User Score
6.3

Generally favorable reviews- based on 786 Ratings

User score distribution:
Watch On

Review this movie

  1. Your Score
    0 out of 10
    Rate this:
    • 10
    • 9
    • 8
    • 7
    • 6
    • 5
    • 4
    • 3
    • 2
    • 1
    • 0
    • 0
  1. Submit
  2. Check Spelling
  1. May 25, 2015
    5
    The Passion of Christ is a Christian movie directed by Mel Gibson. The film depicts the last 12 hours of Jesus's life. Basically him carrying the cross. While the movie seemed to be focused too much on the blood and gore it was a good film none the less. The emotion and faith of the movie seemed to be drowned out by all of the blood and pain. One of the only clear moments of the movie wasThe Passion of Christ is a Christian movie directed by Mel Gibson. The film depicts the last 12 hours of Jesus's life. Basically him carrying the cross. While the movie seemed to be focused too much on the blood and gore it was a good film none the less. The emotion and faith of the movie seemed to be drowned out by all of the blood and pain. One of the only clear moments of the movie was when Jesus (Jim Caviezel) had lost faith in his father. But he quickly regained his faith and was on his jolly way to continue being crucified. While I do believe that the actual crucifixion of Jesus must have been very gore filled, it had much more symbolism than what the film has portrayed. Perhaps Gibson used the blood and pain to keep the audience interested. Need less to say, I would have much more enjoyed a version of the movie that focused on Jesus's or his disciple's thoughts. At the end The Passion of Christ is an accurate representation of the last twelve hours of Jesus's life. But many important ideas and concepts have been silenced by all of the gore. I give this movie a 2.8/5. While it was interesting to watch, it was interesting to watch for the wrong reason. I came looking for a movie that would give me a better understanding of what the people who were at the crucifixion might have though, but instead I was greeted with gallons of blood. Expand
  2. Nov 9, 2012
    4
    Yo...my man got his ass whooped! For hours! Non-stop! But seriously this is a big steaming pile of unrealized potential.
  3. Feb 22, 2012
    6
    Its Jesus getting tortured for 2 hours, but its a very intense movies. I loved the stares between people, acting is generally amazing, Which is really what carried this movie.
  4. Oct 26, 2010
    6
    this movie tells the life of Jesus Christ in the most gory way, but this isn't a bad movie. the score was good and the acting was decent.
  5. AlexF
    Feb 19, 2009
    6
    I saw this movie when it came out on dvd i thought the film was okay in some areas it was amazing in others over the top. The actor playing Jesus and the other main characters (mary,peter,john etc.) did a great job in my opinion and the music and picture setting was amazing however this not a film to watch multiple times. This movie just shows us that jesus went through a lot for us and I saw this movie when it came out on dvd i thought the film was okay in some areas it was amazing in others over the top. The actor playing Jesus and the other main characters (mary,peter,john etc.) did a great job in my opinion and the music and picture setting was amazing however this not a film to watch multiple times. This movie just shows us that jesus went through a lot for us and died for our sins but i felt it was and one message film which was love. Mel Gibson just showed jesus's last 12 hours and that's it. I would not watch it multiple times though i'd say watch it once. Overall this movie is definitely something of a masterpiece and will never be forgotten. Expand
  6. SheilaD.
    Feb 16, 2009
    5
    I have read quite a few of the comments. It's very much the case of you liked it or you didn't. I am a Christian but I found it left me slightly emotionless. But the boy tried his best. What I do find offensive is the crowd who didn't enjoy it are very free with their opinions. They feel they need to denigrate anybody who did enjoy it as a moron and that they are I have read quite a few of the comments. It's very much the case of you liked it or you didn't. I am a Christian but I found it left me slightly emotionless. But the boy tried his best. What I do find offensive is the crowd who didn't enjoy it are very free with their opinions. They feel they need to denigrate anybody who did enjoy it as a moron and that they are uneducated, numbskulls etc etc. Personnally I don't give a dam what you think of Christians or any other religion for that matter, but don't try and make out we are stupid and you are they great informed of this world. Your are not. Every time you open your mouth you exhibit to the whole world what a pathetic numbskull you are. Keep the gob shut and maybe someone might think you have a brain. Expand
  7. ChrisD.
    Apr 22, 2008
    6
    I saw this movie when it first came out on Easter 2004. I was deeply moved by it then, yet I left the theater very numb from the experience. It is the most violent movie I've ever seen, and I wondered even then if a huge display of gore was really how to best present Jesus. It's the only movie I've ever seen that I probably will deliberately avoid watching again: not I saw this movie when it first came out on Easter 2004. I was deeply moved by it then, yet I left the theater very numb from the experience. It is the most violent movie I've ever seen, and I wondered even then if a huge display of gore was really how to best present Jesus. It's the only movie I've ever seen that I probably will deliberately avoid watching again: not because I thought it was poorly directed or written. Rather, I found it too disturbing to be worth another watch again: I don't want to have that image of Jesus in my head. I don't think it's accurate and I can see why many have accused the film of being Anti-Semitic (but that goes back to the basic Christian belief that Jews were responsible for the crucifixion of Jesus...a whole other ball of wax) Expand
  8. SidW.
    Dec 3, 2006
    5
    This movie isn't as historically based as people are saying...Jesus himself is WAY off...Jesus Christ was middle eastern, not white. And unless you are clueless of the Faith, this movie is boring.
  9. LisaZ.
    Aug 7, 2005
    5
    I feel the movie was interesting but had alot of endless knowing and not that great of a ending, it left me hanging, an i really dont like movies that do that, if he had all this money put into the movie i think it should of had more details to it.
  10. T.M.
    Jan 27, 2005
    6
    An excellent film technically -- the cinematography, score, and some of the acting were wonderful -- but there was no need for drawing out the torture and beating scenes for as as long they were drawn out. Mel Gibson obviously has an unhealthy fascination with graphic violence ("Braveheart", "The Patriot"), and IMHO, that extreme overemphasis on graphic violence is the main fault of this An excellent film technically -- the cinematography, score, and some of the acting were wonderful -- but there was no need for drawing out the torture and beating scenes for as as long they were drawn out. Mel Gibson obviously has an unhealthy fascination with graphic violence ("Braveheart", "The Patriot"), and IMHO, that extreme overemphasis on graphic violence is the main fault of this film. Wouldn't a film about the teachings of Christ have been much more effective? Expand
  11. RobertB.
    Jan 5, 2005
    4
    Okay... let me first say that I'm not Christian (though my entire family is), nor am I Jewish (though a good portion of my friends are), so I don't think that I have any horse in the "is this anti-Semitic or not" race. That being said, the film certainly portrays the Jews of that time as bloodthirsty bastards out to kill Jesus against the wishes of the calm, logical, relatively Okay... let me first say that I'm not Christian (though my entire family is), nor am I Jewish (though a good portion of my friends are), so I don't think that I have any horse in the "is this anti-Semitic or not" race. That being said, the film certainly portrays the Jews of that time as bloodthirsty bastards out to kill Jesus against the wishes of the calm, logical, relatively (that qualifier is certainly necessary) civilized Romans. Does it tell us anything about the Jews of today, or why the Jews of that time hated Jesus? No. Overall, the movie is tremendously gory to an almost sickening degree. I can see how devout Christians would watch and enjoy (if that is the right word) this movie. However, I would say that anyone who takes a child to see this should be tried for neglect; the movie is bloody to an absurd degree. I would say that, simply for violence alone, this movie should have received an NC-17 rating. Whether or not the movie is a "religious experience" should have no bearing on the rating, the movie should NOT be seen by children, in my opinion. Overall, a movie that could have been interesting is marred by the violence and lack of background presented. While I have read the Bible and know the general background to the story, it would be nice if some reasons were presented as to why the Jews wanted Jesus dead. That's my two cents. And in case you're wondering, I'm an atheist, so if you want to view my opinion as biased (though I believe it is quite objective), so be it. Expand
  12. HonestRealist
    Sep 16, 2004
    6
    Anyone who gives this a 0 or a 10 is straight out prejudiced and not judging this as a movie. This movie is bloody, loud, poorly acted by extras, well acted by Caviezel and some of the women. Sets are nice, but the story lacks something. Biblical stories themselves are a "tad off" to me and more art than reality. This movie follows that Biblical pattern that doesn't relate to the Anyone who gives this a 0 or a 10 is straight out prejudiced and not judging this as a movie. This movie is bloody, loud, poorly acted by extras, well acted by Caviezel and some of the women. Sets are nice, but the story lacks something. Biblical stories themselves are a "tad off" to me and more art than reality. This movie follows that Biblical pattern that doesn't relate to the real world, even if it is 30 A.D. There is very little spirituality in this and a lot of suffering, you will not be inspired but be happy to see Jesus die. That to me is the problem with this movie, there is a B movie feel with gloss on it to make it more watchable, yet there really is no "movie", this is just a reanactment of an event. Watch it once, but I doubt it really has any lasting value except to some Christians. Expand
  13. VinceH.
    Sep 12, 2004
    5
    Yes this is a splatter expoitation flick with torture and beating scenes that are no more sophisticated, thought out, or intelligent than say any of the Japanese extremeg-gore Guinea Pig films. People argue that this is what really happened (or depending on your beliefs, pure fiction) and that Gibson is just portraying the story. I have no problem with that. Even if he wanted to make us Yes this is a splatter expoitation flick with torture and beating scenes that are no more sophisticated, thought out, or intelligent than say any of the Japanese extremeg-gore Guinea Pig films. People argue that this is what really happened (or depending on your beliefs, pure fiction) and that Gibson is just portraying the story. I have no problem with that. Even if he wanted to make us feel the pain, that is fine. The pacing and storytelling here is that of a man in complete control of the story, but that doesn't deter from the fact that by showing Christ get beaten, the whips and hammers coming down in slow motion, followed by reaction shots and eroticizing the violence, he is essentially shooting a porn film. Accept it folks. Take the same camera setups, editing, and design of the torture scenes and they are the same as a porno. This is pretty much just a porn with the sex replaced with violence. That is what I have a problem with. He is doing more than eroticizing the violence, he fetishizes it, with the crucifix being hung up on the mountain in the end the equivalent of a money shot. Anyway, this is far and away the most beautifully photographed film of the year. The lighting (esp the first 15 min), the depth of certain shots, the crispness of the dirt, really transports us to another world and place. Caleb Deschanel should win the Oscar and there should be protests if he doesn't. Francesco Frigeri's sets, Maurizio Millenotti's costumes, and John Wright's editing all deserve them as well. Expand
  14. SomeDude
    Apr 7, 2004
    4
    Bad movie, but one case where the movie was better than the book.
  15. GregA.
    Mar 31, 2004
    5
    A missed opportunity.
  16. JohnY.
    Mar 15, 2004
    6
    There were parts of "Passion" -- the flashbakcs, for instance -- that were moving and powerful. But Mel spent SO much time on the violence, the torture, the blood, which we see over and over and over and over, that any spiritual message gets lost. It would have been fine for Mel to spend 45 minutes on Jesus' last walk, but 100 minutes? He needed a more balanced narrative, one that There were parts of "Passion" -- the flashbakcs, for instance -- that were moving and powerful. But Mel spent SO much time on the violence, the torture, the blood, which we see over and over and over and over, that any spiritual message gets lost. It would have been fine for Mel to spend 45 minutes on Jesus' last walk, but 100 minutes? He needed a more balanced narrative, one that spent more time on either the psychological dimensons of Jesus' last hours, or on his teachings of love. For a better film, see Scorsese's "Last Temptation of Christ." Expand
  17. G.P.
    Mar 8, 2004
    5
    I went to see the movie, "The Passion of the Gore", flick. Oh Yeah, Jesus was in it too. English subtitles, nice foreign touch, Mel. Of course you had to keep up by reading the English subtitles even though there wasn't a lot of dialog. Mel made it easy to read with very little dialog, so there won't be academy awards for acting, I'm sure. The flogging of Jesus by the I went to see the movie, "The Passion of the Gore", flick. Oh Yeah, Jesus was in it too. English subtitles, nice foreign touch, Mel. Of course you had to keep up by reading the English subtitles even though there wasn't a lot of dialog. Mel made it easy to read with very little dialog, so there won't be academy awards for acting, I'm sure. The flogging of Jesus by the Romans was supposedly Mel's first highlight of the flick with the cross scene as the best, left to the last. Just as I thought, Mel has a passion for pain, suffering, blood, torture and now gore. He can stand tall with those great hits such as Texas Chain Saw Massacre and every horror (gorrror) flick ever done. Whether it starts a new following for Christianity will be left to be seen. I didn't come out of the theatre wanting to go to church and join a congregation. I wouldn't see it twice. Once is enough, unless you love a bloody mess to watch through over again. A sado-masochist would see it over and over I suppose. Maybe I'm too harsh. I thought it was a chance for Mel to shock the masses and rake in a lot of dough. I've read the reviews and there are many contradictions over all reviews. Almost all the reviews I disagree with as they themselves are feeding on mixed feelings that probably each reviewer is struggling with internally to try to be objective and wrestling with an entire life of what religion, Jesus and inner belief is all about going back to their birth. We try to reason out the collective stories that go back a couple of thousand of years in hopes that there is some accurate truth to all that has been written about the birth of religion without loss of this accuracy through the retelling and retelling of these stories. Hard to tell if it is accurate. So the controversy in this movie goes on about the accuracy that Mel tries to portray. All-in-all I was surprised that Mel didn't hire himself for the part of Jesus, because lets face it, Mel loves to be tortured in movies. Maybe Mel figures he couldn't get away with trying to play the part of a young man any more. I know Mel would have loved to be nailed to the cross in this movie. At least he can relish in the fact that he got to emphasize torture, gore, pain, blood and as he would call it "ART"? So go ahead and jump on the bandwagon everybody. Toss your money in the ring for the sake of this gore fest. Do you really think that you enjoyed the bloody mess? Mel, I hope you enjoy the financial security while there are people really dying out there. Hey, why don't you make a movie about Charlie Manson too, didn't he claim that he was the Messiah? Expand
  18. PrestonF.
    Mar 7, 2004
    5
    What was the point of making this well know story into a film? Granted, it was well directed and acted, still I left the theater wondering why it was made and what did a gain from it.
  19. NinjaMafia
    Mar 6, 2004
    5
    The Passion of the Christ, one of the most controversial films in the past decade. So what? The movie seems to stive on controversy, seems to pull people in just because it talks about religion. You know, I am perfectly fine with that. What I'm not perfectly fine with is how either everyone hates this movie because it seems so controversial and horrendously violent for a film about The Passion of the Christ, one of the most controversial films in the past decade. So what? The movie seems to stive on controversy, seems to pull people in just because it talks about religion. You know, I am perfectly fine with that. What I'm not perfectly fine with is how either everyone hates this movie because it seems so controversial and horrendously violent for a film about Christ, or they love it just because it is a film about Christ. They don't take in any perspective about the acting, the cinematography, or even about the storyline. Let me go off first by talking about the acting. I have to applaud Mel Gibson for choosing to make this movie in the language that they actually were speaking then. The acting gets a very strong go from me. The cinematography was also pretty great. The only thing not great about this movie was the storyline. That's right, the story about Jesus has an awful storyline. Why? Because they expect you to know the storyline beforehand. Then they think they can answer some questions about the story. But, truth be told, I found more questions coming up than being answered. Besides, I shouldn't have to know the storyline beforehand, it doesn't matter what type of movie it is unless it is a sequel/continuation of some movie. I think Mel Gibson could have easily cut down on the hour long crucification to atleast fill it in with some more story. That being said, people really need to look at this movie as an actual movie. Afterwards, they can think about the meaning of it and so forth. Just because a guy gets torn to shreds doesn't mean that there should be a torrent of emotions running from me. Overall, I don't think people are looking at this movie as they should be. Who cares if it is extremely violent and religious at the same time? The only thing I want out of it is an explanation, which it fails to give. Expand
  20. FlipperFoot
    Mar 4, 2004
    5
    Can't wait for the action fgures!
  21. Steve
    Mar 3, 2004
    6
    I saw the movie and i'm not religious.. i thought it was "ok"..kind of seemed at times it was trying to convert people like some religious people do.
  22. CameronK.
    Mar 3, 2004
    4
    Man, I didn't get it. I mean it was aight, Jesus got killed and stuff but that doesn't mean anything about 3000 miles to Graceland. Everybody says its so brutal but man did you see Final Destination 2, where was the controversy during this one.
  23. ColinT.
    Mar 2, 2004
    4
    This movie is less about Christianity than Satanism. Jesus Christ is not worshipped for his Passion today, but for his compassion. He was a human who believed that one must have love and understanding for one and all, including ones wanting to harm and kill you. To be a born-again Christian means to have love for all living beings, including your enemies. Christ was 'never' This movie is less about Christianity than Satanism. Jesus Christ is not worshipped for his Passion today, but for his compassion. He was a human who believed that one must have love and understanding for one and all, including ones wanting to harm and kill you. To be a born-again Christian means to have love for all living beings, including your enemies. Christ was 'never' angry at the people who tried to kill him, but only had sympathy for their ignorance. It seems that Mel Gibson has not understood the signifance of Jesus' words "Lord, forgive them, for they know not what they are doing". Instead of potraying the Jews who killed Christ as ignorant human beings, deserving of sympathy for their ignorance (something that Jesus himself said), Mel Gibson has potrayed them as malicious human beings, only capable of thinking evil. If this story was made in the spirit of the Christ, Mel Gibson would not try to make us 'hate' the jews who killed him, but feel as much compassion and sympathy for them, as much as we did for Jesus. In making us trying to hate a certain group of people, Mr. Gibson is accomplishing the complete opposite of trying to induce the spirit of Satan in us. Expand
  24. Triniman
    Mar 2, 2004
    6
    At times, almost unwatchable for its over-the-top savagery, this film will leave most viewers with a profound impression. Can you imagine carrying a cross up a hill after being whipped and cut up to within an inch of your life? If it were me, I would died from the severe torture. The acting was quality without being Oscar-worthy. Pontius Pilate came across as being a man of conscious who At times, almost unwatchable for its over-the-top savagery, this film will leave most viewers with a profound impression. Can you imagine carrying a cross up a hill after being whipped and cut up to within an inch of your life? If it were me, I would died from the severe torture. The acting was quality without being Oscar-worthy. Pontius Pilate came across as being a man of conscious who capitulated to the will of the Jewish leaders, who, in the film, demanded that Jesus be crucified. He seemed uneasy in discharging duties that would cause harm to Jesus. Was this historically accurate? I don't know. Gibson wanted to hammer home the point of Jesus' suffering while almost glossing over Jesus' teachings in flashbacks. I felt that the Christian message that "Jesus died for our sins" wasn't well explained. Perhaps this is a point of faith. You either believe it without question because you were told to believe it, or you don't. The Roman soldiers were portrayed as being ignorant imbeciles who enjoyed torturing people. The Jewish leaders were portrayed as being bloodthirsty. This film is not anti-semitic but I can see why some Jews would feel uncomfortable after watcing it. I'm not sure if the appearance of Satan in the film is also historically accurate. Was it mentioned in the NT or was this just Gibson taking artistic license? I wouldn't recommend this film for young children or anyone, regardless of how strong their faith is, who doesn't want to see the horrific, flesh ripping torture of a human being. Could Mel Gibson have made his point without the endless mind-numbing torture scenes? I believe yes. Others may answer this question, should this film spur the creation of other films about Jesus. The subject matter of this film is as important and significant as they get. However, subject matter alone doesn't make for a truly outstanding film. Many people will confuse the two out of sheer "faith." Expand
  25. KelR.
    Mar 1, 2004
    5
    This movie was okay. I think if you are Catholic you will like it more than protestant, but I think that anyone who believes in Jesus Christ will take something from the movie. What is surprising is the people who are "Jesus Bashing." Well, I guess this shouldn't surprise me. Basically Jesus Christ's blood was shed for US. We all deserve the most severe punishment from God for This movie was okay. I think if you are Catholic you will like it more than protestant, but I think that anyone who believes in Jesus Christ will take something from the movie. What is surprising is the people who are "Jesus Bashing." Well, I guess this shouldn't surprise me. Basically Jesus Christ's blood was shed for US. We all deserve the most severe punishment from God for the Sin's (going against the will of God) we commit. Yet, Jesus (the Son of God) accepted that punishment on our behalf, if we accept, and follow him, God will spare us the punishment we deserve if we do not we WILL suffer for those sins. This is the basic Christian philosophy. Expand
  26. DeWayneP.
    Mar 1, 2004
    5
    Depending on what you bring to this film 'spiritually', is what you will go away after seeing it. This is, I propose, is not a movie, but a picture of an event, that you may or may not believed happened. It doesn't build up a plot, it doesn't tell you about character development, it doesn't develop the relationships between the antagonist or the protaginist, it Depending on what you bring to this film 'spiritually', is what you will go away after seeing it. This is, I propose, is not a movie, but a picture of an event, that you may or may not believed happened. It doesn't build up a plot, it doesn't tell you about character development, it doesn't develop the relationships between the antagonist or the protaginist, it all assumes that you know this already from a Christian standpoint. Therefore, the storyline is sacrificed (pun intended), and you find yourself not looking at a movie that's going to explain a plot to you (as the viewer or voyeuer), but you find your self in the middle of dialogues, situations, and houses guessing with the camera angles, what is going on (if you're not biblically aware), and asking yourself who is now speaking, and their relationship they have with the characters around them. If the title didn't say Jesus & Christ, would we be more willing to say that this is a 'bad' movie? And can a Jesus move be characterized as being 'bad' without offending sensibilities? And as well as not accept the excessive violence as integral to the plot and message of the picture, not only for ourselves, but also our children who we are allowing to see it, without taking into account the affects that it would have on them after. Well, I think without it, we would... Expand
  27. RajaD.
    Feb 29, 2004
    5
    This movie was ridiculously gory. It is not your typical religious family movie.
  28. MikeD.
    Feb 29, 2004
    5
    This is not a movie-goer's movie. It is however a christian's movie. If you want a "good" movie, don't go. If you want to observe, and indeed experience, the root of the pain and solace that christians commemorate, this movie is unmissible.
  29. Movielover
    Feb 28, 2004
    6
    I'm glad they left it open for a sequel.
  30. Meat
    Feb 26, 2004
    6
    Doesn't matter if yer a Jesus Freak or an everyday plain Joe, dude said it best with "More spirit and grace and less blood and guts may be what Passion needs..." Absolutely!
  31. BudyC.
    Feb 26, 2004
    5
    Great art usually causes such reactions.or part of me likes to think this film succeeds in some way as art.BUT then i think about it.....this movie suffers greatly from mel's own beliefs and would have had a greater impact if it dared even more.no subtitles would have pushed it so much further.it would have been great if it was filmed in a sort of documentary free-handish cameraGreat art usually causes such reactions.or part of me likes to think this film succeeds in some way as art.BUT then i think about it.....this movie suffers greatly from mel's own beliefs and would have had a greater impact if it dared even more.no subtitles would have pushed it so much further.it would have been great if it was filmed in a sort of documentary free-handish camera style;the last twelve hours as seen by the people close to Jesus perhaps.there would have been NO special effects whatsoever and the movie would end as soon as life flied out of his body on the cross.the story of jesus is important not because there was a religion formed after his memory but because a human was willing to use his life(and death)as a mirror to humanity.the message was lost then and is lost now. Expand
  32. RayG.
    Feb 25, 2004
    6
    I find it interesting that the distribution of scores on this movie is definitely bi-modal. Truth in advertising: I am a non-believer, I went to this movie because of the controversy, I wanted to decide for myself. I tried to objectively rate it as a movie. On that score, I found it very uneven. I thought parts of it were very effective, but other things were not. The over use of slow I find it interesting that the distribution of scores on this movie is definitely bi-modal. Truth in advertising: I am a non-believer, I went to this movie because of the controversy, I wanted to decide for myself. I tried to objectively rate it as a movie. On that score, I found it very uneven. I thought parts of it were very effective, but other things were not. The over use of slow motion reminded me of the overuse of a tilted camera in Battlefield Earth, and the music score was heavy handed. The depiction of Satan was very creepy. It mostly reminded me of a horror movie. Which brings us to the violence. It is a very violent film, and I think that it should have gotten an NC-17 rating for the graphic violence. Now, the devout may say that this is necessary for the story, and I would agree. But I still think that it should have gotten an NC-17, just so parents would be warned that they may not want to take their children to it. I happened to listen to the commentary track of the Scream DVD the other night and after listening to Wes Craven's descriptions of the things he had to take out of Scream to avoid NC-17, and watching this movie, I have to believe that the only reason this got an R instead of an NC-17 is because it is about religion or because of Mel Gibson's star status. As for the alleged anti-Semitism - I don't really know. I think that those who look hard for it will find something that they don't like, but I didn't see anything I considered overt. Bottom line: as a movie, I'd say it was average. I don't feel qualified to comment on how effective it is in getting it's religious message across. Expand
  33. JS
    Feb 25, 2004
    5
    How on earth this story got to be made into a film I will never know. The central character "Jesus" claims he is the "Son of God" and forms a cult with his followers named ?disciples'. Except that in this cult, all the members are already poor and the leader is the only one who dies. It's almost as if someone made a parody of modern cultism where the founder is made out as a How on earth this story got to be made into a film I will never know. The central character "Jesus" claims he is the "Son of God" and forms a cult with his followers named ?disciples'. Except that in this cult, all the members are already poor and the leader is the only one who dies. It's almost as if someone made a parody of modern cultism where the founder is made out as a victim instead. I would not be surprised if production was funded by The Way or the Cooneyites or Christian Scientists. Seriously, how else could such a preposterous plot make it into production?! There is plenty more in this film that appears to be there merely to insult your intellect rather than form a cohesive story. The mother of Jesus, Mary, is called ?The Virgin Mary?; that?s right, Jesus? BIRTH MOTHER is called VIRGIN Mary! Anyway, for some incomprehensible reason the powers that be in this ?Roman Empire? ? bizarre looking people with long beards and hats - decide that Jesus has to die for saying he is the son of God (no reason why I might add). Quite clearly this film portrays a time before any real understanding of mental illness and it is here if anywhere, that the film needed to be explored further. In modern times, such a person would be met not with a barbed cat-o-nine tails, but with compassion, understanding, lithium and electro-convulsive therapy. He would be assessed as to the likelihood of his being a danger to either himself or others and if need be housed in an appropriate facility for the remainder of his life. That the film-makers decided to subject the protagonist to a series of most horrific tortures before nailing him to a crucifix to die shows just how intolerant of the mentally ill the world of this time was. Even until the end, the mutilated Jesus maintains his delusions claiming that he will be reborn after his death. What I found most disturbing about this film is that the afore-mention Mary and another character called Mary (oh come on ? couldn?t the script writers have come up with a different name?!? Gertrude for instance ? there; it only took me two seconds to think that up?) along with the Disciples appear to completely believe what Jesus is saying, even when he is half-dead and evidently suffering from extreme blood loss. Film is the domain of realism ? even fantasy films must remain rooted within some confines of realism, but to expect the film-going audience to accept that these people willingly believe the words of this Jesus character stretches the realms of probability too far. But then maybe that is point? Perhaps what this film is trying to say is that even the most incredible and far-fetched ideas have a home within the minds of the impressionable? As Hitler said, ?the bigger the lie, the more people will believe it?. Or maybe what it is trying to say is that we should look back at our own history of hatred and persecution of those that are different from us or we deem not suitable for our society and learn the lessons from our past to resolve to be even more tolerant and understand of people like Jesus rather than treat them with hatred and fear? Or perhaps the person that made this film had his own agenda and a cynic such as myself could never even hope to comprehend the meaning of this film even if he sat me down and explained it to me. If I don?t understand this film, then perhaps it was not meant for me in the first place? It could be that he made this film purely for himself and people like him and that just because I didn?t understand a single part of it doesn?t mean I should get angry with him. Well, whatever; I still think it would have been better if Jesus had a pair of nunchucks, some throwing stars and an enchanted samurai sword. Expand
  34. JS
    Feb 25, 2004
    5
    How on earth this story got to be made into a film I will never know. The central character "Jesus" claims he is the "Son of God" and forms a cult with his followers named ?disciples'. Except that in this cult, all the members are already poor and the leader is the only one who dies. It's almost as if someone made a parody of modern cultism where the founder is made out as a How on earth this story got to be made into a film I will never know. The central character "Jesus" claims he is the "Son of God" and forms a cult with his followers named ?disciples'. Except that in this cult, all the members are already poor and the leader is the only one who dies. It's almost as if someone made a parody of modern cultism where the founder is made out as a victim instead. I would not be surprised if production was funded by The Way or the Cooneyites or Christian Scientists. Seriously, how else could such a preposterous plot make it into production?! There is plenty more in this film that appears to be there merely to insult your intellect rather than form a cohesive story. The mother of Jesus, Mary, is called ?The Virgin Mary?; that?s right, Jesus? BIRTH MOTHER is called VIRGIN Mary! Anyway, for some incomprehensible reason the powers that be in this ?Roman Empire? ? bizarre looking people with long beards and hats - decide that Jesus has to die for saying he is the son of God (no reason why I might add). Quite clearly this film portrays a time before any real understanding of mental illness and it is here if anywhere, that the film needed to be explored further. In modern times, such a person would be met not with a barbed cat-o-nine tails, but with compassion, understanding, lithium and electro-convulsive therapy. He would be assessed as to the likelihood of his being a danger to either himself or others and if need be housed in an appropriate facility for the remainder of his life. That the film-makers decided to subject the protagonist to a series of most horrific tortures before nailing him to a crucifix to die shows just how intolerant of the mentally ill the world of this time was. Even until the end, the mutilated Jesus maintains his delusions claiming that he will be reborn after his death. What I found most disturbing about this film is that the afore-mention Mary and another character called Mary (oh come on ? couldn?t the script writers have come up with a different name?!? Gertrude for instance ? there; it only took me two seconds to think that up?) along with the Disciples appear to completely believe what Jesus is saying, even when he is half-dead and evidently suffering from extreme blood loss. Film is the domain of realism ? even fantasy films must remain rooted within some confines of realism, but to expect the film-going audience to accept that these people willingly believe the words of this Jesus character stretches the realms of probability too far. But then maybe that is point? Perhaps what this film is trying to say is that even the most incredible and far-fetched ideas have a home within the minds of the impressionable? As Hitler said, ?the bigger the lie, the more people will believe it?. Or maybe what it is trying to say is that we should look back at our own history of hatred and persecution of those that are different from us or we deem not suitable for our society and learn the lessons from our past to resolve to be even more tolerant and understand of people like Jesus rather than treat them with hatred and fear? Or perhaps the person that made this film had his own agenda and a cynic such as myself could never even hope to comprehend the meaning of this film even if he sat me down and explained it to me. If I don?t understand this film, then perhaps it was not meant for me in the first place? It could be that he made this film purely for himself and people like him and that just because I didn?t understand a single part of it doesn?t mean I should get angry with him. Well, whatever; I still think it would have been better if Jesus had a pair of nunchucks, some throwing stars and an enchanted samurai sword. Expand
Metascore
47

Mixed or average reviews - based on 43 Critics

Critic score distribution:
  1. Positive: 15 out of 43
  2. Negative: 9 out of 43
  1. 75
    It's a strange kind of spiritual movie -- one that aims for the gut more often than the heart.
  2. 88
    A gripping, powerful motion picture -- arguably the most forceful depiction of Jesus' death ever to be committed to film. It leaves an indelible imprint on the psyche; viewers of this movie may never look at a crucifix in quite the same way.
  3. Expertly made, thanks largely to Jim Caviezel's fervent portrayal of Jesus and Caleb Deschanel's skillful camera work. But the film contains little to learn from, unless one is unfamiliar with basic Christian history.