Wow, you don't often see reviews this passionately disparate and disparately passionate, and the line - I guess predictably - seems to be drawn between believers and nonbelievers:
- "One of the cruelest movies in the history of cinema," says the New Yorker's David Denby in a negative review that also calls the film "a sickening death trip, a grimly unilluminated procession of treachery, beatings, blood and agony."
Critic Denby adds, 'For two hours ... we watch, stupefied as a handsome, strapping, at times half-naked young man is slowly tortured to death. Gibson is thoroughly fixated on the scourging and crushing of Christ and is so meagerly involved in the spiritual meanings of the final hours, that he falls in danger of altering Jesus's message of love into one of hate."
As for whether the film is anti-Semitic, Denby said it "confirms the old justifications for persecuting the Jews."
Daily Variety's reviewer Todd McCarthy was more positive about the film, saying, "If an age produces the renditions of classic stories that reflect those times, then 'The Passion of the Christ,' which is violent, contentious, emotional, extreme and highly proficient, must be the Jesus movie for this era.
"It is also gravely intense and the work of a man as deeply committed to his subject as one could hope for or, for that matter, want.... (The picture's) notoriety might soon be mitigated for mainstream audiences by word of mouth centered on the prolonged suffering and very vivid gore; at the same time, many true believers ... will be deeply moved. ..."
McCarthy rejected the idea that the film was anti-Semitic and added, "The passion according to Mel is potent stuff, but rather like a full course of bitter herbs without as much as a taste of honey."
The Chicago Sun-Times' Roger Ebert and Richard Roeper called "The Passion of the Christ" a "great film" and gave it a "Two Thumbs Up" in their weekly syndicated series "Ebert & Roeper."
"It's the only religious movie I've seen, with the exception of 'The Gospel According to St. Matthew' by Italian director Pier Paolo Pasolini, that really seems to deal with what actually happened," said Ebert.
"This is the most powerful, important and by far the most graphic interpretation of Christ's final hours ever put on film," said Roeper, adding, "Mel Gibson is a masterful storyteller, and this is the work of his lifetime."
Newsweek's David Ansen said, "Relentlessly savage, 'The Passion' plays like the Gospel according to the Marquis de Sade. The film that has been getting rapturous advance raves from evangelical Christians turns out to be an R-rated inspirational movie no child can, or should, see. To these secular eyes at least, Gibson's movie is more likely to inspire nightmares than devotion."
Article comments
1 - Chris Kent
I suppose ever since Sam Peckinpah shocked the world in 1969 with his masterpiece The Wild Bunch, the art of splatter and gore has become a part of mainstream culture.
Violence as art in today's films is nothing new, and has certainly been carried to new levels by the likes of Martin Scorsese, Walter Hill, John Woo, David Cronenberg, Brian De Palma and Quentin Tarantino.
But has the level of violence socially acceptable in today's R-rated films ever been applied to subject matter as serious as The Passion of the Christ? Is this a good thing? Has our civilization moved forward culturally by producing such a violent work about such a sacred subject?
Of course, they were saying the same thing about Peckinpah in 1969 following The Wild Bunch. His rage-filled work has since become one of the great achievements in cinema history.
I still think Gibson's directing talent has the depth of a good Bronx cheer, but I shall go see his film and decide for myself.
2 - Particleman
I personally don't 'get' any of this. Making movies about religious events that no one can really prove or disprove either way seems to be treading on unstable ground. These movies should be viewed as strictly fiction and evaluated as such. In addition, doesn't it cheapen the religion to package and sell it, to glamorize it, to dramatize it? Is the basic story itself not enough to move and inspire those that believe it?
This is obvoiusly coming from a non-Christian, but I'm still skeptical about movies made about relgious events that are supposedly factual in my religion. If an individual is tailoring these events for the big screen, i don't see how one could NOT remain skeptical.
So many degrees and years of translation can only have a deteriorating effect on the accuracy of any story, factual or not. From hebrew to aramaic to latin to greek to whatever, and then to Mel Gibson, all in just under 2000 years.
I seem to have strayed from the original topic of the movie itself... my bad. Either way, I think i'll pass on this one...
3 - mike
WHIP IT
DEVO
crack that whip
give the past the slip
step on a crack
break your momma's back
when a problem comes along
you must whip it
before the cream sits out too long
you must whip it
when something's going wrong
you must whip it
now whip it
into shape
shape it up
get straight
go forward
move ahead
try to detect it
it's not too late
to whip it
whip it good
when a good time turns around
you must whip it
you will never live it down
unless you whip it
no one gets their way
until they whip it
i say whip it
whip it good
4 - Chris Kent
I STILL think that's the greatest song about Cool Whip ever written!
5 - Alex Knapp
I'm agnostic, and I think this was a great film.
6 - faith
very intense movie