two interesting reviews of the Gibson movie . . .

yeah, they're from the NY Post, but they're both well thought out and articulated . . .
---------------------------------------------------------------------
from critic Lou Lumenick . . .

http://www.nypost.com/movies/18807.htm

In his admirable ambition to go beyond Hollywood's previous bland and sanitized depictions of Christ's Passion, Gibson - whose canon from "Mad Max" on exhibits a sadomasochistic streak and who boosted the depiction of realistic onscreen mayhem to another level with his Oscar-winning direction of "Braveheart" - has pushed the envelope too far.

The relentless violence is so difficult to watch - even for a hardened critic like myself - that it ends up overwhelming Gibson's movie.

This R-rated epic is wildly inappropriate for children, as well as posing problems for adults with normal sensibilities who may have trouble enduring a seemingly endless sequence where Christ is brutally scourged by sadistic Roman soldiers (a couple of lines in the Gospels, 15 minutes on the screen), as well as a sickening, blood-spurting crucifixion scene that makes Martin Scorsese's "The Last Temptation of Christ" look like a Sunday school picnic.

(snip)

"The Passion of the Christ" aspires to greatness and occasionally achieves it, but Gibson's willful blindness to the larger implications of his work is somewhat reminiscent of Leni Riefenstahl - the brilliant German director who never saw anything wrong that her masterpiece, "The Triumph of the Will," was a celebration of Adolf Hitler.

- more . . .

http://www.nypost.com/movies/18807.htm
-------------------------------------------------------------------
and from critic Jonathan Foreman . . .

http://www.nypost.com/movies/18806.htm

Many of mankind's most beautiful and ennobling artistic achievements depict or were inspired by the crucifixion. Mel Gibson's "Passion," though well-acted, technically impressive and initially moving, is for the most part not beautiful and certainly not ennobling.

Indeed, it is overwrought, sadistic way beyond the point of overkill, and oddly, spiritually dry given its subject. But then, unlike the great Passions of the past, it is a product of a distinctly perverted sensibility.

(snip)

And for a sense of the real power relations between Romans and Jews, this "Passion" gives the high priests and a small crowd of people in Jerusalem much more influence on their Roman overlords like Pilate (in real life a brutal tyrant) than they could possibly have exercised.

"Monty Python's Life of Brian" offers a more accurate guide.

- more . . .

http://www.nypost.com/movies/18806.htm

this must be it.

both were sickened by the gore...said it was the most violent,bloody movie they'd ever seen. I understand some fundie parents are going to take their children to see this...maybe some of the same ones who freaked out about Janet Jackson's breast.
I know I won't be seeing it...I'm very squeamish.

anything can be taken out of context . . . and the violence and suffering of the crucifixion has no meaning if it's divorced from the Christian message of love, compassion, and forgiveness . . . without a context, the movie is just ugly and violent . . .