उपयोगकर्ता समीक्षाएं

Director Mel Gibson brings the last day of Jesus (Jim Caviezel) to the screen. It is after the last supper and Judas betrays Jesus to the authorities for 30 pieces of silver. Jesus is arrested, beaten, convicted of blasphemy and sentenced to death. Roman Governor Pontius Pilate sends him to King Herod. Herod sees Jesus as a fool and releases him back to Pilate. Fearing a revolt, Pilate offers a choice to the crowd between Jesus and Barabbas.

This is a relatively literal interpretation of the passion play. Mel even uses Aramaic. It is expertly made and delivers the material. There is a vein of anti-semitic bend while Pilate is excused with more humanity. I don't think the film can force modern values on the 2000 year old text. For true believers, this is heaven. Every whip mark is felt. For non-believers, this is a good representation of the text.

Having avoided this film during its cinema release - partially thru fear as to whether I would be able to handle the violence etc I did eventually catch this on DVD. Bye the way - I write this as a non-religious person. The film was very watchable, never boring and Caviezel was superb in the main role. Your heart really went out to him - even as a "non-believer". I have to say that after all the acres of print I had read about the violence and bloodshed in the film, I actually felt it was rather less nasty than I may have feared. Certainly more visceral than, King of Kings, Greatest Story ever Told etc, a lot of the worst scenes took place in slow motion, off camera etc which somehow did make things easier to stomach. I can imagine if Mike Leigh or Ken Loach had made this it would have been far more unpleasant!

Powerful, moving, even if you don't actually "buy" the central storyline. Jim C truly looks as if he has gone thru hell. Respect is due - to him and all.

I think that the final few moments, segueing into the closing credits would have been quite something to experience in a full cinema!

I can't believe I didn't write a review after seeing this, but I must have incorrectly presumed I did. With so many other reviewers by now, I'll make my points as brief as possible.

GOOD - Kudos for someone finally presenting an accurate account of Christ's sufferings, as gruesome and horrible as they were, although, if you read the Gospel accounts in the Bible, it was even worse than shown on this film. Jesus' face was beaten to a pulp and "unrecognizable" so keep that in mind if you think the film overdid the beatings. However, the overall effect is that there isn't anything sanitized in this film; it's an according-to-the-Book account and after you see this on film, it shakes you up.

I heard that people were so stunned they couldn't speak for about a half hour after coming out of the theaters. I thought that was probably exaggerated, but it wasn't. I felt the same way, just stunned at what I had witnessed. As a Believer, it was something I needed to see to remind me of what this God-in the flesh human voluntarily went through. For non-Believers, scoffers or whatever, I don't know what your reaction was to the film but for me, it was a humbling, sobering experience.

THE BAD - The unrelenting brutality against Jesus the last three-quarters of this film is so bad that, frankly, I would hesitate before ever watching this again. One viewing is enough. I am amazed so many people sat through this, including Christians. I wish director/producer Mel Gibson had shown more of Christ's resurrection instead of centering 99 percent of this movie on his suffering, although I understand Mel's point. However, all of Jesus' claims and sufferings are meaningless without the resurrection, so why not emphasize that instead of just tacking it on for the last minute or two? Just asking.

It's a cliché, but this is a film you won't soon forget, but I would add to that, one you probably won't want to watch multiple times.

...which is precisely why so many people can't handle it. Gibson could have toned everything down, but then would have been met with apathy or mockery. Both the absurd accusations of antisemitism (in a movie where almost all the characters are Jewish, and where the Romans soldiers are more brutally inhuman than anyone else), and the hypocritical criticism of the violence (there are only TWO sequences in the movie that are difficult to watch, and the first---the scourging---happens around 50 minutes in) are overblown and hyped up because these are the only criticisms people can latch on to. You can't fault the dialogue and line delivery because it's not even in English. You can't fault the direction because the minimal dialogue leads to a more visual story. The soundtrack is criminally underrated by itself. And so on. It is too well made and was way too popular to simply dismiss, and that's why it was so controversial.

The violence criticisms are especially silly given that we live in this culture where audiences and critics regularly gush over shows where graphic violence is played for laughs (Fight Club), nihilism (Game of Thrones), or both (Tarantino). Is it so horrifying that a film appears which demands you take the implications of brutality seriously? Who is really the degenerate here, Mel Gibson or American society as a whole? That being said, there is an anguish which pervades every frame of this film and I could maybe see how that can color people's perception and memory of the violence. Even Roger Ebert, one of the few critics who 'got' the film, estimated that '100 minutes, maybe more' of this two hour film was concerned with graphic torture. His calculations are way off. The people calling this a 'snuff film' obviously haven't watched it and are just parroting that one loser critic. (The Passion is obviously not a 'snuff film' anyway--you're supposed to feel emotional connection to the characters and not just sadism. Some of the Rotten Tomatoes critics are obviously very anti-Christian, and expecting them to give a reliable evaluation to this movie would be like expecting anti-Semites to review Schindler's List fairly.)

Do you have to be religious to 'get' this film? Not particularly, the same way you do not have to be religious to appreciate Renaissance art, much of which seems to have influenced the film. It's also interesting how relatively influential it was, given the smattering of 'visionary' Biblical epics that sprang up in its wake but were consigned to mediocrity. (Ridley Scott's Moses film and Aronofsky's gnostic Noah film).

Side note: The soundtrack for this film is on another level. If you like lots of percussion and vocals in your epic soundtracks, try checking it out. Even if you don't intend to watch the movie.

I watched first time at a special premiere for my church. We got to see it before anyone else since we saw it two days before it premiered nationwide.. To watch the reactions of my fellow church members was amazing. Many sat in stun silence, while others just bawled openly.

Now, all these years later, I can say this film is still probably the most powerful, and brutally honest film that I have ever seen. If you are a Christian as I am, this film shows everything that we ever need to see about Jesus's last 12 hours, but even if you are an atheist, this film is just plain powerful in the way it was made, and created.

Mel Gibson did as a Director in this film something I doubt that the great Martin Scorsese or Francis Ford Coppola, or Quentin Tarantino could never do.

From the cast, to the direction, to the sets, to the costumes, I believe this is al near perfect a film as you will ever see.

As an agnostic-atheist, I thought The Passion of the Christ was incredibly touching and moving. I see this film being about a mother's love for her anguished son and his sacrifice for humanity. You really don't have to believe in the divinity of Christ in order to enjoy this film. As for its moving nature, the film gave me the same emotions that 'Lord of the Rings' and 'Dune' did. It just had this epic vibe and monumental aura. I would've gone far and given this a Best Picture nomination at the Oscars. Mel Gibson is a very talented filmmaker.

One of the most unique things about this film is the characters speaking Aramaic. As someone who speaks Assyrian (a modern Aramaic language), I thought the Aramaic language was accurate as we understood some words here and there. Regarding the characters, they were all portrayed by a talented European cast. Maia Morgenstern, who portrayed Mary, should have gotten an Oscar nomination. Jim Caviezel, an actor that generally seems wooden in other movies, was very naturalistic and compelling as Jesus.

The music was the best thing about this film. John Debney really knows how to create poignant, emotional music. I can't imagine this film without Debney's music (maybe, just maybe Zimmer would've been as good). The score is truly one of the best pieces of music I've ever listened to.

As for antisemitism, I do not see it, and this is coming from a staunch supporter of Israel (in light of the Israel-Hamas war). This film showed that there were good Jews and bad Jews. Every nation and ethnicity in the world has good and bad, terrible people. The Romans were also depicted as being despicable, heartless savages (i.e. The soldiers), but of course other Romans were depicted as compassionate and humble (Pilate, his wife Claudia and the Roman soldier who later believed in Christ). So everything was evened out. I never understood the fuss.

The violence was indeed very graphic. But need not worry, you can always view The Passion Recut, an edited version where 5 minutes of the strong violence is omitted. The Blu-Ray has that version. I watch 'Recut' every Easter. It is actually pleasant to watch due to its more temperate nature, and it flows pretty well.

My only few complains with the film was the demonic children chasing Judas and the Roman soldiers whipping Jesus nonstop as he was heading to Golgotha. I think those scenes were too elaborate and protracted, and Gibson did not have to dwell on them, as they seemed comical and absurdness. I believe Gibson wanted to add such scenes so the film reaches the 2-hour mark.

I've seen a lot o people talking trash about this movie - even a lot of christians -, and I find it hard to understand why. Philosopher Peter Kreeft called it the "most beautiful movie ever made", and when I think about it in the light of the Christian faith, it's hard to disagree.

First of all, passion means suffering, and for all those people that complain about the violence in the movie, I think it's because they don't get Christ's Passion at all. The emphasis on violence is fundamental, as it's what reveals how much God suffered because of what I did. So I, the spectator, am experiencing with all my emotions what I can only imagine and reflect about when reading the Gospels. And I'm not the kind of person that reads about Jesus crucified and direct relates it to all the bad things I did to contribute to that moment, and even when I do, it's more like in a lucid, almost indifferent way, while the movie forces me to feel the burden that I've put on My Lord's shoulder.

This is of course from my Christian perspective, and I wouldn't even try to talk about what's great in the movie from a secular perspective. The lens through which one watches it it's what define its greatness. And that lens is faith. So I really don't think it's a big deal if an atheist doesn't like it; but if a catholic doesn't like it I'll be confused.

The way Jim Caviezel plays Jesus is so powerful. He seems very humble, very vulnerable, very soft, yet very strong and confident. When he talks to the people, you feel so much goodness in his tone; when he is accused of blasphemy you can feel his innocence even if nothing is spoken. When he is carrying the cross and falls, Mary runs to him and it's such a symbolic scene of how much she loves her Son, and how much she wants His suffering to end, even though she accepts the will of God.

Mel Gibson did a great job with all the symbolism in the movie: Mary's obedience; Judas' desperation; all the people shocked by Jesus' mere presence. There's so much of it, and it feels so natural.

I can only assume that christians that don't like The Passion of the Christ are those that didn't actually take their time to think about the Passion of Christ. The movie is a chance to do so. It's ugly and repulsive? Yes, but only for a moment. When you realize that it captures the essence of God's love for humanity, it becomes eternally beautiful. Jesus didn't have to do that. He did because of me, because of you; because He is the good shepherd that lays his life for the sheep.

So what if the reality of the Passion is full of gore and tears and injustice? We are the cause of that, and sometimes we better realize it by having it thrown on our faces, however hurt we may end up feeling. Just remember that our pain is nothing compared to our Lord's pain. I can only speak for myself when I say that my love for my Savior is very small; but I know very well that He loves me with a heart that is ready to bleed without hesitation, even though I'm not worth it.

This is without doubt one of the most curious films i have ever seen. It has taken me several weeks to even formulate an opinion on this because it like nothing you can ever see or imagine, and for that Mel Gibson deserves praise. The Passion of the Christ generates emotions I have never felt before, I felt uncomfortably compelled by Christ's struggle and also I was frequently questioning whether I was actually enjoying it. I also felt detached because i'm not religious, so i'm basically soulless.

To be honest I'm still undecided and as a 'film' I'm not sure how well The Passion works structurally, The flogging is an exceptional scene as is the crucifixion, yet the carrying of the cross seemed to drag on (no pun intended). Although it goes perfectly with the message Mel Gibson is conveying it doesn't make for entertaining cinema.

The acting is impressive and the cast handle the burden of their roles well and claims of it being anti-semitic are not entirely unfounded but then different religions depict events in different ways so it is not a simple case of right or wrong.

Overall The Passion of the Christ is an extremely important film because it divides opinion in a whole new way, whether you like this film or not depends entirely on your religious standpoint. It is not for the squeamish (It is extremely violent but it feels necessary) and you have to be 'ready' to see it but it is well worth a watch. ?/10

A lot of critics I have heard disliked or even dismissed this movie. They seemed to think that the movie should have focused on Christ's ministry and his teachings, and not on the crucifixion and the events leading up to it. These critics miss the point of this movie. As with all movies, The Passion was directed at a target audience, in this case Christians. The point of the movie was simply this: to make Christians understand, in a visceral way, what they knew intellectually from reading the bible: that Christ endured a horrible and brutal death in order to save us from our sins. It was completely successful in this, and was, perhaps, the most powerful movie I have ever seen.

When adjusted for inflation, The Passion of the Christ is still the highest grossing R-rated movie ever released. The story of the crucifixion of Christ is kind of a big deal. It's an intense and important story and Mel Gibson didn't hold back as he set out to tell it visually in the format of a film. It's truly hard to rate such a movie as this. It feels a little wrong to rate it as low as I did given how important the event it depicts is. But it's almost two hours of watching an innocent man being brutalized. Blood and skin go flying in graphic fashion. While not fun to watch, the make-up artists deserve some praise. I'm no stranger to horror films, and I still found myself looking away at points. As Christians, we hear so much about the blood and death of Christ that the weight of what He endured doesn't always sink in. This movie jolts and shocks us as it reminds us how awful the suffering of Jesus was. It's bittersweet in that it's absolutely horrific what Jesus had to endure, yet because He endured it, salvation has been made available for mankind. I appreciate the respect given to the biblical account of this story. While there are moments in which artistic license was taken, there seemed to be great effort to make this as historically accurate as possible. Most of the extra-Biblical content seemed to consist of images or happenings that were meant to be symbolic more so than anything else. As for the filmmaking elements of the movie, it's shot very dramatically and artistically. There are a lot of close ups and slow motion shots that strive to drive in the emotion of each moment. There are back flashes which show short little scenes from Jesus' life before the present affliction, but these seem to serve more as temporary moments of relief between the scenes of brutality more than they do the storytelling. The dialogue isn't abundant but the language fits the context of the story. In the end, the goal here wasn't to simply entertain, but "to bring to vivid life the nature and magnitude of Jesus' sacrifice." And it is perhaps the closest to the real thing we've ever seen on screen. While you may not want to watch this one twice, it should stick with you even after one viewing. It's impactful, but it's not enjoyable.

Being brought up as a Christian but without the religious icons about the physical suffering of Jesus, I found it difficult to sit through The Passion of the Christ. Although Mel Gibson completely manipulates the audience by the relentless torture of Jesus I found myself completely removed from any emotional impact many viewers felt when viewing this film.

Many human beings have ben tortured and killed for a cause. That doesn't make them The Messiah. This overly simplistic message is dangerous. Jesus' words and actions take a back seat to the emphasis of his physical being. Which was completely the opposite of his words and deeds... that there is more to our lives than the physical.

The message he emphasized over and over was one of love, turning the other

cheek, the power of forgiveness, of the rejection of violence... the things that the organized Christian movement seemed so lacking in, since its inception 1700 years ago. But here is a movie that emphasizes violence above all. Not surprising looking at Gibson's list of pictures using violence as a means to an end.

How is it that many 'Christians' who thinks there is too much violence in films can accept that violence when its portrayed against their Lord? Bizarre indeed! But an overly simplistic faith will lead to strange behaviour. The violence used in films like the Lethal Weapons series can be dismissed easily. But this is important subject matter and deserves more thought.

As a film lover and film maker I was also unmoved when watching this movie. I completely respect Gibson for financially backing the project but as a story, it lacks that which is necessary to be complete. The slo-mo. stuff was so uninspired. The fact that Jesus never blacked out during the ordeal made him not human - but super human.

Other films, even epics like Ben Hur, deal with the story of The Christ much better. Better written, acted(excluding prince Heston), photographed and far more compelling. The Passion was an experimental film that tweaks those who lack strong conviction or the desire to search for the truth themselves.

What is the message of this motion picture? Jesus was a man and suffered physically in the end? What a waste of time and money.

BUT... as Roger Ebert said recently, "People who normally talk about sports or the weather seem to be talking about this... something more important." And as Martha Stewart said before being dragged off to prison, "And that's a good thing."

The Buddha or Jesus or in modern times Gandhi or Martin Luther King Jr., is there not enough material from these individuals for us to be moved, compelled, challenged or driven toward their message without these overly simplistic stories?

'What Would Jesus Do?' if he saw this film? Probably shake his head yet again and exclaim, "After 2000 years, they just don't get it!"

So here we are, Easter 2006, two years on from the release of Mel Gibson's highly controversial "Passion of the Christ". I've just finished watching this film for the second time as my parents had yet to see it, (my first viewing being on release), and have truly seen the light. So to speak. What an awful film.

The first and rather big problem I have with this film is the way in which it was handled at the box office, particularly in the American "bible-belt" territory. The film was given such precedence and publicity, mainly due to the overwhelming support from Christian fundamentalists that it ran for a number of weeks at almost every theatre. This wouldn't be such a problem if the embrace of this propaganda was not so one sided; films such as the recent Brokeback Mountain are almost banned in some States to largely Christian opposition to Liberal agendas.

Admittedly this isn't Gibson's fault, or any fault on the films part. What I do find hypocritical is the manner in which this film was given such prominence, despite Gibson's earlier films, many of which contain violence, sex, swearing etc. This is still propaganda. It would be foolish to claim films don't aim to trick, persuade and lie. That's the very essence of film.

Anyway, the film itself. As a film this is a pretty poor piece of celluloid. The acting is moderate at best and the violence is so gratuitously graphic you have to wonder about the mentality of the makers. Defenders of the film claim this level of violence is paramount into portraying the suffering of Christ. But the manner in which it is filmed troubles me if indeed a Christian message is to be conveyed. The actual dwelling on pain, excessive gore, gleefully sadistic guards and use of shots (over-used close-ups of whips with barbed bone flecks) almost add a sexual, masochistic dimension to the film. It's like any other sub-bar horror flick. Think of "Hostel" for example. The violence is so horrific it's a painful task to actually force yourself through watching this. A previous reviewer said many times they felt like turning away - but didn't. Gibson almost makes one feel guilty for looking away, a kind of taunt seemingly saying we can't handle the truth, when in fact you cannot be blamed for not wanting to watch.

Almost like forcing yourself through Catholic penance.

This would be justified I feel if Gibson juxtaposed these horrific scenes of torture with the loving message and acts Jesus commits in the gospels. This I feel is what is so unforgivable; a film that claims to accurately depict Jesus last hours has no spiritual dimension and no message of love, compassion and peace preached by Jesus. Going back to my previous comments, this creates the feeling of a vacuous horror flick.

The Roman guards, Jews and crowd are all ridiculous two-dimensional ciphers designed to generate added feelings of pathos to the Christ character. Who is fairly badly acted and seen only as a mute covered in excessive amounts of prosthetics, latex and fake gore and is fairly two-dimensional himself. As far as film icons go Gibson does nothing to add to the archetypal "Jesus figure". Still long hair, delicate face and white skin. When most likely he would have looked exactly like any other Jew. The complex emotional and spiritual nature of this man is all but erased.

Gibson also claimed that this excessive ultra-violence and the use of original languages such as Hebrew and Aramaic equal reality. Not so. The script is poor at best, lacking any subtlety and nuance, and the forgein intones only add to the wooden stilted dialogue. To quote critic Peter Bradshaw, "allegedly, blood plus dead language equals reality".

I don't think so.

The reason this film gets three stars not less, is it is generally technically proficient. But other than that we are treated to a poorly shot, poorly acted film in which any Christian message or notion of Jesus as a walking, breathing, thinking human is savagely destroyed like Jim Caveizel's body. The various demonic apparitions that pop up in various places are absurd, and any power the scenes of violence have on the audience are undermined by the ridiculous sentimentality of the end.

Essentially the film does nothing to appeal to non-belivers. The whole reason behind Jesus brutal death is left totally unexplored and the actual "facts" are only Gibson's brand of strict Catholicism. But at least Mel has faith. Just how much was that you made huh?

To this day, the most powerful and emotional, moving movie I have ever seen. Raised a Catholic, I realized that this movie was basically everything I expected it to be. My eyes were so swollen from the crying and tears I shed. I gave my life to Christ in 2011 and this movie sent one clear message - the only way to God is through Jesus. Never have I ever cried and sobbed during a movie than I did for this one because it all happened and One Man endured all that viciousness, torture, pain and death for all of our sins. I applaud Mel Gibson on this film, the cast and the crew for giving us this once in a lifetime movie!

It took me a long while to decide whether to see The Passion of the Christ. It had been my intention to since Mel Gibson first announced the project, but endless reports of the film's unflinching brutality made me fear it might be too much to bear. I eventually decided, however, that whether I really wanted to or not, this was a film I needed to see. It took me two viewings to really get a grip on it, so intense were the emotions it provoked in me. Even now, weeks later, re-examining it in detail is still deeply affecting. For those few still unaware, the film details the last twelve hours in the life of Christ. Its dialogue is entirely in Latin and Aramaic, with English subtitles, a remarkably bold decision by Gibson, and one that pays dividends. On one level it unites an international cast, sparing us any clashing accents, and gives the film a greater sense of authenticity. On another, it forced Gibson and his team into a very visual form of storytelling; even amongst the carnage there are shots of aching beauty.

Huge credit must go to the cast for mastering the language, and employing it in such universally excellent performances. As Jesus, James Caviezel has the immense task of embodying the most important figure in human history, and often doing so with little dialogue, and one eye swollen shut. Despite these handicaps Caviezel delivers a performance of great emotional depth, embodying quiet nobility and sacrifice. The performance that really stood out was that of Maia Morgenstern as Mary. The pain she conveys through her large and expressive eyes is heart-breaking, as she is forced to watch her child endure the most unimaginable suffering. Yet throughout the film she maintains an almost luminescent beauty, entirely befitting the mother of God.

One of the themes of the story emphasised by the film is the bond between Jesus and Mary. One flashback, found nowhere in the Bible, details the mundane routine of Jesus being called in from carpentry by His mother to eat. It was an immensely powerful reminder that for all He was the Son of God, Jesus was also the son of an ordinary woman, who He loved as any child loves its mother. It was also from this vein that the most powerful moment of the film sprang. As Jesus carries His cross, Mary begs John to get her closer to Him. She emerges into His path just as He fall under the weight of the cross. She runs to His aid, and as she does so the film cuts between this, and a similar moment when Jesus was a child and fell outside the house. While she could offer him protection then, now she is powerless; she weeps as the guards thrust her roughly away from her son, and so do we.

It is moments such as these that make the film so much more than the orgy of violence its detractors claim. For example, Peter's panicked betrayal, and subsequent horrified realisation of what he has done is handled in such a way as to move one to tears. There is also an immensely poetic moment near the film's end, in which the camera tracks the progress of a single drop of rain from miles above Golgotha, which falls as Jesus breathes His last: a teardrop from Heaven.

As a film, The Passion of the Christ is excellent; as a religious experience it is even better. Gibson has come under attack for focusing merely on Jesus' death, and omitting His message of love - this criticism is both unfair and ill-judged. In fact, he strikes the perfect balance, including flashbacks at pivotal moments of the film to events such as Jesus washing the disciples' feet, the Sermon on the Mount, and the Last Supper. These remain very true to the text, with quotes such as "You are my friends, and the greatest love a man can have for his friends is to give his live for them" (John 15:13) incorporated whole and delivered beautifully.

Even is there were no flashbacks, however, the point of the film would remain, and it is a vitally important one. It serves as a powerful reminder of the reality of what happened: Jesus did not merely die for us, He was killed by us in the most terrible way imaginable. It is something that can easily be lost through over familiarity with the text, and the flowery nature of other representations, but which must not be forgotten.

It has been said that "If Christ be not risen, then our faith is in vain", and the film has also been attacked for devoting just a few minutes to the Resurrection. Such criticism, however, betrays a very narrow minded approach; the manner in which this sequence is filmed conveys the full thematic significance it.

Perhaps the film's greatest impact has been to get me to pick up the Bible again, and do so with a new faith and understanding. And for that Gibson deserves nothing but praise.

First off, you're watching the wrong movie. It's entitled "The Passion of the Christ" for a reason: it is a depiction of Christ's PASSION.. his SUFFERING. If you were expecting to see two hours of a story on Jesus' life, then why did you bother watching the movie and writing a bad review on it? If the title itself explains to you that it's a movie about torture, don't go in expecting anything else. You don't compare apples and oranges. You don't watch a movie about someone's physical suffering that spans but a short time of that person's life and dismiss it for not being a biography detailing that someone's good deeds done throughout the course of his life. I simply don't understand the sheer IDIOCY of some people.

So many complain the movie was overly brutal. That's like complaining that showing the atomic bombs in World War II movies is unnecessarily violent. This is what happened. Easter is not about chocolate eggs. Sacrifice and suffering on the cross.

No it does not go into depth of the teachings of Jesus - that is not the point. The point is to illustrate the extreme sacrifice of Jesus.

On review even complained about lack of character development over a 12 hour time period. The only persons character who should develop over the course of the movie is that of the viewer. We should all be horrified what happened that day.

I have called my review " In My Humble Opinion" for no other reason than I honestly do not intend to cause offence to anyone in the following review. I am an atheist, and also a movie lover. I came to this film with no pre conceived ideas at all. I was not looking for anything in particular as I believe you will in most cases find what you look for in life as in art.

I respect entirely all people with religious convictions and sometimes even envy them. I think this film is a personal statement by Mel Gibson on his belief that Jesus died for him and other Christians. He felt compelled to try to give some insight into what Jesus went through as graphically as possible to drive home the sacrifice he willingly made. The violence in this film is almost relentless. And the lack of story is irrelevant if I am correct. As like an impressionist painter he has tried to capture a moment. It's light and its feeling. Emotion cannot be painted or portrayed any other way. Detail however can be and was not needed (We all know the Story).

I think that there are two groups of Christians who will comment on this film people who look for Christ's life as inspiration will be disappointed. People who find purpose in his Death will not and will truly begin to understand the suffering he went through for you. I do not see this work as a entertainment, or even a documentary it's a statement, it's a canvas that has been filled with emotion, blood, and hope. Entertainment it is not. Art I honestly believe it is.

All I can say is , you have to watch it and be the judge yourself. Me personally , I loved it and I watch it with my family.

This movie is about Christ in all His gory, rather than all his glory. The first Christian slasher movie. You can find more of Christ in Jason, Freddie, and Norman Bates, than in Gibson's bloody, inaccurate, and almost anti-semitic vision. Yes, he hired a Jewish actress to play Mary. Nevertheless his portrayal of Jews is deeply troubling. And his sympathetic portryal of Pilate is based on one line in the Bible. Pilate is the only figure in this time who is mentioned in sources other than the Bible. The Roman government recalled him because he was corupt and too brutal. Too Brutal! And this is Rome, the government which had people torn aprt by lions for public amusement. And Gibson portrays him as a sympathetic character? The last few hours of Jesus as described by all four gospels combined would hardly cover an hour of a film. The rest is all Gibson. One is redeemed through the blood of christ. But gibson focuses on the blood and not the redemption.

I guess this film is supposed to function as a medieval passion play to terrorize viewers into conversion and/or guilt believers into piety, but it is so (ironically) soul-less that it fails on either account. And it certainly doesn't succeed as a piece of art.

This film is outright blasphemous in its failure to contextualize Christ's sacrifice (not to mention in its overt endorsement of vengeance-superhero style! and a few moments of wild and inappropriate creative license). You will not find anything inspiring in this film. However, if the Biblical story is inspiring to you, you may be able to patch together enough allusions and references (though few actual narrative elements) to feel like you saw a theatrical representation of the story and thereby possibly convince yourself that it was spiritually fulfilling. Just don't fall for the trap of thinking you have to find meaning here because of the subject matter. It is not a sin to hate this movie because it is terrible. And it is very terrible.

Perhaps the torture scenes are exaggerated as an attempt to show that this crucifixion was special-that it was much more painful and more gruesome than standard executions-in order to emphasize the level of Christ's willing physical suffering, or possibly to translate into a physical demonstration of pain His taking on the sins of the world, each scourge strike symbolizing another sin. But this violent display is not effective precisely because it is so excessive.

Soldiers are flat characters (evil incarnate); they are pure sadism, never tiring of inflicting new wounds upon fresh openings. We can easily believe that they are sadistic and enjoy beating and flogging prisoners, that their training encourages this, but it becomes absolutely tedious. We see no evidence of personal animosity for Jesus (unlike with the Pharisees), so as they sweat and grow exhausted from the exertion, we are left to wonder at what purpose they would have for continuing to over-tenderize an already bloody pulp of a body? Wouldn't they feel satisfied with the excessive damage or at least grow bored at some point? I know we did, as an audience.

Perhaps because Jesus does not scream in agony, but only winces and bleeds quietly, they have no cue to stop. Regardless, it is exhausting to watch on screen, not simply because it is nauseating and infuriating, but because the gratuitous and horrifying images of soldiers literally slashing and re-slashing flesh to shreds is so over the top that it becomes an incredibly boring motif. This film lacks a narrative thread. Sure, its focus is on the actual crucifixion, but we get a pretty detailed and sympathetic back story for Pontius Pilate, so why not for Jesus, too? Even the disciples are flat characters, following Jesus for no apparent reason. And Mary Magdalene's purpose in the film seems to be to look beautiful while the wind blows her hair off her weeping (but beautiful) face. Satan looks seductive, but doesn't do any seducing, and s/he creeps along without apparent purpose.

It's a chore to have to guess and make assumptions based on one's own knowledge of the Bible because the references are so ineffectual in the film. It is offensive and bare, an insult to the beauty of the story, for Christians and non-Christians alike.

Repetitive devices abound in this film and cheapen the story. Christ's weariness on the long walk to the Crucifixion is shown in His falling down so many times that it risks becoming--disturbingly--almost darkly comical. And when we do get hints at Biblical allusion (from unsatisfying glimpses of Jesus' private life to trivialized moments of teaching that come through about as powerfully as snippets from inspirational calendars), they are either so cryptic that even a sophisticated audience is likely to need a Bible handy to make the connections or so badly placed in juxtaposition to elements of the film that preach a different message that they are not even effective at pointing to how Jesus was not just some crazy false prophet.

The most notable of these terrible moments is Jesus's 'love your enemies' speech, shown in direct contrast to the heavy-handed depiction of sadistic soldiers. To give the film some credit, we do understand that Jesus loves even these monsters, but the film still seems bent on encouraging the audience to reject this doctrine and hate the soldiers (since they are so categorically evil throughout the film). Even the few Roman soldiers who seem inspired by the end do not seem to have a reason for being so (were they simply moved by Jesus's ability to bleed quietly?).

A twenty-first-century audience is not only receptive to a good revenge story, but perhaps the filmmakers are unable to avoid making one (which is blasphemy in this case particularly because of Jesus's message to forgive). Vengeance is especially evident in editorialized moments of severe punishment for wicked characters like Judas and the thief on the cross beside Jesus, and when we see Jesus rise from the tomb, looking unmistakably like a superhero, it seems to be moment of culmination for the film's vengeance overtones, rather than anything remotely spiritual.

How sadly disappointing. The Christ story is so beautiful, and this film is so ugly. What a let down.

The second the movie was over, I was dumbstruck, and I wasn't the only one. When the movie ended I thought there would be a big round of applause but when I turned around I saw that about half the audience was still in their seats. I looked at a couple of people, some were speachless and most were crying. Nonetheless I didn't hear a word. When I thought about it, i realized an applause would have been ridiculous.

When someone asked me how the movie was I was going to say it was amazing, but that wouldn't have done the movie justice. The movie was an extremely moving, emotional experience.

The cast was absolutely flawless, Jim Caviezel gave a powerful performance as Jesus, Maia Morgenstern as Mary brought me to tears, and even though Monica Bellucci spoke only a few lines, her performance and beauty astonished me. The score was incredible. It had a middle-eastern feel to it, and was timeless and beautiful.

Most aspects of the movie were perfect to me. Instead of a squeaky clean version of the life of Jesus it was a realistic and heartbreaking portrayal of his final hours. The Aramaic, Latin and Hebrew languages, and wonderful cinematography made you really feel like you were in first century Jerusalem. The flashbacks truly had an emotional impact on me.

While watching this movie I forgot about everything else in the world. Mel Gibson did an incredible job as a director and he truly was brave for taking on this project despite all the controversy.

As for the two main concerns of most people, the ultra-violence, and the alleged anti-semetism these are my views on the two.

Everything people are saying about the violence is true. It is brutal, gory, and quite possibly the most violent work in cinematic history. This R-Rating is very well justified and an NC-17 would have made sense. If you are the type of person that cannot bear violence, this is definately not the movie for you. Some scenes of torture last about 10 minutes when you feel you've seen enough after 30 seconds. But, the violence I feel was absolutely necessary. The movie is about the suffering/passion of Jesus, and turning the camera away would not have an impact on you. The movie shows what Jesus actually went through for all of mankind's sins (according to Christianity). Mel Gibson did not exagerate the violence or make it look like horror movie or Kill Bill violence. As Jay Leno said on his show the other night, when Jesus was hit it felt like WE were being hit as opposed to other violent movies were you feel like YOU are the one hitting the person. I don't think anyone can say that every single hit upon Jesus didn't affect him/her somehow.

As for the anti-semetism in the movie, I didn't find it was as bad as everyone is making it out to be. The thing that made me see why people were criticizing Mel Gibson for was that instead of spreading the blame somewhat on the Jewish high priests (Sanhedrin) and mostly on Pilate, 99% of the blame was put on the Sanhedrin, which seemed false to me considering that historically it is known that Pilate was a vicious monster, and in the movie he seems like a gentle person and reluctant to crucify Jesus. I simply didn't buy the fact that Pilate would be so nice. The movie can be considered anti-first-century-Romans, and anti-Sanhedrin, but I did not feel the movie was attacking the Jewish religion, or the entire Jewish people. But the movie is not anti-semitic for these reasons: 1. It is made evident that it was Jesus' prophecy and destiny is to die. He could probably have escaped from Gethsemane or even the cross (if he truly had ''powers''). He was born to die, and there is no blame to be placed on anyone. If anything, the Romans of that time are portrayed horribly (though realistically), and they are the ones that made him suffer tremendously before his death. 2. Basically all the ''Good Guys'' in the movie are Jewish. Jesus himself was a Jew, Mary was, The man that helped Jesus carry the cross was Jewish, Veronica the woman that brought Jesus water and wiped his face was, and many Jews were screaming in the crowd against the torture and crucifixion of Jesus. (Personally, I don't know why Pilate was portrayed so nicely. It's not like the Jews had the ultimate power. It was ultimately HIS decision to have Jesus crucified.)

An aspect of the film that intrigued me was the character of Satan, and the demons in the movie. When I first found out Satan was in the movie, I was scared it would be a red man with horns and a pitchfork, but he/she is portrayed subtly. Everything about him/her was very Eerie.

Mel Gibson deserves a lot of respect for making this film. He made the movie the way HE thought it was and though most historians or even religious figures would not agree completely to what happened, it is a general idea as to what those final hours were. When reading the new testament or hearing the story of Jesus, it's hard to understand what it was actually like for Jesus to go through all that pain, and what it was like for Mary to watch her son get tortured and crucified. The movie really put things in perspective for me.

Some people are criticizing him for adding things never written in the gospels such as demons harassing Judas Iscariot, most scenes with Satan, and the torture from Gethsemene to the Jewish court, but he had to fill the blanks in the Gospels with what he thought might have happened.

In conclusion, not everyone will like this movie. Some will love it, and some will hate it. But, I think that if you can endure the extreme violence and torture you should at least see it before you judge it. My opinion: 10/10

While watching this movie I couldn't help putting it in contrast with Scorsese's 'The Last Temptation of Chris'. For me, Scorsese's work is the ultimate movie about Jesus. Gibson's work is also well made, nice photography, Jim Caviezel plays his role as a true believer (and he is one), the way Satan is pictured in The Passion is probably the best (if that's the appropriate word..) I've ever seen. However, for my taste the movie is too one-sided and does not leave much room for further thinking and questions. It brutally shows how Jesus suffered and died and the torture-scenes are truly amazing.. in a very shocking way. Still, after the movie was over I didn't feel like I was really moved. The end credits were running and I thought 'OK, this is something that was good to watch because Mel Gibson did something remarkable with this, but I don't feel like I want to watch this again.' In my opinion nothing is hidden in the film, no tiny bits to look for, no questions left unanswered, everything is so visible; all the blood, the suffering, etc. This is way different than in any other Jesus-based films but for me maybe this is why I don't think I will ever watch The Passion again. I, for one, prefer those movies that tell more by showing less, if you know what I mean. Anyway, this is one of those films you gotta see at least once in order to have an opinion. Peace, Gabor

OK, here are the major problems with this movie:

1) "pornographic levels" of gratuitous violence, so you are just numb from being inundated with graphic images. My best analogy would be if Mel Gibson filmed the horrible killing in Iraq in minute detail, say from shooting, firing up the cars, dragging bodies through the streets, tie bodies up on bridges while kids dance around. All in Technicolor close-ups and slow-motion. Or it would be like a 3-hour long watching the Hindenburg disaster in 1938 up close & personal.

It basically reduces the Christian religious experience to "wow, Jesus had it nasty, he went through all that for you" whilst ignoring the horrible human (and religious history) all around the world of people dying & killing in horrible & disgusting & nasty (even nastier than what Jesus went through) for "what they believed in." If it were, say, a "slasher film" being released like this (i.e. this level of detail etc) it would be banned worldwide or at least get an "X" rating.

2) The use of the "Satan" character and the "demon-baby" effects are absurd and are at the level of 20-year old horror flicks, in addition to making things absurdly simplistic. Similar to the absurd scene of the "bad unrepentent criminal" on the cross who happens to have ravens pluck out his eyes for his "blasphemy."

3) It just doesn't "scan" --- so we are to believe God loves everything & everyone fully --- but the worst humans in the film aren't as bad as this psychotic evil and petty "God" who causes this mess in the first place! I mean, how can Judas & Pontius Pilate or Caiaphus be really that bad if they are just pawns in the game of an omnipotent God?

It's like calling disgust watching "Faces of Death" as a "religious experience." For all of those raving about how great this is I wish they'd go and watch something that has a "religious experience" and can hopefully make them think such as Ingmar Berman's "Seventh Seal."