Movies

[Bran-Muffin]

I think that is retarted, if it is going to say gorie then it should F'in be a gorie movie.

Saving Priavte Ryan had more gore in it that Pulp Ficition that i can remember.

Kill Bill 1 and 2

Texas Chainsaw Masscre

I could list a few more other gore filled movies, that would definatly beat the ones on that list.

[swymir]

Well it wasn't really most gorie it was most innaporopriate for kids to watch really. Saving Private Ryan didn't exactly have a lot of sex and drugs in it so it may have scored a 10 in that category, but it wouldn't have scored high in the other categories which would keep it low.

[wichita]

The term gore has a connotation of more gratuitous and unecesary violence - the type of stuff you see in horror movies and slasher films. I consider graphic violence like Saving Private Ryan and Band of Brothers to be different because it is historical and educational. The bloodiness of those works is important to relate the true nature of war, and I was impressed by the stories of the WWII vets who attested to Ryan's accuracy when it came out. While Pulp Fiction is a very artistic work, the violence was of a much different nature - it was almost glorified in it.

I guess it's like comparing rennaisance portraits of nudes (art) to photos from Penthouse (porn). Both deliver pleasure and enjoyment to their respective observers, but both have completely different places in society.

I wouldn't discourage kids from watching stuff like Saving Private Ryan, but wouldn't let them anywhere near something like Pulp Fiction, because the first would provide them with a life lesson while the latter would just warp their psyches. And I'm thinking about like 10 - 13 year olds when I say kids here, not toddlers or elementary school age. I'm talking about those kids that are mature enough to be thinking seriously about the larger lessons of life, but still need a significant amount of emotional and intellectual guidance.

I was really pisseed when they rereleased the Passion of the Christ this Easter and advertised that they were editing some of the blood out of it to make it less graphic. Did that many people really miss out on just how important that symbolism is to Christianity?

[AoM]

I never saw the Passion, so I can't comment on it. But a lot of my friends, some who were Christian, and one Quaker, all seemed to say that it was a little over the top.

Growing up a Catholic, I know that the suffering that Christ endured for us is important. The physical trauma of the situation is layed out in the stations of the cross, particularly in the three times that Jesus falls. I don't think you need to splash that much red paint into a movie scene of Good Friday because the whole story is symbolic already. The falling, the stigmata, the crown of thorns, the carrying of the cross... these already speak to the horror and the burden that Christ suffered. From what I hear of it, Mel Gibson may have been beating an already dying horse.

Plus, speaking as an (ex)Catholic, the Ressurection of Christ is more important than his suffering. The display of his divinity and the opening of the gates of heaven kind've trumps the bloodfest. So in a way, the blood can be seen as distracting from the more important themes in the story of Christ.

[wichita]

True on the Resurrection AoM, I refrain from bringing that up when talking about the film because I realize that the term Passion was brought about by the Catholics to refer to that specific part of the story. And I see your point about the graphicness being overkill, but without the death, there couldn't have been a resurrection. The importance of the film's bloodiness just struck me as I watched it and it made me think of all the scriptures that seem to be ignored by modern christianity.

I won't rant on it now, because most of you won't care and I don't want to be one of those loudmouths who tries to cram his point of view down your throats wether you are interested in hearing it or not. Even though I am the smartest man alive and you should consider yoursleves lucky to have me impart a bit of my wisdom upon you, I must yield to avoid offending the sensitive conscience of the public. (That was sarcasm, for those of you who might miss it) Most of the behavior exhibited by today's "christians" is just incredibly aggravating to me, so I was feeling motivated to post something.

[rklenseth]

As a Catholic, I felt that the gore and blood was necessary to reach that emotional impact that no other movie based on the Passion of the Christ has ever come close. I don't think anyone could ever truly understand the suffering that Jesus had to endure without seeing the graphic results of that suffering. It is like "Saving Private Ryan" without the blood and gore. How would we have ever know what war was like and what the soldiers had to endure if it was filmed without the blood and gore and rather done like the old 1950 John Wayne war movies?

[SekoETC]

Off topic: The physical suffering is not the main point. It's the thing that Jesus was without sin and he took the sin of all others as his burden. He died for us and came back to life. Without that we'd all be lost, carrying our endless load sins on our own. Everyone deserves death. But through his mercy there'll be salvation and eternal life.

[wichita]

Not off topic, Seko. That was the point. The excessive unrealistic volume of blood in the film represents that endless overabundance of grace that the sacrifice freely poured out for all the sin of all of mankind over the entire history and future of the world's existence. Without the shedding of blood there would be no forgiveness, according to the book of Hebrews. It is what the water in baptism represents, with immersion representing burial in death, and rising up out of the water the rebirth to a new life. But since a lot of "christians" don't seem to believe in baptism anymore...it just feels like most people don't get any of that.


Back to movies:

<i>October Sky</i>
It's a must see for anybody working in science or engineering or anyone who would like an insight into what initially drives people towards those fields. It makes me darn near cry every time I see it.

[Missy]

I never saw the Passion, so I can't comment on it. But a lot of my friends, some who were Christian, and one Quaker, all seemed to say that it was a little over the top.

Growing up a Catholic, I know that the suffering that Christ endured for us is important. The physical trauma of the situation is layed out in the stations of the cross, particularly in the three times that Jesus falls. I don't think you need to splash that much red paint into a movie scene of Good Friday because the whole story is symbolic already. The falling, the stigmata, the crown of thorns, the carrying of the cross... these already speak to the horror and the burden that Christ suffered. From what I hear of it, Mel Gibson may have been beating an already dying horse.

Plus, speaking as an (ex)Catholic, the Ressurection of Christ is more important than his suffering. The display of his divinity and the opening of the gates of heaven kind've trumps the bloodfest. So in a way, the blood can be seen as distracting from the more important themes in the story of Christ.

To a person who believes and understands christianity you're right.
To me, you're wrong. I didn't get what you people believed in. I think the blood made that real for me.

[swymir]

October Sky: Good movie and a good book as well. I wouldn't say one of the best, but definitly worth seeing.

[AoM]

I never saw the Passion, so I can't comment on it. But a lot of my friends, some who were Christian, and one Quaker, all seemed to say that it was a little over the top.

Growing up a Catholic, I know that the suffering that Christ endured for us is important. The physical trauma of the situation is layed out in the stations of the cross, particularly in the three times that Jesus falls. I don't think you need to splash that much red paint into a movie scene of Good Friday because the whole story is symbolic already. The falling, the stigmata, the crown of thorns, the carrying of the cross... these already speak to the horror and the burden that Christ suffered. From what I hear of it, Mel Gibson may have been beating an already dying horse.

Plus, speaking as an (ex)Catholic, the Ressurection of Christ is more important than his suffering. The display of his divinity and the opening of the gates of heaven kind've trumps the bloodfest. So in a way, the blood can be seen as distracting from the more important themes in the story of Christ.

To a person who believes and understands christianity you're right.
To me, you're wrong. I didn't get what you people believed in. I think the blood made that real for me.

What did the blood make real for you? That the death of Christ was horrible, humiliating, painful and unjust? Or did it help you get the whole he died for our sins thing? Which should Mel Gibson, as a christian who believes and understands christianity, have been trying to emphasize?

Just as a clarification, I'm an ex-catholic, ex-christian. I'm a hair shy of being a total atheist. The greatest retelling of the death of Christ in my book is JC Superstar. Not because it lacked blood, nor because of the great music, but because it lacked the single most important part of Christ's story: his ressurection. It begged us to look at Christ as a man, not a god. (And it really PO'd the Holy See.)

[Bran-Muffin]

October Sky: Good movie and a good book as well. I wouldn't say one of the best, but definitly worth seeing.

I have to disagree with you, I think that was one of the best movies of its time.

Other movies that have been better were made, but still it is a top lister. Top fifteen at least.

[rklenseth]

I never saw the Passion, so I can't comment on it. But a lot of my friends, some who were Christian, and one Quaker, all seemed to say that it was a little over the top.

Growing up a Catholic, I know that the suffering that Christ endured for us is important. The physical trauma of the situation is layed out in the stations of the cross, particularly in the three times that Jesus falls. I don't think you need to splash that much red paint into a movie scene of Good Friday because the whole story is symbolic already. The falling, the stigmata, the crown of thorns, the carrying of the cross... these already speak to the horror and the burden that Christ suffered. From what I hear of it, Mel Gibson may have been beating an already dying horse.

Plus, speaking as an (ex)Catholic, the Ressurection of Christ is more important than his suffering. The display of his divinity and the opening of the gates of heaven kind've trumps the bloodfest. So in a way, the blood can be seen as distracting from the more important themes in the story of Christ.

To a person who believes and understands christianity you're right.
To me, you're wrong. I didn't get what you people believed in. I think the blood made that real for me.

What did the blood make real for you? That the death of Christ was horrible, humiliating, painful and unjust? Or did it help you get the whole he died for our sins thing? Which should Mel Gibson, as a christian who believes and understands christianity, have been trying to emphasize?

Just as a clarification, I'm an ex-catholic, ex-christian. I'm a hair shy of being a total atheist. The greatest retelling of the death of Christ in my book is JC Superstar. Not because it lacked blood, nor because of the great music, but because it lacked the single most important part of Christ's story: his ressurection. It begged us to look at Christ as a man, not a god. (And it really PO'd the Holy See.)

Where did Christians ever claim that Jesus was a god? Jesus was the savior who died for our sins so that we may have eternal life or at least the chance for one. But Jesus was a man. A great man that was willing to give his life for what he believed.

[west]

Um...the tenet that Jesus was God is a central tenet of the Christian faith, RKL. THE central tenet, actually.

Witness, for example, the Apostles Creed or any of the books of John.

The concept of the trinity is a bit hard to come across; it's a bit like the concept of Avatars in the Hindu faith.

The Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit (or Ghost) are three aspects of the same whole, all fully God. That is the fundament of Christianity.

[rklenseth]

Did Jesus ever claim to be the son of God and is it not true that in the Jewish faith that all people are the sons and daughters of God? We often forget that Jesus was Jewish. The only time that I can remember that Jesus came close to claiming it was when he was a young boy and visited the temple in Jerusalem and said to the Jewish priest there that he was in his Father's house.

And aren't we all part of God? Parts to the same whole. All different but all the same.