The Passion of the Christ (Widescreen Edition)

The Passion of the Christ was much-hyped when it was released in 2004. Mel Gibson who wrote and directed this film took a lot of heat, critics said this epic was a direct insult to Jewish people. I watched this film a few years ago and this film is violent but I don't think the point of view takes aim at any religion in particular, I think every religion had a part in the horrible death of Jesus Christ. This film uses sub-titles so get ready to read dialogue. James Caviezel is a splendid actor, hope he continues to make more incredible films in the future. Mel Gibson may have been used as punching bag but you can't ignore the brilliance of this controversial drama.

First off i cant really call myself a christian, i am reviewing this as a film lover. There are some minor flaws in this film and its not the blood! Some of the greatest movies ever made are personal movies by directors. I am not saying this is one of the greatest movies ever made but i love how in this day and age of garbage film ,Gibson punches you in the face with this film! Some reviewers have said there should have been more depth or more of Christs teachings instead of more violence. I have seen that all before, if you want to see films like that try Pasolini's The Gospel According To St. Matthew, shot in a neo-realist style. Nobody has the guts to take a chance these days on a movie. Thats why i was so glad to see this film. This is a film that should say to directors who are coming out with a supposed "movie" to get that weak crap out of here!

I'm going to warn you now...I am reviewing this film as an OBJECTIVE MOVIE-GOER, not a religious zealot. If you think just because of the subject matter this film should be considered immune from criticism, it may be best to skip my words here.

For those of you still with me...

This film could have been so good, yet falls short in so many ways. First of all, though not devoutly religious, I have no doubt that Christ existed and have read the Gospels. Religion, especially in film, is so subjective, it's nearly impossible to classify it in any conventional sense. This film is obviously driven by Mel Gibson's undeniable faith, and at times it shines brightly. I give it high marks for intensity, but I wouldn't call it moving or spiritually enlightening.

First of all, the good: the subtitles are an excellent device. I thought it offered great authenticity to what could be defined as the single most revered day in history. Technically, I thought the cinematography, visual effects and score were also excellent. The roles of Jesus, Pilate and Mary were well done for the most part. In fact, perhaps the most captivating part of the film was the relationship between Jesus and Mary, though even that was barely touched upon. And again, the relationship between Pilate and his wife Claudia were better captured than the compassion for Christ.

The bad: Just about everything else. In terms of a film, we expect an arc of story, or a plot. This film offers none. It's not a story, it's a sequence. Had Gibson focused more on Christ and who He was and what He taught, this film would have packed way more of a punch. It also might have sent a more profound message instead of what I took it as, which is sheer guilt.

The acting, especially on the parts of the Romans, seemed very forced and cartoon-ish. The Jewish high priests were also one dimensional. The bloodshed, though at first effective, quickly became the focus of the film instead of why we should care that it's happening. I don't think that the bloodshed was unnecessary, but certainly excessive and over the top. It's good to see the darkest aspects of what Christ endured, but there comes a point where all Gibson's doing is establishing that torment, over and over and over. Nothing moves forward, it's just regurgitation.

Gibson doesn't offer any reason for us to care what's happening. I found myself relating to it strictly from a humanity standpoint, where I sympathized with Jesus only out of compassion for his physical endurance. But I felt the same for Sean Penn in Dead Man Walking, where he plays the part of a convicted rapist and murderer condemned to death. Hmmm, what's wrong with this picture?

As an example of misdirection, instead of making the March to Golgotha scene several minutes long, shorten it up. Use the rest of that time to COMPLETE the scenes of the Last Supper, or the Sermon on the Mount. These snippet scenes, that consist no more than 15-20 seconds each, are the only link to who Christ was or allowed me to feel connected spiritually. But the second I was compelled by that, it's back to the torture and bloodshed. I'm sorry, but that's just HORRIBLE writing and directing. Seriously.

I think my biggest complaint is the message here, which is guilt, guilt, guilt. Regardless of Gibson's intent, that's all that was conveyed as far as I'm concerned. I interpret the teachings of Christ to be that of love, forgiveness and peace. And though there are glimmers (and I mean glimmers) of those teachings in the film, they are too sparse to compensate for the bloodshed. And though I am familiar with the Gospels and understood everything that was happening, from beginning to end, I still left scratching my head. Bottom line, if you're not familiar with the story of Christ and His death, this is a very hollow film.

And to quickly touch base on all of the controversy this film has stirred, here's my two cents: I don't think the film is anti-Semitic. I didn't have a hard time with the gore or bloodshed. I think it's pretty strange to read people's reviews that INSIST you take your kids to see this film, and it should be used as a teaching device, when really, it teaches NOTHING about who Christ was, or what He taught.

I commend Gibson for his faith and vision to bring something to life that has affected his life in profound ways. THAT is truly amazing, and in my opinion, the very essence of faith and what it can do to mend souls. But in terms of a commercial film to be shown to the masses, there's really not a whole lot here.

I wonder, would Christ Himself approve of this film's focus? I highly doubt it.

Read the Bible if you want to know more
about Jesus. And it is good for you if
you do.

I fell for the hype at first and put my family thru the gore fest of Gibsons imagination. I had trouble enjoying the film because of all the extra material that is not in scriptures.

Then I found the source of all the non-biblical content of this film.

=="Director Gibson intended fidelity to the New Testament, yet expanded the screenplay by making use of additional sources. The principal, most controversial source is The Dolorous Passion of Our Lord Jesus Christ the meditations of the stigmatic, German nun Blessed Anne Catherine Emmerich (1774-1824), as told to the poet Clemens Brentano. Her vision of Christ's Passion depicts certain Jews as more vicious and bloodthirsty than the Romans ruling Judaea. A secondary, extra-biblical source is The Mystical City of God by Maria de Agreda (1602-1665), a 17th century Spanish nun, and some imagined sequences." -- source- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Passion_of_the_Christ

There are plenty of other sources out there telling the same story about this. The Roman Catolics are eager to give credit to Emmerich for her contribution to this film.

So for all of us Sola Scriptura folk this show is an abomination that has no place in our video collection and especially in our churches!

Everyone is responsible for themselves so stop sheepishly following everything suggested to us and hold EVERYTHING to scripture.

thank you,
Don