Passion Of The Christ, The [Widescreen]

Passion(n.)- A suffering or agony, as of a martyr.

I am a Christian, and I am not ashamed to admit it. I had the opportunity to view THE PASSION OF THE CHRIST in theater with my pastor, and throughout the whole film I was on the edge of my seat, filled with emotion. I knew the story of Jesus' capture, beatings and crucifixion but I had never seen it this way before. The film tastefully began with no previews, advertisements or company logos in the garden of Gethsemane, where Jesus went to pray with His disciples before his capture. Satan, appearing as an androgynous angel, attempts to tempt Jesus into refusing the burden of the cross to pursue a human lifestlye, but Jesus rejects his proposal in silence. Jesus is captured in the garden by Roman guards, for He was betrayed by one of his one disciples, Judas, with a kiss. Judas is overcome with guilt and haunted by personal demons (shown literally in the film with an ever-present Satan amidst them) and he hangs himself. After He is captured and accused of blasphemy against the high priests and King Caesar, Jesus is severely beaten by Roman guards and eventually crucified for His "crimes". During Jesus' suffering, Satan is seen weaving through the crowd, observing His fate. Throughout the beatings and crucifixion, little flashbacks are given to show the past histories of Mother Mary, Mary Magdalene, the disciples, and Jesus' past as a lowly carpenter and as a prophet who gave sermons and prayers and taught lessons of goodness to all who were willing to listen. The story should be familiar to all Christians, but it has never been shown like this before.
This must be the most realistic depiction of the suffering of Jesus ever created. While the film is very violent and difficult to watch at times, none of the details are exaggerated and the violence is all perfectly utilized to help us understand the suffering He went through. The images of violence are meant to be imprinted in your mind, never to be forgotten. I was digging my fingers into the seat at every hit that Jesus took, almost as if I was feeling the pain myself. The fact that a film can illicit such emotion out of a person is just stunning. While some claim that the film is anti-Semitic or overly violent and depressing, I could not find these claims to be true. While there are cruel and sadistic Jewish people in the film who want to crucify Jesus, there are also plenty of Jewish people that support and help Jesus throughout the film. Jesus himself was a Jewish man. I found the picture to be very uplifting as opposed to depressing, for a glimpse of the resuurection of Jesus is given at the end, showing that his love prevailed and that man would be forgiven of their sins. It is not overly violent, for as stated before, all of these things REALLY DID HAPPEN to Jesus. The violence was not exaggerated, but it was shown how it truly would be in a crucifixion. Crucifixion was designed by the Romans to be the most painful, drawn-out death possible, only given to people who had commited the most heinous of crimes. I found the film to be absolutely amazing, and I reccomend it to everyone, Christian or not. I believe that even a non-Christian could feel something during this film.

I must commend all of the actors, producers, and director for pulling it off. Most religious films are inaccurate, offensive or just badly made. But THE PASSION succeeds in it's purpose and is destined to become a classic after all the foolish controversy dies away. While Mel Gibson is a devout Catholic and I am a Lutheran, I still think that his depiction of Jesus Christ and his final days is accurate, beautiful and just plain stunning. I've always admired Gibson as an actor, but after this and BRAVEHEART I think that he is a wonderful director as well. It's touching to see a celebrity that is willing to let people know about his personal faith and convictions, as seen in this film and SIGNS, amongst others. James Caviezel does a commendable job of portraying Jesus, and actresses that played Mother Mary and Mary Magdalene were great as well, not to mention the disciples and Simon, who helped Jesus carry the cross when He could hardly move. The special effects, though minimal, were quite good as well. You can tell the crew and cast put their hearts and souls into this film to make it the best it could be, and they did a job well done.

See the film and witness the powerful masterpiece that is THE PASSION OF THE CHRIST. I can't say enough about how much this film affected me and wanted me to become the best person I can be. The film is a great reminder of the sacrifices Jesus made for us, and I hope that other people who saw the film were affected the same way.

My rating: 10 out of 10

TGP,

While I basically agree with your assessment (as indicated by my review in the Articles section), I want to ask you if you think that the movie can make a similar impact on people who don't know anything about the Jesus story at all. They will be affected on a visceral level, of course--seeing someone being beaten and tortured extensively. However, will they care? This is one of the reasons why I gave the movie a 9 instead of a 10 (because of its lack of context).

Of course, I also noted that this isn't too much of a problem in Western countries, where the Jesus story has become rather ingrained in culture. Also, the movie works as a kind of tone poem of images and sound, as if to say that the lack of context was both intentional and beneficial to the film's effect on viewers.

Eddie

Eddie,

It's interesting, but even though the Christ story is so ingrained in Western culture I have had numerous questions from new and non-Christians regarding this film. Most of this has to do with things that are artistic choices and not scriptural (the antithetical Madonna and Child image) or are from different parts of scripture (grinding the snake under His heel).

It seems that some of Gibson's artistic choices are the very things that have hampered people in understanding the movie fully. When he sticks to scripture, it comes across without a hitch for the most part.

Sean (it's nice to see passion for the Passion, TGP...)

Sean,

I am, of course, in agreement with you. Neither I nor my review lauds the movie for "authenticity". In fact, there are many non-religious things in the movie that are historically/factually wrong, so there's no sense in calling the movie "accurate".

Eddie

Eddie,

I didn't mean to suggest that you were applauding the film's accuracy. I just find it interesting that Gibson's film seems to work better when he follows scripture than when he adds his own flair.

For me, the source material is strong enough as it is, but each artist is going to add his/her own touch to anything he/she does. I think that Gibson's additions simply distract the audience from what is already a well-wrought piece.

Sean (wrought? like wrought iron?...)

Well, as you probably know, Gibson is a "traditionalist" Catholic (which, technically, makes him a Protestant since he is not a member of the "official" Catholic Church!). He incorporated some of the writings of a couple of Catholic mystics, some of whom are widely considered to be on the fringes of the Catholic movement. There's a lot going on here than simply one guy making a movie about Christ's ordeal (politics abounds, and I don't mean the kind of politics that governs day-to-day functions of society).

Artistic merit is appropraite as long as the basic story and message remain unaltered. For example, the nails were pounded into the palms of Christ;s hands, which is inaccurate since they'd have to pound them into the wrists or the skind would rip and his body would fall off. But, since many famous art pieces and the traditional view of the crucifix has nails in the hands, Gibson chose to do it that way, which is fine. Alos, the little demon children chasing Judas didn't happen, but that was meant as a physical manifestation of Judas' personal demons, so it was fine with me.

It's also okay for not every religious film to follow the Scripture word for word. "The Last Temptation of Christ" was one of the most compeeling and thought-provoking films I've ever seen and it's not even based on The Bible.

Also, I think it's rather tasteful that the DVD has no extras. While I would love to see how the film was made, and the trailer for it is one of the best I've seen but it's not really imporatant. This movie is not meant to be seen with a commentary, and it would be fine with me if this was never released on a Special Edition. What could they do with an SE anyway? I didn't think that they documented the making of the film too extensively. I bet that the sound and video quality with this film will be stunning since they will have the whole disc for the movie. I can't wait for it to be released so I can add it to my collection. This film nearly or did equal the power and emotional impact of films like "Schindler's List" and other films of that kind. "Schindler's List" also had next to no extras, and for films like these it's not only tasteful but appropriate. The film is not meant to be like, "watch the movie and then view the mechanical ways of how it was made! Look at how fake everything really is!" For other films that's great, but for this one I don't really want to know how everything was done. As I asked before, what could they put on an SE anyway, except for some retrospective interviews, a most likely informative but unnecessary commentary and a trailer? Deleted scenes from a movie based on the Bible kind of seems like a joke.

Anyway, enough of my ranting, I'm just glad the film is coming out soon, I can't wait to see it again.

TGP,

Because the movie took a couple of liberties, like the nails in the hands, is that a reason to say it's not based on the Bible? Just because Aragorn didn't carry the shards of Narsil, does that mean LotR wasn't based on the books? Hardly.

Gibson's religious sect is no different than Catholicism itself, or Lutheranism. It's just a different interpretation. His sect is a lot more dogmatic to the text and less to the external writings of post-biblical scholars. For what it's worth.

I agree that it appropriete to retsrain from sticking extras on this one. Besides, the movie had so much publicity in its early days of release that there is hardly anything new they could tell us. I have seen entire TV documentaries on making of the movie. BBC World showed one in its Talking Movies program days before the film opened in the UK. The satelite channel God TV also carried a long and exhausting documentary and analysis some time ago. I expect that in North America it got even more press coverage.

Man, another interesting discussion. You guys just don't quit!

Eddie,
You're absolutely correct that there is a denominational politic being displayed in Gibson's vision for this movie. I think this is what determined some of his creative choices that, to me at least, detract from an otherwise fantastic film. Don't get me wrong, I really liked the film, but from what I've encountered, his choices have created questions from viewers that don't lead folks to read the scripture, as Gibson has stated he wanted. Instead they seem rather to lead to a general confusion that took some viewers out of the picture.

To agree with Justin, a movie certainly doesn't have to be faithful to its source material down to the letter, but with a movie that is so overtly message-laden, it seems counterproductive to include such obvious imagery that could be construed as confusing. I think I get what he's going for, but I've also had to explain my viewpoint on these specific details to many people to help them understand what Gibson was getting at.

In regard to supplements: are we absolutely sure that nothing is going to be included on the disc? Is that the final word from Newmarket and Icon? I would think in this supplement-hungry world of DVD where we lash studios for not including anything on their discs that such a move would be frowned upon nowadays.

Sean (unless...and this would be the ultimate in lowbrow marketing...d-d-d-d-d-double dip!...)

The Bible itself is vague with details and true physical emotions in the first place. The book reads very elementary, at best. It leaves much open for individual interpretation, and is probably the reason we have so many dominations of religion.

With that in mind, I don???t feel that Gibson went too far in creating or adding more elements to the story. What artistic touches he did add were very little compared to religious films like, ???The Last Temptation of Christ???, or ???The Ten Commandments???. What was important is that he delivered a realistic feel and one that inspired true emotion of what it must have felt like to be there. Maybe a few things were not so accurate for the sake of artistic quality, but it was far more accurate then anything else I???ve seen. Again, some of these, so called, inaccuracies are no more than Gibsons own interpretation. And, after all, the Bible has been interpreted in so many different ways for over 2000 years. What???s important is the message of what Christ did for all of us, and not so much as to how or where he did it.

I personally have a hard time with the whole crucifix thing. I have a Buddy Christ statue, and if any of you have seen the movie, ???Dogma??? knows exactly what I???m talking about. I would much rather picture Christ with a happy look of someone who is spreading joy. Some people look at my statue as sacrilege, yet my own Pastor thought it was very cool. He even told me that it???s important how YOU feel in your heart about Christ and not so much as what others try to make you feel. After all, he was the son of God, so do you really think he never smiled or had a sense of humor?

Gibson only expressed his own vision and point of view to how he feels in his heart about the events that took place. What small, inaccurate, and artistic touches he gave the story, I saw no problem with. I thought he did an outstanding job in delivering the story, and it???s about as close to perfection as anyone has ever seen. Fact is, nothing will ever be perfect when it comes to movies dealing with religion. Everyone has their own interpretations, views, and emotions that will always spark debate.

As far as the DVD goes, I could really care less if there are extra features. In fact, I???m kind of burned out on the whole extra features thing, because most of them are just the same old redundant crap. I???m happy these days just to get the movie. However, I do sucker into the DVD???s that add extended footage to the film. And that???s about the only time I shell out the cash for a special edition.

Tim,

That's a great outlook to have regarding Jesus. He should be viewed as a friend and companion in life. The Bible itself states that He came to free us, not imprison us. Lots of people are uptight and boxed in regarding their ideas on Jesus. I think He would want us to have some levity regarding Himself.

It's easy for us all to get caught up in the minutae of "I wanted to see this," or "no that didn't happen that way," especially with such a time-tested story, but overall it comes down to whether the movie was successful in getting its point and story across. I agree with you that it definitely does.

Sean (does having an outlook mean I have to look in?...)

I'm so glad that there are no spec. features because, as I said, it's tasteful, but they are including the wonderful trailer to the movie, which is great.

I agree that Jesus is not meant to be the guy looking over your shoulder and damning you for mistakes you've made. Many critics thought that this film was just a man being beaten, with no portrayal of Jesus as the teacher and prophet he was. The glimpse of the Resurrection at the end was perfect because it didn't infringe on any Christian beliefs but it upheld the message that Jesus would rise and forgive all our sins and forever be there to help and protect us.

there is supposed to be a box set with a lot of extra features.

A box set? That's the most ironic thing I've heard. What are they going to include, a limited edition piece of the cross?!?! I didn't think they documented the making-of this film too much, and it would seem strange to included deleted scenes from a movie based on the Bible and this film was obvioulsy not meant to be seen with a commentary. Does anyone know what kind of spec. features they could include on an SE of this?
(I'm glad they included the trailer because the trailer is great)

TGP,

Well I know there was a making of special on PAX as well as a History vs. Hollywood segment on the History Channel. Personally, I think a lot of good, relevant, and educational info is available and would be a great accompaniment to the film.

What I don't think this DVD needs are behind the scenes featurettes that you would normally find on other DVDs (i.e., how the effects were done, in-depth look at the scourging and crucifixion, etc.).

If it included features that help people to understand Christianity, Christ's teachings, and what He did for us, this could be a great educational tool and study for many, many people.

However, most folks out there won't know about the upcoming box set. Tsk...Tsk...Double dip-o-rama...

Sean (me, I don't need no edumacatin...)

I don't think i can wait long enough for the box set and I don't double-dip unless I have to. Besides, Christianity featurettes seem irrelevant when only you can determine what you believe in and what God's teachings and the Bible mean and do for you. Really, who's going to wait a whole year to get this?

Hello everyone!
Can anyone tell me the name of the song that is in the trailer to Passion of the Christ, perhaps if you own the soundtrack or just know what it is? Is it even on the soundtrack? If you don't remember the trailer there is a link to it here:

http://entertainment.msn.com/movies/movie.aspx?m=549602&mp=p

Also, is there any new news on this box set? Is it confirmed or merely speculation? Thanks!

i dont really get why anyone would buy this. i saw it in theaters, pretty much to say i did. i found it was just as heavy as all the critics said, but would you really want to watch this at home? i know i wont be buying this bare-bones(is that a pun? i guess it could be) release, as with so much making-of stuff i saw on tv there has go to be a huge special edition soon. i might go for that one. ive heard rumors of an Easter release for the special edition, but those are just rumors...

Ridiculous almost arrogant two faced reviews. I see you guys clearly recieved your 30 pieces of silver from you know who :@

"a commentary for the visually impaired"

could someone explain this to me

Matt,

For those people visually impaired and unable to see the movie, a commentator verbally describes each scene, each character, and each action.

Dream31,

We're commenting on a film here, not Holy Scripture. Our criticisms are of writer-director Mel Gibson, not the Lord. You may be confusing the two.

John

why are the screen shots full screen?

We obtain most of our screen shots from the studios' press sites. Fullscreen shots are almost always what they provide.

John

The DVS (Descriptive Video Service) track has appeared on DVDs for "Terminator 2" (the very first, single-disc release of that movie) as well as "Road to Perdition". DVS tracks have been used in movie theatres for several movies. James Cameron recorded one for "Titanic". Basically, this is done for people with severe eye problems.

John Puccio, I don't think that The Passion of the Christ is meant to be an entirely literal interpretation. I think that the extended torture sequences are supposed to give its audience an overall feeling of how much Christians believe Christ suffered for their sins. If every punch, whipping, or beating is not written in the Bible, than that is not the point of the film, obviously. The point is to give the audience an idea of the lengths Christ went to in order to die for Christians' sins.

Each hit on Jim Caviezel looked pretty physical to me, buddy.

KenKong77,

I agree with you that Gibson used personal license to interpret and present his case about Jesus in his own way. I just didn't think that the New Testament account of Christ's life needed that much more elaboration, symbolic or not, to make its point. Gibson's account is so realistic, I would guess that many if not most viewers would take it as Gospel truth. It is not; it is Gibson's truth, based on pure speculation.

In other words, if the four apostles, Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, who describe Christ's suffering and death in the Bible thought what they wrote was good enough, then I do, too, without the added frills, like blood and gore, to convince me.

When Scorsese interpreted Christ's life with conjecture, he was criticized by Christians for changing what was in the New Testament. Fair enough. But now Christians are saying that it's OK to change what's in the New Testament so long as they agree with it. It does not seem fair to me to have it both ways.

I believe if the movie is to be a realistic depiction of Christ's life, as it proposes to be, then it should stick to what is known. The story is already powerful enough as written in the Gospels. Either that or make it clear that the film is a fictional representation of Christ's death. I could have accepted that as well.

Finally, remember that I am reviewing a film here; I am not commenting on Christ's life, nor am I agreeing or disagreeing with His suffering for Mankind.

John

Eddie,

I will take your 9/10 rating of the movie any day. Reasons - you evaluated the movie for what it was and not on the external factors. These factors can be marketing, religion, controversy, politics, and director thoughts. The film should be seen as a standalone piece. Once you critique film based on these factors you have become a social commentator. I don't think it is bad but it just steals the good points from the movie. I also believe film critic like you should starve for the objectivity, artistic content, and technical aspects of the film making even in the face of overwhelming politics and controversy hovering the subject. It clearly appears your final verdict is a result of culmination of theses factors. This is why I love your 9/10 initial review of the film because it was viewed without including other distracting elements which would otherwise away the artistry exhibited by the movie.

Also I don???t consider the ???shame feeling??? factor should be the moot point in judging the film. Whatever religion we believe in, Hinduism, Christianity etc, they always have the ???shame??? factor associated with them. It sometimes forms an integral part of any religious faith. For example, in Hinduism, there are lot of things if you don???t do or believe are shameful. The other example is ??? if you don???t go to church, many people would thing that you are an atheist. It should not affect the way we believe in and see things as they are to be seen (like film only).

--Ranjan

Ranjan,

Well, I'm not a religious person, so I don't feel any inclination to feel ashamed for things that I didn't do.

Also, movies don't exist in vacuums. Just look at my review of "Triumph of the Will", and you'll see what I mean. "The Passion of the Christ" was made for a specific agenda--Mel Gibson's.

Besides, while I made references to "non-movie" matters (they're all relevant to the movie, actually), I still critiqued the movie itself, and a second viewing revealed serious problems in terms of what the movie was doing. Since we don't get to know any of the characters (most of the "knowledge" that viewers have are from OUTSIDE of the movie, so there goes your theory about reviewing only the movie), the movie is almost a senseless depiction of one man being thrashed for no reason. After all, since we aren't shown him doing the things that get him in trouble with the Sanhedrin, it looks like he's being punished simply because they don't like the looks of him.

Finally, there is no such thing as objectivity in reviewing movies. When someone tells you that he or she likes the movie, that is already an opinion. Every reviewer grew up differently and believes/thinks different things. The only objective reviews are ones that are nothing more than plot synopses, which are essentially useless because anyone can watch a movie and see what happens.

Eddie

I think Mel Gibson clearly said from the start that this movie focusses on the last 12 hours of Christ. I agree a small prologue or narration in the middle would have helped people who haven't read bible. It would have certainly helped me. Like the title says - Passion, so the focus was more on the physical pain. Is that right? Maybe not..

I agree with you that no one wants to see a guy beaten to pulp as in this movie. It is violent depiction of the events. Is it required? It totally depends on the director vision. This is the point where Gibson factor came into picture.

People like Gibson, Moore and others, have just one point to convey, whether it is right or wrong is not important (they are often one sided views). The fact it opens doors to other possibilities and discussions makes it worthwhile.

What discussion came from this movie, though? People either loved it without qualification or hated it without qualification. It became divisive rather than inclusive, and doesn't that go against most Christian teachings?

Don't ask me. I am not a Christian. Maybe it questioned the faith of people too much and it why we have 2 camps..Is it always true with any controversy? U either hate or like it.

rpruthee: Please email me at croweyes1121@aol.com. There is something that I would like you to read regarding your comments on this movie.

CroweDawg,

Not to be a materialistic jerk or anything, but be careful about placing your email address within forums. There are marketing hackers out there that use spider programs to go through site forums and get your email address. What happens then is you start getting more junk mail then you will ever want.

Again, not trying to be Mr. no fun, just trying to help you out from getting spamed.

Eddie,

Most Christian teachings are diverse if you really look at it. Your proof is in why we have so many different Christian religions. I???ve spent my time with non-denominational churches because they allow me to look at Christ the way I would hope to envision him and not because some authority of humans that tells me what I should think. Most religions look at his sacrifice on the cross as the one most, and only, important thing we as humans should ever be concerned with. Other religions teach us that it was his missionary work that should be focused on. For me, I look at everything from his beginning to ending. And in my heart, I would much rather look at what he taught us spiritually, love one another and forgiveness is key.

So, with that being said, it is not against Christian beliefs to be diverse, but what is important is how you feel in your own heart about him and his life. To Christ, it???s not a matter of how you paint a picture of his story, it???s just a matter of that you believe in him, talk about his teachings and have faith in him for what he accomplished. When it comes to this, there will always be diverse opinions, but in the eyes of Christ, this is not an issue because he would be pleased enough that you even talk about him whether you believe in him or not.

I always picture Christ as I would a best friend, a close colleague, or a brother. I picture him as a man I???d love to hang out with, watch a movie, go for a drive, and throw a big party just so I could have him make a barrel of wine.

Now, some people would scream blasphemy for writing that, but this is how I feel and it is an opinion that is diverse from other Christian beliefs. As for other Christians, there are many who think just as I do, so it???s okay to be diverse. All that matters is your own faith in him and how you see him.

Obviously, something that generates this much feedback is very, very good.

Eddie:

I was surprised that you gave this movie a positive review and months later gave us this. Perhaps your afterthoughts should have been added under "comments". That way it would not sound shifty.

Sasha,

What's "shifty" about my change of heart? People change when they realize different things about the world.

Also, staff members have a policy of not second guessing each other. Therefore, something as lengthy and as substantive as my comments about this movie should only appear as part of the main review with the main reviewer's permission.

Eddie

P.S. Tim, your Christ sounds like fun!

I'm a Christian and not ashamed to admit it, as someone said earlier. However, this movie was terrible. I mean, Jesus doesn't want to be remembered for being beaten and killed brutually, it's something he did, but read the Bible, he just wants you to follow his teachings of peace. His suffering was a big thing, but if you look at the Bible, it only takes up the last couple of pages from Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. I think the focus on the film is all wrong. But that's my personal opinion. And personally, I felt that The Last Temptation of Christ was a more uplifting movie for me. I mean, for him, dying on the cross to reject a life of a normal man was...profound.

Pulp,

For me, it wasn't about the torture, but instead what it meant. "For God so love the world that he gave his only begotten Son." We hear the story and it sounds quaint, without realizing what he went through It gives perspective.

Mel Gibson DID make The Passion of the Christ for his own purposes. Many directors do, especially when they are self-financing the project. And if this film did not feel "complete" to some viewers--for example, one said that he thought there was no reason given for Jesus to be beat up like he was in the film (there was, but the point remains)--than that is a result of their not being religous. The critic from the New York Times wrote about the film in an exceedingly negative light; but that was expected. For this critic, the torture and crucifixtion was just that: blood and gore. But for the world's religious population, the mutilation obviously holds a much deeper meaning. It is perfectly clear to me that for devout Christians (and there are many of them), this wasn't just some piece of "raw meat," as one critic so delicately put it, but instead it was Jesus Christ, upon whom their ENTIRE religion is based upon. My point is this: for some, this film is vapid and meaningless, while others make a deep connection to it, and don't need everything to be explained.

KenKong,

You're right, but there's a problem--all of those people telling us to keep our views to ourselves and to review the movie only also want us to acknowledge Christianity when watching this movie. That's a contradiction, lol.

Eddie

Why isn't it mentioned in the audioreview, that the DTS-track is fullrate?

I wonder if they are going to release a less violent version on dvd like the ones in theaters now!

For now, you could just use the Skip Chapter feature on your remote to skip over the violence. Wait a tick . . . I'm sorry, if you did that then you'd miss the entire movie.

Tim ;)

Gibson wanted to release this film without subtitles. Is it possible to view it as such on this dvd? :@

Just use some black construction paper and cover up the bottom 1/3 of the picture. ;)

Tim

Maybe red paper, so it'll blend in with all the blood. :@ (But seriously, folks .... yabadee-yabadee-th-th-that's all, folks.)