• Recent comments
  • Onora
    Brick (2005)
    Correction, there are more than two adults in this film. Where do you get that information?...
  • Kian Gray
    Bringing Down The House (2003)
    there are lots of social issues these days mostly due to our culture and...
  • suzero
    Inception (2010)
    Wow. Great review! I was also amazed at the zero gravity scenes. On Twitter someone said they...
  • Ellis Gibson
    The Bourne Ultimatum (2007)
    i always like the Julia Stiles with long blonde hair..’.
  • Mackenzie Ward
    Closer (2004)
    Jude Law could win the oscar award for best actor.*`.
  • Maria Howard
    Julie and Julia (2009)
    Julia Roberts always have that classice beauty that we admire.’~:
The Passion of the Christ (2004)
Filed under: — Arjan Welles on April 1st, 2004 01:04:02 am

TPOTC.jpgWithout any doubt one of the most controversial movies of 2004, The Passion of The Christ, tells the story of the last 12 hours of Jesus Christ. Director Mel Gibson had major difficulties finding a distributor for his magnus opus, for which he financed the $25m budget personally. In the United States this film was immediately called Anti-Semitic and not true to the Bible version. To me it was of devastating beauty (hmm wrong word maybe) and extremely impressive.

TPOTC1.jpgThe Passion of the Christ uses the original languages spoken at the time Jesus lived: Aramaic, Hebrew and Latin. Originally Gibson wanted the images to speak for themselves and not use any subtitling. Because of the fact the story is so well-known, Gibson could have done without. Some dialogues are of an explanatory nature, but you do not need them to understand what the story of Jesus’ suffering is all about. What is striking is the lack of names in the movie. Some of the apostles are mentioned, but overall you have to delve into your memory (and Bible class if you had any) to know the characters of (Mother) Mary, Mary Magdalene, Pilate and even the Devil.

TPOTC2.jpgThis last character was added to the story by Gibson himself. Although the Bible ‘ as far as I know ‘ does not make mention of Satan himself during the last 12 hours of Jesus, this element adds some spirituality and depth into a film that is stuffed with cruelty, blood, pain and other atrocities. The comment of many reviewers is that Gibson only did this to shock his audience, but to me many of these reviewers do not get the core meaning of The Passion. I would not take my 10-year old to see it, if I had one, but behind all the torture there is the story of Jesus as a human being. The miracles he performs are mineralized to healing an ear, but The Passion is mainly focusing on Jesus as a man suffering for his faith and followers.

TPOTC3.jpgThe first true impression the viewer gets of the atrocities that are bestowed upon Jesus, is when he is taken captive by the Jewish priests and let down off a bridge were he faces Judas, who has betrayed him for 30 silver lings. Then we see Jesus being tortured by the Roman conquerors, a decision taken to satisfy the Jewish people of Jerusalem. You almost see the blood and meat splash off the screen. What makes these scenes bearable is the effective use of soft-focused flash-backs and the story of the two Mary’s (played by and impressive Maia Morgenstern and a daunting Monica Bellucci). The rest of the movie is filled by the carrying of the cross and the crucifixion. But it is not just horror and pain, Gibson tells an emotional story.

TPOTC4.jpgWhat can be commented about The Passion of the Christ concerns the way Gibson portrays the Jewish priests and population. Although he shows them in a rather black and white manner, I would not dare to call this Anti-Semitic. They are charicatures in Gibson’s vision. Gibson could have made more nuances however. All in all, The Passion is one you have to see. Not because you want to know what the controversy is all about, but because it will blow you away. This is a movie about passion, made with passion. Both Caviezel (Jesus) and Gibson are devoted Catholics. I could not keep my eyes dry, something that hardly ever happens because I don’t want to look silly, and I can’t wait for Gibson to do his next Bible film, supposedly about the Maccabees, because these are amazing stories. Whether you believe’ or not.

rating: 8

Directed by: Mel Gibson
Starring: James Caviezel, Maia Morgenstern, Monica Bellucci
Official Website

‘The Passion of the Christ’ runs 127 minutes and is now showing.
____________

Share and enjoy:
  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • Technorati
  • Google Bookmarks
  • StumbleUpon
  • Twitter
  • Yahoo! Buzz
author picture Arjan Welles (213 posts)
Arjan Welles - law graduate. I work at a bank, I work as a film critic for Dutch and English media. My favorite directors are David Lynch, David Fincher, Alfred Hitchcock, Steven Spielberg, Quentin Tarantino. I love arthouse over blockbusters.

6 Comments

  • Nice review.

    Usually I shun movies which are being hyped so much, because it then becomes difficult to see it as is.

    What most people forget is that the explicit torture scenes are a real trademark of Mel Gibson: in almost every movie he has explicit scenes where his is lengthily tortured (Braveheart, Payback, Lethal Weapon-series, Conspiracy Theory, etc). The guy’s just a freako! ;)

    Comment by Paco — Thu April 1, 2004 @ 12:56
  • i’m sorry, but I can’t stand to hear any more about this movie or pyscho Mel Gibson.

    Comment by marisa — Tue April 6, 2004 @ 16:13
  • please explain…

    Comment by arjan — Tue April 6, 2004 @ 17:07
  • How different opinions can be…

    I found this a very bad movie.
    Regardless whether you believe the crucifixion-story of Jesus (which I don’t), there are no interesting insights offered. We only see suffering to an inhuman extent. If you’re not a believer, it comes across as silly and cruel and I can also imagine that as a believer you question the ‘message’ of this movie.

    Supposed I believe in the story of Jesus as told by the bible, then what message do I have to see? We know the story of his suffering, but that was just illustrative. Isn’t it about the message behind it? Why did he suffer that much? How could he take the torture? What was the result of it? What did it to him as a (hu)man? Did he never lose his faith and why?
    To me all these questions are much more interesting than watching gorey torture-scenes for hours at an end of Mr. Mel ‘I-like-to-have-a-torture-scene-in-every-movie-I’m-in” Gibson.

    As a non-believer you don’t get an insight or understanding either. However, you could explain it to atheïsts by showing the human side of the story or the historical context.
    I DO agree that the Jews were painted in a black-and-white manner. If you believe in the bible story, you’ll know things were a bit more complicated than that. If you know more about the history, you’ll even know that the whole story is one of enormous complexity.

    As far as the acting goes: non-present.
    Caviezel only takes the beating of his life and the two women have no dialogue and only look distraught and cry. That is it.
    The original languages spoken I did find interesting, as an amateur linguist.

    Gibson could better make another Lethal Weapon than another bible movie.

    rating: 3 (for the historical setting only)

    Comment by Paco — Sat September 4, 2004 @ 22:04
  • You are invited to check some helpful info about- Tons of interesdting stuff!!!

    Comment by game — Sun October 16, 2005 @ 15:06
  • Obviously, some people just don’t know a great movie when they see it. This was a very powerful depiction of the story of the redemption of mankind. Mel Gibson should be commended for his decision to make this film. Jim Caviezel’s portrayal of Jesus was absolutely amazing. Anyone who has not seen this film should definitely check it out. Personally, I loved it!!!!!!!!!!

    Comment by jared barton — Mon April 23, 2007 @ 18:41

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Leave a comment