion narratives. This character is Satan, the so-called devil, who pops up everywhere in this film. This character is the most palpable, horrifying manifestation of the film's anti-Semitism. This manifestation takes the form of Satan being cast as a First Century Jew ... right down to the shawl over his head.
This libelous identification of Judaism with Christianity's evil angel must of course give much schadenfreude to nutters like the Aryan Brotherhood, the American Nazi Party, and others who live only to hate. Gibson's depiction of Satan as an embodiment of Judaism - this nation's moral bedrock - is an act of the most desperate bigotry.
Considering that "Passion" is a tissue of lies and misrepresentations, an affront to anyone who values and respects the gospels, and a virtual celluloid hate crime, we would expect Christians everywhere to shun it for the arrant nastiness that it is. But what do we find? They are busy declaring this shabby travesty a triumph of their faith. What does that say of them? Fools have rushed in where our better angels would fear to tread.
Shame, Mel Gibson; shame, shame.
 Gibson's personal take November 13, 2008
If one can accept the distortions of Herod and Pilate, and the depiction of the masses as bloodthirsty, sinister Jews willing to go against their own tradition of never supporting the execution a Rabbi then you have a compelling film, conveying the message that the ultimate Love is sacrifice and Jesus Of Nazareth willingly endured unimaginable pain so as to overcome it and cleanse and Save the Souls of all of those who believe in Him. Was his last days as, in today's lexicon, a "hybrid" Diety-Human more of an exhibition, even to the extent of asking his Father, "Why Hast Thou Forsaken Me?". As God's Son, would he have the Power to miraculously avoid the suffering? A big question for this Reviewer.
To the actual film: I think it would have worked better as a Play, even a Ballet. Has a very, staged, mechanical look to it. If Gibson really did reference Anne Emerich's writing (and possibly his own Father's insensitive comments about Jews today), then perhaps he was trying to teach or at least share with Christians *and* Jews, his personal take, albeit awkward, on the events of two thousand years ago.
"Tough Love" perhaps? The bludgeoning of the viewers senses with continuous corporeal beating of the man who represented Peace?
But good intentions cannot surmount biased historical perspective: I submit that there were enough Jewish-Christians in the supposed angry masses to suppress the desires of a small minority who didn't understand the situation as a whole and *and* their own Peaceful tradition.
Mel, "The Year Of Living Dangerously", "Lethal Weapon(s)", and "Braveheart" are your celluloid domain. Put this film on the same shelf as "Signs".
By God, Mel Gibson really nailed this one! But God helped, too! November 8, 2008
0 out of 2 found this review helpful
I don't remember when they first started calling Good Friday, "Good Friday," or why. The Pharisees, okay, for THEM it was a good Friday, an excellent Friday, one of their favourites; but for Jesus it was not really such a good Friday, and if you have seen Mel Gibson's 5-star movie, The PASSION OF THE CHRIST, you will know exactly what I'm talking about.
(If you have not yet seen the film, but have only heard the word, "passion," then you may suspect that "the Passion" of Christ had something to do with tender feelings for Mary Magdalene, which would be a mistake: "passion" is a word that used to mean "suffering," as in the sense, "I have no control over what that Roman centurion [or that foxy lady] does to me." The second kind of passion is something that Jesus never experienced all that much.)
On 30 March, 31 CE, all Jerusalem turned out to watch Christ's Passion - all but the Twelve disciples, eleven of whom (until the dust settled) were lying low in Bethany, at Mary's Place (which was the only house around that had both a Jesus-friendly owner and plenty of beds); and the twelfth of whom (Judas Iscariot) was out shopping for real estate. The Eleven good disciples had been up late the night before. On Friday morning they were pretty tired, and somewhat drained emotionally, so they slept in (Matt. 26:56). The apostle John finally showed up, at two o'clock, but he arrived too late to carry the cross, so the soldiers made this fellow, Simon of Cyrene, a Libyan tourist, carry it instead.
Mel Gibson's film is accurate for the most part, except that the Jews get blamed for the whole fiasco; when in point of fact, the event went down pretty much as your heavenly Father planned. The sado-masochistic violence, okay, some people don't know when to quit, and Mel Gibson is one of them. Also, the Roman soldiers--like in that scene where they smashed the guy's legs as he hung on the cross next to Jesus. For some Roman soldiers, that was their favourite part of a crucifixion, when they took turns smashing the victim's shins and knees with a wooden bat, to finish him off. If those men had been born a thousand years earlier, and Jewish, they could have been Old Testament heroes. Seriously: these Roman soldiers were not just tough on crime: these guys were LAPD material.)
But as I was saying, God the Father planned the event, including the 3-hour solar blackout (which gets short shrift in Gibson's film), and the earthquake. Caiaphas, Chief Priest of the Jews, was actually pretty annoyed with Yahveh for sending the solar eclipse, because it seemed to him like Yahweh was taking sides. "First the healed ear of Malchus," said Caiaphas, "and now this!" But it wasn't like the Chief Priest could change his mind. It wasn't like he could say, "Whoops, sorry Jesus, we Jewish leaders and priests of Yahweh made a mistake! Let's get you down from up there." He couldn't do that because, for one thing, it was way too dark.
When the sun got switched back on again at 3:00 p.m., Caiaphas just shrugged his shoulders as if there were no connection between Golgotha and the solar event. So God gave him another hint. At 3:01, just as folks were getting off work, a shaker hit, a violent earthquake, about 7.2 on the Richter scale: "The ground shook, and the rocks split, and the curtain of the Temple was torn in two." Walls tumbled, roofs collapsed. Stone tombs all over the holy land snapped open like walnuts (Matt. 28:45-52).
That earthquake sent a powerful message to Caiaphas. Many favourite dishes and clay pots at the Chief Priest's mansion were destroyed; plus, a section of roof over the rear portico collapsed, and fell into the wading pool, and damaged a lovely tile-mosaic of Aphrodite on the half shell.
Unfortunately, the earthquake also sent a powerful message to Jesus. It cannot feel good to be jiggled when you are being crucified. But this was no jiggle. Eyewitnesses said that the earthquake rocked Jesus' cross like a sailboat-mast in a high wind. Then it waved the cross about like a kid with a burning brand. Worst of all, I think, was when the earthquake pounded that cross up and down like a jackhammer (Matt. 27:54).
Jesus always knew that the Crucifixion would be no picnic. He knew it would be violent. In his divine foreknowledge, he probably even knew that someone, someday, would make a graphic, sadistic movie about his suffering, to entertain a decadent Western society. But I think he also thought, at this particular moment, that a teeth-rattling, jaw-banging earthquake was a little much, a little over the top. "My God! My God!" he said, "Why have You forsaken me?" Well, he probably didn't mean to say it aloud, but it just slipped out (Matt. 27:46).
Jesus, to this very day, may harbor some feelings about that Good Friday Earthquake. Couldn't his heavenly Father have waited until they took him down first? Did Yahveh have no clue how that would feel, when His only begotten Son was bouncing up and down like that? Really, it was uncalled for. And I do think that God the Father owes Jesus an apology.
Unfortunately, Yahveh's vocabulary has never included the phrase, "I'm sorry."
- L.
Did not want to see it. Turned out to be a mistake October 30, 2008
1 out of 1 found this review helpful
When this film came out, I chose not to see it.
The reports about shocking violence, and about this movie being about not much more than it, persuaded me that this was just another case of Hollywood using violence to sell, as in this case sex would clearly not work.
Besides, I wondered what Gibson could have added to what I already pretty well knew.
Nevertheless, with the time I got accustomed to the idea of giving it a try, and last year I bought the DVD.
It was then that I discovered how wrong I had been.
This is a shocking, but powerful film. It made me, literally, cry like a child, but the message really hit home. No Gospel reading and no meditation had ever brought the reality, the brutal physicality of what happened in those twelve hours so vividly close to me.
One reads about suffering, and violence, and humiliation, and builds a picture of it within himself which is forcibly limited to the experiences of violence and suffering that he could himself observe, or imagine.
But this film is different. This is "being there". This is the violence of the nailing, or the unbearable brutality of the scourging, as vividly represented as I could never have imagined it myself, because of the lack of the most elementary experiential frame. Not even with my imagination had I been able to correctly understand the sheer atrocity of the events.
I discovered that I had been able to read about, to vaguely imagine, but not to really feel what does it mean to be scourged, or to be nailed to a cross.
Therefore, the violence is not useless; on the contrary, it is an indispensable instrument to the true understanding of those events, the more so because our society is, thankfully, so far away from such levels of violence. It is not a Hollywood gimmick, but a learning instrument. It is not there to awaken your worst instincts, but your best ones.
I cannot know, and it is difficult for me to judge, what effect this movie might have on a non-Christian, though I can well imagine that for some of them, this film might be life-changing.
But I feel pretty sure that the impact on sincere believers will continue to be very powerful in the decades to come.
|
|
|
|
Powered by CBN AssociateStore
| |
