The Passion of the Christ (2004) User Reviews

expertly made

[SnoopyStyle · 8/10 · 26 March 2016]

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.

From an aethiest

[paule-rooney · 7/10 · 17 November 2005]

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!

The Good & Bad Of 'The Passion Of The Christ'

[ccthemovieman-1 · 7/10 · 22 April 2007]

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.

Probably the most powerful film ever made...

[DrTuvok · 10/10 · 5 February 2022]

...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.

Film making at its most powerful

[ed2707 · 29 July 2004]

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.

Good Movie, Tough Watch

[koltonbrett · 7/10 · 20 April 2022]

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.

This picture did what it was intended to do.

[efenster-2 · 10/10 · 1 March 2004]

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.

Not sure what to make of it.

[poolandrews · 7/10 · 25 March 2008]

The Passion of the Christ is set in Jerusalem where a prophet called Jesus Christ of Nazareth (James Caviezel) is arrested by Roman guards late at night after being betrayed by one of his disciples Judas (Luca Lionello). Jesus is taken to stand trial for blasphemy & stating that he is the son of God. Because of a large public uprising against Jesus he is scourged, then crucified & left to die...

Co-written, produced & directed by Mel Gibson where does one start with the extremely controversial film that is The Passion of the Christ? Firstly I would like to point out that I am not a religious person at all & I will openly admit I have never even read the bible & I don't go to Church but even so I was curious to see The Passion of the Christ. It's probably fair to say that every single person on Earth who is old enough to actually see The Passion of the Christ knows the basic story of Jesus Christ & his crucifixion & therefore will probably go into it with at least a certain amount of expectation. For a start the entire film is spoken in either Assyrian Neo-Aramaic, Aramaic, Latin or Hebrew with no English dialogue at all. Although subtitled the dialogue is actually rather sparse as The Passion of the Christ is all about imagery, beliefs & in particular a story with character's everyone already knows. At over two hours in length I must admit it felt a lot less, I found the story itself gripping & engaging although I have no idea how closely writers Gibson & Benedict Fitzgerald stuck to the source & that ending felt tacked on & like a cheap horror filmed cliché, is that what actually happened in the bible? Although often criticised for it's graphic violence it doesn't kick in until about the hour mark when Jesus is scourged in a sequence which will test the more squeamish viewers endurance before the crucifixion at the end. As a film I actually rather liked it but as a presentation of religious fact I can't say that I am qualified to judge it since I really don't have that much knowledge about Christianity.

Director Gibson does a mighty fine job here, the film looks wonderful with immaculate production design & you really feel that your there. Gibson likes his slow motion shots, the film is littered with them although as I have already mentioned The Passion of the Christ is more about imagery than dialogue. The special make-up effects are very realistic & although not quite as gory as some people may have you believe it is pretty strong stuff especially since the character's & the story mean so much to so many people. Up to the point when it was released The Passion of the Christ had more pre ticket sales than any other film in history, unusually when it was re-released to theatres after it's initial run it went straight back to the number one spot & The Passion of the Christ is the both most successful 'R' rated & foreign language/subtitled film in US box-office history. Facts & figure that I bet no-one predicted.

With a supposed budget of about $30,000,000 The Passion of the Christ is very well made with high production values & that Hollywood polish, set in Jerusalem this was actually filmed in Italy. The acting is very good although since everyone is speaking in a foreign language it's hard to tell for sure (for all I know they could be saying anything!), it's surprising that there are no big name stars in the cast.

The Passion of the Christ is a film that I actually liked but not for any reason beyond that I though it was a good film that passed a couple of hours. Maybe those with strong religious belief's either way may have a harder time liking it or maybe they will like it even more, I don't know. How exactly do Christians in general feel about The Passion of the Christ anyway?

The cause of confusion

[diddykv · 10/10 · 18 May 2015]

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.

gibson forgot the letter l

[poetbard · 6/10 · 15 March 2004]

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.

Snuff film -- Jesus style

[philliefan_00 · 3/10 · 15 April 2006]

I love "culture war" double standards. Some of those who decry extreme violence and abject gore as pornographic have embraced this film with such adjectives as "inspiring" and "breathtaking." I don't find watching a guy get ripped to shreds very inspiring, though I'll admit the special effects are astonishingly realistic. If not for the religious subject matter, this film likely could've been traded in the underground snuff market. Not for the squeamish, and certainly not for children, even with adult supervision. And not as "biblical" as some claim. If you want to watch a good Jesus movie, try the epic "Jesus of Nazareth" if you're devout, or the grossly underrated "The Last Temptation of Christ" if you have an open mind.

Mel Gibson's "Passion of the Christ" is a cinematic revelation

[zardoz-13 · 10/10 · 13 March 2004]

Oscar winning "Braveheart" director Mel Gibson sets a whole new standard for Biblical epics in "The Passion of the Christ," an inspiringly original but incredibly visceral account of the final 12 hours in the life of Jesus of Nazareth between his arrest in Gethsemane and his crucifixion at Golgotha. Everything everybody's told you about this two hour & six minute, sincerely-made, moodily filmed, but sadomasochistic saga rings true. However, "The Passion" does NOT qualify as remotely anti-Semitic. Sure, it is blatantly Anti-Pharisee, but not anti-Semitic. Anybody who calls "The Passion" anti-Semitic is naïve beyond belief. The anti-Semitism accusation is so general as to be inconsequential. You can condemn the actions of a handful of men (in this case the self-righteous Pharisees), but you cannot condemn an entire race of people (in this case the Jew) for the actions of a heinous few. Indeed, several Jewish characters in "The Passion" come to Jesus' aid. Labeling "The Passion" as anti-Semitic is as ludicrous as describing The Bible as anti-Semitic. Were these sentiments not sufficient, the central message of Gibson's "Passion" pleads for the audience to forgive your enemies.

The violence registers off the Richter scale. The torture scene where the Roman soldiers compete to inflict the most damage on the Son of God gives new meaning to gratuitous violence. Okay, isn't violence in any form gratuitous? In this instance, gratuitous violence suits the situation, because the torture and crucifixion of Jesus were about as gratuitous as violence can get. Nevertheless, chances are you may not survive this torture scene, especially if you haven't seen a gory R-rated movie. The graphic crucifixion scene reminds us of the heartless savagery of public executions in New Testament times, too. Gibson must have spilled several gallons of Karo syrup mixed with red food coloring for this scene as well as the 45-minute flogging scene to emphasize the violence as it has never been stressed before in spectacles like "King of Kings" (1961) and "The Greatest Story Ever Told" (1965). Perhaps the only movie to rival Gibson's "Passion" for its documentary realism is the obscure 1966 Italian art film "The Gospel According to St. Matthew" that portrays Jesus as an activist.

The largely unknown cast adds to the authenticity. Actor Jim Caviezel's exploits as the cinematic Jesus have been well-documented in the news media. Indeed, he took an accidental lashing during the scourging scene and nearly passed out from the impact. Later, lightning struck him on the cross. Happily, throughout "The Passion," Caviezel delivers a nuanced performance that never overshadows his messiah character. Unlike most Jesus movies, "The Passion" gives us a Christ who looks and behaves as an ordinary individual. This Jesus isn't a blond, blue-eyed loafer with shaven armpits in an immaculate white robe. Gibson shows Jesus the carpenter finishing up a table. When his mother Mary (Romanian actress Maia Morgenstern) brings him a bowl of water, he splashes it on her in an example of a playful mother a son relationship. This unusual scene of Jesus clowning is a welcome relief from those sanitized and solemn depictions of Christ as a man with no sense of humor. Earlier, Caviezel gives us a glimpse of Jesus' humanity in Gethsemane when he chides his drowsy disciples for failing to stay awake. At the same time, this Jesus is no weakling. During his first encounter with Satan, Jesus stomps the Devil's snake into the ground and gives Lucifer a dirty look. By the end of "The Passion," Caviezel doesn't have to act and looks virtually unrecognizable under all the blood, gore, and crown of thorns. Aside from Caviezel, whose acting credits include "Angel Eyes," "Frequency," and "The Thin Red Line," Gibson wisely cast no-name actors. As Mary Magdalene, a tastefully subdued Monica Bellucci of "The Matrix Reloaded" is the only other big-name Hollywood refugee. Hristo Shopov takes top honors for his thoughtful performance as the conflicted Pontius Pilate, while Italian actress Rosalinda Celentano of "The Other" makes a creepy, androgynous Satan. She is enough to send a shiver up or down your spine. Collectively, however, the actors who impersonate the sadistic Roman soldiers give the movie its gut-wrenching quality with their savage shenanigans, especially when they flip the cross over to beat the protruding nails sideways. These guys give new meaning to evil!

Loosely based on the Synoptic New Testament gospels as well as the book of John along with the Catholic Church's 14 Stations of the Cross, "The Passion" champions celluloid realism, but falls short of strict theological authenticity. Reportedly, Gibson also relied on the visions of two nuns: the 17th century Mary of Agreda and the 18th century Anne Catherine Emmerich. What "Saving Private Ryan" did for W.W. II movies; what "Pulp Fiction" did for crime movies, what "Star Wars" did for science fiction movies, "The Passion" does for Biblical epics. When the actors speak, they utter their lines in either Latin or Aramaic to give this chronicle a convincing sense of historicity. Don't worry, the subtitles are easily read. Ironically, for a movie about Christ, "The Passion" doesn't preach as much as you might expect. Instead, Gibson lets the visuals tell the story. He intersperses several flashbacks throughout, such as the Sermon on the Mount and the Last Supper, but "The Passion" focuses largely on the agony of Christ.

If you watch movies for recreation, "The Passion" may be more than you counted on seeing. If your faith drives you to watch "The Passion," you may find yourself sorely tested, particular when those Roman soldier wield their scourges. Whether you're saved or secular, "The Passion" remains a seminal movie for our times. Despite some minor technical flaws which you may miss because you're caught up in the action, "The Passion of the Christ" emerges as a cinematic revelation.

Perhaps the most important film of 2004

[philipsavory · 7/10 · 6 May 2004]

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

Judged as a film, completely worthless

[Freak-10 · 1/10 · 26 February 2004]

I have chosen to add user comments on this film based on its worthiness as a film, not from any religious or secular viewpoint.

As a piece of filmmaking, this is two hours of garbage. There is no attempt to frame the violence within a meaningful context - it seems to just be 110 minutes of violence for violence's sake, bookended at the beginning and end by five minutes of quiet. I cannot imagine taking anyone under the age of 13 to this film and not scarring them for life. There are no redeeming qualities whatsoever within this movie.

There are, no doubt, thousands of people that will disagree with my comments, and I ask them to consider this point - if this were the same film, but was not about the central figure of your religion, would you go see it? Would you even want it to be released? Would you feel comfortable letting your children see it?

I think not.

Emotional experience and cried like a baby

[driveboy · 10/10 · 9 March 2020]

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!

Amazing film on multiple levels.

[matthew-86 · 2 March 2004]

Mel Gibson has done the impossible. He has created a tale of the Christ that works on three separate levels.

As a spiritual message, the film is overwhelming, bringing tears of renewal to the believers in the audience. Even if you are not a believer, though, I still think there is something in this for you.

As an historical observation, the film is brilliant, depicting the social and political dynamics of the Romans and Sanhedrin with clarity and accessibility. This is the most believable interpretation of what happened to Christ, and although I knew the story going in, I found myself getting caught in the narrative, hoping someone would realize that this was an innocent man and that the persecution would stop.

Finally, as a work of art, this film is unparalleled. Mel borrows from the works of Caravaggio, Puntarmo, Michelangelo and Leonardo et. al., as well as the Medieval Passion Plays. As one who was made to study this in college, it all came back to me in a graphic context, with production design so amazing that it felt like I was going back in time, that I was seeing Jesus and Pilate and Peter and Mary.

This film will rock your world, and that's an understatement. One of the most beautiful films I have seen.

been there done that

[carpet_seller · 6/10 · 15 April 2004]

I don't really know why this film was made. It says nothing that hasn't already been done before. Yes the blood and gore is there and I'm not aware of a previous film on this subject that had as much blood as this one. But the plot is nothing new. People shouting from the roof tops that this film is brilliant or that this film should be banned for anti-semitism, both groups of people need to calm down.

The story told is one of two or three versions of the story of Christ, the big question is who WAS responsible for Jesus' arrest and death? Well I'm no religious scholar but I've always thought that it was either the Romans, OR it was the Jews, OR it was Jesus himself. The truth of it is that it was probably a combination of all three. But to my knowledge no-one really knows the truth. The version given in the film is a combination of all three, however, the Jews are given the largest slice of the "responsibility cake".

There have been good films on this subject allready released, one of my favourites is "The last temptation of christ". People only seem to think 'Passion' is brilliant because there is loads of blood so that somehow makes the film brilliant.

The Language of the film was good, but, the western european/ACtors that were used were not good, I didn't realise Jesus was white/european appearance, blue eyed had perfect white teeth that any american dentist would be proud of. What is the point of trying to be realistic in language but not in looks? The cast of 'Passion' are all italians (fine for the romans) or Romanian/Bulgarian.

You know what I saw in the cinema last night? Watching this film, all around me was a packed cinema, and at least half of those people were sitting there watching this film eating popcorn and drinking Pepsi. So that is what we have come to? 2004 years after this event took place and we still view it as entertainment, just like the crowds of people who cheered and laughed in the film - as Jesus was flailed carrying his cross. my score 6/10 nothing new.

There is no other movie like it. Period.

[abimaeld7 · 10/10 · 11 April 2020]

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.

In My Humble Opinion.

[tpace · 7/10 · 17 May 2006]

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.

A movie like no others...

[bigmike174 · 10/10 · 28 February 2004]

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

Jesus Christ Chainsaw Massacre

[adeebkasem · 7/10 · 20 May 2010]

It was an entertaining movie. It came off a bit preachy at times, but that is forgivable in context of the film. The acting was phenomenal, as was the cinematography. The script had some flaws and was hard to believe at times, much like the fictional book the film is based on (The Bible). The highlight of the movie is really all the blood and gore. The effects are very realistic and well done. Overall it was an good flick to pass the time, but nothing very profound and nothing to be taken seriously in it. I thought Jesus Christ was a wimp. he should have stood up for what he believed in, fought back or something. Instead he just took it like a masochist. Satan was an intriguing fellow, though he could've used some more character development.

"The last Christian died on the cross."--Friedrich Nietzsche

More gratuitously violent than the worst slasher film

[CinemaDude · 1/10 · 17 January 2005]

I think most every critique I've heard pro and con about THE PASSION so far has been colored by ideological glasses. The Jewish contingent hated it because they perceived it as portraying the Jews in a bad light. I understand that, but I can find lots of titles that portray different groups not to their liking. My criticism -- the real objection to how the Jews were portrayed -- was that they were nothing but caricatures, the result of a terrible script and worse directing.

This is the worst failing that can be leveled at any screenplay and any director, and it impugns the integrity of the film more than political overtones. This is the same criticism leveled at the portrayal of the Roman soldiers -- they are nothing caricatures. Can it be that not a single Roman had ANY trace of compassion or humanity? How stereotyped is that? And how totally unbelievable. If anything, the Italians should be even more insulted than the Jews about the portrayal of their country men.

But then comes the gratuitous, unrelenting violence....it is abhorrent. I got it Mr. Gibson -- Christ was scourged. I got it in the first 3 min of the scourging; I got it after the next 15 minutes. To prolong those torture scenes was about the most viscous, unnecessary violence I have ever seen on a movie screen. I would have thought there would have been an outcry from every corner of the political and religious spectrum about that -- from the Jews, from the Christians and the especially from the Churches since all that violence was nothing more than using the suffering of Christ, whether you think he is the Lord or just a poor guy caught up in the politics of the day, he was a human being and to trade on that suffering to make a movie sensational, debases all of us. But I guess gratuitous violence is tolerable, even perfectly acceptable if it is enlisted to prove some religious ideology.

The film teaches us nothing. Not about the man, not about his divinity, not about the underlying historical context in which he was sacrificed -- absolutely nothing. I think it is a loathsome film and I am ashamed that so-called religious people overlooked all that is wrong with it and praised it just because, whether consciously or unconsciously, they could use it as a kind of weapon against another religious group. It is despicable mix feeding on violence and religious sensibilities to make a buck....it is so crass that even Hollywood, much to its credit, turned it down. But I guess where there is a buck to be made, SOMEONE will grab it to make more, no matter how sleazy the project. The fact that it was made independently of Hollywood doesn't absolve it of its glaring, disgusting faults.

Great visually stunning period piece

[mstomaso · 9/10 · 5 September 2005]

This film is neither preachy nor pedantic, and was a welcome surprise for me. As a non-Christian who nevertheless respects the historical figure of Jesus Christ and the beauty of his philosophy and teachings, I found The Passion to be a powerful portrayal of much that I think is worthwhile about the Christ story. I know the film has been maligned for anti-semitic content (perhaps because Jews make mistakes in the film and are seen as persecutors instead of victims? - it could have been anybody!), and for various other problems - but let's face it - any movie portraying this subject was bound to face strong reactions. And kudos to Mel Gibson for not shying away from the subject by creating a sterile, gutless, Disney story out of what really was a good example of the everyday horror of life on the fringes of the Roman empire. Gibson invents a new genre with The Passion - that of historical horror.

The performances in this film are inspired. I felt that the film brought out the cowardice of the apostles very forcefully, and the courage and love of the two Maries in Jesus' life was palpable to the very end. The effect of Aramaic and Latin, with the moody soundtrack, was spellbinding. Again kudos to Mel Gibson for his courage and artistic integrity on the decisions involved in these elements of the film.

Final word - this is not a film for the whole family nor is it a feel-good film. Don't see it if you're not willing to confront the worst aspects of human nature up close. And don't go in looking for your own version of the story - it's not your film! This is what Mr. Gibson believes, and it's his own revelation, not necessarily to be shared by all.

Doesn't succeed as an artwork, but there are some assets

[BrandtSponseller · 6/10 · 11 March 2005]

The film covers the final days of Jesus (James Caviezel), based on the Christian Bible. It begins with one of Jesus' followers, Judas, leading ideological/political opponents to Jesus so they can arrest him, and covers his trial and the carrying out of his sentence(s).

This is not an easy film to review, as it is so difficult to divorce it from the broader cultural and belief issues, as I feel we must. A film, as an artwork, isn't better or worse because of your personal beliefs in its veracity or even its cultural importance. A large part of what I do as a critic is to try to review films as artworks apart from those extra-filmic kinds of considerations. This leads me to say that I think something like Citizen Kane (1941) is not a very good film, whereas something like Catwoman (2004) is. I'm not denying that Citizen Kane is historically important or that a lot of people love it, think it "rings true" and think it is one of the greatest films ever made. I'm likewise not denying that a lot of people hate Catwoman and think it is "unrealistic". When it comes to whether I believe that they're good films or not, those issues just do not matter.

I should tell you that I do not believe in the "truth" of any religion, and I haven't ever been socialized into any religious beliefs. I have little knowledge of the minutiae of specific religious texts, including the Bible. I have some interest in the philosophical and other broad theoretical and cultural/social issues involving and surrounding religions, but none of those are relevant to me when it comes to saying whether The Passion of the Christ is good as an artwork. I don't think this is a particularly good film. It does have merits, but it's loaded with problems.

The chief problem is that writer/director Mel Gibson thinks that exposition isn't important. He's probably assuming that almost everyone watching will not need to be told who characters are or why they're doing what they're doing. I'm not very familiar with the source material--I haven't read the book the film is based on, although I've browsed through it. I don't think that films should require prerequisites, with the sole exception of some entries in a series.

For the mob(s) depicted to be reacting so strongly against Jesus, there must be some interesting events in his past and some interesting psychological and sociological phenomena occurring. We can tell there's an intriguing story somewhere, but Gibson instead spends far too much time on very narrow events that do not have the impact they should have when they're out of the broader context. Yes I know that "The Passion" refers to a specific sequence of events in the protagonist's life, but that doesn't make this succeed as an artwork. I'm not going to give extra points for getting the name of the film "right". Gibson could do a film called The Breakfast of Mr. Jones, and if it's just 90 minutes of a guy eating pancakes, it might be a bad film.

Other than the mob mentality, most of the other main characters, including Jesus, are portrayed as if they have a degree of mental illness. That's also intriguing but not explored. Judas has hallucinations and hangs himself. Jesus can't or won't talk and when he does, he mostly says cryptic things. He shows little awareness of his predicament. We need to be shown more about these characters for this to make sense or have impact.

In addition to being cryptic, a lot of the dialogue is hokey. The best dialogue, and the best material in the film in general involved the Romans. They were the only ones shown with a degree of psychological depth. Their difficult situation as overseers of an outpost in their empire created ethical quagmires for them, one of which is the gist of the film. They're appropriately shown having a range of dynamic reactions to their treatment of their prisoner, from sympathy and regret to murderous, mob-mentality abuse.

That treatment comprises a huge percentage of the film. A lengthy section consists of Jesus being whipped until he's almost dead. A larger section consists of him walking through town carrying a heavy wooden cross. While the whipping mostly works, the latter section is far too drawn out, with Gibson repeating material such as Jesus collapsing five or six times. It's effective once or twice. Five or six times feels like padding. Maybe that's what the Bible says happened, but we can't forget that this is a film, and has to work as such.

Another problem is the music. While some of it is attractive, it's because it is so close to Peter Gabriel's score for The Last Temptation of Christ (1988) that Gabriel could probably successfully sue for copyright infringement. Influence is fine, but plagiarism is something I don't condone.

However, the cinematography throughout the film is fantastic. DP Caleb Deschanel deserves kudos. A number of scenes/shots stand out visually, one of the best being after Jesus is whipped and his intensely red blood stains the gray-white square. Another is when Jesus is about to be arrested, and bright yellow-orange flames stand out against a washed-out, dark, blue-gray texture.

The visceral nature of the film is excellent. This would be a dream come true for someone with a torture fetish. The graphic material is handled extremely realistically--it's difficult to discern any prosthetics or special effects make-up. It really looks like they just beat the hell out of Caviezel. Horror special effects/make-up artists should study the film and the techniques used.

And of course, as I mentioned earlier, there is promise to the story. A good film could certainly be made using this material. It's just not this one. If you have strong beliefs in Christianity you might find the film an extremely moving experience, but that doesn't describe me.

It is not only complete gore, but also it doesn't tell anything about Christ

[inakiligu2 · 1/10 · 23 January 2007]

I am not a very religious person, but I sure find the bible (new and old testament) very intriguing. When I saw of the movie "passion of the Christ" I saw a small fraction of Jesus life, which might be very factual to the bible, but (in my opinion) did not make a big change for the religion. Through out Jesus's life, he taught all the good things of the Christian religion, not through his torture and death. I mean, how many martyrs have been tortured and killed? If I made a movie about the passion of Che or some other person, I would not get the religious vote, instead I would be marked as a gore movie writer. I don't know. I didn't like the movie as a movie, because it was basically the same thing I would see at the butchery, and religiously speaking, the movie did not speak to me.