Les douze dernières heures de la vie de Jésus de Nazareth, de son dernier repas avec ses apôtres, son arrestation par les pharisiens suite à la trahison de Judas ainsi que de son jugement et... Tout lireLes douze dernières heures de la vie de Jésus de Nazareth, de son dernier repas avec ses apôtres, son arrestation par les pharisiens suite à la trahison de Judas ainsi que de son jugement et de sa crucifixion.Les douze dernières heures de la vie de Jésus de Nazareth, de son dernier repas avec ses apôtres, son arrestation par les pharisiens suite à la trahison de Judas ainsi que de son jugement et de sa crucifixion.
- Nommé pour 3 Oscars
- 30 victoires et 24 nominations au total
Christo Jivkov
- John
- (as Hristo Jivkov)
Hristo Shopov
- Pontius Pilate
- (as Hristo Naumov Shopov)
Aleksander Mincer
- Nicodemus
- (as Olek Mincer)
Histoire
Le saviez-vous
- AnecdotesJim Caviezel experienced a shoulder separation when the 150lb cross dropped on his shoulder. The scene is still in the movie.
- GaffesSatan moves through the crowd while Jesus is being beaten. Jesus is the only one who is supposed to be able to see Satan. However, one man in the crowd follows Satan with his eyes as Satan moves past him.
- Crédits fousThe movie doesn't begin with credits, but only with a verse from the Bible: "He was wounded for our transgressions, crushed for our iniquities; by His wounds we are healed." Isaiah 53; 700 B.C.
- Versions alternativesIn January 2005, Mel Gibson announced that a slightly (5-6 minutes) shorter version would be released to theaters in March 2005 (just in time for Easter), under the title "The Passion Recut". The new version features no new scenes, but trimming of the most graphic scenes, particularly the scourging.
- ConnexionsEdited into The Arrivals (2008)
- Bandes originalesAzeri
Written and Performed by Göksel Baktagir (as Goksel Baktagir) and Yurdal Tokcan
Commentaire à la une
...which is precisely why so many people can't handle it. Gibson could have toned everything down, but then would have been met with apathy or mockery. Both the absurd accusations of antisemitism (in a movie where almost all the characters are Jewish, and where the Romans soldiers are more brutally inhuman than anyone else), and the hypocritical criticism of the violence (there are only TWO sequences in the movie that are difficult to watch, and the first---the scourging---happens around 50 minutes in) are overblown and hyped up because these are the only criticisms people can latch on to. You can't fault the dialogue and line delivery because it's not even in English. You can't fault the direction because the minimal dialogue leads to a more visual story. The soundtrack is criminally underrated by itself. And so on. It is too well made and was way too popular to simply dismiss, and that's why it was so controversial.
The violence criticisms are especially silly given that we live in this culture where audiences and critics regularly gush over shows where graphic violence is played for laughs (Fight Club), nihilism (Game of Thrones), or both (Tarantino). Is it so horrifying that a film appears which demands you take the implications of brutality seriously? Who is really the degenerate here, Mel Gibson or American society as a whole? That being said, there is an anguish which pervades every frame of this film and I could maybe see how that can color people's perception and memory of the violence. Even Roger Ebert, one of the few critics who 'got' the film, estimated that '100 minutes, maybe more' of this two hour film was concerned with graphic torture. His calculations are way off. The people calling this a 'snuff film' obviously haven't watched it and are just parroting that one loser critic. (The Passion is obviously not a 'snuff film' anyway--you're supposed to feel emotional connection to the characters and not just sadism. Some of the Rotten Tomatoes critics are obviously very anti-Christian, and expecting them to give a reliable evaluation to this movie would be like expecting anti-Semites to review Schindler's List fairly.)
Do you have to be religious to 'get' this film? Not particularly, the same way you do not have to be religious to appreciate Renaissance art, much of which seems to have influenced the film. It's also interesting how relatively influential it was, given the smattering of 'visionary' Biblical epics that sprang up in its wake but were consigned to mediocrity. (Ridley Scott's Moses film and Aronofsky's gnostic Noah film).
Side note: The soundtrack for this film is on another level. If you like lots of percussion and vocals in your epic soundtracks, try checking it out. Even if you don't intend to watch the movie.
The violence criticisms are especially silly given that we live in this culture where audiences and critics regularly gush over shows where graphic violence is played for laughs (Fight Club), nihilism (Game of Thrones), or both (Tarantino). Is it so horrifying that a film appears which demands you take the implications of brutality seriously? Who is really the degenerate here, Mel Gibson or American society as a whole? That being said, there is an anguish which pervades every frame of this film and I could maybe see how that can color people's perception and memory of the violence. Even Roger Ebert, one of the few critics who 'got' the film, estimated that '100 minutes, maybe more' of this two hour film was concerned with graphic torture. His calculations are way off. The people calling this a 'snuff film' obviously haven't watched it and are just parroting that one loser critic. (The Passion is obviously not a 'snuff film' anyway--you're supposed to feel emotional connection to the characters and not just sadism. Some of the Rotten Tomatoes critics are obviously very anti-Christian, and expecting them to give a reliable evaluation to this movie would be like expecting anti-Semites to review Schindler's List fairly.)
Do you have to be religious to 'get' this film? Not particularly, the same way you do not have to be religious to appreciate Renaissance art, much of which seems to have influenced the film. It's also interesting how relatively influential it was, given the smattering of 'visionary' Biblical epics that sprang up in its wake but were consigned to mediocrity. (Ridley Scott's Moses film and Aronofsky's gnostic Noah film).
Side note: The soundtrack for this film is on another level. If you like lots of percussion and vocals in your epic soundtracks, try checking it out. Even if you don't intend to watch the movie.
Meilleurs choix
Connectez-vous pour évaluer et suivre la liste de favoris afin de recevoir des recommandations personnalisées
Détails
- Date de sortie
- Pays d’origine
- Sites officiels
- Langues
- Aussi connu sous le nom de
- La pasión de Cristo
- Lieux de tournage
- Société de production
- Voir plus de crédits d'entreprise sur IMDbPro
Box-office
- Budget
- 30 000 000 $US (estimé)
- Montant brut aux États-Unis et au Canada
- 370 782 930 $US
- Week-end de sortie aux États-Unis et au Canada
- 83 848 082 $US
- 29 févr. 2004
- Montant brut mondial
- 612 060 372 $US
- Durée2 heures 7 minutes
- Couleur
- Mixage
- Rapport de forme
- 2.39 : 1
Contribuer à cette page
Suggérer une modification ou ajouter du contenu manquant
Lacune principale
What is the streaming release date of La Passion du Christ (2004) in Japan?
Répondre