The technical stuff doesn't cut it. A movie can be pretty to look at, but what's that matter when everything is tweaked and the main goal of the film (emooootion) isn't even accomplished? There's only so much I can feel for a man. Yeah, I feel bad for Homie Jay. But, with all honesty, I found NOTHING inspiring in that. Anything emotional was conveyed through some fancy camera shots. Nothing more.

Asides from that, if Gibson had only showed the execution for, I dunno, 10 minutes, it would've been another matter. This isn't storytelling. Forcing the audience to watch something that isn't built up well is NOT worthy of an A.

C

A profoundly moving meditative piece which needs to be properly contextualized. The only negative thing I have to say about it (having considered the film over and over again), and I don't think it's negative at all, is that it expects the audience to have knowledge of the material beforehand. I don't mean, know the story, everyone knows the story. What I mean is, the trial and death of the man we see before us needs to be properly understood as a sacrifice for those who would be condemned to a far worse fate without it. Once that is understood, an otherwise unbearable and anguishing experience is transformed into a painful yet joyful one.


You have to keep in mind that the term 'passion' originally meant suffering. That's why Christ's suffering is described as 'the passion' to begin with. The additional meanings the term has acquired, I'm sure, stem from the paradox inherent in the entire process Christ undergoes: love is his motivation, hate that of the others. Hate attempts to conquer love, and claims the mortal body. Love triumphs, resurrected as the immortal soul.

The Passion is Mel Gibson's personal interpretation of that very concept.

Well I have seen the light (of the projector, anyway), and I have to say this is one narrow minded perspective on the story of Jesus and a pretty sick, death obsessed one at that. Sure the scourging was nicely Hollywoodized with slo-mo blood spatters and all, but if Mel went to all the trouble of filming it in the original Aramaic, why couldn't he find a Middle Eastern actor to play the J-man? Why is it always some white dude? And I'll tell you, the Jews are looking pretty darn guilty in this telling of the tale - they practically forced Pilate to do their dirty work - they threatened him with telling Caesar who apparently was running a three strikes and your out program, and Pontius was already two down - not to mention pressure from his wife.

Just what the world needs right now...

But I will tell you truthfully - it was not the Jews - but the priests - and it could have been the priests of any religion, including modern day Christianity. As a matter of fact, I'm certain Jesus has already been back many times, only to be executed again and again - or more recently been locked away in prisons like Guantanomo Bay or medicated and restrained in a psychiatric hospital somewhere.

This is an extraordinarily freakin' sick world we live in where the torture of Jesus is obsessively idolized, while the true beauty of his words are persistently tossed aside in our rush to vengeance. Forget his saying, "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you" - let's get on with the religious wars - our saviour's better than your saviour and we're gonna kick some heathen butt!

(Kudos to the marketing of this film though - outstanding use of prejudice, hatred, and intolerance in the promotion of art - it's going to be a hard act to follow!)

1 out of 5.

NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO

You are missing the damn point. According to Catholic doctrine, WE ALL are guilty, not those damn priests or the Jews or the Romans. It's us, and us wholly who are responsible.

This film was never intended for an audience outside of faithful Christian bounds, and it shows. It was a small film intended for a selective audience. Gibson obviously saw a way of expanding its reach, and it worked, both to the film's advantage and disadvantage.

At the least, approach it from the filmmaker's perspective first. It's not a crime for a film to ask you to think, and not criminal for a filmmaker to ask the audience to look at things from his perspective.

My review is written from my perspective of being a recovering Catholic...

When you were a Catholic, did you know that it was humanity as a whole that was to blame, and not those Jews?

Like being an alcoholic, you can never claim you were a Catholic, I'm saddled with the scars for life...

As for the Jews being to blame -> re-read my review, it was and remains the priests - that was not the teaching of Jesus...

Oh

I particularily liked the review in the New Yorker - here's a sample:

I pretty much agree with that New Yorker review and a lot of stuff that bradley has said. I am Christian and I stick to my beliefs as well. I think that the movie just did not represent the figure of Jesus well. Why focusing on the gruesome parts and not even bringing up the good Jesus has done. I know this was not the intention of the movie, but it just did not work for me. You don't feel such an impact of Jesus dying because you don't see the good he has done before and how innocent of a person he is (which makes the fact of him dying more powerful).

Still my grade is way better, simply because the movie is technically very very very well-done. Cinematography, Editing, Music, Art Direction etc. are flawless. I'd settle for a weak B.

Christ...overturned the merchant stands in the temple...

This was a very angry man, not a wussy Lennon-type.

Still he is the only person ever who was not sinful.

You can be pissed as hell at the world and be in the right; being angry does not mean being sinful.

I did not imply this either, I was just commenting.

Agreed,many left leaning christians think christ is this hippie kind of guy,but he really wasnt.Yes he teaches love,but people do not realize that christ is also very strict.He had made a lot of critizism to the people who were not follow god the right way.As christ said,he came to fufill god's law,and that includes the harsh ones many liberal christians disregard.
Im sure christ would critize most conservitive and liberal christians today because most of us only take what we like of the bible and dissregard the rest.

I personally think people misinterpret the film.

There have been countless films that tell the story of Christ's ministry years, the "miracles" etc., they have been done so many times that another film really would not have had an impact. I commend Gibson for what he did, he wanted to create a film that showed the true gruesome events that transpired before Christ's execution. He didn't gloss over it, or make it "child friendly" like many films. This was probably as close to realism as you can get, whether or not you accept the religious qualities about it.

And no, it was not anti-sematic. That is a figment of people's imaginations who want to use it to find fault with the film.

All's I can say about this frightening post is: Yow!

Ick. Passion is such a messy project. I was raised a Christian and always felt, when learning about Christ, he was an elegant, merciful, wonderful man. Gibson sort of forget about that side of Jesus. Instead of setting up any sense of story or character, he pretty much forces an emotional response from the audience by showing two hours of torture. I'm sorry, but as disturbing as this movie may have been, it wasn't great nor excellent. Wasted opportunity to tell a story of Christ- all we get is brutal torture and a three months of sermons praising Gibson.

C

Bump for the anti-Da Vinci Code...

POTC isn't Anti-Semitic per se, it just seemed that way because of Mel Gibson's hack-y tendencies. He shot the Jewish characters like they were all Hans Gruber.

He couldn't help it. He doesn't know any better.

Comparing this movie's 400 million dollar bounty to the ignominious fate of Scorcese's Last Temptation of Christ, one of my favorite films, makes me a very very sad panda.

The film is gorgeous to look at, but it was just violence after violence after violence, and no substance. I didn't get anything from this movie. The best parts of the film were the flashbacks! They were the interesting, compelling things I was after (i.e. the real, deep stuff about Jesus). I LOVED how Gibson had the flashbacks occur when Jesus was currently experiencing or seeing a similar thing/event. I wanted more of that. But ultimately it was the blood and gore that was used to drive the film, so it didn't impact me. I got the message that Jesus was so brutally treated, and I wasn't "upset" by the gore or anything, I was just really disappointed that I didn't get much substance. Ultimately, the film wasn't as moving as it could have been if it HAD that substance to back it up.

B-

PEACE, Mike.

I agree with Mike. I know Gibson was obviously well-intentioned, but the movie was too ritualistic for me to get in to. I thought a couple of the scenes were really good (when we see the flashback of his mom coming to his rescue as a child, and then she does so in the present), however I wish they had covered more...um...material. A simple retelling of Christ's last hours on earth doesn't really get the message across in my opinion.

This the first film i'd ever seen where i actually got bored with the violence cause it went on too long. This is Christianity hammered into you the fire and brimstone way. It tries to guilt you into believing in Jesus which isn't the best way to do it. There's a glimpse of a movie about jesus i'd like to have seen in the flashbacks of him talking and having fun with Mary but those snippits are drowned out by the snuff overkill.

C