From a creative point of view, it is no more original than any other recreation of a historical event.
Then you know nothing about movies and what it takes to translate words onto the screen in visual terms. For instance, the film had to have a location. Where do you find a Jerusalem of the first century? Do you build it on a back lot? How much of Christ's past life should intrude on the Passion itself as flashbacks to relieve the tension that inevitably builds--and how should these scenes be intercut? Gibson wanted his film to look like a Caravaggio painting--what cinematographer had the talent to achieve this look? What about the decision to have the actors use Aramaic, instead of English? Gibson knew that actors going around speaking English would lessen virisimilitude--it was a brilliant touch and put the film in a unique category, making it accessible to every country in exactly the same way. He used the scene at the Garden of Gethsemane and had it echo the Garden of Eden, Genesis, chapter 3, in which the Temptor tempts Eve and then Adam. Gibson plays off this comparison and has Jesus stomp on the head of a serpent--as God had promised Adam and Eve that enmity would be placed between their seed and the seed of the serpent, thus heralding the film's theme of triumph over the Fall of Adam and Christ's victory over Satan--taking a theologically abstract idea and making it amazingly vivid and cinematic. And on and on--I've only scratched the surface, really--Gibson took 30 million dollars and made a film that looked like at least a hundred million. That in itself was remarkable.