The Passion of the Christ (2004)

Director:

Mel Gibson

Writers:

Benedict Fitzgerald (screenplay) and
Mel Gibson (screenplay)

Release Date:

25 February 2004 (USA)

Genre:

Drama

Tagline:

By his wounds, we were healed.

Plot:

A film detailing the final hours and crucifixion of Jesus Christ.

Plot Keywords:

Jerusalem | Trial | Judas | Roman | Last Supper

Awards:

Nominated for 3 Oscars. Another 17 wins & 10 nominations

Cast

James Caviezel	...	Jesus
Maia Morgenstern	...	Mary
Christo Jivkov	...	John
Francesco De Vito	...	Peter
Monica Bellucci	...	Magdalen
Mattia Sbragia	...	Caiphas
Toni Bertorelli	...	Annas
Luca Lionello	...	Judas
Hristo Shopov	...	Pontius Pilate (as Hristo Naumov Shopov)
Claudia Gerini	...	Claudia Procles
Fabio Sartor	...	Abenader
Giacinto Ferro	...	Joseph of Arimathea
Aleksander Mincer	...	Nicodemus (as Olek Mincer)
Sheila Mokhtari	...	Woman in Audience
Lucio Allocca	...	Old Temple Guard

Also Known As:

The Passion Recut (International: English title) (cut version) (USA) (recut version)
The Passion (USA) (working title)
The Passion of Christ (USA) (working title)

MPAA:

Rated R for sequences of graphic violence.

Runtime:

127 min | 120 min (cut)

Country:

USA

Language:

Aramaic | Latin | Hebrew

Color:

Color

Aspect Ratio:

2.35 : 1

Sound Mix:

DTS | Dolby Digital | SDDS

Certification:

Portugal:M/16 | Japan:PG-12 | Australia:M (edited version) | China:(Banned) | South Africa:16LV | Argentina:16 | Australia:MA | Brazil:14 | Canada:13+ (Quebec) (edited version) | Canada:16+ (Quebec) | Canada:18A | Chile:14 | Denmark:15 | Finland:K-18 | France:-12 | Germany:16 | Hong Kong:III | Iceland:16 | Ireland:15A (edited version) | Ireland:15PG (original rating) | Ireland:15 (video rating) | Italy:T | Malaysia:(Banned) (except for Christians) | Mexico:C | Netherlands:16 | New Zealand:R15 (edited version) | New Zealand:R16 (original rating) | Norway:15 | Peru:14 | Philippines:PG-13 | Poland:15 | Singapore:M18 | South Korea:15 | Spain:18 | Sweden:15 | UK:15 (re-rating) (edited version) | UK:18 (original rating) | USA:R (original rating) (certificate #40366) | USA:Unrated (edited version)

Filming Locations:

Basilicata, Italy

Company:

Icon Productions

Trivia:

At actual Roman crucifixions, the nails were driven through the wrists and not through the palms as in the film. The structure of the hand is not strong enough to support the weight of the body and the nail would have torn through between the fingers. However, the Christian tradition shows the nails as driven through the palms. In the Bible, the nails were said to be driven into the hands of Jesus. Medically, the hands include the wrists. - Edit: Recent study of ancient crucifixions have revealed that it is likely that the nails were in fact driven through the hands as opposed to the wrists. The hands have a nerve running through the middle of them that would have caused unbelievable amounts of pain when the nail was driven through. To support the body's weight, ropes were tied at the wrists and the elbows to tie them to the crossbeam, then the legs were broken causing the weight of their body to pull on the upper body, eventually resulting in death by slow suffocation.

Goofs:

Continuity: As Jesus carries his cross, the blood on the cross disappears and reappears between shots.

Quotes:

[first lines]
Jesus: Peter. You could not watch even one hour with me?

Movie Connections:

Referenced in "Saturday Night Live: Annette Bening/Gwen Stefani/Akon (#32.8)" (2006)

Soundtrack:

Azeri

The Gospel According to Mel Gibson- a tedious exercise in sadism

It's difficult to fully review a film like The Passion Of The Christ without establishing and stating one's own beliefs,or not,as the case may be. However,in the end,The Passion Of The Christ is a FILM,and deserves to be judged as such. The Last Temptation Of Christ,The Gospel According To St Matthew and even The Greatest Story Ever Told were good films. The Passion Of The Christ is a bad film. It's a one-note exercise in sadism,a masochistic vanity project which doesn't even bother to get it's facts right {for instance,Jesus has nails hammered through his hands instead of,as we all know happened,his wrists. Why? Presumably it was thought to look nastier}.

What is Mel Gibson trying to say with this film? Presumably "you think Jesus suffered,well you ain't seen nothing yet!",which is a simplistic approach in the extreme. In detailing the immediate events leading up to Jesus' death,the film has a narrower focus than most films of this subject. This could have still worked reasonably well as a film,however Gibson focuses on the violence more than anything else and the film becomes monotonous in the extreme. The sequence where Jesus is scourged by the Romans,for instance,we see him beaten 10 times,yes,that's nasty,20 times,that's even nastier,30 times,hang on,we get the message and this is losing it's impact. Similarly,Jesus falls down so many times whilst he is carrying his cross that it almost becomes,dare I say it,laughable. One starts to wonder Gibson's intentions.

The film has been well liked by many Christians,so clearly Gibson has struck a chord,but he forgets that many non-Christians would be seeing the film,and he doesn't bother to explain a great many things to those who are not knowledgeable with the story,nor does he attempt to explain to non-believers why Jesus really did what he did. The film has a cold,distant feel about it,and combined with the endless sadism,it becomes difficult to care or even sympathise with Jesus as portrayed in this film. Many Christians would disagree with this,of course,and maybe Mel did intend this film for them almost exclusively,but he must have known that making such a controversial film would attract many people to see it,regardless of their beliefs.

However,it needs to be said. This is a dreadful film. Brief flashbacks to earlier bits in Jesus' life do not break up the monotony. Appearances by the Devil and his minions do achieve this,but they seem to be from a completely different film,and further destroy the film's supposed 'realism'. Most of the film is subtitled,but some of it isn't-why? Slow motion robs some scenes of their potential power,in fact,you'd think this film was directed by Michael Bay,considering it's sledgehammer direction. The acting is mostly laughable,except Jim Cavaziel as Jesus,but all he really has to do is react to being flogged,kicked,crucified,etc. John Debney's music quickly becomes annoying and makes some bits look even more like being part of a pop-video. The film is not really anti-Jewish,but changes characters at will,for instance Pontius Pilate is actually a 'pretty decent guy'.

However,the film's biggest miss-step is at the end. After two hours of brutality,Gibson does not even bother to show us the resurrection except for a brief shot of Jesus standing by his tomb. One would think we would have deserved to see more considering what we have previously witnessed,and after all,the resurrection is as important a part of the story. But no,that's it,and all that remains is a nasty taste in the mouth as it shows that all Gibson was really interested was Jesus's suffering.

This film has meant a lot to many people,and that's a good thing,but a bad film is a bad film,no matter what. Hell,Braveheart was a lot better....