After all the controversy and rigorous debate has subsided, Mel Gibson's The Passion of the Christ will remain a force to be reckoned with. In the final analysis, "Gibson's Folly" is an act of personal bravery and commitment on the part of its director, who self-financed this $25-30 million production to preserve his artistic goal of creating the Passion of Christ ("Passion" in this context meaning "suffering") as a quite literal, in-your-face interpretation of the final 12 hours in the life of Jesus, scripted almost directly from the gospels (and spoken in Aramaic and Latin with a relative minimum of subtitles) and presented as a relentless, 126-minute ordeal of torture and crucifixion. For Christians and non-Christians alike, this film does not "entertain," and it's not a film that one can "like" or "dislike" in any conventional sense. (It is also emphatically not a film for children or the weak of heart.) Rather, The Passion is a cinematic experience that serves an almost singular purpose: to show the scourging and death of Jesus Christ in such horrifically graphic detail (with Gibson's own hand pounding the nails in the cross) that even non-believers may feel a twinge of sorrow and culpability in witnessing the final moments of the Son of God, played by Jim Caviezel in a performance that's not so much acting as a willful act of submission, so intense that some will weep not only for Christ, but for Caviezel's unparalleled test of endurance.

Leave it to the intelligentsia to debate the film's alleged anti-Semitic slant; if one judges what is on the screen (so gloriously served by John Debney's score and Caleb Deschanel's cinematography), there is fuel for debate but no obvious malice aforethought; the Jews under Caiaphas are just as guilty as the barbaric Romans who carry out the execution, especially after Gibson excised (from the subtitles, if not the soundtrack) the film's most controversial line of dialogue. If one accepts that Gibson's intentions are sincere, The Passion can be accepted for what it is: a grueling, straightforward (some might say unimaginative) and extremely violent depiction of the Passion, guaranteed to render devout Christians speechless while it intensifies their faith. Non-believers are likely to take a more dispassionate view, and some may resort to ridicule. But one thing remains undebatable: with The Passion of the Christ, Gibson put his money where his mouth is. You can praise or damn him all you want, but you've got to admire his chutzpah. --Jeff Shannon

Sick pseudo snuff movie.

I like blood and guts just as much as the next guy (probably more so) but this film just has no entertainment (much less redeeming value) whatsover. Based on what is assumed to be a true story to many (though credible the evidence is certainly not) Mel Gibson basically beats the audience over the head with excessive violence and gore in order to get them to embrace his warped view of the world.

So-called Chrisitans take note - you are endorsing the same torture porn that you so readily abuse hollywood for (in such movies as "Hostel" and "Saw 1-4). I believe last time I was unfortunate enough to hear a sermon hypocrisy was still a sin.

Cinematograpy-wise the film impresses, and you have to be impressed by Jim Cavisiel's performance (or endurance really) but this is a sick, twisted, nasty squalid little film that if was about Harry down the street rather than Jebus the Christians would have condemned it outright.

That being said, an honest film made about god's killing and maiming in the OT would also be just as repugnant - but at least it would make a more interesting story than watching this guy getting beating (and no-one could endure the pain).

They say it's good to show the extent of the sacrifice that Jesus apparantly made, but what's the big sacrifice anyway when he knew he'd be back new and improved in 3 days time anyway and would get to fly off to heaven and come back a bit later to slaughter the rest of humanity (if they don't believe).

Yuck, left a foul taste in my mouth this one - really Mel I wish you'd made Lethal Weapon 5 instead.

Homoerotic S&M

I wish there was a lower rating.
If you're looking for the most gratuitous depiction of depravity available since the uncut Caligula here you go. Actually, this makes Caligula look like a Saturday morning cartoon. I fear for all of us when "Christians" find this movie moving in any other way than bowel moving. This is the kind of Christianity that the witch-burners had. Anyone who has read and understood the New Testament will be disgusted and outraged that this movie was not only made but encouraged.
THIS IS NOT WHAT THE GOSPELS ARE ABOUT.
This movie is NOT historically accurate (of course how can we expect accuracy from the someone who made Braveheart or the Patriot). The Jews are out for blood and the Romans are just doing their job. And, of course, it's Palestine but nobody speaks Greek. This is historical revisionism on a Biblical scale. It even picks and chooses it's way through the Gospels, so it's not anymore accurate a depiction of those than an Evangelical sermon. Gibson sought to create nothing more than controversy. I find it disturbing that any Christian would praise this filth.
Apparently it's big with the Fundamentalists, but they also pick and choose their way through the Bible, so that isn't suprising. It also seems to be a big hit with the S&M crowd. hmm.
So what's next for Gibson, a revisionist version of Auschwitz maybe, with Mel in the role of Rudolf Hoss?
Avoid this movie or avoid lunch.

poor delivery service

Never received the item even though the address is for the largest building in town.