While I have some issues with the obviously biased comments of the author (the concluding line--"There will always be some who do not like the movie ? but they probably didn?t like The
Book either."--being especially arrogant), the violence was the one thing in the movie that I did like. Gibson's legacy with this film should be that he is the first person to depict Jesus' death with even a relative amount of accuracy.
My criticism generally has to be the unnecessarily long presence of Satan (not Biblically supported), the fact that the film assumes a high amount of knowledge before actually seeing the film, as they skip over lots of names (a cinematic no-no, generally speaking), and the fact that plot is virtually non-existent.
In terms of morbidity, some of the "blame" has to be cast on Catholicism, which traditionally defines the Passion even more narrowly than Gibson portrayed it, as shown in the
Stations of the Cross, which start with Jesus being condemned to death and ending with Jesus being laid in the tomb. If you do pay attention to the film, you'll realize that Gibson is retelling the Passion, according to these traditional Catholic guidelines.
With that in mind, I can, at least, respect the film a bit more. I mostly wish that the film didn't have so much ideological baggage surrounding it (i.e., screenings organized by proselytizing church groups and charges of anti-Semitism), so that people could potentially judge this film on its merits, rather than being judged as being a good or bad Christian on how you respond to it.
After all, such judgments and arrogant comments run antithetical to true Christianity, leaving whatever you feel about this film a moot point.
Melon