The Passion of the Christ (Definitive Edition)  

Favorite

Rave Reviews (14)*

• 1) Incredible Masterpiece

  by Nathan Hicks on January 03 2004
    760+ helpful votes

  I had the opportunity to privately screen this movie in November in its unfinished condition. All I can say is that This movie has had more of an impact on me than any other movie ever. The film is extremely accurate in its history. It has incredible acting and it will stun you sitting there watching it. The film does has english subtitles because it is actually filmed in aramaic. But the imagery of the film definitely transcends the subtitles, even to the point where it makes sense not to have the movie in the english language. Some scenes are graphic, but not overly detailed. It will make you squirm in your seat quiet a few times while watching it. I can think of 5 times during this film where I could not hold back tears.....and i never cry during a movie.
  Overall this movie probably will not get the acclaim it deserves just because of its subject matter. But it is the best movie so far in the 21st Century. I would highly recommend this movie to anyone and everyone...no matter if your a religious person or not...Gibson does a incredible job of taking a 2000 year old story and turning it into a reality before your eyes

• 2) The reflection

  by Chuck Gray on February 24 2004
    220+ helpful votes

  When you start the movie you have the hype that has surrounded it. At the end you have the feeling that this individual loved, believed, and gave everything for his beliefs. You understand that the Jews of that society show they were like us today where a few acted as if they were the voice of the many. It is a movie that pulls at the fabric of your understanding of this horrible and painful death allowing you to understand it and what it must have been like.

  In summary it is a movie that made me reflect. It made me sad, and based on my beliefs made me proud that this individual cared for me and gave his life to set me free. It was a well done and flowed well from beginning to end. It built on itself the way a great movie should. The editing and story through the lens was exceptional. It was a great technical movie regardless of beliefs.

• 3) THE GREATEST MOTION PICTURE EVER MADE

  by anonymous on February 08 2004
    200+ helpful votes

  Although I say it is the "greatest" motion picture ever made, it is not the "best" motion picture ever made. Why is it the greatest? Impact. Of the myriad films that I have seen in my life, none has had such a gripping effect on me physically, mentally and spiritually. I left the screening with a knot in my chest. What, in fact, was the "impact?"

  Certainly the graphic scourging of Jesus Christ, one of the most painful and truly agonizing sequences in film history, has much to do with it. The brutality of the Romans, who were masters of the art of torture, is depicted so realistically (and quite probably toned down in the film) that watching it was overwhelming. This is isn't meant to be a spoiler: just put on your seatbelts when you go see this movie. And you really should see it if you have a passion for the cinema. It's an astonishing piece of work, and the acting is flawless.

  It has one weak scene that should simply be edited out: a brief flashback to establish that Jesus is a carpenter, in which he has just finished building a "modern" table, and his mother Mary says that the idea or concept will never catch on. That scene is a piece of creative license that I wouldn't have taken, although it's not entirely unforgivable. It's the film's only light moment. From there on, get ready for the most harrowing visual experience in human suffering that has ever been brought to the screen.

  [...] Returning to the film, I found the violence extremely disturbing, but not the sort of violence that would breed or encourage violence. Let me explain: the violence in this film cannot be compared to the violence in movies like XXX, for example, which is purely for entertainment purposes in that type of pop-corn flick. The violence in The Passion is not intended to entertain. I cannot conceive a child or an adolescent wanting to immitate the violence in this film, as supposedly has been the case in connection with other TV shows and movies in the past. The depiction of violence here shows the extremes of man's inhumanity to man.

  This motion picture is a difficult, painful, incredibly disturbing an enlightening experience. It took me at least a few hours to come down from its effect. Yes, it will deeply affect you, especially if you are a Christian as I am. Yet, I cannot classify it as a religious movie. It's the story of a man who preached perfect love, forgiveness, and peace, and who fell victim to envy and, consequently, was killed for no other crime than "love thy neighbor". That is the human aspect of the movie.

  There is also the spiritual: the constant emotional and psychological flogging of the devil, played by a brilliant actress whose name escapes me; the reason why Jesus, called Yeshua, allowed himself to be captured, tortured and crucified
  when, as the Son of God, he had the power to prevent what he willingly did--to sacrifice his life for the redemption of mankind; and how he stripped the devil of all power by his death on the cross and resurrection. There is much, much more, but each viewer, based on her or his beliefs, will interpret the spiritual impact of the film upon them in their own way.

  For students of film, this is a must. No movie is as powerful as this one. Period. It is a perfect example of the "power" of the seventh art, which is the cinema.

  If there is a must-see movie thus far this millennium, it is this masterpiece! Parents should take heed to the R rating!!! It's visually too overwhelming for small children. But for mature adults, highly recommended! But do fasten your seatbelts, as I said. It is one astonishing ride!

• 4) 'they've seized him'

  by John F. Frederick on December 27 2006
    160+ helpful votes

  One of the most talked about films in decades; thought I would add my 2 cents as a late entry.
  
  I think the root controversy about the film has to do with the question of whether or not it has artistic merit for a viewer without faith. I think this is a fair question, as I never really understood the idea that religion offers, so to speak, an excuse for ugly artwork. Arguably there is no such excuse, unless one of the points of religious art is to repel people who don't already share the faith.
  
  The film has been labeled violent, which it is; but unfair here has been the label that it is in some sense unusually violent. It is not. There are hundreds of films that are far more violent. Perhaps this film is even less violent than average. It is perhaps even less violent than the blockbuster version of Gandhi of some years back starring Bergen Kingsley, of which the Passion has reminded me somewhat; at any rate they are at least in the same ball park. Rather, the distinctive mark of the Passion is that it invites us to keep the humanity of the victim of violence in full view; not to distance ourselves by, say, feeling contempt or anger towards the victim as a bump-off-able bad guy, or seeing the victim as a replaceable curiosity, a dispensable nitwit. In the Gandhi movie, for example, the majority of the acts of violence are against victims who are more or less, cinematically speaking, dispensable nitwits. All we see Gandhi suffer is being shot at the end (and even that, at the beginning also, setting up a flashback)-and a few blows to the head (from which he recovers).
  
  Yet the character to suffer the violence in this film is not only the main character, it is a character who is anything but a dispensable nitwit. He is unambiguously portrayed as is in the Gospels--a perfect human being-and more: a Divine Person. No doubt faith is helpful here, but if the viewer can so much as entertain the premise as a possibility, then I would say that the movie is as beautiful as it is emotionally powerful. Yet even apart from that premise, the film also powerfully portrays deep love and friendships between human beings, which has surely a beauty of its own even under heart wrenching circumstances. Moreover, in what is surely one of, if not the most violent sequences in the film-the scourging (the soldiers carrying out the order, one in particular, wind up going over the top in enthusiasm)-we only see the victim about half the time; the rest of the time we see shots of peoples' faces, notably his friends, mostly of the face of his mother. The film does show us the anatomical side of the violence enough so that we really understand what is happening-but no more; the point is what it MEANS for it to be happening. In this film suffering is given a human face.
  
  It is quite a unique experience. First, breaking out of the package of being "mere cinema," there are two points of honesty of the film even apart from any faith claim. (1) by all serious accounts, Jesus of Nazareth was at the least an exceptional human being; yet death by crucifixion was no walk in the park. (2) by all serious reflections, in one way or another-regardless of how you slice it (whether from the point of view of any religion or from the point of view of atheism)-humanity really hasn't treated God any better than the main character gets treated in this film. This is a film which portrays God as staying with humanity despite the way it has treated him (and the way human beings have treated each other). The violence is not for it own sake; still less is it for the sake either of sadism or of a narrator stepping off the screen to address the audience with guilt trips (shaming and flagellating the viewer); it is for the sake of thoughtfully presenting this possibility in an artistic way. Second, rather that allowing the audience the space to distance themselves from characters undergoing violence, this film actually does the opposite: it prods the audience to see NONE of the characters as dispensable nitwits, not even those who are committing the violence. The anti-Semitism charge is simply a non-sequitur. It's not anti-anybody.
  
  This film firmly establishes the talent of Gibson as a director. He visually portrays what I have described without being artificial or saccharine, making use of a remarkable eye for symbolism and a good sense of timing; he plainly knows how to tell a story blending sight and sound. I will give two examples which I found especially powerful; they are even related. One is where Gibson shifts back and forth from shots of the feet of the roman soldiers standing in pools of his blood as they scourge him, to shots of the feet of the Apostles as he was symbolically washing them. The other is a subtle, nonverbal portrayal of the conversion of a roman soldier which spans in a sense the entire film. This conversion story is visually framed from the film's opening scenes when a temple guard has his ear miraculously restored after it is sliced off in a struggle by one of the Apostles. The guard remains for some time on his knees, as if so overcome by the experience he cannot move. The roman solider to be converted is subtly introduced in the next scenes (he is one of the soldiers Mary Magdalene complains to about the arrest), but we see him from time to time throughout the movie, witnessing and being influenced by various events; in a final scene, blood and water falls upon his eyes, flowing from the side of the deceased victim that he pierces with a lance (though first non-verbally apologizing to the mother; he does it merely to confirm he is dead), and he falls to his knees in a way which resonates with the action of the temple guard. The temple guard, so to speak, had his hearing restored; the roman soldier, so to speak, his sight. On the side of deep friendships, notable are the relationships between Jesus, his mother, Mary Magdalene and the youngest Apostle, John. One moment uniting this dimension to the above examples is when John stumbles and falls on his knees before the two Marys (running to them to tell them of Jesus' arrest)-to be followed by John later seeing Mary's agony as she watches her son fall to his knees as he carries the cross. The kneeling image in general is itself also framed by beautiful opening and closing scenes invoking a folding together of earth and sky (the first providing the backdrop of Jesus falling to his knees in his agony in the garden; the second entailing powerful from-the-ground-up and from-the-sky-down shots of the moment of his death on the cross). Here resonating throughout is the film's awesome musical score. I would add that the use of Aramaic in the film punctuated with subtitles was nothing less than masterful; I am not even aware of the film being in a "foreign language."
  
  Acting was good but special mention needs to go to Maia Morgenstern, who played the mother. In interviews she said she played the character from the point of view of a mother who loved her son; the result is one of the most moving and beautiful character portrayals in all of cinema.
  
  If you are looking for popcorn-eating entertainment, this is not the film to watch. (Even during gladiatorial times at the Colosseum this movie would have gotten thumbs down.) But if you are in the mood for a thought-provoking treatment of religious themes in a serious, sensitive and artistic way, then by all means see the film.
  

• 5) Superb, Albeit Quite Violent Portrayal Of Jesus' Passion

  by Barron Laycock on February 25 2004
    140+ helpful votes

  First of all, let me start this effort by saying how amazed I was by the movie, and by its sheer emotional power. It is superbly shot, the cinematography literally breath-taking in its intensity and ability to add muscular heft to the familiar story of how Jesus came to fulfill the prophecy through his divine sacrifice on behalf of all mankind. The movie-goer is sure to be transformed by the magnitude of the oft-told and retold tale of how the events of the final twelve hours focused on the ways in which Jesus deliberately serves himself up as the sacrificial lamb for the manifest sins of the world, offering all humans the opportunity to re-establish their contact with the divine from whom they had been estranged.

  Indeed, I found myself almost speechless after viewing the film, and was not quite sure to what extent it was a result of the power of the film's message as opposed to the graphically violent context in which the tale is told. Herein lies the single criticism one can level against the film, which despite many worries from bystanders that it was laced with virulent anti-Semitism, seems to clearly blame all sinners (ergo, all of us) for the sacrifice of God's son on the cross. Yet Mel Gibson's sure hand is both able and accurate, and the violence shows how carnal man greets the divine, and how we react to the message of hope and salvation; through unspeakable cruelty and gratuitous violence. So, while this is indeed a very violent movie, the murderous acts depicted quite graphically have to be taken in the context of the supernatural events transpiring, as a kind of carnal counterpoint to the ethereal repose with which Jesus bears all of the acts visited upon him. At one point He tells Mary (After he has stumbled under the burden of the cross) "Behold, mother, I make all thing anew!" This was, for me at least, a quite stunning reminder of the godly forces at work amidst all the violence and carnage.

  This is a very personal interpretation of the final twelve hours of Christ's life on earth leading to His crucifixition. From the moment it opens in the solitude of the Garden at Gethsemane, one is immediately aware of the battle ongoing between good and evil, as the devil (cleverly presented as a stunning if malevolent woman with a masculine voice) attempts to dissuade Jesus from attempting what he about to undertake. From this it is obvious He is doing this for all mankind, Jews and Gentiles alike, and that we are all to blame, through our unremitting addiction to carnality and sinfulness, for the evil manifested in the world. This is a fantastic film, one that is definitely not for the faint of heart or weak of stomach, and definitely not something I would suggest subjecting a child to. Still, it is a remarkable work, and one that deserves the very wide distribution it is about to encounter.

• 6) JOHN 3:16

  by Anonymous on February 24 2004
    120+ helpful votes

  This is a great movie, I feel bad for the customer that has gotton hate mail I belive the media has a lot to do with that and not the movie. I will pray for that customer and the family and others,

  As per the movie being in Aramaic and there being subtitles it dose not matter it is easy to follow but I found that most of the time I did not need the subtitles I knew what they were saying.

  As to the violence in The Passion as another customer said is not to entertain. but this is how is was !!! If you want to call it violence I have seen so much worse on TV think of the other movies out there that are so much worse and that is ment to entertain.

  I PLAN TO TAKE AS MANY OF MY FRIENDS AND FAMILY MEMBERS TO THIS MOVIE.

  THIS IS A MUST SEE MOVIE.
  THANK YOU MEL GIBSON FOR STICKING TO YOUR FAITH AND MAKING THIS MOVIE AND I PRAY FOR ITS LONG RUN AND AFTER THAT WHEN IT IS RELEASED ON DVD THIS WILL BE A GREAT FOR YOUR HOME

• 7) Moving

  by Anonymous on February 25 2004
    50+ helpful votes

  I truly believe that people who get "offended" by the violence shown in the movie, should go to the library and get some text on the crucifixion and other methods of torture used by the Romans. What we see is a true, accurate depiction of the horrors committed not only against Jesus but against all those who opposed the Romans. The only thing we are spared is the smell of the flesh starting to rot in the sun and the buzzing of flies ready to go for it. I think we are mature enough to watch a true, accurate depiction of the horrors of the crucifixion. If we can watch people and guts flying about in Saving Private Ryan, we can certainly watch the way Jesus and many others under Roman domination suffered and died. However, I think the reality must have been 100 times worse than what Mr. Gibson depicts in his movie. We have become very comfortable in many aspects of our life, including religion. Everything needs to be "sanitized" lest it hurts our "sensibilities". Well, you know what, Jesus died for us, for all of us, so the least we can do is endure a couple of hours of gory detail to be able to appreciate the extent of his sacrifice. The clean image of Jesus on the cross with a couple of scratches and a little drop of blood on his forehead may be very beautiful and artistic, but it is just that, an artistic representation of a horrible, cruel act. Thank you Mr Gibson for not being afraid to show a very close representation of the real suffering of our Saviour.

• 8) Don't believe the allegations...

  by __ Alessandro __ on February 28 2004
    40+ helpful votes

  The other day at work, I heard three Jewish colleagues and bosses of mine berating the film, The Passion of the Christ, and Mel Gibson as being clearly anti-Semitic. They were citing all sorts of articles from the Jewish press and added such quips as, "Before the Holocaust, there were plenty of warning signs that we did not follow. Now, before the release of this movie, there are plenty of more warning signs."

  I marvel at this pessimism. First, The Passion of the Christ is only a movie - a marvelous, beautiful, awe-inspiring movie, in my opinion - but still only a movie. Gibson is portraying the Truth as we Catholics know it to be, basing the story of the Passion on the Gospel and other inspired writings, such as Emerich's The Dolorous Passion of Our Lord Jesus Christ. Artistically, it tries to capture the realism and dynamism of the Chiaroscuro movement of such greats as Caravaggio and Gentileschi. It is violent and bloody and gory, but this is not without cause: Too often is our Lord's grand Sacrifice forgotten or glossed over - not only by Protestants but by lukewarm Catholics as well - in preference of the glory of the Resurrection. It is not uncommon to hear, "I prefer not to see my God dead on a cross," and churches (even Catholic churches) lose the Crucifix for the Cross. Well, this movie is a brutal reminder of what actually transpired; and in the words of the Pope after a screening at the Vatican, "It is as it was."

  Second, I marvel at the two-facedness of the world. When the Last Temptation of Christ came out - a movie filled with blasphemous inuendos - I didn't see anyone stop and listen to the Catholic objections to the movie. (Mel Gibson was offered to star in that movie, by the way, and he refused.) When Dan Brown's best-selling The DaVinci Code hit bookstands last year, one heard tons of hype of the 'truth' that had been 'suppressed over the years by the Catholic Church,' as if the book had revealed some great reality instead of just resurrecting age-old heresies (all of which have been shown to be in error by the great minds of the Church, such as St.Augustine and St.Thomas Aquinas) and collecting more recent New-Age-inspired conspiracy theories.... But no one gave more than a moment's notice to the Catholic defense of the Faith. Had the Catholic Church demanded that the book not be released for fear of propagating an anti-Catholicism in this world, we would have been laughed at. (And yet, that fear would not be without cause, as anti-Catholicism is truly one of the few prejudices still accepted in the world and especially in the United States. Find out how to fight anti-Catholicism at the Catholic League, www.catholicleague.org.)

  The Passion of the Christ is by no means an anti-Semitic work. It does not blame the Jews for the death of Christ - it blames mankind for the death of Christ.

  I conclude with a quote from Raymond Arroyo, one of the few journalists who has been permitted to do behind-the-scenes interviewing over the past year:

  "It is like watching a documentary by Caravaggio. The images are so vivid, and the story so familiar, that language becomes almost incidental....The violence, though intense, is never gratuitous...It rescues Christ from myth and grounds him in a reality that makes his actions more heroic..."

  This is a must-see movie for all Christians, especially during this season of Lent.

• 9) What? No uncut version?

  by Matthew VanAndel on December 05 2006
    40+ helpful votes

  This set includes two version of the film - the original theatrical cut and the less gruesome unrated rerelease (which was still technically R-rated). There's also tons of features, including commentaries, several documentaries (including a feature-length Making-Of), and production stills. Whether you own the previous release or not, this is certainly the version you need to own. Unfortunately, the "original" uncut version of the film is not included, as the MPAA forced numerous heavy cuts in order for The Passion to be released with a "mere" R rating (as opposed to a dreaded NC-17). Considering the subject matter and target audience, it's unlikely we will ever see The Passion in the form Gibson originally intended. Politics and censorship... what a shame.

• 10) Visually Stunning

  by J. Moon on March 18 2004
    30+ helpful votes

  Let me preface this by saying that I am not the most religious person out there. I actually went with the intention of being thoroughly disappointed and wanting my money back. HOWEVER, this is an artistic masterpiece. Regardless of your religious preferences, you should see this movie. Gibson relates the 12 hours leading to the death of Christ in a series of flashbacks, beatings, and stunning cinematography. His choice of doing this movie in Latin and Aramaic was correct; it would not be nearly as powerful if performed in English. The lead actor has little match with the intensity that his eyes convey. Gibson also adds nuances and flourishes to the story (the Satan character and the demons that hound Judas) that add so much to this movie.

  A lot has been written concerning the anti-semitism this movie conveys, and I'd strongly recommend that you see the movie and reserve your opinions on that until you've actually seen the movie. I don't really blame the Jews for the crucifiction, and I think Gibson utilizes the mob as a tool of Satan, and that really shows in the movie. Also, the gore is definitely present, and you should not see this if you have a weak stomach. However, it is dispersed throughout the movie, and after that first horrible whipping, you don't notice it as much. I definitely think that everyone should see this once. I don't think it has much repeat viewing value, as I was thoroughly impressed with it, but like a Schindler's List, have no desire to see it again.

  But definitely worth the price of admission. Definitely.

• 11) Compelling and powerful

  by Anonymous on March 03 2004
    30+ helpful votes

  I have always enjoyed biblical movies; The Ten Commandments, David and Goliath and so on. This new movie by Mel Gibson is excellent! So realistic! Somewhat like the great film, The Titanic, I felt like I was experiencing this in real time and witnessessing it for myself.

  Producers and directors deserve great credit for a real masterpiece of work.

  As for the controversy, a lot of people get unnerved when a movie is made about Christ. But as others have stated, this is only a movie, a very good one, but only a movie. It is not scripture, although it does bring scripture to life.

  I highly recommend the movie and glad to see that Mel Gibson is prooving himself as a director/producer, very successful at that. Mr. Gibson went out on a limb to produce this and show us his passion. Great job Mel!

• 12) We love this movie!

  by Anonymous on June 18 2004
    10+ helpful votes

  I took my wife to see The Passion when it first came out several months ago. We went to see it several times. And we just went to see it again last weekend. I can't wait for the dvd to come out. Great acting. Great producing. Great movie. I hope Mel does a sequel on The Resurection of Christ.

• 13) Went to see it again tonite!

  by Anonymous on June 19 2004
    10+ helpful votes

  I've lost count of how many times I have seen this movie, but every time is as good as the first time. Went to see this again tonite with some friends who hadn't seen it before. We went to the "cheap" theatre in our area were you can get in for $1.50. The sound system was old and this was an older theatre but the movie--THE PASSION was just as good as when we saw it in the modern theatre and paid $8.50 per person.

  I am continually astounded as to how great this movie really is. Our friends, who had never seen this before were blown away.

  Great movie. Looking forward to the DVD.

• 14) What this film is really about

  by jimmy on March 08 2005
    10+ helpful votes

  I'd been looking forward to seeing this film since the day I first read a rumour that Mel Gibson was going to do a film about the Passion entirely in Latin and Aramaic. I knew this was going to be a very special film long before it made headlines and became the centre of great and unnecessary controversy. Yesterday I was not disappointed. Josh Sewell has already put it more elegantly than I can when he writes, "I've been rendered nearly speechless... The Passion of the Christ... defies the typical 'it's good' or 'it's bad' mentality of a review. It's so visually gripping, so heart-wrenching and so emotionally draining that writing about it simply can't do it justice."
  
  The film begins at night in the garden of Gethsemane in Jerusalem. Jesus (played by Jim Caviezel, an actor I have great respect for ever since his excellent performance in Kevin Reynolds' film of The Count of Monte Cristo) is betrayed by his disciple Judas to the high priest Caiaphas and, next morning, brought before Pontius Pilate, the Roman procurator of Judaea. Originally, Gibson had intended The Passion of the Christ not to have subtitles, saying that the acting was to convey enough of the story for subtitles to be superfluous. Later he compromised and had the film subtitled. The subtitles do make the details of the story clear, so this particular compromise was not a bad decision, but I suspect from the generally quite stylised acting that Gibson still intended not to have subtitles while he was shooting. That the Passion was filmed entirely in Latin and Aramaic was a stroke of genius, and part of the great lengths Gibson went to in order to achieve a sense of historical accuracy. I certainly cannot fault his portrayal of the Romans: they do admittedly speak Latin with an Italian accent (partly because the actors are Italian, partly because they were coached by a Jesuit who presumably pronounces Latin consonants the medieval or modern Italian way), but they speak it fluently, as if it really were their everyday speech, and all of them look right and act perfectly, and their clothing, armour, weapons and hairstyles are completely accurate as far as I know. Pilate himself is actually played by a Bulgarian (which is audible in the way he pronounces the letter L) who really looks the part and manages to convey a lot of powerful emotions restrained by military and political discipline.
  
  Caiaphas demands that Jesus be executed for blasphemy. Pilate refuses but, terrified that he will have a bloody uprising on his hands which will result in his own execution on the orders of the Emperor, orders his second in command, Abenader, to have Jesus severely punished in the hope of appeasing Caiaphas. Abenader unwittingly delegates the task to a group of sadistic soldiers who cane Jesus and then, probably provoked by his incredible stoicism, scourge him. The scourging is one of the most horrific and bloody scenes I have ever seen, and rightly so. The film has been criticised for being sadomasochistic, a criticism that is idiotic. We are bombarded every day with scenes of violence intended as entertainment, desensitising us to our detriment. The Passion of the Christ shows violence for what it really is in all its true, disgusting, dehumanising horror, a horror that takes on a further dimension when I consider, through my tears, that I have just paid to watch a man being ripped to shreds while the people all around me munch loudly on popcorn.
  
  Caiaphas is not satisfied and demands that Jesus be crucified. Pilate tries one last time to avert the inevitable. He tells the mob that they can save one condemned man from execution and tells them to choose between Jesus and Barabbas, a murderer. To his disbelief the mob choose to pardon Barabbas. Jesus is to be crucified.
  
  Another criticism of the film has been that it is unrealistic in that, amongst other things, Jesus is forced to carry his cross to Golgotha after having been mortally scourged. Do I need to point out the irony here? When Jesus falls on the way and seems unable to continue, the accompanying Roman soldiers rope in the unwilling Simon to share his burden. When Jesus falls again, Simon finds that the cross the horrifically injured Jesus managed to carry a part of the way on his own cannot be born by an able-bodied (but mortal) man.
  
  Finally, the crucifixion. As Josh Sewell points out, "Most films about Jesus... make crucifixion seem slightly unpleasant". The Passion of the Christ shows exactly what this hideous form of execution really entailed.
  
  The most widespread and unjust criticism of The Passion of the Christ is that it is anti-Semitic. How anyone can make such an accusation and how anyone can take it seriously beats me. It is Roman soldiers who cane Jesus, who scourge him, who beat him, insult him, spit on him, press a crown of thorns onto his head and crucify him, all on the orders of a Roman procurator. And nobody in their right mind would ever accuse the film of being anti-Italian, just as I have never heard anyone accusing, say, Schindler's List of being anti-German or The Lord of the Rings of being anti-Orc. Ridiculous doesn't even begin to describe such accusations. Probably the only reservations I myself have against the film are that not all the actors pull their weight: in my opinion, Mary, Simon and John are all very weakly portrayed.
  
  Ultimately, The Passion of the Christ is not even a proselytising film. It is a film about the tragedy of mankind: about man's bloodlust, about his inexhaustible cruelty to his fellow man, about his cowardice, conformity and hypocrisy, about the pleasure he takes in the suffering of others, and about his fatal lack of empathy and compassion.