The Baron of Deseret

"I need to get...to a LIBRARY!"

Catching up on movie releases:

The Da Vinci Code (C+)  (Comments)

Superman Returns (B+)  (Comments)

Catching up on LDS Cinema...

New in Movie Analysis:

States of Grace (B+)  (Comments)
Church Ball (C) (Comments)

"You're not like any missionary I've ever met..."

Suits on the Loose (B-)  (Comment Thread)

End of the Spear

New in Movie Analysis:

End of the Spear (B) (Comment Thread)

"Everyone Will Suffer..." / "...Wanna Wrestle?"

New in Movie Analysis:

The Work & The Glory Part 2: American Zion (B-)  (Comments)
The Ring (A-) (Comments)

"Who will you stand with?"

New in Movie Analysis:

X-Men: The Last Stand (B-)  Comment Thread

"The Miracle of God's Creation..."

New in Movie Analysis:

New York Doll (A-)  (Comment Thread)
Bee Season (B-)  (Comment Thread)

"If a tree has no leaves or branches, is it still a tree?"

Memoirs of a Geisha (B)  |  Comments

"Dark and Difficult Times..."

Two new movie articles (it's been a while...):

Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire (B-)  (Comment Thread)
The Prize Winner of Defiance, Ohio (B+)  (Comment Thread)

I'll be finishing up a redesign of the movie section sometime soon, and hopefully have new movie articles be more of a weekly occurance...

"Can't we go live with the Amish instead?"

Mobsters & Mormons (C+) (Comments)

Saints & Singers

New in Movie Analysis:

Sons of Provo        (Comments)
Saints & Soldiers   (Comments)

Movie Analysis...now with more reader interaction!

New in Movie Analysis:

Million Dollar Baby  (Comments)

Also: here's a link to last week's article Bride & Prejudice (and its comment thread).  The link was incorrect when posted last week.  I fixed it later, but not fast enough to keep RSS and other blog aggregators from grabbing the bad link version first, and not updating later with the good version.  Here's your second chance...

The comment threads are new (and retroactively added to all current movie articles in the Movie Analysis section--scroll down to the bottom of the page for the link).  Since movie articles were written and posted as separate pages, apart from the regular blog organization, there was no mechanism for adding reader comments as with regular blog posts.  Adding in the comment threads will allow those who desire to do so to comment on their thoughts on the movie (or my article).  "Million Dollar Baby", in particular, has a plot point (which should be obvious to anyone who's seen it) that's tailor-made for a more in-depth discussion. (As such, though, these comment threads will obviously not be 'spoiler-free', so beware...)

Want to argue about the merits of God's Army versus The Best Two Years?  Or how Harry Potter 3 compares to the first two?  Want to mount a defense for Finding Nemo or The Other Side of Heaven?  Here's your chance...

"No life without wife!"

New in Movie Analysis:

Bride & Prejudice (B+)

"I seek the means...to turn fear against those who prey on the fearful..."

Batman Begins

"So this is how liberty dies..."

Thoughts on Star Wars Episode III: Revenge of the Sith

Many Bothans died to bring you...

...The Baron's Pre-Episode III Retrospective on the Star Wars series!

Also included in the article: Answers to Star Wars Questions!

I'll add an update later in the week after I've seen Ep.III  (Readers are also welcome to write in with additional Star Wars questions...)

New LDS Movie Analyis

Added to the LDS Movie section...

The Work and the Glory (B)

Animation Roundup (Part 1)

New this week in Movie Analysis:
The Incredibles (A)
Finding Nemo (B-)

New Movie Analyses--March 10

Mixed bag of additions to the Movie Analysis section:

• The Notebook (B+)
• Ray (B+)
• Sliding Doors (A)
• The Hours (C)

Sorry, Firefox users, I still can't figure out why the headers aren't lining up properly...

"Friggin' Sweet!"

Yeah, it's been a while...  I've been busy with (take your pick): work, Christmas stuff, larger projects with announcements forthcoming, and keeping up with the sudden influx of comments on older posts.

I'll (hopefully) be posting a Christmas message (of sorts) tomorrow, and in the meantime here's a new movie analysis:

Napoleon Dynamite (Grade: B)

"Something wicked this way comes..."

Added Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban (A-) to the Movie Analysis section...

It's been a while...

...since I've posted any new movie analyses.  Let's get back in the groove with two new Chinese movie additions, and one extra US release thrown in for good measure. 

House of Flying Daggers (2004, PG-13  Grade: B-)  [*released in limited areas of the US this week with a wider release to follow next month...*]
Ju Dou (1990, PG-13  Grade: A-)
Ella Enchanted (2004, PG  Grade: C+)

More later in the week... (knock on wood)

Chinese Movie Roundup...

A different kind of movie analyses this week--the focus is exclusively on Chinese movies:

Hero (B+) [Now the #1 movie in the US two weeks in a row...unfortunately, it's the abridged version]
Raise the Red Lantern (A)
Shaolin Soccer (A-)
To Live (A)

More later in the week...

A few answers to questions concerning these analyses:

Q: Are these any different than your other movie analysis essays?
A: Structurally, no--however please note that the In-Depth Analysis sections are still (and have always been) intended for discussion of the movie AFTER you've seen it, and contain major plot spoilers. Unless you're a major fan of foreign films, you probably haven't seen any of the above before, thus you should take care to save the last section until after you watch it (you're going to the video store right now, right? Hurry!).

Q: Spending a lot of time and effort on Chinese films is kind of self-indulgent, isn't it?
A: Yes. Yes it is. Welcome to blogging...

Q: The grades are generally a lot higher than the average US movie you've written about. Obviously, this is because you're highly biased towards Chinese movies, right?
A: Not at all, The Baroness and I have seen tons of bad Chinese movies. But since you're not likely to see a Chinese movie anyway--good or bad--why bother talking about the bad ones? By specifically focusing on just the good ones, then you're more likely to take a chance on one if you happen to see it on the shelf in the video store and think, "Hey...that's the one 'The Baron' recommended highly!"

As always, comments can be left here or emailed to me directly...

New Movie Analyses--July 19th

Two more from the 'LDS Movies' category (Obviously, I'm recommending one above the other...):

The Best Two Years (A-, In-Depth Analysis: mission 'roles')
The Book of Mormon Movie (C-, In-Depth Analysis: How to make a good Book of Mormon movie)

Comic book mania! (Part 2)

Yes, we gave in to the hype last week...

Spiderman (Grade: B+, In-Depth Analysis--"With great power comes great responsibility"...)
Spiderman 2 (Grade: A, In-Depth Analysis--...but where do you draw the line?)
Hulk (Grade: B+, In-Depth Analysis--Righteous Anger)

Now we can put aside comics and heavy metal and get on with some more religious discussion...

UPDATE: Don't have enough money for Spiderman 2 tickets? Check out the Lego version here!

Comic book mania! (Part 1)

In honor of Spiderman 2's release, it's "Comic Book Superheroes" for movie analysis this week:

First three today, next three later in the week...

Daredevil (Grade: C, In-depth Analysis: How many bad scenes can you fit in a movie?)
X-Men / X2 (Grade: B+ / A- respectively, In-depth Analysis: The mutant/gay comparison)

New Movie Analysis

In honor of the third Harry Potter movie coming out this last weekend, I figured it's time to get my analysis of the first two HP movies up.

Here it is--I've put both movies in the same article:

Harry Potter 1 & 2--Grade: B (or C, depending on your age)
In-depth Analysis: Deus ex machina and deep philisophical questions with no answer, such as:
If you never use your magic, are you still a wizard?
How did the car know Harry and Ron were in the spiders' den?
-and-
Why does everyone think Hagrid's such a good guy?

As always, comments can be left here or (better) emailed to me directly.

New Movie Analyses

Finished some more movie analyses--from the 'New on DVD' category:

Big Fish (A-) In-depth Analysis: Good and bad parenting
Peter Pan (A-) In-depth Analysis: Growing up and 'putting away childish things'
Girl With a Pearl Earring (B) In-depth Analysis: "Asexual adultery"
Cheaper By The Dozen (B-) In-depth Analysis: Teaching the right lesson through the wrong means

Remember, the In-depth Analysis sections are meant for those who have already seen the movie, since they discuss specific plot points that might 'spoil' the experience for those who haven't seen it yet.

Also, as always, you can leave comments in this thread, or (better) send it to me personally and I'll post them on a separate movie comment page later...

Violent Movies and "The Passion"

LDS author Orson Scott Card has a new essay up, discussing the 'commandment' not to watch R-rated movies. In reality, it's a continuation of the discussion among members since February about "The Passion of the Christ".

Brother Card has seen "The Passion..." and is unapologetic about it, despite the number of Church members who have criticized him for it. (He's understandably a little defensive about it, and thus followed his essay...)

Note: I wrote on this topic in a previous post in early March here. This will in part be a repeat of what I wrote then...

I'm not criticizing Brother Card, or Dr. Robert Millet, BYU Dean of Religious Education and my former stake president, nor any of my personal friends who has seen "The Passion..." (I have not). My comments are merely to the point that the logic behind some of the members' reasoning behind seeing the movie doesn't quite add up...

Brother Card in his essay correctly points out that Church members have been counseled to avoid 'bad' movies (sometimes specifically mentioning 'R-rated' movies) because we should avoid content that's 'lewd, suggestive, obscene, or immoral'--profanity and illicit sexual material, essentially. The logic is clear: watching and listening to that kind of material leaves you spiritually weaker and "the mind through which this filth passes is never the same afterwards" as Ezra Taft Benson phrased it.

What Brother Card's essay does not discuss, however, is the negative effect (if any) of watching violent movies...

Some movies are rated R for violence alone. As one who watched lots of violent movies in my 'Gentile' days in high school, I can testify that there are many movies which have little to no profanity or sexual material, but have quite graphic displays of limb dismemberment, gunshot wounds of various kinds, stabbings, torture, you name it... If we accept that seeing and hearing profanity and 'lewd' material has a destructive influence on the mind, what happens when we watch violent material? Do we become desensitized or 'hardened' to pain and suffering, perhaps? What are the psychological effects? Brother Card mentions an experience where the images of a porn movie he saw when he was younger stayed in his mind for a long time afterwards. Would graphic images of violence stay in the mind with the same regularity?

Here, then, is the real problem: "The Passion..." is a very, very violent movie--as everyone who has seen it has attested to--and if watching violent movies is destructive to the mind at all then that must apply to "The Passion" as well. It doesn't matter if it's based on truth. It doesn't matter if it also has a spiritually uplifting message. It doesn't matter if the target of the violence is the fundamental character in our religion. If watching extreme violence is 'wrong' (damaging to the mind), then it's 'wrong' here also.

And the reverse is true, also: If watching the violence in "The Passion..." is NOT damaging in any way, then why would watching ANY violent movie be wrong?

Jesus Christ, the person, is not in "The Passion...", of course--it's actor Jim Caviezel portraying the part of Jesus Christ. Suppose later this year, Jim Caviezel happens to be in another R-rated movie--one where coincidently his character also gets scourged and crucified during the course of the film. Would this film be appropriate for members to see or not? If not, what exactly is the difference? The actual violent content would be the same...

I don't feel the 'appropriateness/inappropriateness' of watching violent movies has been addressed adequately by Brother Card or others... If violence is damaging to the mind, then there still is a legitimate reason for Church members to avoid seeing "The Passion..." regardless of any underlying spiritual content. If not, then one really can't complain about any violent movie as being 'inappropriate' for viewing.

As I mentioned before, I won't be seeing "The Passion..." because, frankly, even the LDS film "Lamb of God" is a little too high on the violence scale for me. That's just me, though, and I recognize that many Church members have seen "The Passion..." and had a wonderful, uplifting experience. However, I still think questions remain about its appropriateness...

New Family Movie Site

Taking a break from the 'deep' stuff for a moment, perhaps I can let you know about a new 'clean movie' site that's out there: MoviePicks.org Created for the purpose of supporting movies that 'entertain and uplift without offensive content", MoviePicks.org doesn't analyze or rate movies for quality or offensive content, but merely provides suggestions and brief blurbs about 'clean' movies.

The intent is commendable, although MoviePicks.org--along with all the other movie ratings for parents sites out there (see my Movie FAQ for more)--demonstrates why judging the content of movies is inherently problematic. "Offensiveness" is highly subjective--differing from person to person just about as much as preferences for food. Some of MoviePicks suggestions are mid-range PG-13 movies (such as "K-PAX" and "Kate and Leopold") with a fair amount of profanity and other stuff among them. Not "R-13" level by any means, but certainly enough not to be considered 'clean' by a fair number of people who watch it.

Plus, there are many ways to be 'offensive' that have nothing to do with the standard Profanity/Sex/Violence categories. I found "Castaway", "Mr.Holland's Opus", and "Seven Years in Tibet", all of which are on the MoviePicks list, 'offensive' for various social and philosophical reasons. And although I'm not among them, many people found "God's Army" offensive--again, for things unrelated to PSV content. And don't even get me started on "The Other Side of Heaven" which *gag* for some reason just earned a CAMIE award for being a "great, uplifting movie" (move aside...I think I'm going to throw up...)

This isn't a criticism of MoviePicks because judging content is an extremely difficult task, and you can find numerous 'head-scratching' analysis of movie content on every other site out there.
PSVRatings.com has "The Truman Show" rated yellow (moderate) in the "Sex/Nudity" category (?)
"Pirates of the Caribbean" gets a yellow (moderate) for "Profanity"???
Screenit.com has The Lord of the Rings movies rated "Mild/Moderate" in Blood/Gore, while "The Ring"--one of the most restrained horror movies you'll even see--gets a "Heavy"???
"Whale Rider" gets a moderate profanity rating from three different sites. Did they see the movie?

In any case, as anyone who cares about movie content has undoubtedly discovered, finding and rating 'clean' movies is inherently difficult, and in the end you'll still be left to exercise your own judgment as to what you and your family watches, which is probably as it should be.

New Movie Analyses

Finished the other LDS movie essays (finally!). Here's the full list, with grades and analysis topics:
God's Army (A- In-depth Analysis: Anti-Mormon Literature)
The RM (B+ In-depth Analysis: Home teaching)
Brigham City (B In-depth Analysis: Free Agency)
The Singles Ward (B- In-depth Analysis: Free Agency again)
The Other Side of Heaven (D In-depth Analysis: The Baron's Other Side of Heaven Challenge!)

and don't forget Charly (B-), from last month.

As always, comments, complaints, and/or entries in the OSH Challenge can be emailed to me directly (since there's no automated comment system).

Still haven't seen the Book of Mormon Movie, Home Teachers, or Best Two Years but we'll get around to it when the DVDs come out...

Also, I've added some other links to the blog lists on the left. Mostly secular stuff, but there's two new LDS Blog entries: Book of Jordan and Joseph's Journal. Joseph's Journal isn't a true blog per se, but one run by Dave (from Dave's Mormon Inquiry) which will have day-to-day postings from Joseph Smith's personal journal. Some entries are pretty mundane (showing Joseph Smith didn't have exciting and spiritual things happening to him every day), but still interesting...

Kind of missed the point of the movie, didn't they?

A Georgia couple gets in a debate about doctrine after seeing "The Passion..." which became violent. Police are called in and both the husband and wife are arrested...

Ratings Overhaul

"Too much smoking in movies" say researchers, who recommmend R-ratings for movies that depict characters smoking.

This is not a new idea. Anti-tobacco groups have been pushing for R-ratings for movies with smoking for years. On one hand, the numbers mentioned in the article are compelling: 80% of PG-13 movies feature smoking somewhere and 50% of the G and PG movies. The biggest fear is that impressionable young kids will be 1) associating smoking with 'coolness' when they see movie characters do it, or 2) at least see a large enough quantity of smoking in the movies that it registers subconsciously as 'normal', 'common' and 'not a big deal--everyone does it'.

On the other hand--an 'R' rating for using a legal drug? Isn't that a little extreme? How many people are really seriously 'offended' by seeing someone light up a cigarette on screen? You don't want your kids to smoke, of course, but is seeing someone smoke in a movie really the equivalent to seeing a movie with graphic sex or violence? How much 'revisionist history' would have to be done to reclassify previous movies with lots of smoking, particularly old movies? ("Casablanca", anyone? I can imagine members of the older generation getting a rude shock when they go into the video store and seeing the previously 'PG' classic now sporting an 'R') Is tobacco use really more damaging to the youth of this generation than alcohol?

Adding smoking to the R-rating scope will only make the R-rating more bloated, and thereby less effective. But then again, one can also find studies showing that exposure to images of smoking has a direct link to starting the habit yourself. One can argue both sides, and instead of taking a stand one way or the other, I'm going to use this article to discuss what I think is the real problem: the current movie rating system stinks and needs fixing. The movie rating categories as currently constituted are:
1) Too broad and unspecific
2) Arbitrary and subjective
3) Subject to outside influences (i.e. major directors and studios get more 'favorable' ratings than independant movies)
4) Vary greatly depending on local culture (which becomes obvious if you've ever seen a European 'PG' movie which contains rampant nudity)
5) Degrade over time (meaning the same content gets a lower rating now then it would have a decade before)

A complete solution is not possible, since there isn't a absolute scale where 'objectionable' content can be classified with any accuracy. Still, even some simple and minor changes would make a world of difference.

Here's one idea (presented to the movie industry by The Baron free of charge):

Separate 'objectionable material' into distinct catagories: "Profanity/Language", "Sex/Nudity", "Violence", and "Drug Use", for example. The fact is, a movie that's R for violence, one that's R for explicit sex, and one that's R for drug use are completely different and the rating system should reflect that. Each individual category can be rated on a scale from 0-5 with 0 meaning no content whatsover, and 5 meaning an extreme amount. A color system could also be used, with white, green, yellow, orange, and red marking the points on the scale, for example. Then, we'd abandon the G,PG,PG-13,R classifications, which are pretty much useless, and rate movies by each category individually. The "Lord of the Rings" movies, for example, might be a 1-0-4-2, while a typical romantic comedy might be a 3-3-0-1. A simple number or color rating system like this could be attached to movie ads just as easily as the current rating box, and it would give potential viewers more detailed information about movie content; important, since everyone is likely to have different personal standards for each category. Using this system will remove some of the cultural differences in ratings, such as US movies currently being stricter on sex/nudity (as far as giving a higher rating), and more lenient on violence, while European movies are the opposite.

(Note: this is hardly a new idea. There are many movie rating groups that use a similar system to the one I've just outlined. See www.psvratings.com or www.kids-in-mind.com)

Arbitrary? Yes. Subjective? Yes, but there's no way around that. The benefit of this system, though, is in its detail: a four-category, 0-5 scale means a movie can get one of 1296 distinct ratings, far more specific than the current system of four, which can't seem to tell the difference between "Whale Rider" and an Adam Sandler gross-out comedy. Using this system, those who want to classify smoking as 'drug use' have a easy means to do so, without impacting the choices of adults who don't care about smoking in movies, but do care about sex and violence.

So, what do you think? Reasonable, or not? And is anyone at the MPAA willing to listen and make some common sense changes?

The Passion, Part 2

Well, it's official...

"The Passion of The Christ" tallied the second biggest opening weekend for an R-rated movie (trailing only "The Matrix Reloaded"), and even beat out the five day total of "Return of the King" with about $125 million. While the box office take for most movies goes into steep decline after the first weekend, this seems to be one of the few exceptions, as critics anticipate strong showings all the way through Easter. (I would imagine the Good Friday showings will be completely sold out).

[Disclaimer: Again, I haven't seen "The Passion", so this post is not based on direct knowledge of anything in the movie]

Statistically, an average R-rated movie will not make as much money in the box-office as the average PG or PG-13 movie. This is easy to explain, as studies have shown the biggest box-office 'cash cow' demographic are teenage boys, who generally attend movies more often than other groups and are more likely to see a movie they like multiple times (followed closely by teenage girls, who provided 'Titanic' with the repeat viewings necessary to obtain its record-breaking box office haul). Both groups (in theory) are not permitted to see R-rated movies, thus significantly reducing the potential audience.

How then, to explain the huge box-office for 'The Passion'? It doesn't have the mass market appeal that the 'Matrix' movies did; in fact, Mel Gibson's move to finance the $25 million film out of his own pocket was considered 'risky' by many, since the targetted demographic was very small. (Gibson didn't make "The Passion" to make money, although now he'll end up earning a lot of it, obviously) It probably isn't repeat viewings either, since the early word is one viewing is hard enough to stomach as it is.

The answer is most likely very simple: "The Passion" is attracting a LARGE number of people who are over 18 but rarely see R-rated movies, or perhaps any movies at all. Namely, conservative Christians who wouldn't see "Bad Boys II" or "Kill Bill" if you put a gun to their heads, but feel that a movie about the Lord and Savior is worth seeing, no matter how violent.

One such person is Dr. Robert Millet, a professor of religion at BYU, who said even though he doesn't normally see R-rated movies, "one that would help draw me closer to God's son would seem to be one that I should be acquainted with." After all, he says, "This isn't Freddy Krueger. This is Jesus Christ."

I know Dr. Millet; he was my stake president in college and one of my top 5 speakers of all time. I won't criticize his decision (or that of any other Latter-Day Saint) to see "The Passion", but I have to wonder if the logical reasoning behind it stands up to scutiny.

"The Passion of the Christ" is a very violent movie. I mean, it is a VERY violent movie. (We're not talking "The Matrix" here, which was widely regarded as a 'light' R-rated movie). Film critic Roger Ebert (who has seen very many movies) says unequivocally, "This is the most violent film I have ever seen." Furthermore, he adds:

The MPAA's R rating is definitive proof that the organization either will never give the NC-17 rating for violence alone, or was intimidated by the subject matter. If it had been anyone other than Jesus up on that cross, I have a feeling that NC-17 would have been automatic.

In other words, even by R-rated movie standards, "The Passion" is VERY violent. What's the problem, then? If one considers "The Passion" an acceptable viewing experience despite the violence, HOW CAN ONE EVER JUDGE ANY OTHER MOVIE THAT'S RATED R FOR VIOLENCE ALONE TO BE 'UNACCEPTABLE'? If "The Passion" is acceptable because it's 'historically accurate' and/or it's 'a realistic depiction of being crucified', then wouldn't that also apply to any other movie set in Roman times that featured people being crucified? A modern day remake of 'Spartacus', for example? Other highly violent films such as "Schindler's List" and "Saving Private Ryan" have been excused in the past because they're 'historical' and 'realistic' ('Ryan' was a fictional story, but the landing on Omaha Beach during WWII depicted in the movie was not). Taking this to the logical extreme, any movie with gun violence would also be acceptable since it contains 'realistic depictions of what would happen when someone gets shot with a gun' even if the story is fictional.

I just don't see how the subject of the violence can excuse it, even if it's Jesus Christ. If you believe watching violent content is wrong (i.e. has a detrimental psychological effect on the mind in some way), does it really matter who the target of the violence happens to be, or how historically accurate it is? Violence is violence, and if violence harms the psyche, then "The Passion"'s violence would produce the same harm, wouldn't it? One wouldn't excuse profane, or sexually explicit dialogue simply because that's what that (historical) person actually said at that (historical) place and time? The dialogue is inherently the same whether is true or fictional, and any adverse effects would also be the same. Would one excuse a movie with rampant male and female nudity if it just happened to be about Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden?

I have no doubt of Dr. Millet's spiritual strength and testimony; I've seen it personally. But I think we're all on shaky ground here, because when you admit there's an exception to the rule, that allows the possibility of many more exceptions (for there is never only one exception). One could make a series of movies based on other Bible stories (or on Book of Mormon stories) that could be R-rated in terms of violence. Would the presence of a spiritual lesson excuse the violent content? How would that be different than a violent cop movie produced by Hollywood that also had a moral lesson attached.

The LDS Church puts out many high quality movies and shorts that are uplifting without possessing any 'offensive' material. The Church has created movies with Adam and Eve without nudity, movies about scriptural wars without excessive violence, even (multiple) videos featuring Christ's death on the cross without an undue amount of bloodshed. I just don't see how the increased amount of violence in "The Passion" actually adds to the spiritual experience, nor how to (or why) separate violence into 'acceptable' and 'unacceptable' quantities.

The 'Passion' and the Atonement

Unless you've been living in a cave recently, you've heard Mel Gibson just released his self-financed 'tribute' (if you will) to the last twelve hours of the life of Jesus Christ in 'The Passion of the Christ'. Already much discussed (and debated), 'The Passion' depicts in graphic detail the arrest, trial, scourging and crucifixion of the Lord.

[Disclaimer: I haven't seen the movie, but have read enough about it to know what it contains]

Many people, including film critic Roger Ebert, have described 'The Passion' as moving and 'faith-promoting', deepening one's testimony of the suffering Christ underwent in order to atone for our sins. Only one problem...the film (and its many reviewers) appear to misunderstand the key event of the Atonement.

Quick quiz: Where and when did Christ actually suffer for the sins of mankind. (Hint: it's the 'bleeding from every pore' part...)
Answer: From Luke 22:41-44 (KJV), immediately before Jesus was arrested--
41 And he was withdrawn from them about a stone's cast, and kneeled down, and prayed,
42 Saying, Father, if thou be willing, remove this cup from me: nevertheless not my will, but
thine, be done.
43 And there appeared an angel unto him from heaven, strengthening him.
44 And being in an agony he prayed more earnestly: and his sweat was as it were great drops of
blood falling down to the ground.

Now, normally people don't bleed when they are praying...a sure sign something significant was happening. Christ, in fact, suffered for the sins of mankind right there in the garden of Gethsemane, not on the cross. LDS doctrine emphasizes this fact, but it's not a unique doctrine to the LDS Church (at least, it shouldn't be) as it comes directly from the New Testament text.

This makes the intense, graphic violence in 'The Passion' pointless in a sense, not because showing Christ's suffering isn't meaningful, but because it shows the WRONG suffering. Christ's pain during the scourging and crucifixition was real (and tragic), but in and of itself didn't accomplish any great purpose. The cross is only significant from an eternal perspective because it caused Christ's DEATH, not any amount of SUFFERING. Christ's death allowed Him to be resurrected, one of the main reasons for Christ coming to Earth. If, however, Christ had been beheaded (like John the Baptist) after Gethsemane it would have accomplished the same purpose. The fact that the method used was more torturous and painful is tragic (given Christ's innocence) but essentially beside the point.

(Note however that Christ knew early on he would be crucified and not beheaded yet was still willing to go through it to complete His mission)

Why the disconnect between the real and popular understanding of the Atonement? The Atonement, out of all Gospel topics, is inherently difficult to understand. How exactly does One suffer for the sins of the world? How and why Christ suffered in Gethsemane is beyond our comprehension, whereas it's much easier to understand why scourging and crucifixition leads to suffering. After seeing Christ scourged and crucified, and knowing that Christ 'suffered for the sins of the world' one thinks 'Ahh...that must have been it'.

I haven't seen 'The Passion' nor plan to. I wonder, though: is the extreme level of violence really justified? Sure, it's 'realistic' and historically accurate; but would you be more 'enlightened' watching 'The Passion' versus, say, the LDS Church produced 'Lamb of God'? What does the violence add to the experience? Most people inherently understand what being crucified entails, is it necessary to show it in detail? Will the violence serve as an enhancement of, or a distraction from, the spiritual lessons contained in the life and death of Jesus Christ?

Links: Roger Ebert's review and analysis of 'The Passion'
Eric D Snider's feelings

Finding Nemo--Comments

Finding Nemo

Ella Enchanted--Comments

Ella Enchanted

Daredevil--Comments

Daredevil

Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon--Comments

Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon

Cheaper By The Dozen--Comments

Cheaper By The Dozen

Charly--Comments

Charly

Brigham City--Comments

Brigham City

Bride & Prejudice--Comments

Bride & Prejudice

The Best Two Years--Comments

The Best Two Years

Big Fish--Comments

Big Fish

Batman Begins--Comments

Batman Begins

Million Dollar Baby--Comments

Million Dollar Baby

States of Grace--Comments

States of Grace (B+)

Church Ball--Comments

Church Ball (C)

Baptists At Our Barbecue--Comments

Original Article: Baptists At Our Barbecue

Suits on the Loose--Comments

Suits on the Loose

Bee Season--Comments

Bee Season

New York Doll--Comments

New York Doll

X-Men/X2--Comments

X-Men/X2

The Work and the Glory (1)--Comments

The Work and the Glory

To Live--Comments

To Live

Star Wars--Comments

Star Wars: Pre-Episode III Retrospective

Episode III Thoughts

Spiderman/Spiderman 2--Comments

Spiderman
Spiderman 2

Sliding Doors--Comments

Sliding Doors

The Singles Ward--Comments

The Singles Ward

Shaolin Soccer--Comments

Shaolin Soccer

The RM--Comments

The RM