I just saw the movie Sunday evening, I thought it was excellent and it did move me. I didn't think it was any more violent than any other movie with violence in it.

 

I haven't seen the movie myself, I'll wait till it's on video.

As for moving people - that's the whole idea of a movie. Regardless of whether you perceive the movie to be a documentary or purely fiction, if you left the theater and felt nothing, Gibson failed as a movie maker.

I don't mean this as a slight in any way, but people cry when they watch Old Yeller, the emotional response is a natural one.
I can't see the movie creating a whole new wave of converts to Christianity, but I suspect that all people can empathize with human suffering, so it will affect them, even if they view Jesus as a fictional character.

Kannata

 

I don't get the uproar. Read the gospels. Mel made a movie based on the gospels, and they match pretty closely. It's kind of like the movie Miracle in that you know the ending before you go into the theater. I don't understand all the fuss. There was no new theory presented in the movie....

 

Gotta give Mel credit. Multi-million dollar movie, and he didn't have to pay anyone for the script.

 

To my understanding, the movie was never intended to be nearly as big as it turned out to be. Mel Gibson made it for the pure purpose of making what he feels is and accurate, factual portrayal of the Crucifiction with little regard for payoff. The reason the movie saw the massive release and opening numbers was due almost entirely to the controversy it has stirred up, hence me starting this thread.
I do agree with what several of you have said (as an aspiring indie film maker myself) the whole purpose of art is to elicit some form of emotional response from it's audience, that's what separates works like Micaelangelo's Last Judgement from floural print wallpaper.

 

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll...category=35825