offencive movies.

[country woman]

Broback Mountain

 

[Randi]

The movies that offend my have bad language and sexual content. Violence only sometimes offends me. I don't like when people complain that movies like LOTR were too violent...what do they EXPECT to see on LOTR?! Honestly, if you don't like violence, feel free not to watch those movies. But don't watch them and then say they're "too violent". lol...that's a bit of a rant, but it's my pet peeve.

I also very much dislike movies (and actresses/singers in general) that are geared toward young girls, yet have scantily clad young ladies. They'd be much better role models if they'd show girls that you can look beautiful without showing everything off.

 

[Kiwicee]

I was never offended by The Passion, I loved it! My view on the whole movie being about Christ death is this:

We all know Christ raised from the dead...thats a given. However, us younger ones (like me!) have never really been able to visualize exactly how brutal his death was, because I've never researched it. I just knew...he died. So when I went to see the movie I was amazed because I realized just exactly how much Christ went through and how even more powerful He is to overcome it!!!!

As far as other movies offending me...I can't really think of any. There are lines in movies that I don't like, but never a movie as a whole.

 

[Blackguard_]

So when I went to see the movie I was amazed because I realized just exactly how much Christ went through and how even more powerful He is to overcome it!!!!

That's part of the problem, the movie was not accurate to Christ's death.

1. All the hitting. Sure he got hit, but as much as he got hit and thrown off bridge in the film he must have been some sort of cyborg to have no broken bones afterward.

2. way too much blood from the scourging. This isn't squeamishness, but simply that after that much bloodloss crucifixtion would be pointless. Scourging was supposed to be survivable. Remeber Pilate's plan was to scourge Jesus to appease the Jews and release him. Even with modern medicine the post-scourging Jesus of the film would be in serious danger of dying from bloodloss.

3. They way they set up the crosss. In reality the cross would have been a lot shorter and the stake would already be in the ground and the cross-piece lifted up to it, none of that "miracle of the flipped-over cross not smashing Jesus's face" stuff.

 

[FilmAficionado]

That's part of the problem, the movie was not accurate to Christ's death.

1. All the hitting. Sure he got hit, but as much as he got hit and thrown off bridge in the film he must have been some sort of cyborg to have no broken bones.

2. way too much blood from the scourging. This isn't squeamishness, but simply that after that much bloodloss crucifixtion would be pointless.

On the contrary, Scripture indicates that Jesus was beaten beyond the point where you could even RECOGNIZE what you were looking at was a human being. Therefore, the film did not go nearly far enough. He still looked human, just a very, very scarred human.

 

[Blackguard_]

On the contrary, Scripture indicates that Jesus was beaten beyond the point where you could even RECOGNIZE what you were looking at was a human being. Therefore, the film did not go nearly far enough. He still looked human, just a very, very scarred human.

You mean "Isaiah 53:2"For he shall grow up before him as a tender plant, and as a root out of a dry ground: he hath no form nor comeliness; and when we shall see him, there is no beauty that we should desire him."?

Doesn't say anything about being beaten literally beyond recognition, just that he won't be pleasent to look at, which a scourged man would not be even if he didn't look like something from a zombie movie.

 

[FilmAficionado]

[bible]Isaiah 52:14[/bible]

[bible]Isaiah 53:6[/bible]

 

[Blackguard_]

Isaiah 52:14
As many were astonied at thee; his visage was so marred more than any man, and his form more than the sons of men:

Interesting. So, how could they have beat Christ beyond recognition and a) not kill him and b) not break any bones? I wonder if this has a non-literal meaning?

I don't see how they could have done it without fire. It would be hard to top people with burned off faces from explosions and fire with fists and a whip without breaking something.

Was it the Hannakuh miracle with blood? Does Christ have steel bones and nose cartilage?

And this is a serious question, I do not see how you can reconcile a beating beyond recognition as human with death by crucixition and no broken bones without miracles.

 

[Kiwicee]

That's part of the problem, the movie was not accurate to Christ's death.

1. All the hitting. Sure he got hit, but as much as he got hit and thrown off bridge in the film he must have been some sort of cyborg to have no broken bones afterward.

Nope, no cyborg...just Jesus Christ!

2. way too much blood from the scourging. This isn't squeamishness, but simply that after that much bloodloss crucifixtion would be pointless. Scourging was supposed to be survivable. Remeber Pilate's plan was to scourge Jesus to appease the Jews and release him. Even with modern medicine the post-scourging Jesus of the film would be in serious danger of dying from bloodloss.

Ahh yes, Pilate's plan...God had it in His plan for Jesus to be crucified. I mean if all our sins are washed away by just one drop of blood then why didn't Jesus just prick his finger? God had his plan and it obviously worked. I am so thankful and blessed to have a Savior who would endure everything Christ went through just for me!

3. They way they set up the crosss. In reality the cross would have been a lot shorter and the stake would already be in the ground and the cross-piece lifted up to it, none of that "miracle of the flipped-over cross not smashing Jesus's face" stuff.

Well I have no rebuttle on this...I haven't researched the cross's height so you could very well be right on this! I think the cross flip was just in there for the sake of the movie cause it doesn't say anything about that in the Bible. However I do agree the movie doesn't go completely by the Bible...and here's why.

The death scene in itself was about an hour and a half (first forty five minutes weren't the death.) Technically though the death of Christ lasted so much longer, but I am glad the movie didn't follow the Bible exactly on this subject cause I don't think I could have sat through any more of it!

 

[Blackguard_]

Nope, no cyborg...just Jesus Christ!

So how was he able to go through this without broken bones or bleeding to death? Did he use his God powers for a "miracle of the unbreakable nose and everlasting blood-fountain"?

Ahh yes, Pilate's plan...God had it in His plan for Jesus to be crucified.

Exactly, so there was no reason for the scourging to put Christ in danger of death as it was against both Pilate and God's plan.

I mean if all our sins are washed away by just one drop of blood then why didn't Jesus just prick his finger?

becasue to "shed blood" is to kill, not just physical bleeding. For example that line in Genesis about whoever shed's blood by man shall his blood be shed refering to the death penalty.

Well I have no rebuttle on this...I haven't researched the cross's height so you could very well be right on this!

Its impossible to know the cross's height, but in most crucifixions the cross was fairly short. Its a lot easier to lift the crossbar up and the victim only needs to have his feet off the groud for crucifixion to work. The oft shown tall cross is very unliley.

I think the cross flip was just in there for the sake of the movie cause it doesn't say anything about that in the Bible.

It doesn't talk about being thrown off a bridge and not all the hitting is mentioned either. All this was for dramatic effect, same with the over-bloody flogging.

The death scene in itself was about an hour and a half (first forty five minutes weren't the death.) Technically though the death of Christ lasted so much longer, but I am glad the movie didn't follow the Bible exactly on this subject cause I don't think I could have sat through any more of it!

It wouldn't have been as bad as teh flogging scene. Apart from when he actually dies, it would have essentially been showing this painting for 6 or so hours.
BTW, it shows a much more likely height.

 

[soblessed53]

Am i the only christian who finds the passion of the christ offencive?

what films do you find offencive and why?

I feel the same,hated it,thought it was nothing but gore! No character development,just numbed the audience because of the violence and gore. Most of today's movies are trash,not fit for Christians to view or hear. I almost never watch an "R" and very few PG-13 movies,makes me ill how they want to throw in some filth to get at least a PG-13 rating. I watch mostly Turner Classic movie type stuff. Did love the HP and Lord Of The Rings films.

 

[KittyPryde]

Intelligently Offensive film (waste of movie)
Bridges of Madison County
The English Patient
10 Things I hate about you
Fantastic 4
Matrix 3
Halloween 2+
SuPERMAN 3+
The Blob
Back To the Future 3
Copycat
The Lawnmower Man
Star Wars 1 & 2
Rocky 4&5
I'll spit on your grave
Dennis The Menace
Better off Dead
Sixteen Candles
Ferris Bueller's Day Off
Aliens 3+

 

[MercuryAndy]

Intelligently Offensive film (waste of movie)
Bridges of Madison County
The English Patient
10 Things I hate about you
Fantastic 4
Matrix 3
Halloween 2+
SuPERMAN 3+
The Blob
Back To the Future 3
Copycat
The Lawnmower Man
Star Wars 1 & 2
Rocky 4&5
I'll spit on your grave
Dennis The Menace
Better off Dead
Sixteen Candles
Ferris Bueller's Day Off
Aliens 3+

=0! but i loved the matrix

 

[Blackguard_]

but i loved the matrix

Did you notice only Matrix 3 was listed?

 

[Theogonia]

I feel the same,hated it,thought it was nothing but gore! No character development,just numbed the audience because of the violence and gore. Most of today's movies are trash,not fit for Christians to view or hear. I almost never watch an "R" and very few PG-13 movies,makes me ill how they want to throw in some filth to get at least a PG-13 rating. I watch mostly Turner Classic movie type stuff. Did love the HP and Lord Of The Rings films.

No character development? did you miss the flashbacks??

 

[HawaiianTropicalDude]

Seven

 

[HawaiianTropicalDude]

Although it is not offensive purposely-the film The Accused with Jodie Foster made me angry and I was bothered by it.
Especially because I watched it with my then girlfriend and our skin crawled.

 

[Sign Of The Fish Burger]

Ferris Bueller's Day Off

What on earth could possibly be offensive about Ferris Beuller's Day Off??

Abe Froeman

 

[Blackguard_]

What on earth could possibly be offensive about Ferris Beuller's Day Off??

That hideous tiger-print vest Ferris wears.

Anyway on topic, I was offended by Mission Impossible 3. Its the most misogynist movie I've ever sat through.
And I don't mean in the Al Bundy "No Maam" womanizing sense the term has been misused for, I mean as in real honest to God serial killer type misogyny.

Since its a new movie, and everything from past the first minute is a spoiler, I'll use the spoiler tag.

Spoiler: Spoiler-Click Here

First of all compare they way the female charecters and the male charecters die. In the opening rescue scene we get a nice close up of the dead blond girls explosion deformed eye while all the men killed in that scene(and all the others) die the same almost bloodless death random badguys have died since time immemorial where the details of the wound are not shown.

Then there's the execution scene, where Ethan and his "wife" are tied up, we get a nice closeup of two headshotted women (the "faked" one was filmed the same as if it was meant to be real afterall).
Then a building shootout in Hong Kong where the random badguys die PG deaths, just like in the bridge battle.

Then there's the villian of the picture. A lot of the postings and reviews on this movie I've seen have talked about what a great villian he was and wished to see more of him; those people are morons. He was a one dimensional villian if ever there was one. Most of his lines are variations of "I will harm your signifigant other", and that ws also his sole motivation throughout the movie.

And from the first scene we all know he's going to die, but how does he die? The same way the bad guy in Speed died, but lamer. At least the bad guy in Speed was decapitated. They don't even show his mangled body. The shot is about the same as in Speed, with the villian essentially disappearing from the movie on impact, which worked in Speed becasue it was not a gruesome movie, but not shoving the villian's demise did not fit with the tone of this movie at all. The villians body in MI:3 couldn't have looked any worse than that woman that evil robot in Robocop 2 mangles, and they showed that. Why didn't they show it in MI;3 when it was the mangled body of someone whos mangled body you'd want to see and would not have been out of place for the movies tone?

Its probably just me, but I find these contrasting portrayals extremely creepy.