|
|
|
| HOME | REVIEWS & RATINGS | BEST & WORST | FAQ | CONTACT | LINKS | FUN STUFF | POSTERS | DVDs |
| "Survey says...." Click here! And put in your two cents worth! |
I need to start this review with a disclaimer: I'm an atheist. You might wonder why I even bothered to go see The Passion of the Christ. I went for several reasons:
For those who don't know, The Passion of the Christ is a portrayal of the last hours of Jesus of Nazareth, from his capture to his crucifixion (by the way, I don't consider any of this information to be a "spoiler"). There's also about 30 seconds devoted to his resurrection, but it seems to be an after-thought. The film has been surrounded by controversy from its inception. People have accused Mel Gibson of being anti-semitic, saying that the film blames Jesus' death on the Jews. Personally, I did not find the film to be anti-semitic. If anything, the film is anti-roman. Romans were caricatured as evil and sadistic people, with the notable exceptions of Pontius Pilate and Claudia Procles.
However, the question people should ask of this movie is not whether it portrays the Jews in an unflattering manner, but rather "what is the point of this movie"? Don't get me wrong, I'm not against religious films (one of my favourite animated films is The Prince of Egypt), but they must have at least some value. When Gibson decided to focus only on Jesus' torture and crucifixion, he took away all the potential value of the story. If the content of this movie had been the conclusion of an 8-hour story focusing on the life and teachings of Jesus, I would have no complaints, since the violent scenes would help deliver the message that Jesus didn't die in vain. But as it stands, the film is closer to meaningless violence (not unlike Quentin Tarantino's Kill Bill) than it is to meaningful religious history.
There are actually a few flashback scenes of Jesus preaching to his disciples and followers, but they are very brief and feel more like The Bible for Dummies than like an integral part of the story. That's too bad, because those scenes are beautifully shot and give a hint of what Gibson could have delivered had he chosen to tell the full story of Jesus. Despite these major shortcomings, The Passion of the Christ is still an interesting film in some aspects. I was absolutely delighted to hear Aramaic and Latin instead of English. Some films would be greatly enhanced if they used the appropriate language for their setting (Chocolat is a classic example of this). I am also thankful that Gibson didn't stick with his idea of letting the film "speak for itself" and not have sub-titles. That would have been commercial suicide.
Adding to the authenticity of the film is the work of production designer Francesco Frigeri, costume designer Maurizio Millenotti (both of whom worked together on Malèna and The Legend of 1900), and set decorator Carlo Gervasi (Titus, La Cage aux folles). Had it not been for their artistic direction, combined with the cinematography by Caleb Deschanel (The Right Stuff, The Natural), Mel Gibson's project would have been a total waste of my time. Unfortunately, there's not much that can be said about the actors' performances, except maybe that they know how to cry and shout in agony. I know that James Caviezel (The Count of Monte Cristo, Frequency, Pay It Forward) is a good actor, but it would hard to tell from this performance, since he has few scenes that do not involve him being in excruciating pain. Mel Gibson has said that he wanted this movie to be "shocking" and "extreme", and that he wanted to "push the viewer over the edge". Braveheart was also shocking and extreme in its violence, but at least it told a story. If Gibson is not careful, he will suffer from the popular-actor-with-a-directorial-hit-turns-preachy syndrome (Kevin Costner, anyone?).
Of course, Gibson may not give a damn, given that he stands to make hundreds of millions of dollars from his $30 million investment. The film has already made more than $300 million at the box office and that doesn't include the revenue from DVD and soundtrack sales, as well as from merchandising. Yes, you've read that correctly. Gibson is selling officially licensed products. If I were him, I'd be worried about that whole "Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image" commandment. It's bad enough that James Caviezel was struck by lightning during the shooting. Overall, The Passion of the Christ is a mildly interesting film, but I doubt it will stand the test of time. It's too violent for kids, and it doesn't teach you anything about religion (except maybe that people will often do and say horrible things in the name of their so-called "peaceful" religion). If you really want to see a film about Jesus, I recommend the 1977 Jesus of Nazareth TV mini-series, directed by Franco Zeffirelli. Reviewed on March 21, 2004 |
|
|
| ABOUT MOVIECRITIC.CA | AWARDS | FAQ | CONTACT US | PRIVACY POLICY | USER SURVEY |
|
This page was last updated on: Wednesday, 24-Mar-2004 13:04:32 CST © 1998-2004 Luc-Rock Paquin. All Rights Reserved. All movie images © by their respective owners. Used with permission. Before "borrowing" something from my site, please ask me. "Reel Canadian Movie Critic" logo by FranclyGraphic.com. 
|
