'The Passion Of The Christ' review

Originally written the week of Feb. 18th/04
Rating: **1/2 out of ****

I hate going into a film with a preconceived notion. I like to see a film and make up my own mind. So, normally I ignore all the talk and go in clean. However, with Mel Gibson’s “The Passion of the Christ”, it was difficult to avoid the news about the film. It has been the talk of the entire world ever since it hit theaters on February 25, so unfortunately I ran into a few hundred different opinions of it. The opinions I got were pretty much the same: some saying it was amazing, not a film but an ‘experience’, and the violence was enough to make you sick.

I finally had my chance to see ‘The Passion’ and I was not that impressed. I think Mel Gibson would have been better off making a movie of Christ’s life, or even the last week or so. The fact of the film being based solely on the last twelve hours of Christ’s life made it seem dragged on and dull at times. The scene with Christ carrying the cross up the hill lasted almost a half an hour - or maybe it just felt like it - and near the end of the scene I heard someone in the audience mumble to themselves, “just get up the f***ing hill already.” While I would not state it so discourteously, the scene did drag on and could have used a trimming in the editing room. It was if Gibson had enough material to make a one-hour long film and felt he had to drag it out to a reasonable length because it was supposed to be an “epic”. Mel Gibson could have made a three and a half hour long epic and had the “Passion” be the final hour of the film.

The violence of the film was nothing too disturbing as well. I heard so much about how some people had to cover their eyes for two thirds of the film, and even Roger Ebert himself was quoted as saying it was “the most violent film I have ever seen.” Perhaps I am just desensitized from seeing so many horror films, but I do not know what these people are watching but I have seen worse violence than that in films. I will admit it was probably the most realistic violence I have ever seen, but the most disturbing – hardly.

I will commend the film for its historical accuracy – whether or not there are any real occurrences to be considered accurate is another story. However, according to everything that I have heard and learned about the Bible and the events that supposedly took place, this film is very accurate. Accuracies or no accuracies, the film as a whole just did not do it for me.

Many critics are bashing the film saying that Gibson just wanted to shock people and get his kicks by making a film about torture. I am not ignorant enough to believe those comments. I do think Gibson would have been better off taking the route that Martin Scorsese took with “The Last Temptation of Christ” (a better film in my opinion), and make a film about Christ in it’s entirety – or at least more than a film about his death. I understand the message that Gibson was telling with his film – that Jesus died for our sins and that we must realize and appreciate this. His message was received, but I felt that towards the end of the film, the message had been expressed and understood, and now it was being drummed into our heads repeatedly. If one prefers to evaluate a film on the basis of what it intends to do, not on what they think it should have done then the film is a renowned success.

I appreciate and understand what Gibson was trying to do and say with this film, and I commend him for succeeding and fulfilling a personal vision. I think it is unfortunate that the film fell short of its potential. As the saying goes, “The road to hell is paved with good intentions”.