Album Reviews
Movies
Concert Reviews
Movie Resources
Concert Reviews
Book Reviews

Top 10
Resources
Contact Us

Who would have thought the actor who played Mad Max and Martin Riggs would ever direct a movie about the death of Christ? But Academy Award winner Mel Gibson has done just that with The Passion of the Christ, a film about the final hours of Christ's life. Like most of Gibson’s previous work,” The Passion is a masterpiece from beginning to end.  After starring in Braveheart as William Wallace, a figure whose heroic death echoes the torture of the cross, it seems fitting that Gibson would direct a film about Christ’s sacrifice.

But Gibson's latest project has not been without its share of controversy. Jews have made the film out to be an anti-Semitic picture of hate and so-called “Christian” scholars have also questioned the accuracy of the depiction of Christ. Beyond that the hype surrounding the movie has been incredible, especially for an independent production.

In defense of The Passion, the only anti-Semitism in the film is in the eye of the beholder. If people think the movie is against the Jews, then they will most likely think the gospels are also racist. As for its accuracy, Gibson takes artistic license at times but stays more true to the gospels than would probably any other Hollywood director. Compared to Martin Scorsese's Last Temptation of Christ, Gibson's account is light years closer to the truth than Scorsese ever was.. Concerning the hype, “The Passion” is one movie that lives up to the expectations surrounding it and is worth seeing multiple times.

The film starts in Gethsemene and ends with the resurrection. The focal point is the crucifixion of Christ and the dramatic moments leading up to it. In the midst of events like Judas’ betrayal of Christ and Peter's denial of him are many other short stories, some taken from the gospels and some from other traditional accounts. But the stories, along with the flashbacks, all contribute to the plot. Although The Passion could be criticized for its context, which is not necessarily explained by the movie and misses many crucial parts of the gospels, the power of the story is its focus on the cross.

From a film standpoint, it is hard not to like The Passion. With two extinct languages, a beautiful Italian setting, realistic costumes and makeup, powerful camera work, background music that enhances the film and tremendous acting, it is hard not to envision the movie cleaning house at the Academy Awards. The only disappointing thing is that the movie will not be in consideration for the Oscars this year. 

The Passion is a Jesus movie that is second to none. The use of Aramaic and Latin adds an authenticity never seen before in a movie about Jesus. Surprisingly, despite the film being shot in Italy the setting seems real. The costumes and makeup of the actors are also very believeable for first century Jews and Romans. One of the best parts of the movie is the visuals that come from the cameraman's artistic eye for detail, which is seen is amazing footage like Judas' money bag flying through the air like a bird, a scene that is featured on the trailer. Although there are various opinions about the music for the film, it seems to also convey a seriousness to the subject. 

As for the acting, Jim Caviezel plays a good-looking Christ, which may not be entirely accurate. Yet as an actor playing Jesus he exudes a divine presence rarely seen on film. In "The Passion," Gibson's Christ is also seen as fully human with a sense of humor. Most of Caviezel's performance is done in silence, which he does quite well especially when actually being hit with the cat of nine tails during the whipping scenes. 

Maia Morgenstern plays his mother Mary, who has no divine attributes. Still Gibson's Mary partially reflects Catholic tradition in that Joseph is nowhere to be found as Jesus is growing up and Jesus has no siblings. Morgenstern's emotion as the mother of the savior adds much drama to the death of Christ. She is present at nearly every event after Jesus' betrayal. 

The most fascinating character in the movie is Rosalinda Celentano, who plays the devil with a shaved head, pale face, black cloak and no eyebrows. Celentano looks as though she could be a male or a female with a man's voice. In all of the movies about Christ, Gibson's seems to be the only one that features the devil. The presence of Satan on the screen shows a contrast between good and evil. At the most crucial times in the story Celentano seems to appear out of nowhere. During these appearances it is unclear as to whether the devil is physically present or is merely in spiritual form. 

One thing that will discourage some people from seeing The Passion is its amount of violence and blood. Like Gibson’s other movies, such as Braveheart and The Patriot, Gibson uses violence to make a point. Some could argue that his violent look at the crucifixion is beyond what really happened, but it seems like what the film shows is not nearly as bad as history. Those who object to violence and blood, especially older viewers, should be warned that “The Passion” has its share of gore. Yet the film is not that different from the violence found in the Matrix trilogy. Still, the movie is not for the faint of heart or young children.

At the end of the day, it would be an understatement to say The Passion is “the movie of the year.” For Christians, the movie is a unique opportunity to show their friends what their faith is all about. However, people tend to see a different film depending on their perspective of the controversial Jesus. Because of that Christians need to be ready to explain what the movie means to others. Hopefully, people will realize that despite the money The Passion will bring in, it is an opportunity to share the greatest story ever told in a way that has never been done before.

Matt Modrich  2/25/2004

Amidst all the controversy that has bombarded our televisions, radio stations, and newspapers over the past few months, there is a film directed by a guy who, more than twenty years ago, started his career as a Mad Max shooting guns in a post-apocalyptic world.

Man, has he come a long way.

Gibson handles this film in such a way that is simply phenomenal. Is The Passion of the Christ violent? Yes. Is it gory? Yes. Is it heart wrenching, gut-wrenching, disturbing, and controversial? Yes. But, it is also poignant, touching, and beautiful. 

Many have said the violence in the film is too much. So much, in fact, that it is numbing. One thing is for certain; you feel Christ’s passion and agony as he is tortured and crucified. The film is a portrait of pain. With each whip that is cracked, with each nail that is pierced, and with each drop of blood that falls, the audience is there as if they were eyewitnesses to the true event. But, Gibson keeps it so poetic and artistic with beautiful cinematography and well-thought out flashbacks that the audience never reaches the point of unbearable suffering.

Is the film anti-Semitic? Absolutely not. As both the film and the Gospels point out, Jesus chose this. He did not have to die at the hands of anyone but freely gave up his life. And why? Simply because he loves us and wants us to love him. This message is for everyone, and the film goes out of its way to prove that point. If anyone is filled with hate after watching The Passion, it comes from their hearts and not this film.

As a minister, a critic, and an amateur filmmaker, I have to say that this is the best film I have ever seen… hands down. I could not put enough tocks at the bottom of this review to reveal how great of a film this is. It captures every essence, every emotion, and every hope that is part of this story to a tee. My hat is off to you, Mr. Gibson. Thank you for your voice and the positive impact that you have made in this world.

Adam Duckworth  2/26/2004

Perhaps the most controversial film of our time, The Passion of the Christ has arrived amidst much speculation and scrutiny. Not since The Last Temptation of Christ has a film garnered so much of a close examination -- and that film did not have a mega-star like Mel Gibson attached to it, nor a wide-release reported to reach 2500 screens in the U.S. alone.

The film shows the final hours of Jesus leading to his crucifixion and subsequent resurrection. The film begins with Jesus (Jim Caviezel) and some of his Disciples in the garden as Jesus contemplates what is to come and prays that this burden be passed from him if it is God's will. Jesus is visibly afraid and unsure of what to do, as he knows Judas has betrayed him and that troops are on the way to arrest him. Jesus is soon arrested, beaten and taken before the Jewish elders to be accused of heresy for teaching beliefs which contradict the local doctrine and for encouraging others to follow his teachings. Jesus is soon taken before the Roman consul who decides to punish -- not execute -- Jesus, as he does not believe his crimes are worthy of death. Politics soon envelope the situation as the Romans fear an uprising if the wishes of the council are not followed, forcing Jesus to be ordered for crucifixion. While I am not one to give away vital parts to a film's story, I take it that the majority of readers will know at least this much of the story. The emphasis on the film is on what Jesus had to endure during the final hours of his life and the untold suffering and brutality that were put upon him for his beliefs.

Much has been made of the movie's intense and graphic violence, and I am not going to sugar-coat it. The film is very intense and very violent and on more than once occasion caused me to start tearing as the film is very emotional; it is hard to watch a person suffer, especially one who many believe devoted his life for the betterment of all of us, regardless of faith. I have always been one who believes that all people are entitled to their beliefs and that no group has the right to say that their way is the only way and that others are wrong for not following them. In many ways, the film drives this point home, as Jesus prays for the forgiveness of those who are killing him even though they do not share his faith. The man who was killed as a threat to the society and doctrines of the community never wavered in his love for his fellow man and retained his compassion to the very end.

Gibson is to be commended for making a powerful and emotional film that can be enjoyed by people of all faiths. The film is a visual masterpiece that is highly detailed and is the most accurate depiction of the final hours of Christ ever committed to film. The use of Latin and Aramaic in combination with subtitles underscores attention to detail that Gibson put into his labor of love. As such, he deserves praise for crafting this film regardless of your opinion on the film's content. This movie is bold and passionate and attempts to tell the story  as accurately as possible. While some of the scenes may be very difficult to watch, you will not soon forget the images and will have a hard time not being emotionally moved by the work. This film is not one that blames any group for the death of Jesus; it is simply an account as to how and why it happened. The film also serves as a message that we should all embrace and tolerate the differences in our neighbors; when we do not, atrocities can happen.

As a student of history, I found myself pondering during the film in regards to what would happen if a figure arrived today who encouraged others to follow a new path and not those of traditional religions. If said person were to become widely know and developed a large following, what would happen? Would they be called a cult and prosecuted, would they be ridiculed, or would they be killed? My speculation troubled me, as I think that despite nearly 2000 years of progress there are those who would resort to violence. Such is the case of the film. The majority did not want to see Jesus killed; it was a strong and vocal minority of the population who wanted to protect their interests. The film is not anti-Semitic and does not blame any group for the death of Jesus and emphasizes that his death was in order to absolve sin and blame.

The film makes you think, and in this day of disposable films, it is nice to see that despite the controversy and lack of commercial nature of the film, Gibson put his heart into the production and created one of the best films of the decade. Gibson is a master storyteller and shows that he is a gifted director and producer and should be praised for his craft.

Gareth Von Kallenbach  February 27, 2004

The Passion of the Christ is actor/director Mel Gibson's interpretation of the last day of the life of Jesus Christ. Unfortunately, it is a tedious film to sit through. I do not mean the use of subtitles because the speaking of Aramaic and Latin here gives the film an authentic flavor. Jesus answers one question in Latin, so he is bilingual in the film.

This reviewer finds the film heavy-handed film-making. There are many reasons for this including a pounding percussion soundtrack that is used to emphasize certain scenes, overuse of slow motion for effect (how many times do you need to see a hand movement done slowly or something drop to the ground) and the beating scenes of Christ that go on and on. An ordinary man would have been felled by one blow of the scourge, but Christ was not an ordinary man and so undergoes enough torture to cringe the audience, which continues in graphic detail. Blood splatters everywhere, and people try to wipe up the blood -- although that reason is not given. The make-up is not exceptionally well done, and at one point, it moves on the body of actor Jim Caviezel. On the other side of the coin, the character of Judas (Luca Lionello) is portrayed well, though his motive is not explained. Judas' committing suicide is an intense moment. Satan is present in the film, telling Christ to give up, but this scenario serves as an inspiration to continue through the torture. The scene in the Garden at the beginning of the film is a standout with mist and Satan, who is played by a woman, Rosalinda Celentano.

The film opens in the Garden, with Jesus praying intently while his disciples sleep. The scene is set well with evening mist, intense prayer, the disciples sleeping and Satan lurking in the background. Then, everything happens in rapid succession: Judas and the kiss, the servant losing an ear, Jesus taken away in chains and the torture begins. The story moves in quick flashbacks from Jesus to Judas to Peter to Mary (Jesus' mother) and Mary Magdalene. Pilate believes Jesus is innocent of a crime but still orders him beaten. In the meantime, the local religious leaders think Jesus is just another zealot and want him out of the picture. After a horrendous beating, Jesus is ordered to be crucified and has to carry his cross to Golgotha, though he has help part of the way. Pilate's wife is portrayed as a sympathetic person, and so is Pilate, who gives a reason as to his action. Is this truth or creative writing?

The casting of the film is good with actor Caviezel (The Count of Monte Cristo) looking like the Hooks portraits, though no one knows what Jesus really looked like. Caviezel has a calming presence here as opposed to the people around him. Maia Morgenstern's Mary is a tormented woman who can't stop the inevitable. Monica Bellucci's Mary Magdalene isn't on screen enough to make an impression. It is Hristo Shopov and Claudia Gerini (Pilate and his wife, Claudia) who are conflicted and uncertain about these events. Also, Luca Lionello's Judas is a stricken man whose conscience is steps behind his actions.

Mel Gibson has a habit of posing his actor like portraits, and you may recognize various scenes from paintings of the masters, even the Pieta. It is poetic license used by the director. I caught a modern phrase in the subtitles, when Jesus, as a young carpenter, is making a tall table and Mary says, "This will never catch on." The Shroud of Turin even can be explained by watching Gibson's film. A point of interest is Gibson's origin of Mary Magdalene. Judas receiving his 30 pieces of silver is a definitive moment because somewhere in the eyes of Judas is the realization that he is condemning an innocent man, and yet he continues with his actions. In the poem, "Satan At The Manger," Satan speaks, "I'll be here forever in the potter's field keeping Judas company . . . I have you on this earth . . . in my kingdom and with my rules."* The rules here belong to director Mel Gibson and his interpretation. Is The Passion of The Christ great film making? I think not. One wonders what his next film will be. Perhaps a documentary on his father, Hutton Gibson?

Copyright 2004 Marie Asner 2/28/2004

*Note: Marie Asner is quoting her poem, "Satan At the Manger," in this review. She was the recipient of a 2003 Mini-Fellowship in Poetry from the Kansas Arts Commission.