Early on in the film, I was unimpressed by the characterization of the children; they seemed far too mature and “western” — they acted and spoke in ways that children their age would never do. During the bulk of the film, the oh-so-American Who Wants To Be A Millionaire setting and music killed a lot of the drama (incidentally: the game show company co-produced this film, so it’s not surprising if it feels like feature-length product-placement.) But finally, in the end, the romance just wasn’t there for me — they only knew each other as little children, and yet we’re expected to accept that their relationship is infinitely deep and meaningful. I just didn’t feel it.

You get what you would expect from Knightley — a good performance of the sort she excels at; but Fiennes impressed me more. I never really felt any chemistry between the Duchess and Charles, and that basically undermined everything for me.

4 and a half stars (out of 5)

As a film, The Passion of the Christ is an astounding achievement. I think everyone who comes out of the theatre will say that they’ve simply never seen anything like it. It’s not just a movie — that would be like comparing comic book to a Renaissance painter! Films like this are the kind of thing that lift the entire medium to a new level. After The Passion of the Christ, we’ll never really be able to look at films in the same way again — it raises the bar and leaves other films in the dust. Remember that this film has very little dialogue (and that dialogue is subtitled). All of its value is in its visuals, sounds, performances, editing. The look and feel of this film is like a Caravaggio painting, there is a palpable atmosphere that transports you to the ancient Middle-East. The soundtrack is intense and passionate as well as thoughtful and meditative, using Middle-Eastern sounds and chants to tug your emotions in all the right directions. (In fact, the first thing I did after getting out of the theatre was find a store selling the soundtrack, so we could listen to it on the drive home… it is fantastic.) … Anyway, if you’ve seen the film, you’ll know what I mean when I say it’s hard to describe it as a mere “movie.” If you haven’t seen it yet, follow this advice: don’t buy popcorn and such at the concession stand before you see this — you’ll regret it.

As a representation of the Gospels, I found the film to be far closer to the actual Gospel narratives than I had expected. He’s definitely added his own touches, and drawn heavily on Church tradition — the movie, for a Catholic, is best described as a two-hour visual Stations of the Cross. The film’s title is not just a title: it really describes what you will see. This is a film about Jesus’ Passion — from his agony in the Garden of Gethsemane to his death on the cross (with just the briefest hint of his resurrection afterwards). Jesus’ suffering is graphic and intense all the way through, and made only slightly less relentless by the brief flashbacks to other moments in his life and ministry.

This film is an unmistakably Catholic view of Jesus’ Passion. No Protestant would have ever made Mary such a bold and integral character, or portrayed her in the way that Mel Gibson does. Catholic traditions are used that would be completely unknown to most Protestants, and the unmistakable references to the Mass and Eucharist will, I think, make Protestants scratch their heads a bit it. And yet, it seems like the Protestant Evangelicals are the film’s main supporters — so hopefully it leads to some constructive ecumenical dialogue.

I think, in a way, I was fooled by the media on this one — I kept hearing people saying they thought the portrayal of the Jewish high priests was innaccurate, and that the portrayal of Pilate was innaccurate. But since seeing the film, I’ve re-read the Gospel accounts, and I find the film to be even more accurate than I initially thought. For example: the media will tell you that modern historical research reveals that Pilate was actually a brutal man who crucified people at the drop of a hat (I don’t know if that’s true or not, myself), and so they claim Mel Gibson’s portrayal — which has a more sympathetic Pilate — is inaccurate, and even “irresponsible.” And yet, when you look for yourself at the words of the Gospels, you will find pretty much the same man on the pages of your Bible as you do in Mel’s film… he really does offer over and over again to release Jesus, while the high priests repeatedly call for his crucifixion. So it turns out it’s not about Mel’s film — it’s the Gospels themselves that these people really believe are wrong.

I understand why the anti-Christian media is attacking The Passion of the Christ: it’s power is simply undeniable. Fumbling through their ammunition to fire at this breathtaking film, they’ve found one slim, warped arrow: Jews don’t like it; some may even be offended by it. To me, it’s like, “Duh!” How could any Jewish person not be offended by an honest Christian portrayal of Jesus as the Messiah who died and rose again? Of course they are going to be offended, and whenever you interview them about any Jesus film, they’re going to say unhappy things about it. Obviously! (What would a Christian say about a Jewish or Islamic film that claimed Jesus was not God? They would be offended, too!) It’s all just a smokescreen, in my opinion, and a weak one that will only fool the most gullible and religiously-ignorant. Unfortunately, that seems to be most people.

5 stars (out of 5)

5 stars (out of 5)

I own the movie (and the soundtrack), and have seen it a dozen times… and I still get teary-eyed at the scene where Douglas and Jack cry in each other’s arms… this movie rates a perfect 10 from me; I can’t find any fault with it at all.