Saddest Movie\Show ending that brought a tear to your Eye

[Louis Tully]

.

[Well Fed Games]

My vote is Lost in Translation for saddest movie. It doesn't bring a tear to my eye but is does drag me down. It's a depressing but great movie.

It makes me cry that turning the subtitles on didn't tell me what he whispers to her at the end. I want to know!!!

[shmokes]

I watched Passion of the Christ in the theaters. Not only was there tears, there was full on loud sobbing.

Thats true, I forgot about that one. I got a little choked up when my boy JC dropped the cross in front of his mom. Brutal. You dont even have to be religious to appreciate what was going on during that movie.

Only time I swear there was not a dry eye in the theater was during this film, and +1 to the fact that you don't need to be religious to appreciate it.

I simply don't believe you. I think that you are both Christians, and that almost without exception that is a prerequisite to appreciating that film. It looks terrible. Moreover, 51% of critics, according to RT, did not appreciate it. I even have the impression that the bulk of the negative reviews come from reviewers who are Christians.

The Last Temptation of Christ, on the other hand . . . I'm not religious at all, but that was a damned fine film.

[Vigo]

Nope, it's true. Whole damn theater was shaken. And sorry, me being Christian is not a prerequisite to appreciating that film. My wife is Buddhist, and she certainly appreciated that film as much as I did, if not more. Also, I remember a classmate/friend of my wife's who is Hindu especially appreciated the film as well, and wanted to talk about it on an intellectual level for like a week. 

Regarding RT, I don't put much stock in film critics to begin with (They are the people who gave Bridesmaids a 90%), but I looked at rotten tomatoes, and a lot of negative reviews smelled to me more of Mel Gibson bashing. If you remember, it was very vogue to hate on Mel Gibson at that time. Even if that's not the case, I really don't see any problems that it was not a critically acclaimed film. That has nothing to do with appreciating it.

[Mikezilla]

Nope, it's true. Whole damn theater was shaken. And sorry, me being Christian is not a prerequisite to appreciating that film. My wife is Buddhist, and she certainly appreciated that film as much as I did, if not more. Also, I remember a classmate/friend of my wife's who is Hindu especially appreciated the film as well, and wanted to talk about it on an intellectual level for like a week. 

Regarding RT, I don't put much stock in film critics to begin with (They are the people who gave Bridesmaids a 90%), but I looked at rotten tomatoes, and a lot of negative reviews smelled to me more of Mel Gibson bashing. If you remember, it was very vogue to hate on Mel Gibson at that time. Even if that's not the case, I really don't see any problems that it was not a critically acclaimed film. That has nothing to do with appreciating it.

+1000. Im not Christian, Im Catholic, but I dont go to church often anymore(or when this movie came out) so I wouldnt call myself religious in that sense. RT is a joke. Like Vigo said, they gave Brides maids a 90%. I couldnt agree more on the Mel Gibson bashing aspect of the reason for the negative reviews. Any movie he does since his little escapades is going to be bashed regardless if its good or not. It wasnt critically acclaimed because the Jews own Hollywood, so duh, its nots going to get the reviews it probably could have got under different circumstances.

The part that got me was how a person, any person, could endure the torture that was portrayed in that movie. You know what was going to happen too, but to see it like that, so graphic... Im really close to my mom, so when I saw the part where he dropped the cross in front of his mom and she wiped his face I imagined myself in that position, and that Jesus knew he was going to die, and I got a little choked up.

I also got choked up when Buzz realized he couldnt fly and he was just a toy in Toy Story. Granted I was a lot younger when that came out, but still. 

[HaRuMaN]

Um, the Roman Catholic church IS the largest Christian church... 

[Mikezilla]

Um, the Roman Catholic church IS the largest Christian church... 

You know what I mean. Im baptized Catholic, but Im not practicing...

The part that got me was how a person, any person, could endure the torture that was portrayed in that movie.

1 - He wasn't a person.

2 - Paradise awaited.

Wasnt a person? He looked like a person to me in the movie... Thats what we are talking about right? 

[Moose13]

Back on topic....

I saw it once when I was a kid, and haven't seen it since...
Cried my eyes out....

The Champ.

I need to watch it again, to see if it was truely as sad as I remember..

[shmokes]

... If you remember, it was very vogue to hate on Mel Gibson at that time.

 I couldnt agree more on the Mel Gibson bashing aspect of the reason for the negative reviews.

Well you could (and should) agree a lot less. There was no Mel Gibson bashing prior to him making this film. The film itself brought on some minor bashing, apparently because it was largely garbage. Gibson didn't have his drug-addled antisemitic tirade caught on tape until 2006 (Passion hit theaters in 2004), and his barely coherent profanity laced admission to knocking his wife's teeth out didn't come until 2009 or 2010. And even since all of these things happened, Gibson starred in (and directed?) The Beaver, which didn't get great reviews, but still fared much better than Passion.

So . . . like . . . maybe there's no conspiracy. Maybe it's just a ---steaming pile of meadow muffin--- movie.  

[shmokes]

I really don't see any problems that it was not a critically acclaimed film. That has nothing to do with appreciating it.

Obviously it would be silly not to appreciate a film because the film was not critically acclaimed. But there's a good chance that you won't appreciate a movie for the same reasons that it was critically panned. You see that.

And in any case, the fact that it was so critically panned, the fact that I know personally quite a few people who saw it and told me it was crap, is proof positive that it is not a movie that can be appreciated by everyone. There simply are many people who are unable to appreciate it. Full stop.

[Well Fed Games]

the fact that I know personally quite a few people who saw it and told me it was crap

Dude, you are pretty up in arms about a movie you have never seen!

Personally, I thought it was a literal take on a very small, brutal part of Christ's life, and it definitely affected me. (The church I worked in at the time happened to meet in a movie theater, and we actually showed the film in place of our Sunday gathering). But once the Mel Gibson stuff hit, I was done with it. He did huge harm to "Christianity" (I use that term broadly) through his hatred. No thanks!

But really, any self-sacrifice in movies gets me. It may be a common trope, but done right, it hits hard.

[jamesjones626]

this movie...........when he finds his daughter.  What a feeling it must be to see your child again, that died along time ago.

[Howard_Casto]

I really don't see any problems that it was not a critically acclaimed film. That has nothing to do with appreciating it.

Obviously it would be silly not to appreciate a film because the film was not critically acclaimed. But there's a good chance that you won't appreciate a movie for the same reasons that it was critically panned. You see that.

And in any case, the fact that it was so critically panned, the fact that I know personally quite a few people who saw it and told me it was crap, is proof positive that it is not a movie that can be appreciated by everyone. There simply are many people who are unable to appreciate it. Full stop.

I agree 100% with you, which pretty much never happens. 

Also you absolutely have to be religious for something like that to have any effect on you.  If you are a christian then it's your magical savior suffering for your sins, if you aren't it's torture porn similar to the SAW franchise.  Actually it's torture porn either way.  I'm sorry but why would you take a universally awesome person and make a film about the one bad day they had?

Let's put it into some different context:

What if you wanted to make a film about Elvis, but instead of making this grand tale of how he got his start, his music and his adventures you decide to make it a short film about the heart attack he died of on the toilet.  Doesn't that sound like a stupid idea for a movie to you?

Also (and I choke on my own tongue when I say this) pbj is 100% correct as well.  Christians are so hypocritical.  He's the son of god and therefore could have lept off that cross and did a little jig back upstairs anytime he wanted.  Hell his father IS god so if anything, the resurrection story just proves that god is kind of a dick as he could have saved his son from such suffering.  Also he'll go to heaven, so how exactly is it suffering?  Sounds more like a woman losing her virginity to me in that it will hurt now but it will be worth it later. 

Anyway, I'm not trying to get this topic moved, I just find it funny how the religious people, who think there is life after death, are so afraid of death and get so angry and vengeful when someone is killed.  (Religion is the #1 excuse to go to war.)  It might mean, that maybe, just maybe, their faith is a crutch because they are so scared of death and equally so scared of taking responsibility for their killing.

[shmokes]

 you decide to make it a short long film about the heart attack he died of on the toilet.  Doesn't that sound like a stupid idea for a movie to you?

Fixt   

[ark_ader]

Christians are so hypocritical.  He's the son of god and therefore could have lept off that cross and did a little jig back upstairs anytime he wanted.  Hell his father IS god so if anything, the resurrection story just proves that god is kind of a dick as he could have saved his son from such suffering.  Also he'll go to heaven, so how exactly is it suffering?  Sounds more like a woman losing her virginity to me in that it will hurt now but it will be worth it later.

Shouldn't you be updating that wrapper, instead of babbling on about this?   

It would be more productive than posting crap like this.

[DaOld Man]

I really don't see any problems that it was not a critically acclaimed film. That has nothing to do with appreciating it.

Obviously it would be silly not to appreciate a film because the film was not critically acclaimed. But there's a good chance that you won't appreciate a movie for the same reasons that it was critically panned. You see that.

And in any case, the fact that it was so critically panned, the fact that I know personally quite a few people who saw it and told me it was crap, is proof positive that it is not a movie that can be appreciated by everyone. There simply are many people who are unable to appreciate it. Full stop.

I agree 100% with you, which pretty much never happens. 

Also you absolutely have to be religious for something like that to have any effect on you.  If you are a christian then it's your magical savior suffering for your sins, if you aren't it's torture porn similar to the SAW franchise.  Actually it's torture porn either way.  I'm sorry but why would you take a universally awesome person and make a film about the one bad day they had?

Let's put it into some different context:

What if you wanted to make a film about Elvis, but instead of making this grand tale of how he got his start, his music and his adventures you decide to make it a short film about the heart attack he died of on the toilet.  Doesn't that sound like a stupid idea for a movie to you?

Also (and I choke on my own tongue when I say this) pbj is 100% correct as well.  Christians are so hypocritical.  He's the son of god and therefore could have lept off that cross and did a little jig back upstairs anytime he wanted.  Hell his father IS god so if anything, the resurrection story just proves that god is kind of a dick as he could have saved his son from such suffering.  Also he'll go to heaven, so how exactly is it suffering?  Sounds more like a woman losing her virginity to me in that it will hurt now but it will be worth it later. 

Anyway, I'm not trying to get this topic moved, I just find it funny how the religious people, who think there is life after death, are so afraid of death and get so angry and vengeful when someone is killed.  (Religion is the #1 excuse to go to war.)  It might mean, that maybe, just maybe, their faith is a crutch because they are so scared of death and equally so scared of taking responsibility for their killing.

You really dont get it do you?
People judging films they have not seen, and judging religions they know absolutely nothing about, and then having the blind ignorance to call others hypocritical are no doubt the clear definition of lost.

[ark_ader]

I really don't see any problems that it was not a critically acclaimed film. That has nothing to do with appreciating it.

Obviously it would be silly not to appreciate a film because the film was not critically acclaimed. But there's a good chance that you won't appreciate a movie for the same reasons that it was critically panned. You see that.

And in any case, the fact that it was so critically panned, the fact that I know personally quite a few people who saw it and told me it was crap, is proof positive that it is not a movie that can be appreciated by everyone. There simply are many people who are unable to appreciate it. Full stop.

I agree 100% with you, which pretty much never happens. 

Also you absolutely have to be religious for something like that to have any effect on you.  If you are a christian then it's your magical savior suffering for your sins, if you aren't it's torture porn similar to the SAW franchise.  Actually it's torture porn either way.  I'm sorry but why would you take a universally awesome person and make a film about the one bad day they had?

Let's put it into some different context:

What if you wanted to make a film about Elvis, but instead of making this grand tale of how he got his start, his music and his adventures you decide to make it a short film about the heart attack he died of on the toilet.  Doesn't that sound like a stupid idea for a movie to you?

Also (and I choke on my own tongue when I say this) pbj is 100% correct as well.  Christians are so hypocritical.  He's the son of god and therefore could have lept off that cross and did a little jig back upstairs anytime he wanted.  Hell his father IS god so if anything, the resurrection story just proves that god is kind of a dick as he could have saved his son from such suffering.  Also he'll go to heaven, so how exactly is it suffering?  Sounds more like a woman losing her virginity to me in that it will hurt now but it will be worth it later. 

Anyway, I'm not trying to get this topic moved, I just find it funny how the religious people, who think there is life after death, are so afraid of death and get so angry and vengeful when someone is killed.  (Religion is the #1 excuse to go to war.)  It might mean, that maybe, just maybe, their faith is a crutch because they are so scared of death and equally so scared of taking responsibility for their killing.

You really dont get it do you?
People judging films they have not seen, and judging religions they know absolutely nothing about, and then having the blind ignorance to call others hypocritical are no doubt the clear definition of lost.

Howard likes the attention, besides if he directed his enthusiasm to something more productive, he can go back and enjoy the glory without being offensive.

I like the guy and I think he was voicing an opinion that is not generally shared.

The Passion of Christ was very graphic and it showed the brutality of the Romans, seeing a person who you love or admire, being brutalized like that, would upset anyone.

[Drnick]

Bridge to Terabithia (I just didn't want to believe it).
The Green Mile (Heterosexual or not there was a physical tear in my eye).

[shmokes]

You really dont get it do you?
People judging films they have not seen, and judging religions they know absolutely nothing about, and then having the blind ignorance to call others hypocritical are no doubt the clear definition of lost.

The idea that it's somehow foolish or unfair to judge a film having not seen it is intuitively appealing. But, of course, you do it all the time. Look at the movie poster for the new Adam Sandler movie, Jack and Jill. Or how about the new Twilight movie? Ya been to see that yet? Have you sampled the latest offerings on Nickelodeon or the Lifetime channel? There's simply no way to sample every single thing in life. You have to make choices. That doesn't mean that you have to just close your eyes and point or do a little eeny-meeny-miney-moe. You make educated prejudgments about movies. Obviously a movie sometimes defies the odds and ends up surprising you (in one direction or the other). But generally speaking, I find that I usually like movies that I expected to like and dislike movies that I expected to be crap. And before you grab onto that, keep in mind that it's unlikely that I would like a movie because I expected to like it. If anything, the opposite is true. I'm much more likely to end up disliking an otherwise passable movie because I expected it to be excellent.

[Howard_Casto]

Just for the record, I was raised a Babtist and my grandma would probably knock the taste out of anyone's mouth who accused me of being ignorant to Christianity.  Rejecting parts or all of a religion and being ignorant of a religion are not the same thing. 

My only crime is being too smart to see a film that is obviously exploiting people's obsession with a religious figure to make money for what it is.  If it were truely a moving, religious film, Mel, being the saint that he is, wouldn't have charged you to see it.  If you were moved by it anyway then you were simply one of his "marks".  Beware of false prophets my children, beware of false profits.   

[DaOld Man]

You really dont get it do you?
People judging films they have not seen, and judging religions they know absolutely nothing about, and then having the blind ignorance to call others hypocritical are no doubt the clear definition of lost.

The idea that it's somehow foolish or unfair to judge a film having not seen it is intuitively appealing. But, of course, you do it all the time. Look at the movie poster for the new Adam Sandler movie, Jack and Jill. Or how about the new Twilight movie? Ya been to see that yet? Have you sampled the latest offerings on Nickelodeon or the Lifetime channel? There's simply no way to sample every single thing in life. You have to make choices. That doesn't mean that you have to just close your eyes and point or do a little eeny-meeny-miney-moe. You make educated prejudgments about movies. Obviously a movie sometimes defies the odds and ends up surprising you (in one direction or the other). But generally speaking, I find that I usually like movies that I expected to like and dislike movies that I expected to be crap. And before you grab onto that, keep in mind that it's unlikely that I would like a movie because I expected to like it. If anything, the opposite is true. I'm much more likely to end up disliking an otherwise passable movie because I expected it to be excellent.

I was just saying that before you tell everyone how bad a movie is, you should have seen it first.

[DaOld Man]

Just for the record, I was raised a Babtist and my grandma would probably knock the taste out of anyone's mouth who accused me of being ignorant to Christianity.  Rejecting parts or all of a religion and being ignorant of a religion are not the same thing. 

My only crime is being too smart to see a film that is obviously exploiting people's obsession with a religious figure to make money for what it is.  If it were truely a moving, religious film, Mel, being the saint that he is, wouldn't have charged you to see it.  If you were moved by it anyway then you were simply one of his "marks".  Beware of false prophets my children, beware of false profits.   

I wasnt talking about the movie, I was talking about why Christ had to die, and you should already know that, if you paid attention in Sunday school.
As for the movie, I liked it, but it wasnt 100% Biblical. As far as movies about Christ, I much prefer "Jesus of Nazareth", which I think was a mini series on TV a few years back.

[ark_ader]

Just for the record, I was raised a Baptist and my grandma would probably knock the taste out of anyone's mouth who accused me of being ignorant to Christianity.  Rejecting parts or all of a religion and being ignorant of a religion are not the same thing. 

My only crime is being too smart to see a film that is obviously exploiting people's obsession with a religious figure to make money for what it is.  If it were truly a moving, religious film, Mel, being the saint that he is, wouldn't have charged you to see it.  If you were moved by it anyway then you were simply one of his "marks".  Beware of false prophets my children, beware of false profits   

 Fixt.

[shmokes]

I much prefer "Jesus of Nazareth"

I can't make any statement I'd be willing to defend about that movie, but as a kid (and Christian), I liked it. It's been like 15-20 years since I've seen it, though.

But seriously, Last Temptation of Christ is a good movie. Also, I don't understand what the fuss was about. I think it was perfectly respectful to the religion, certainly moreso than, ya know, American Pie or Mission Impossible (or fill in just about any typical modern media).