When "The Passion" was out 2 years ago Ann and I were with our newborn son and could not go. At some later point she went alone, and I never saw the film till much later, when I rented it on DVD.
Come to think of it, there was a hesitation to watch it on my part and the circumstances played to the hesitation. The reason is that I knew enough of the film to realize that it is not a narrative movie like some others, but rather, exactly as you say, an experience. And I saw that as a problem. My visual imagery of Christ comes from Christian art, the icons and medieval western art. The experience of the Passion, on the other hand, is the experience of the Holy Mass, without cinematographic environment, of course. Together, the traditional art and the Mass form a perfect whole and I was afraid that the movie would damage that whole.
It did not do that at least on the DVD, which is a testament to Gibson's tact of approach: he managed not to displace a single well-ingrained traditional image and instead added his own imagery: the closeups of the flagellation and the nails, the hermaphrodite Satan, Pilate and his crew, etc. The intense serenity of Mary preserving her Son's blood added to our theological sense of her as the First Chruch and did not compete with Mary the Theotokos. The crucifixion by Mel blended in with others, like this slightly overdone
Simon Vouet, 1622
It did not penetrate my consciousness as much as the mass-produced Crucifix in my church does. I have to conclude that film, perhaps because of its tactile impact, does not really penetrate the mind as deep.
This is one image movies can't beat:
Crucifix with Scenes of the Passion
Italy, Pisa, 13th century
c. 1230-1240
For good measure
Rublev, late 14th century Russia