The Passion Of The Christ (2004) 1/2 *

Directed by:  Mel Gibson

Starring:  James Caviezel

This is a tough film to review because I have to judge what I see on screen and understand the intentions behind what's there.     The Passion Of The Christ is simply too hard to watch.    I understand the film is a document of what happened to Jesus as he was led to his crucifixion, but is it possible a film can be too detailed?    Do we really need to see Jesus enduring the most horrific of torture before finally being nailed to the cross?   How many bone crunches. whippings, beatings, and blood spurts can we endure before we cry uncle?     I'm supposing this violence is somehow supposed to be more meaningful because it's Jesus enduring this torture, but that leads me to wonder:   If this film were about anyone else going through this, would there be a reason to watch it at all?   Regardless of any religious implications or intentions, The Passion Of The Christ is a high-budget snuff film.

This is where things get murky.   I'm not opposed to violence in films.    It's really all about context and how something is shown to me.    Someone gets shot or blown up and I don't think much of it in some cases.    Some films present this artfully and as entertainment, other films do so in ugly, overblown fashion.    Each film's violence is judged on its own merits.    It's a fine line that occasionally gets blurred.    Taking The Passion Of The Christ on its own merit, I think it's a depressing, sad film.     I also understand that films have different goals when it comes to reaching their audience.    What does it want to say?   It's only reason for existing is to show, as brutally as possible, a man being decimated.     I was unable to take anything more out of it.    If Mel Gibson's goal was to have the viewer truly understand what Jesus went through when he died, well, thanks but I wouldn't mind more being left to the imagination.

Others may likely get more out The Passion Of The Christ than I did.    That's certainly a personal, subjective view and people experience films in different ways.      I could discuss the performances, the visual look, and the pacing, but those are not really relevant when discussing unyielding brutality.   I simply failed to see what Gibson had to say about Jesus' death.    He showed it in almost loving detail, but since nothing else of substance goes on, what we get is documentation and not an actual moviegoing experience.   Perhaps Gibson's goal was to starkly show Jesus' passion and let the viewer decide what he/she feels.     That's up for speculation.

I don't know what led to The Passion Of The Christ being made.   The film grossed over $600 million at the domestic box office and Mel Gibson staked some of his money to it.    He certainly believed correctly that the subject matter would be something audiences want to see.    I saw it on home video and found myself weary and bored after about one hour.    I watched Jesus cruelly dismantled in escalating fashion.    I realized that because a film on this subject and portrayed in this fashion could be made, but should it be made?    It's up to the viewer to decide that.   Me?  I say no.