Cinematic violence is a subject that has been discussed a lot lately, mainly though it's been more of an argument between the factions of Religion Vs art, the Religious people reeling in horror over the release of <b>Dawn Of The Dead</b> for its portrayal of graphic violence as funny and cool, the Artistic people adamantly demanding that any director be allowed to put forth his own artistic vision and those that don't like it don't watch it, unless that film is <b>The Passion Of The Christ</b> which many of the <b>Dawn Of The Dead Fans</b> have criticized as being too violent for release. Personally I couldn't disagree more as while <b>The Passion Of The Christ</b> is a very violent film and one that no children should be present for, it's also a film that never backs away from the fact that its on screen violence is something ugly, it's designed to shock you and it can even be said that the violence has a purpose.

Let me just set one thing straight though, I am saying that the violence has a purpose, not a message. This is certainly not another <a href="http://www.epinions.com/content_118641102468"><b>Kill Bill</b></a> type film designed to glamorize violence as being cool and fun. Watching the film and being faced with the visceral shock of actually seeing the suffering of Jesus, having my own religious beliefs and witnessing the things portrayed here in such a brutal, realistic manor has resulted in an undeniably powerful film. However that power came largely from my own beliefs being confronted by certain moments within this film, it wasn't anything the film achieved alone and it certainly wasn't anything that the film as a whole achieves, it literally is just in those controversial moments.

Therein lies the problem with <b>The Passion Of Christ</b>, while it certainly holds a degree of power for anyone with a Christian belief; it ultimately fails at anything genuinely religious and certainly fails at being a well made film.

Other critics have said this and on seeing the film I have to agree, the lack of any real story is a definite problem. It simply opens in a garden with a man named Jesus praying intensely for some reason, he's upset because a group of friends are sleeping and some Devil woman seems to be trying to talk him into suicide. After that a group of militia show up to arrest him for some reason, some man he apparently knows gives him a kiss and then a fight breaks out wherein one of the soldiers loses an ear and this Jesus magically fixes it. The rest of the soldiers then beat him for this before handing him over the Romans demanding his death.

However anybody not intimately familiar with the story of Jesus is going to perceive the film as far fetched, confusing and not very emotional at all. If you're hoping to learn anything about who Jesus is then you're limited to a few confusingly placed flashbacks of him talking about peace and love. Who his family is gets limited to a few flashbacks between Jesus and his mother followed by a lot of scenes of her crying, and if you're hoping to get any explanation as to why these people want to kill him for preaching peace and love then it's just not going to happen. Most of these characters are not even named in the film, you need to observe their actions so that you can figure out who some of them are while other people of significance merely fill out the head count.

Gibson tries to make up for the lack of a story by using all of the technical tricks at his disposal. Sadly those technical tricks inevitably involve both the horrible overuse of slow motion shots and an overly theatrical soundtrack designed for a single purpose, to force an emotional reaction that his version of the story is not achieving. I honestly felt that not only did his slow motion camera work get annoying when used for everything from beatings to money exchanges, and not only did I find that the soundtrack lessened the sense of realism that was so prevalent, but I also found that both areas cheapened the brutality, made it feel more distant and so even the emotional reaction I described at the beginning wasn't a constant.

You see while there was a lot of points in the film where I (<i>and I'm stressing that this is me I'm talking about here</i>) was on the verge of tears, there was almost as many scenes where I desperately had to suppress myself from bursting into laughter inappropriately. On top of the constant slow motion sequences there was also the films treatment of the Devil as being a sinister, grey skinned, dark eyed witch like creature with maggots in her nose, snakes between her legs and deformed feet. While I can readily believe that the Devil may have tried to tempt Jesus into ending his life early I still have to laugh at anybody who would believe that taking a form so obviously evil would be likely to trick Jesus. Yet I have to remember that Gibson was probably intending to scream at the audience that this was the devil, really evil and nasty and scary merely by appearance alone. Still it was clearly obvious that Gibson wanted to make his story more commercially viable by turning it into a horror flick since he also included a completely unnecessary side story involving Judas being tormented by demonic creatures that resembled the cave troll in <b>Fellowship Of The Ring</b>. What's even more disturbing is that none of this is even close to the cheesiest stuff in the film since Gibson decided to conclude the films most emotionally resonant moment (<i>when Jesus asks John to look after his mother</i>) by literally throwing a giant tear from heaven into the mix.

Still it's not entirely fair to slate the film for being completely bad either. Visually alone the film works in that when everything is not all slow motion you are able to appreciate the scarily authentic costume designs. Whether they were the exact same clothes that people wore I couldn't say but in terms of getting the feel right they do. You wont see a single character wearing their brighter than bright, clearly uses new Daz automatic outfits that were obviously designed in the 21st century like you get in other Christian films. Instead the duller colours and slightly more ragged look has been recreated perfectly.

In terms of acting the film is also uniformly excellent. Seeing as how the cast are required to speak all of their lines in Latin, a dead language, they do manage to get some remarkable performances using their body language alone. As Jesus James Caviezel has the sense of tenderness and anguish perfected yet also managing to get his eyes burning with intensity whenever offered a way out. Monica Bellucci sensitively handles her role as Mary Magdalene despite being one of those head count characters. Yet it's the moments involving Mary, Jesus mother, that I found to be the most impressive as Maia Morgenstern's tears were so authentic, her portrayal of the anguished mother so believable that she alone managed to get a lot of the audience tears. It was her character that you ultimately found yourself empathizing with and this is largely due to what Morgenstern does with such an underwritten role.

It's just a shame that the authenticity of those 2 areas couldn't have continued on into the films writing. For all his talk about using Latin and telling the story as it happened Gibson has still shown that both biblical and historical accuracy comes second to his own religious beliefs. It's a shame because by designing the crucifixs in the shape of the letter T he shows that he did do his homework into what they really were, yet still he insists on placing Jesus on a cross without ever explaining why the Romans would keep such an unusually shaped crucifix for a person they had no idea they would be crucifying, nor why the beaten Jesus embraces this object of his own torture and talks to his father through it even though A/looking up would be easier, and B/it would have held no religious significance before his death. Other things such as the Jewish council mentioning Elijah's ascension to heaven (<i>which is another recent teaching and again would have been impossible before Jesus death</i>) prove to negate the film of any spiritual worth beyond taking in the more powerful scenes and tracing them onto your own beliefs. It's a shame because, as I said, the visceral shock of this violence should have an effect on anybody with a Christian belief and if you can stomach the violence then I assure you that the impact is undeniable. However as a film in its own right <b>The Passion Of Christ</b> is not on the better end of the scale so I can not justify recommending to anyone not of a Christian religion.

One final note would be aimed at the claims that the film is anti Semitic. This is something I would wholly disagree with since I saw the film as being as anti semitic as the average World War 2 film is anti German. The Jews that tormented Jesus were portrayed largely as they appear in the bible, including the information that everything they do is against the Jewish religion anyway. There are also instances, such as the man that helps Jesus to carry his crucifix, of Jews that were disgusted by the events. For me personally I found that in removing certain dialogue for the sake of Jewish relations Gibson has proven to take away any of the selfish motives that caused the event to happen in the first place.

<b>2.5/5</b>