The Passion of the Christ

The Passion of the Christ is an intimate, almost theatrical film with a breathtaking big-screen concept. Its essence lies not in the monumental historical setting, but in the impressiveness of the scenes shot with utter perfectionism and taking place – whether in the interiors or exteriors – on a few dozen square metres. The film begins with the scene of a hunt for “a desperate young man”, continues with his lynching and ends with his death. We only learn who is hiding under the hood and who the other faces on the screen are from brief flashbacks during his torture. The revelation of their identities deepens our relationship to Jesus of Nazareth as well as our experience of the pain that the characters are enduring. The film’s power consists in its depiction of the indescribable suffering of a man with a big heart at the hands of heartless people. ___  Mel Gibson chose the honorable way of storytelling without a hint of sentimentality. He remains impartial and literally revels in the man’s lynching. In slow motion and in the mounting pain of the sufferer, he gives us a sense of both his physical pain and the barbarity of his executioners’ sadistic urges. This shockingly cold beginning in the first third of the film has us riveted to our seats, while later flashbacks to Jesus’s spiritual pronouncements give it meaning, emotion and a philosophical dimension while intensifying its overall macabre nature. The martyr and his executioners become increasingly expressive embodiments of the values of good and evil, and together create a “work” that will change human history forever. ___ The film maintains a slow pace and runs more than two hours, but you won’t find a single shot, sound or cut that doesn’t have its place in it or doesn’t evoke the required emotion in you. It is a hypnotically fluid, sombre poem, carrying on its shoulders a tremendous weight of urgency that deepens with each passing minute. You either avert your eyes or hold your breath, or ponder what has been said. (16/03/2004)

Gibson has undoubtedly achieved what he set out to do, and it can’t be denied that the film has a powerfully immersive atmosphere and an impressive level of craftsmanship in some moments. Unfortunately, however, it fails where it wanted to be strongest: as a story about an unjust amoral judgment, about the failure of human faith and the rekindling of hope for its resurrection. Gibson relies only on the general idea that Jesus was a benevolent shepherd and that we must automatically pity him in his suffering, so he disregards any coherence of message and half-heartedly presents boring flashbacks or shocking physical torture that lasts unnaturally long and becomes the main motif of the entire film. And although I had a really big lump in my throat at the finale and watched the horror with bated breath, I don't understand why something like this was made in the first place. Or I do, for money, of course. The very idea and structure of the work are too simple and misleading to translate into something more historically and cinematically valuable or inspiring. (16/05/2018)

The Passion of the Christ is another in a series of highly controversial and (in terms of ratings) divisive films, and after watching it I'm inclined to give it a better rating. The breathtaking last twelve hours of the life of Christ were truly an unspeakable ordeal, and Mel Gibson makes that very clear here. Since these religious things are beyond me, I didn't understand the plot or the characters at times, but eventually gave in. Technically, I don't have much to complain about: impressive music, well placed cinematography and aptly edited shots. Christ's makeup deserves a shout-out, as does his performance by James Caviezel. In short, a film that could have been twenty minutes shorter, but as far as feelings go, they're pretty solid. (20/11/2010)

No hyperactivity turning to faith and as a result fortunately no exaggerated controversy. The crucifixion is brutal and cruel, but also impressive, touching, and surprisingly grand. Its fascinating atmosphere drew me in despite some prejudices, and I am glad that ten years after its creation, Gibson's opus is finally receiving positive reviews. This film is definitely not easy to love, but it is quite easy to be amazed by it. (15/04/2006)

Those brutal scenes that everyone take dso much about weren't really that terrible. Rather than being naturalistic, they were just very bloody. In terms of craftsmanship, it is again precise, but that is not new for Mel Gibson. As for the content, there is nothing left but to describe it as controversial. The music is breathtaking. (09/04/2004)