THE PASSION OF THE CHRIST [4-star review from Roger Ebert]

If ever there was a film with the correct title, that film is Mel Gibson's "The Passion of the Christ." Although the word passion has become mixed up with romance, its Latin origins refer to suffering and pain; later Christian theology broadened that to include Christ's love for mankind, which made him willing to suffer and die for us.

The movie is 126 minutes long, and I would guess that at least 100 of those minutes, maybe more, are concerned specifically and graphically with the details of the torture and death of Jesus. This is the most violent film I have ever seen.

I prefer to evaluate a film on the basis of what it intends to do, not on what I think it should have done. It is clear that Mel Gibson wanted to make graphic and inescapable the price that Jesus paid (as Christians believe) when he died for our sins. Anyone raised as a Catholic will be familiar with the stops along the way; the screenplay is inspired not so much by the Gospels as by the 14 Stations of the Cross. As an altar boy, serving during the Stations on Friday nights in Lent, I was encouraged to meditate on Christ's suffering, and I remember the chants as the priest led the way from one station to another:

For we altar boys, this was not necessarily a deep spiritual experience. Christ suffered, Christ died, Christ rose again, we were redeemed, and let's hope we can get home in time to watch the Illinois basketball game on TV. What Gibson has provided for me, for the first time in my life, is a visceral idea of what the Passion consisted of. That his film is superficial in terms of the surrounding message -- that we get only a few passing references to the teachings of Jesus -- is, I suppose, not the point. This is not a sermon or a homily, but a visualization of the central event in the Christian religion. Take it or leave it.

David Ansen, a critic I respect, finds in Newsweek that Gibson has gone too far. "The relentless gore is self-defeating," he writes. "Instead of being moved by Christ's suffering or awed by his sacrifice, I felt abused by a filmmaker intent on punishing an audience, for who knows what sins."

This is a completely valid response to the film, and I quote Ansen because I suspect he speaks for many audience members, who will enter the theater in a devout or spiritual mood and emerge deeply disturbed. You must be prepared for whippings, flayings, beatings, the crunch of bones, the agony of screams, the cruelty of the sadistic centurions, the rivulets of blood that crisscross every inch of Jesus' body. Some will leave before the end.

This is not a Passion like any other ever filmed. Perhaps that is the best reason for it. I grew up on those pious Hollywood biblical epics of the 1950s, which looked like holy cards brought to life. I remember my grin when Time magazine noted that Jeffrey Hunter, starring as Christ in "King of Kings" (1961), had shaved his armpits. (Not Hunter's fault; the film's Crucifixion scene had to be re-shot because preview audiences objected to Jesus' hairy chest.)

If it does nothing else, Gibson's film will break the tradition of turning Jesus and his disciples into neat, clean, well-barbered middle-class businessmen. They were poor men in a poor land. I debated Martin Scorsese's "The Last Temptation of Christ" with commentator Michael Medved before an audience from a Christian college, and was told by an audience member that the characters were filthy and needed haircuts.

The Middle East in biblical times was a Jewish community occupied against its will by the Roman Empire, and the message of Jesus was equally threatening to both sides: to the Romans, because he was a revolutionary, and to the establishment of Jewish priests, because he preached a new covenant and threatened the status quo.

In the movie's scenes showing Jesus being condemned to death, the two main players are Pontius Pilate, the Roman governor, and Caiaphas, the Jewish high priest. Both men want to keep the lid on, and while neither is especially eager to see Jesus crucified, they live in a harsh time when such a man is dangerous.

Pilate is seen going through his well-known doubts before finally washing his hands of the matter and turning Jesus over to the priests, but Caiaphas, who also had doubts, is not seen as sympathetically. The critic Steven D. Greydanus, in a useful analysis of the film, writes: "The film omits the canonical line from John's gospel in which Caiaphas argues that it is better for one man to die for the people [so] that the nation be saved.

"Had Gibson retained this line, perhaps giving Caiaphas a measure of the inner conflict he gave to Pilate, it could have underscored the similarities between Caiaphas and Pilate and helped defuse the issue of anti-Semitism."

This scene and others might justifiably be cited by anyone concerned that the movie contains anti-Semitism. My own feeling is that Gibson's film is not anti-Semitic, but reflects a range of behavior on the part of its Jewish characters, on balance favorably. The Jews who seem to desire Jesus' death are in the priesthood, and have political as well as theological reasons for acting; like today's Catholic bishops who were slow to condemn abusive priests, Protestant TV preachers who confuse religion with politics, or Muslim clerics who are silent on terrorism, they have an investment in their positions and authority. The other Jews seen in the film are viewed positively; Simon helps Jesus to carry the cross, Veronica brings a cloth to wipe his face, Jews in the crowd cry out against his torture.

A reasonable person, I believe, will reflect that in this story set in a Jewish land, there are many characters with many motives, some good, some not, each one representing himself, none representing his religion. The story involves a Jew who tried no less than to replace the established religion and set himself up as the Messiah. He was understandably greeted with a jaundiced eye by the Jewish establishment while at the same time finding his support, his disciples and the founders of his church entirely among his fellow Jews. The libel that the Jews "killed Christ" involves a willful misreading of testament and teaching: Jesus was made man and came to Earth in order to suffer and die in reparation for our sins. No race, no man, no priest, no governor, no executioner killed Jesus; he died by God's will to fulfill his purpose, and with our sins we all killed him. That some Christian churches have historically been guilty of the sin of anti-Semitism is undeniable, but in committing it they violated their own beliefs.

This discussion will seem beside the point for readers who want to know about the movie, not the theology. But "The Passion of the Christ," more than any other film I can recall, depends upon theological considerations. Gibson has not made a movie that anyone would call "commercial," and if it grosses millions, that will not be because anyone was entertained. It is a personal message movie of the most radical kind, attempting to re-create events of personal urgency to Gibson. The filmmaker has put his artistry and fortune at the service of his conviction and belief, and that doesn't happen often.

Is the film "good" or "great?" I imagine each person's reaction (visceral, theological, artistic) will differ. I was moved by the depth of feeling, by the skill of the actors and technicians, by their desire to see this project through no matter what. To discuss individual performances, such as James Caviezel's heroic depiction of the ordeal, is almost beside the point. This isn't a movie about performances, although it has powerful ones, or about technique, although it is awesome, or about cinematography (although Caleb Deschanel paints with an artist's eye), or music (although John Debney supports the content without distracting from it).

It is a film about an idea. An idea that it is necessary to fully comprehend the Passion if Christianity is to make any sense. Gibson has communicated his idea with a singleminded urgency. Many will disagree. Some will agree, but be horrified by the graphic treatment. I myself am no longer religious in the sense that a long-ago altar boy thought he should be, but I can respond to the power of belief whether I agree or not, and when I find it in a film, I must respect it.

Note: I said the film is the most violent I have ever seen. It will probably be the most violent you have ever seen. This is not a criticism but an observation; the film is unsuitable for younger viewers, but works powerfully for those who can endure it. The MPAA's R rating is definitive proof that the organization either will never give the NC-17 rating for violence alone, or was intimidated by the subject matter. If it had been anyone other than Jesus up on that cross, I have a feeling that NC-17 would have been automatic

The most significant event was not how He died but that He died.

The fact that he was humilated, tortured and executed in the worst way possible is a very vital lesson.

Loving others is a verb, it almost always takes sacrifice. From a woman working to make her family a meal to martyrs dying for their flock. When Christ asks us to love thy enemy, he literally showed us how it's done in the most extreme fashion.

If he could be ripped to shreds, nailed naked to a piece of wood and laughed at, we can surely put up with insults on an internet forum, forgive our family members for slights and take slaps in the face in order to bring a little more love to the world.

How he died was prophecy and extremely vital.

Isaiah 53:5 But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed.

Psalm 22:16 For dogs have compassed me: the assembly of the wicked have inclosed me: they pierced my hands and my feet.

I think the movie will be a powerful expression to those "sitting on the fence". I think many people will feel the need to make a life-changing commitment after seeing the movie, especially those people who consider themselves Christians but have never experienced what it means to be a "new creation" in Christ. We live in an image-centered society and this is the perfect vehicle for that group.

But in reality, it's a fictional account of an actual event. I'm just one of those people who can't "get into" a movie because I know that. I see a movie every 10 years or so. Prior to Jonah, the Veggietales movie, the last movie I saw in a theatre was Moonraker.

To tell a secret, I'm badly claustrophobic. That's probably one of the driving reasons to stay away, at least for a while. Don't tell anyone.

It is incredibly graphic, bringing every horror of the indecency and brutality of man into perspective. The treatment of Jesus is demonic in it's cruelty; gratefully the screenplay shifts back to earlier parts of his life to give the viewer some relief, then jars you back into the suffering as the humiliation continues. It may be too much for younger viewers to handle. I know it riveted me to my seat. You know you're watching a movie, but it is as real as being there, it's shocking.

I don't see it that way. His suffering lasted a few hours. But He left Heaven to come to Earth to Save us. Jesus CHOSE to die for our trangressions. He didn't need to do it and we sure didn't deserve it. I can see how people need to see that in video form but I don't think it can be fully understood.

People can understand a policeman or soldier dying for them. But Jesus' sacrifice dwarfs that by a factor of many times.

I would like to see people's reactions to the scorn heaped upon Jesus in the movie. I was in that crowd(figuratively).

None of us can redeem himself, for we are all sinners; children of the fallen Adam who bore his seed after his kind, and that kind was a spiritualy dead man, estranged from God and under penalty of death. To demonstrate his profound love, mercy and compassion, God allowed his Son to be born without a physical human father, allowing him to be both sinless and human. He would taste death for everyman by being a substitute, justifying the holiness of God, wiping away the penalty for our sins in his own body. This means that a holy God is righteous to forgive you for your sins, another having taken your place, releasing you from your debt.

It would be far more cruel of God to leave us in the fallen state that we are in. This is especially true if you understand that we are spiritual beings, eternally created for everlasting fellowship with God. How could he NOT redeem us?

Can someone answer something for me?In the movie,Satan is shown to be a woman,correct?You know.Black robe,pale skin,shown moving slowly through the crowds and is also at the garden while Jesus prays.

Is this something unique to Catholism?Mel called her something,but I can't remember what it was.Is she indeed portrayed as Satan or is this a demon?

I noticed the the movie reviewers for the ultra liberal LA Time, SF Chronicle, and NY Times all panned the movie and particularly the violence. They were right in lock step with the political position of the their various newspapers. They would not want to offend their bosses by praising anything Christian.

This is why I don't read Tomas Paine. Many will not understand this movie and I pray many will ask questions to try to understand this event.

Real love sacrifices. A mother will sacrifice herself that the child might live. A father will go to war to defend his family and his country. Christ sacrificed himself (knowingly) that we might live.

This is true heroism and those who spit on this, spit on Christ himself. But Christ says these words from the Cross "Father, Forgive them, for they know not what they do"

This is amazing to me, what this movie bring out. Who would have through a movie critic like Roger Ebert would have ever thought of saying or writing something like this. I pray that this movie will move our Nation to repentance and and humility, that God would forgive our reckless arrogance and defiance of His word and grant us healing as a nation.

We truly stand upon the brink. We have spat at the 10 Commandments, refused to let children pray to God, and now want to forsake marraige here in the United States. May the Lord grant true repentance and a complete turn around to Him before it is too late.

Ebert says: "The Middle East in biblical times was a Jewish community occupied against its will by the Roman Empire"

Well, now, he must have this wrong. Wasn't it a "Palistinian community" being taken over by Jews? </sarcasm

I feel there is too much temptation to make Jesus more "customer friendly".

Like "Buddy Christ".

The film "Dogma" was theologically disgusting, however, the criticism of the direction of many churches was definitely valid.

The amazing thing about this too is that he was a carpenter. He was used to carrying beams from horse or carriage to whereever he was building something. Imagine doing that all day long, year in and year out. JC was a man of strength not some skinny weak wuss as He has always been portrayed. He was know weakling. Most of us would have given up and let them beat me to death. He fought himself to keep going because He knew what He had to do. He was determined to accomplish.

Jesus said,"And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto me." Our generation is seeing Jesus lifted up from the earth, being drawn to the cross to make our decisions, who do we think the Son of man is. He is putting the question out in front of the world, and the response to that question is life or death. Yes, it is just a movie that Mel Gibson desired to make, but the decisions that are made as we view this picture of the Christ, are answers to a question put forth from God.

I would like to understand this about the event: If Christ sacrificed himself (knowingly) that we might live, then why did He question God's Will when He said: "My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?" If He knowingly knew what He was doing in sacrificing Himself, then he had no reason to question why He was being forsaken. How could Jesus believe that He was being forsaken, yet Christians believe that he WASN'T forsaken, and that it was all part of God's plan? If Jesus knowingly sacrificed so that others might live, then he already knew why God wanted Him to die. So why did He question God? Apparently he did NOT knowingly sacrifice Himself so that others might live. He did not understand the divine mission He was fulfilling while He was on the cross.

These are the words of Jesus.

Matthew 20:28
"For even I, the Son of Man, came here not to be served but to serve others, and to give my life as a ransom for many."

John 10:18
"No one can take my life from me. I lay down my life voluntarily. For I have the right to lay it down when I want to and also the power to take it again. For my Father has given me this command."

I've always believed Jesus's suffering was so great that in the last few moments, He so longed for just one moment of God's mercy, one touch of His Presence, that he cried out in extremis before He died. Jesus was the Son of God, but also Mary's son and human. Because of His suffering and death, we're all redeemed children of God. He gave us the keys to paradise. What a blessing. What a gift.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.