| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| CT•Ranger |
Posted - December 16 2002 : 8:33:37 PM
Mel Gibson is currently directing a film in Italy about the last 12 hours of Christ. James Caviezel (Thin Red Line, Count of Monte Cristo) is playing Christ. The film will be entirely in Latin and Aramaic, and Gibson doesn't want any subtitles. I'm not sure why only Latin and Aramaic are mentioned, as Greek would have been more commomly spoken than Latin. Perhaps this is part of Gibson's Latin Catholic bias. Gibson is rumored to have Latin Mass everyday in his private chapel at his home in CA, and his daughter has decided to be a Nun. This film is supposed to follow the gospels and be historically accurate. Looking at Gibson's past historical endeavors I'm not keeping my hopes up. But I admit the concept is interesting, and I like the idea of using the original languages without subtitles. Below is a website with pics of the production in Italy. The images of the bloody Christ struggling to carry the cross are extremely powerful, but he does look too European, and the image of Christ on the cross has the nails through the hands which is physically and archaeologically inaccurate.
http://www.seattlecatholic.com/misc_20021121.html
CT•Ranger |
| 25 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| securemann |
Posted - April 03 2004 : 11:06:04 PM
Satan enjoys mocking God every chance he gets.One example would be the Black Mass which is Satanic and is a blasphemous parody of the Holy Mass instituted by Christ.The Eucharist is desecrated during this evil service along with other blasphemous rituals right out of Hell. |
| Wilderness Woman |
Posted - April 03 2004 : 5:08:15 PM
quote:
With the 'baby' he was mocking the Madonna & Christ Child.
Yes, and to take your analysis a little farther, a friend of mine from work, who saw the movie, said that he felt Satan was taunting God. By caressing and showing tenderness to the "baby" he was in essence saying to God: See how kind and loving I am to my child? See? I would never do to my child what you are doing to yours.
Thank you, Lainey. That was beautiful.
|
| Lainey |
Posted - April 03 2004 : 2:23:38 PM
quote:
I agree with your "review" on all counts. Splendidly done, all around.
Lainey, the only thing that perplexed me, if you care to explain, was the presence of the Devil. Particularly, the scene where he was holding that "baby" ... can you educate me on this?
Oh, one other thing. When Christ was first taken, a couple of the Disciples struggle mightily. This is a different portrayal of the scene than any other I recall. What is that based upon?
The way Satan was presented [an androgynous being - the maggot crawling from the nose to show the interior decay or rottenness] & portrayed by Rosalinda Celentano was yet another triumphal aspect of Gibson's vision. Always present [& unseen save by Christ & Mary] & tempting even Christ, who was True Man as well as True God. The temptations, though vain, were made against the Son of Man in futile hope He'd turn away from His suffering & death so that all would be lost. Christ was tempted & taunted during His 40 days in the desert, too, according to the Gospels.
The grotesque demonic 'baby' was particularly noteworthy since Satan seduces & tempts with that which appeals to us, or seems beautiful. What he ultimately does, though, is to mock the Divine. Always - his is a perverse imitation of what is good & holy. With the 'baby' he was mocking the Madonna & Christ Child.
The Garden of Gethsemane - where the Temple guards came with Judas to seize Christ - this too is a Gospel account of the arrest. Christ's disciples, including His twelve Apostles, did not yet understand why or what was actually going to happen in terms of the Kingdom of God which Christ preached. The Apostles who were with Christ the night He was betrayed had not yet understood that He was to become the Sacrificial Lamb ... that He had to die. They fought & were enraged. Peter cut off a Temple guard's ear. Christ stopped him from further struggle & then healed the severed ear.
What a film it is ... |
| richfed |
Posted - April 03 2004 : 05:38:06 AM
I agree with your "review" on all counts. Splendidly done, all around.
Lainey, the only thing that perplexed me, if you care to explain, was the presence of the Devil. Particularly, the scene where he was holding that "baby" ... can you educate me on this?
Oh, one other thing. When Christ was first taken, a couple of the Disciples struggle mightily. This is a different portrayal of the scene than any other I recall. What is that based upon? |
| Lainey |
Posted - April 03 2004 : 02:51:30 AM
The Passion of the Christ ... 'review' it? It's a film, of course, but it's not really something that is viewed. It's experienced.
Beautiful photography ... beautiful music ... very, very artistic production that remains the Gospel Truth. The violence was never gratuitous & graphically brutal as it was, it could not have been less so. Christ's actual suffering was still greater than what we see.
To hear Aramaic & Latin spoken was sweetly musical. The film could never have been as powerful without these languages [even the 'low Latin' spoken by the Roman soldiers was perfect in its coarseness]. The subtitles were necessary - if only to engage in the fullness of every moment. The conversation between Pontius Pilate & his wife Claudia on veritas ... it was too rich & too important to just hope an audience would understand Pilate's turmoil & almost painful vexation over 'what is truth?' & 'can you know it if you don't hear it?' - & Claudia's reply. [This is taken from an extra-scriptural source ... Anne Catherine Emmerich's writings, and I think it is one of the finest scenes in the film.]
Or when Mary, Christ's Mother, & Mary Magdelene awake with a jolt and say in turn ... 'Why is this night different from any other? Because we were slaves and are slaves no longer.' ... it is part of the spoken rites of the Jewish Pasch. It is a very beautiful way of reminding us that this was the night of Passover & connecting the ancient Paschal celebration to the Paschal Lamb who was now being sacrificed. It was done with great poignancy.
Hearing the words of Christ that are familiar to so many spoken in the tongue with which He actually spoke them was moving.
Mary, played by Maia Morgenstern ... this is the most incredible perfect portrayal of the Mother of Christ I have ever seen. She [Maia] captured the essence of The Virgin in every way - very beautiful to see this as it does introduce Mary to so many who have not yet really known her despite her pivotal & clear presence in Scripture - and of course, her uniquely special relationship to Christ & her role in salvation. This is not a timid Mary, but a very strong woman who has clearly united her will perfectly to God's. It is not a passively weeping, broken Mary, but a Mother whose sorrows are so deep & so painful her every tear evokes its own great passion. Where we usually see Madonna portrayals that are bordering on Bible cut-outs, [Olivia Hussey's portrayal was beautiful, too, but Maia Morgenstern has fully, fully captured the qualities of Christ's Mother] here we have the most compassionate Mother reaching out & comforting all around her who are overcome with grief while her own heart is so wounded. There is a particular look she gives to Claudia that really is the look of the consoling Madonna. Always knowing what her son, Jesus Christ, was born to do, we see her almost unable to bear her Son's pain but bearing it all the way to Calvary anyway. She walks the Via Dolorosa with her Son, giving Him strength & consolation to finish what He came to do - urging Him on really while she weeps. Ready to collapse at one point she sees Her son as a little child falling, she runs to Him to comfort Him. This incredible tender hearted memory gives her the strength to pick herself up & run to Christ who has fallen with His cross. Calling to Him, "Y'shua! I'm here!" ... she falls down to Him & He says, "Look, Mother, I make all things new again." The look between them ... this scene is the most strikingly beautiful, heart wrenching moment in the film I think. If this doesn't bring a deep, deep, deep cry to your heart I don't know that anything will. It is unforgettable ... haunting. He is all her in His humanity - 'Flesh of her Flesh, Heart of her Heart.' Gibson's "Passion" is really a contemplation of the Passion of Christ experienced through His Mother & in her eyes & heart & sorrow.
Maia Morgenstern deserves accolades, awards, & respect for what s |
| richfed |
Posted - March 29 2004 : 6:56:45 PM
I finally saw this ...
It's a hard movie to review - in the manner of most movies. All I care to say about it at this time is that I cried, or was on the verge, through practically the entire film. It is awesomely powerful stuff. Made me tremble ... |
| Wilderness Woman |
Posted - March 24 2004 : 12:24:36 PM
No problem, Lainey! I'll look forward to your review. |
| Lainey |
Posted - March 24 2004 : 10:27:33 AM
Oh, WW, I didn't mean to ignore you ... I just really wanted to wait until I've seen it again & I haven't yet done that. It's contemplative & beautiful & I want to tell you what I think without reacting to the sterile & empty criticisms. If you want to learn how to weep deeply & profoundly & perfectly - you MUST see The Passion. Don't wait, WW.
I promise a review!!!
Meanwhile ... "It is as it was."
Great soundtrack, too. |
| Ithiliana |
Posted - March 22 2004 : 9:57:04 PM
wow...
ive heard its really... gory...
i want to see it, but ill have to convince my parents to let me...
i heard some lady died of a heart attack during the movie, and a lot of ppl were beating up on it because of that.
then again, ppl can die of a heartattach anywhere, so i dont know if thats really a great indicator.
but from the reviews you guy have given, it sounds good...
i hope to see it. |
| Wilderness Woman |
Posted - March 09 2004 : 08:10:50 AM
I was hoping to read more reviews from Mohicanlanders. Lainey? CT-R, have you seen it yet? Sarge, your comments are appreciated, and Christina... yours moved me. Thank you.
I have had to make the unfortunate decision that I am going to have to wait until it is released onto DVD/Video, when I can watch it in the privacy of my own home. Although I will really miss seeing it on the big screen... I simply cannot. It is very difficult to explain, but I had to do this with "Schindler's List" as well.
I have purchased the CD of the soundtrack, after listening to samples on the official movie website. Very powerful music. www.thepassionofthechrist.com
Over $200 million, and counting! Incredible. |
| richfed |
Posted - March 09 2004 : 05:03:00 AM
Ok, I haven't yet seen this, though I very much want to ... Lainey & the kids did. Rave reviews there ...
Just want to say, that the criticisms leveled at Mel & this film are extremely thinly veiled attempts at knocking Christianity ... perhaps Catholicism, specifically ... by, as you say, Sarge, the "Hollywood left crowd." It is killing them that the movie is so successful - and oh so much fun to watch - their death throes, that is! |
| SgtMunro |
Posted - March 09 2004 : 01:27:23 AM
Well, I finally seen "The Passion" this past saturday. I think that I was one of the last people in the Western Hemisphere to see it. What can I say? It left me speechless and introspective, but at the same time it lifted my spirits. I remember as a kid, in Catholic School, that what we were taught about the Crucifixion was very sterilized. Even reading the various accounts in the New Testement could not paint the whole suffering in my mind (Perhaps because I believe that He is the Son of God, and I could never before imagine him subject to mortal suffering on the same level as a regular man). All in all, it gave me new appeciation of my faith, and a new found thankfulness for what He had done for all of us.
As for all of the 'controversy' drummed up by the Hollywood Left crowd, I failed to find any. Was there violence? You bet, and yes that was a violent era, but there was no more than what is found in the 'finest' of Hollywood's creations ("Kill Bill Part-1" comes to mind).
What about anti-semitism? I failed to find any, and Abraham Foxman of the ADL is in agreement. When that red herring was tossed up, some folks failed to realize that Jesus was a Jew! Did the movie show political corruption, yes; but anti-semitism? If you want to find anti-semitism, you need to look no further than a good number of collage campus, with particular attention paid to any number of Muslim Student groups.
In closing I feel that Mel Gibson managed to stick his neck out and pony-up alot of his own capital, when none of the Hollywood 'Heavy Hitters' were willing to give him the time of day, to produce this very timely screenplay.
Your Most Humble Servant,
|
| Christina |
Posted - February 26 2004 : 4:37:36 PM
I have now had the great good fortune to see "The Passion of the Christ" twice, once on Monday at a screening for media, and then again last night with a church group and their guests.
I can honestly say it was one of the most powerful things I have ever had the privilege to sit and witness. It is not just a film, it is an experience. 
In future posts, I'll go into detail about the craft of this film, the acting, the editing, the directing, which I think is all masterful. Everything from the music to the costumes is terrific.
Yes, the film has brutal violence. The whipping scene seems to go on for ages and will definitely be one of the most difficult things you'll ever endure.
But despite blood and gore (yes, there's plenty of it), the overwhelming message of this film is God's love for mankind and redemption. For those who are Christian, the enormity of Christ's sacrifice is brought home in a way unparalleled in other films that have dealt with the same subject.
After I saw the movie the first time, my mouth was dry, my hands were shaking and I couldn't really talk to anybody. It took about four hours before I was able to distance myself from the experience and start thinking about it objectively as "a film." The second screening allowed me more of an opportunity to appreciate it is a film. As a spiritual experience, it's overwhelming. As a film, it's a wonderful work of art.
I admire Mel Gibson for having the courage to bring this vision to fruition.  He has succeeded beyond all expectations I had. This movie made me want to start treating everyone I know and meet better and to be more conscious of God in my life. It also provided me with two great hours of cinematic art.
What more can you ask?
SEE THIS FILM. You won't be sorry.
Christina |
| Lainey |
Posted - February 26 2004 : 10:49:18 AM
Gibson’s Passion
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Russell Hittinger and Elizabeth Lev
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Copyright (c) 2004 First Things 141 (March 2004): 7-10.
From mosaics and music to paintings and plays, the arts have proven to be a mighty vehicle for retelling the Bible and bringing its stories vividly before our senses. A special intensity marks the art created for the Lenten period. Allegri’s Miserere, the moving rendition of Psalm 51 sung on Good Friday, Niccolo dell’Arca’s Lamentation of the Dead Christ with its terra-cotta figures circling in wild grief over the dead Christ, and Dante’s Divine Comedy, the poetic journey lasting from Good Friday to Easter Sunday, are but a few of the great Lenten works that can move the imagination to consider different aspects of the passion. In The Passion of the Christ, scheduled to open in theatres on Ash Wednesday, Mel Gibson adds a work of cinematic art worthy to be mentioned with these classics of Christian culture.
Gibson’s Passion is bound to change our estimation of how a film can portray the life of Christ. Until now, movies about Jesus generally have been of two kinds. The first—perhaps to avoid trespassing on sacred terrain—abandons any ties to a canonical text. Here we can think of the whimsical Jesus in Montreal, or the hootenanny “gospels” of Godspell or Jesus Christ Superstar. There are also those provocateurs who try to win an audience through the “unauthorized biography” approach, such as Martin Scorsese in his film version of Kazantzakis’ Last Temptation of Christ. Films of this sort pay the price of making Jesus appear smaller and less compelling than the figure we can encounter in reading or, as the case may be, in questioning the canonical texts.
The film that most nearly succeeds in this “relevant Jesus” mode is Pier Paolo Pasolini’s avowedly Marxist rendition of The Gospel According to St. Matthew (1964). (Gibson surely learned from Pasolini, as he makes use of the little town of Sassi Matera, where Pasolini also filmed his gospel.) Pasolini’s cinema-verité shots, nonprofessional actors, and monochrome photography make a visually riveting movie, one that disarms our liturgically and textually informed imagination with its strange and sometimes grotesque iconography, particularly the faces of its common people. If pure film makes what we know depend upon what we see, Pasolini’s movie comes very close to being pure film. Yet because he is so determined to interpret the life of Jesus as a Gramscian allegory of popular liberation, Pasolini makes Jesus less interesting than the rest of the cast of truck drivers, waiters, and prostitutes he recruited for the film. The theme of class liberation also makes for unintended comedy. After the resurrection, for example, the camera follows peasants running gleefully through the fields with scythes and pitchforks only to encounter Christ waiting for an audience before ascending into heaven.
The second kind of gospel film makes a serious effort to tell the canonical story by means of a visual tableau. The best-known example is Franco Zeffirelli’s Jesus of Nazareth (1977), which ploddingly covers the camels and magi, the teachings and parables, the miracles, plots, and subplots of Jesus’ life. The beautiful faces and rich settings have a tapestry-like quality, but we never quite forget that we are watching a 371-minute-long visual ornamentation of a textual narrative. For religious people, and probably for most nonbelievers, it is perfectly safe viewing—better, no doubt, than a spaghetti-western gospel—but it is not a work of art that haunts the viewer. A stronger entry in this category is the Gospel of John, currently showing in theatres. Advertised as a “word-for-word adaptation” of the Fourth Gospel, narrated by Christopher Plummer, it is religiously serious precisely because it adhe |
| Lainey |
Posted - February 23 2004 : 2:41:31 PM
World Catholic Association for Communication Analyzes "The Passion"
Mel Gibson's Film Within the Context of Other Movies
"The Passion of the Christ" is a considerable cinematic achievement.
As regards the Jewish-Christian issues and the explicit language about the Jews in the Gospels, especially that of St. John, it is important to realize that the more formal, "official" antagonism between Christians and Jews emerged in the early decades of the second century.
The Gospels of Matthew, Mark and John emerged from Jewish communities. Luke's Gospel draws strongly on the Jewish scriptures interweaving biblical references and motifs throughout the text. The clash between Jesus and the religious leaders of his time was a clash within Judaism, a religious controversy about the Messiah (of which there were a number in this period) and Jesus' claims. Disciples who became Christians accepted his claims. Many religious leaders amongst the priests and the Pharisees did not.
There were other converts, like Paul, who was proud of his Jewish heritage and who took a strong stance about disciples of Jesus not being bound by details of Jewish law. It has been difficult, given the centuries of antagonism and the experience of repression and persecution of Jews by Christian, and Catholic, communities to enter into the context of Jesus' time and the mentality of the period.
The long traditions of Christians accusing Jews of being "Christ-killers" also played their part in the debate. While the Catholic Church apologized for the long persecutions and the frequent anti-Semitism of the past in a Second Vatican Council document (1965) and Pope John Paul II visited the Wailing Wall in 2000 and inserted his own prayer in a crevice, questions about Jesus' death as being part of God's plan and how the Jewish religious leaders of the time and the Romans, with Pontius Pilate, fitted into this plan, continue to be raised.
Biblical background
The Passion draws its narrative from each of the four Gospels, for instance, the quake and the rending of the temple, from Matthew; the fleeing young man, from Mark; the women of Jerusalem (here, Veronica and her daughter), from Luke; the Pilate sequences on truth, from John.
This linking of incidents in one narrative is the way in which the Gospel stories were remembered and written down. There is some material drawn from the later legendary stories and apocryphal gospels (Veronica and her veil; Desmes the "bad" thief).
One of the difficulties that films of the life of Jesus encounter, especially from scholars and theologians who are not versed in the techniques and conventions of cinematic storytelling, is that they sometimes tend to be critiqued and judged as if they were actual Gospels. They are found wanting at this level and dismissed or condemned. This is a danger for "The Passion." It needs to be reiterated that this is a film and that the screenplay is a "version" of the Gospel stories with no claim to be a Gospel.
This use of the four Gospels means that there are different perspectives on the Jews of the time in each Gospel.
Matthew's Gospel presupposes detailed knowledge of the Jewish scriptures and sees Jesus as the fulfillment of prophecy. Hence the more "apocalyptic" scenes at his death.
Mark and Luke look on from the outside, Luke writing for readers familiar with Greek and Roman ways of storytelling.
John's Gospel from the end of the first century echoes the roots of Christianity in Judaism but acknowledges the growing rift.
The screenplay is able to combine Gospel incidents into a coherent narrative of the passion with selected flashbacks to Jesus' infancy and life at Nazareth (his fall as a child, his making a table in the carpenter's shop, his relationship with his mother and his playful sprinkling her with water as he washes his hands) which are inventions in the spirit of the Gospels, to Mary Magdalene's past where she is combined with th |
| CT•Ranger |
Posted - January 21 2004 : 8:35:42 PM
And yet more controversy surrounds this film, they just can't let it rest:
"DID POPE PLUG 'PASSION'?
Mon Jan 19, 7:00 PM ET
GABRIEL SNYDER
(Variety) "It is as it was" may not be the way the pope would like it to be.
Archbishop Stanislaw Dziwisz, one of Pope John Paul II's closest friends, told the Catholic News Service his boss never offered that 11-letter endorsement of Mel Gibson's "The Passion of the Christ."
"The Holy Father told no one his opinion of this film," Dziwisz told the news service, which is regarded as one of the most authoritative sources on Vatican affairs.
Even so, a rep for Gibson and his Icon Prods. maintained that the pope had used the phrase to describe Gibson's film depicting of the crucifixion of Christ.
Gibson's rep expressed surprise at Dziwisz's latest statements. "Based on all previous correspondence and conversations held directly between representatives of the film and the official spokesperson for the pope, Dr. Joaquin Navarro-Valls," he said, "there is no reason to believe that the pope's support of the film 'isn't as it was.' "
Navarro-Valls was unreachable for comment.
The pope's positive pronouncement on "Passion" was initially reported in a Dec. 17 column by Peggy Noonan on the Wall Street Journal's Web site. The journey of the short, blurb-ready phrase was circuitous.
According to the column, Dziwisz first reported the pope's reaction to the film to Steve McEveety and Jan Michelini, a producer and an assistant director on the pic, in a meeting at the Vatican. McEveety, in turn, recounted his conversation with Dziwisz to Noonan.
A source close to the situation said McEveety had asked for and received Vatican officials' permission to repeat the "It is as it was" statement before speaking to Noonan.
The "It is as it was" papal remark was also reported on Dec. 17 by the National Catholic Reporter, an independent weekly paper covering the Church, also using an anonymous Vatican source.
The Vatican, which normally does not comment on films, has offered no official comment on "Passion," nor has the pope's official rep confirmed or denied the pope's reaction.
Previous attempts by news orgs to confirm the pontiff's quote have had mixed results. The day after the Wall Street Journal's report, on Dec. 18, Reuters cited an anonymous "Vatican official" who confirmed the Pope had seen and approved of "Passion."
A week later, the Catholic News Service quoted its own anonymous "senior Vatican official" who said "The Holy Father saw it, but he made no comment. He watched in silence."
Amidst all the back and forth, The National Catholic Reporter reopened its story and said its source stood by the Pope's quote, adding new details such as the viewing took place in the dining room of his living quarters, on a large-screen TV with a "European-format VHS videocassette."
But in his most recent interview, Dziwisz, who is considered the second most powerful official of the Catholic Church because of his close relationship with the Pope, was adamant in his denial of a papal endorsement of "Passion."
"I said clearly to McEveety and Michelini that the Holy Father made no declaration," Dziwisz said. "I said the Holy Father saw the film privately in his apartment, but gave no declaration to anyone. He does not make judgments on art of this kind; he leaves that to others, to experts."
When it was first reported, Pope John Paul II's approval of "Passion" did much to quiet groups which had expressed concern about possibly anti-Semitic overtones in the pic because of the current pope's accomplisments in soothing Catholic-Jewish interfaith relations."
|
| CT•Ranger |
Posted - January 18 2004 : 1:12:26 PM
I agree this will be a must see-on-the-big-screen film and probably a dvd buy. Looks like a good blend of history and art to me. Originally it was rumored that the release would be fairly small and then expand to more cities later like some art/indie films. But, according to some reports I've read, they're going really big with the release of this film on ash wednesday, bigger than some of the big december openings. At least one theater in Texas will be showing "The Passion of the Christ" on all 20 screens. So WW, I don't think you need to worry about catching it in your area, it should be pretty much everywhere on opening day. |
| Wilderness Woman |
Posted - January 18 2004 : 11:58:38 AM
Wow.
I can only hope that it will play somewhere near me. |
| richfed |
Posted - January 18 2004 : 08:24:40 AM
Just took a look. Spectacular, powerful, awesome! The images & music appear to be what I would have hoped for! This is, for me, a definite see-on-the-big-screen movie and a must-have DVD purchase. Looks like they decided on sub-titles. That, I think, is good.
As I watched, a thought occurred:
I wonder if the seed for this project was planted in Mel's mind while filming the torture scene near the end of Braveheart? |
| CT•Ranger |
Posted - January 16 2004 : 2:39:43 PM
"The Passion of the Christ" now has an official website at http://www.thepassionofthechrist.com/splash.htm and an official release date of February 25th, 2004. If you haven't already, go check out the website and trailer!
"It is as it was" - the Pope
Any personal thoughts on what you've seen so far? |
| richfed |
Posted - November 08 2003 : 07:17:24 AM
A couple of articles that may help to dispel the apparently bogus charges that The Passion is anti-Semitic. Cannot help but to believe that this is going to be one tremendous film ...
Jewish Actress Proud to Portray Mother of Jesus in Gibson's Passion
by Special to Catholic Exchange
She's Jewish, the daughter of a Holocaust survivor, and she says she's proud to be playing the Virgin Mary in Mel Gibson's The Passion of Christ. Though some critics charge that the film is anti-Semitic, Romanian actress Maia Morgenstern insists it is anything but.
Read the full article at http://www.catholicexchange.com/vm/index.asp?art_id=21177
Watching Different Films
by Dennis Prager
Early this past summer, Mel Gibson invited me to see The Passion, his film on the trial and crucifixion of Jesus. The invitation was significant in that I was the first practicing Jew and active member of the American Jewish community to be invited.
Read the full article at http://www.catholicexchange.com/vm/index.asp?art_id=21128
|
| SgtMunro |
Posted - October 28 2003 : 10:39:48 AM
I myself do look forward to finally seeing a movie which 'follows the Book'.
|
| Highlander |
Posted - October 28 2003 : 03:38:16 AM
quote:
Originally posted by Pen
I think I read somewhere that people often lose their hearing after being struck by lightning. Anybody know if this is true?
Pen
What?What? |
| Pen |
Posted - October 27 2003 : 5:55:33 PM
I think I read somewhere that people often lose their hearing after being struck by lightning. Anybody know if this is true?
Pen
|
| CT•Ranger |
Posted - October 27 2003 : 3:46:46 PM
"...struck by lightning while we were filming the crucifixion scene..."
Well what did they expect, putting Caviezel up there on a cross, on top of a hill, in the middle of a lightning storm? He was a human lightning rod.
"I wonder if the actor so struck had an epiphany!"
Yeah! Don't climb up on a cross, on top of a hill, in the middle of a lightning storm!
|
|
![The Mohican Board! [Bumppo's Redux!]](images/wwwboard.gif "The Mohican Board! [Bumppo's Redux!]")
