The Passion of the Christ

2004

Action / Drama

229
Rotten Tomatoes Critics - Rotten 49%
Rotten Tomatoes Audience - Upright 80%
IMDb Rating 7.2 10 195961

Synopsis


Uploaded By: OTTO
Downloaded 252,287 times
May 11, 2012 at 06:03 PM

Director

Cast

Monica Bellucci as Magdalen
Jim Caviezel as Jesus
720p.BLU
750.62 MB
1280*720
English
R
23.976 fps
2hr 7 min
P/S 7 / 151

Movie Reviews

Reviewed by littlefi 10 / 10

The cause of confusion

I've seen a lot o people talking trash about this movie - even a lot of christians -, and I find it hard to understand why. Philosopher Peter Kreeft called it the "most beautiful movie ever made", and when I think about it in the light of the Christian faith, it's hard to disagree.

First of all, passion means suffering, and for all those people that complain about the violence in the movie, I think it's because they don't get Christ's Passion at all. The emphasis on violence is fundamental, as it's what reveals how much God suffered because of what I did. So I, the spectator, am experiencing with all my emotions what I can only imagine and reflect about when reading the Gospels. And I'm not the kind of person that reads about Jesus crucified and direct relates it to all the bad things I did to contribute to that moment, and even when I do, it's more like in a lucid, almost indifferent way, while the movie forces me to feel the burden that I've put on My Lord's shoulder.

This is of course from my Christian perspective, and I wouldn't even try to talk about what's great in the movie from a secular perspective. The lens through which one watches it it's what define its greatness. And that lens is faith. So I really don't think it's a big deal if an atheist doesn't like it; but if a catholic doesn't like it I'll be confused.

The way Jim Caviezel plays Jesus is so powerful. He seems very humble, very vulnerable, very soft, yet very strong and confident. When he talks to the people, you feel so much goodness in his tone; when he is accused of blasphemy you can feel his innocence even if nothing is spoken. When he is carrying the cross and falls, Mary runs to him and it's such a symbolic scene of how much she loves her Son, and how much she wants His suffering to end, even though she accepts the will of God.

Mel Gibson did a great job with all the symbolism in the movie: Mary's obedience; Judas' desperation; all the people shocked by Jesus' mere presence. There's so much of it, and it feels so natural.

I can only assume that christians that don't like The Passion of the Christ are those that didn't actually take their time to think about the Passion of Christ. The movie is a chance to do so. It's ugly and repulsive? Yes, but only for a moment. When you realize that it captures the essence of God's love for humanity, it becomes eternally beautiful. Jesus didn't have to do that. He did because of me, because of you; because He is the good shepherd that lays his life for the sheep.

So what if the reality of the Passion is full of gore and tears and injustice? We are the cause of that, and sometimes we better realize it by having it thrown on our faces, however hurt we may end up feeling. Just remember that our pain is nothing compared to our Lord's pain. I can only speak for myself when I say that my love for my Savior is very small; but I know very well that He loves me with a heart that is ready to bleed without hesitation, even though I'm not worth it.

Reviewed by sweety2011 10 / 10

an honest review about this controversial film

it seems as many reviews on here aren't reviewing the film but are reviewing it's topic, which depicts the last days of Jesus, and therefore there are different opinions based on their religious or non-religious views, or based on the brutality in which this film portrays the crucifixion of Jesus like they think it is trying to brainwash the viewers into becoming a believer/Christian. this film isn't about any of that.

it attempts to be different than other films about Jesus in its portrayal, as others depict his life in English, a language not used amongst them, and using whips as scourging rather than a Roman flagrum, which is similar to using a cat o' nine tail. as great there have been films to illustrate Jesus' life, such films as Jesus Christ Superstar, The Gospel According to St. Matthew, The Greatest Story Ever Told, Jesus of Nazareth, The Messiah, Jesus (with Jeremy Sisto), to name a few, they never went to such lengths as this film went. is this film better for it? that's debatable, but something I am in favour of, and here's why..

I went to view this film with my sisters as soon as it hit the theaters here, despite my mother's disapproval. she had heard of the woman who had a heart attack and died, at the scene of Jesus' scourging, and has never seen this film as a result. when viewing the film, one can see why. some scenes are hard to take. Mel Gibson went through quite an effort to research the Aramaic language, one that has been lost for quite some time, and it's understandable that someone would think it not accurate. however, no other filmmaker has attempted this, and at the same time, a film that also features Hebrew and Latin combined, as the languages were at the time with the Jews and Romans. as mentioned earlier, the film also uses the Roman flagrum, and that's where the brutal scene is. we see skin falling of James Caviezel's back when they scourge him, and with that, a lot of blood. it's a hard watch, but a realistic one at that. along with this, we also see sightings of the devil as told in the bible, and the events of Judas after he wants to take back what he said, which after the refusal, it is said that he went crazy, started to see things, and hanged himself. the film shows he being tormented by the children, and we also see him hanging himself to the point he is hanging. the scene that impacted on me the most is when Mary (Maia Morgenstern) and Mary Magdalen (Monica Bellucci) are left to clean up Jesus' blood. for me, that was the hardest watch, as I truly felt sympathy for Jesus' mother, and was drawn to tears. I didn't know if it was just me crying at that scene, but as I looked around the room, I did not see anyone who was not crying. everything else in the film, it didn't affect me because I was prepared for it. James Caviezel is great as Jesus, and I rather liked the performance Hristo Shopov gave of Pontius Pilate, and Giacinto Ferro gave of Joseph of Arimathea, and that of John and Peter (Christo Jivkov and Francesco De Vito). the overall cast were quite perfect for their roles really.

For me, this film is a true gem, and it's one that is loved by my dad, my sisters and I alike. so much so, that since its release in 2004, we haven't missed a year of viewing this film, as it is a film we watch every good Friday. I especially love it because it skips right to the final days, rather than retells Jesus' life, as that does get repetitive-seen it all before. Finally a film that is brave enough to go that extra mile.

Reviewed by efenster-2 10 / 10

This picture did what it was intended to do.

A lot of critics I have heard disliked or even dismissed this movie. They seemed to think that the movie should have focused on Christ's ministry and his teachings, and not on the crucifixion and the events leading up to it. These critics miss the point of this movie. As with all movies, The Passion was directed at a target audience, in this case Christians. The point of the movie was simply this: to make Christians understand, in a visceral way, what they knew intellectually from reading the bible: that Christ endured a horrible and brutal death in order to save us from our sins. It was completely successful in this, and was, perhaps, the most powerful movie I have ever seen.

Read more IMDb reviews

20 Comments

Be the first to leave a comment