Yar, you be here: The Passion of the Christ (Widescreen Edition) > Customer Reviews

The Passion of the Christ (Widescreen Edition) Customer Reviews (133 - 135 of 160 Reviews)

Well, this time it's true.

"The Passion of the Christ" is a humbling, agonizing re-enactment of the final 12 hours leading up to the crucifixion of Jesus of Nazareth. Unflinching in its honesty and largely true to its source (the Bible), this is the kind of movie cinema was perhaps invented for. Direcor Mel Gibson deserves endless kudos for daring to follow through on this much-maligned labor of love and angst, for he has given us some of the strongest meat in movie history, and perhaps a classic that will be appreciated for decades to come.

As a Passion play, the main thrust of the film is the sheer magnitude of Christ's suffering as He submits to self-sacrifice in atonement for the sins of mankind. The fact that no man would have been allowed to put Christ to death had He not willingly accepted it is made clear, as is the terrible spiritual burden of bearing all of humanity's sin past, present, and future. But what separates "The Passion" from some other depictions of Christ is Gibson's accurate portrayal of the horrible physical punishment which He endured. Here there is no effort to lighten the horror--the bone-crunching agony of the crucifixion is inescapable as the viewer vicariously participates in Christ's humiliation, scourging, and torture. The only relief from the suffering is in a number of brief flashbacks touching on some of the highlights of Christ's ministry, including the rescue of Mary Magdalene, the Sermon on the Mount, and the Last Supper. It will break your heart.

The performances are uniformly excellent, particularly James Caviezel's valiant submission to the role of Christ in what is clearly a heartfelt expression of his own faith. Filming in the historically accurate languages of the time is a masterstroke which adds immeasurably to the atmosphere. The cinematography is superb with several innovative shots, including one which shows what it may very well look like if God the Father weeps.

Criticisms of this movie are generally unfounded. Is it a violent film? Absolutely--crucifixion was an extremely violent way to die. Is it anti-Semitic? Hardly. It is a simple fact that some Romans and Jews participated in Christ's death, just as some Romans and Jews loved and followed Him. Nothing would be gained by trying to deny this.

Comparisons to other Christian movies are inevitable, but perhaps misguided. Most other movies about Christ have taken on everything from his birth, life, ministry, death and resurrection all together. For a more in-depth study of Christ's time on Earth, there are perhaps better pictures, such as the outstanding "Jesus of Nazareth" with a stalwart performance by Robert Powell as Jesus. That too is a powerful movie which continues to inspire watchers to this day. Yet it is "The Passion of the Christ's" more narrow focus and intense encapsulation of a mere 12 hours in time that sets it apart.

This is a film that redefines the overrused phrase "must see." Everyone should indeed see it. Christians can find renewed faith, hope, and a fresh realization of what the Good Shepherd really did for His sheep and just how much He loves us all. Non-Christians may find there's more to this story than they previously realized. But from whatever background you come, and whatever mindset you bring to the cinema, *see it.* Don't see it for Mel Gibson, or for any reviewer, or for the controversy. See it because this is a movie that can change your life. Period.

Gibson's grievous fault
From a purely literary viewpoint, the trial and execution of Christ is one of the most powerful stories ever told. But in Mel Gibson's new film "The Passion of the Christ" the fine drama is turned into coarse melodrama, as Gibson concentrates on flaying, blood-flying violence, the kind that appeals to the same people who flock to slasher movies. In fact, there may be those eagerly awaiting "The Passion of the Christ 2: Peter Gets His". Of course, there is violence in classic art. The Christian iconography of the Renaissance has canvas after canvas of whippings and nailings; but those images are static and stylized, not the graphic naturalism of motion pictures. Speaking of which: Gibson, in promoting the movie, has emphasized how realistic his picture is, an oblique put-down of the Biblical epics of he Fifties and Sixties. Granted, many of those productions were artificial and sometimes not even very entertaining. (At the risk of being hunted down by the NRA, I must admit I think "Ben Hur" is about 45 minutes too long.) But the fact is "The Passion of the Christ" possesses the same artificialities as those old films -- presenting, for instance, a tall and handsome Jesus. There is a very strong likelihood that the historical Jesus looked more like Woody Allen than Jeffrey Hunter, but Gibson's realism evidently didn't extend into casting. There are also some unfortunate lapses into what can kindly be called poetic license, including a sit-comish flashback where Mary is confused by a modern table constructed by her smart carpenter son. I'm giving the picture two stars, one for the cast's restrained ensemble acting and one for the superb photography of Caleb Deschanel. As for the movie itself, simplistic and sensationalistic, I don't think it's at all what Matthew, Mark, Luke and John had in mind.

Powerful Cinema, But . . .
Forget the story behind the camera and focus on what Mel Gibson has put on the screen.

Churlish reviewers have refused even to grant that Mel Gibson's filmed "stations of the Cross" is a powerful work of cinematic art. When you ask yourself "who is the true auteur?" of a film, you can argue about the director, screenwriter, producer, cinematographer. Gibson gets a hat-trick (he didn't shoot the picture, but I'll bet he framed a something in every scene) and, as producer, hired the brilliant Caleb Deschanel to do the shoot. (I particularly appreciate Deschanel's visual quotations from art history -- Caravaggio's chiaroscuro lighting, Grünewald's stark brutalism, Bosch's nightmarishly learning faces, and more.) This is a very bold, very imaginative, very powerfully realized conception of the passion of Jesus. If you think Gibson is less than just a pretty face -- and and I am NOT a fan of his movie performances -- you are, in my estimation, dead wrong. He's an impressive filmmaker.

This is also a very Catholic film, and a very Isenheim Altarpiece perspective on Catholic belief, which is: you cannot walk away from the power of the suffering servant's sacrifice that the Church teaches and depicts in the crucifix, which dominates the nave of every Catholic sanctuary. One of Gibson's goals was to remind viewers that the term "excruciating" comes from "crucifixion." Reviewers who have discussed The Passion's lack of affective power strike me as missing a sizable point: the "Passion of Mary" -- with Jesus's mother movingly portrayed by a Romanian Jew, Maia Morgenstern -- stays near the center of the narrative, as the Catholic Church's Mariology is near the center of its theology. In the crowded theater in which I viewed this picture, mothers, and particularly mothers with sons -- my wife included -- were shattered by some of the scenes of Mary's agony along the Via Dolorosa.

I am neither Catholic, nor even Christian, nor am I Jewish. I don't have a religious stake in the anti-Semitism discussion. But I do in fact object to the portrait, on the screen, of the Jews and the Sanhedrin. I don't think Gibson's creation is intentionally anti-Semitic. I do believe, emphatically, that Caiaphas and the Sanhedrin are Jewish caricatures, who all look and sound like Tevye the Milkman, replete with guttural growls, who are attired, probably historically, in pompous ceremonial garb and, riding in slow caravan procession, astride their ridiculous asses, noses in the air, rocking up the road to Golgotha.

This would be unobjectionable -- "shouldn't we cast actors who will be believable as first-century Jews?" -- if Jim Caviezel's Jesus, also a Jew, were not, before being pummeled into utter disfigurement, a sparkle-smiled, ripped fashion-model Messiah with a classically chiseled GQ profile -- his trainer gets a nice end-credit. And when the earthquake comes and the Temple is rent in twain and the Jewish leaders, now believing their actions have displeased the Lord, are thrown into confusion, we are to believe, as the New Testament accounts would also have us believe, that the Jesus's persecutors are reaping their just deserts. (And I do worry about the incendiary potential of this picture, but that's backstory material that I won't go into is a discussion of the film's merits.)

Finally, it is very, very violent. "Pornographic"? No. The times were cruel, and the Romans didn't conquer and preserve an empire by waiting for an invitation or holding pinky-in-the-air tea parties. We go to movies to be taken to places we can no longer get to except through acts of imagination: 1st century Palestine is one such place. Attitudes toward cruelty have changed dramatically even in the last century -- many who read this will remember corporal punishment in elementary school, or routine unkindnesses that were heaped upon the bearer of any difference (facial features, disfigurements, handicaps, mental problems, etc.). We tend now to wince in the face of the terrible -- a learned reaction, bred into us by "civilization." This movie places the terrible directly in your face.

See The Passion and judge for yourself. Trust no opinion. For me, although this is the most familiar story in the world, it is nevertheless compelling as film, and, although some critics have said this is only for "true believers," I would agree if we qualified that to mean: "true believers in the power of film to transport, to stir, to confront, to anger, to inspire, to disturb." And everyone else is going to have a view, whether they've seen it or not: wouldn't you rather have a well-formed opinion?