While I'm sure some people might say they "like" this film, I find it hard to believe anyone could claim to "enjoy" watching it. I watched it in the theater when it was originally released, but I never had much interest in watching it again. Since I'm currently watching Mel Gibson films, I thought I'd go ahead and give it a re-watch, but I have to admit it was difficult to watch.
If you look at it cinematically, it's interesting. We have some color saturation. The Garden of Gethsemane scenes are in blue. Most of the "Jewish" scenes are drained of all color except for browns and other darker colors. The "Roman" scenes "pop," slightly, with red. And take a look at Jesus's (Jim Caviezel) left eye. Usually in films, it's the blue eyes that get oversaturated, but here we have a rare example of brown-eye over-saturation.
I did forget a few things from the original viewing: 1) Satan is with Christ in the Garden, but he also pops up now and then throughout the movie. (Is he isolated and be punished after Christ dies?) We also get a jump scare and a weird, unexpected monster baby, just to keep things interesting, I guess. 2) We get a few Jesus flashbacks, not all Biblical. Yes, the expected Sermon on the Mount and the Last Supper, but also one of Jesus making tables and having a nice moment with his mom.
To be honest, I understand what Mel Gibson is going for in the way he develops the story, but 99% of the people in the film came across as brutal and immoral. They laugh and they whip and they pound in the nails, and they throw stuff. No one offers the least bit of help, or even sympathy (or empathy). Once in a while, a character might have an "aha" moment that, "Hey, that guy really is the savior," but why should that even matter? I mean, was there absolutely no human decency 2,000 years ago? If you see a man brutalized, do you just applaud and laugh and join in? That doesn't mean that I would expect everyone to come to Christ's rescue, because he wouldn't have wanted them to anyway, but I find it unbelievable that there weren't people around who were "decent," and you'd think more of them would be shown in the film. Otherwise, wouldn't we have to say that Christ's 3-year mission was a failure? Where were all the people he taught? All the people that received miracles? We keep hearing people ask Christ to prove himself and what he can do, but honestly, doesn't he have thousands of people in the local area that would be around to vouch for him. And even if they weren't willing to step up and defend him in the moment, wouldn't enough of the people in the Jewish community at least know the stories and know the people? The way the story is told, you get the feeling that the Jewish leaders really do think they are doing the right thing. And so does Christ by saying, "They do not know what they do."
In his original review, Ebert gave the film 4 stars, noting that it was the most violent film he ever saw. He spends a couple of paragraphs explaining why he doesn't think the film is anti-Semitic, and notes that he assessed the movie based on what he thought Gibson was trying to accomplish through his use of graphic violence -- violence that should have earned the film an NC-17 rating.
Well, because all of the Jews in the film seem bloodthirsty and into Christ's crucifixion, I'm not sure how you could conclude that the film is not anti-Semitic. Really the only person that comes off as not horrible is Pontius Pilot (Hristo Shopov). Of course he has self-serving reasons, and he's a coward... but he had no bloodlust to kill Christ, and he went out of his way to find a solution that didn't involve crucifying him.
I thought some Letterboxd reviewer was trying to be funny by saying that there was a sequel coming, but that's actually true. May 2027 will see The Resurrection of the Christ, part 1. And part 2 is scheduled to come out May 2028. It's funny to me that IMDb says the plot for both movies are "under wraps." I wonder why the sequel took so long? They kind of tease it with the ending of this movie, with Jesus "teleporting" out of his shroud, and then we see the close up on the hole in his hand, and a naked Jesus (slight butt shot) exiting stage right.
As for my rating, I think the violence was excessive for sure. There might be 30 minutes of plot here. Everything is lingered over and drawn out. It also made me think about who the audience for this movie is: It's for people that already know the story of Christ's crucifixion, right? All it's doing is focusing our attention on the extreme violence. What does this particular focus accomplish? I don't know. It's amazing how much pain and suffering humans can inflict on other humans, and it's also amazing how much pain and suffering one human can endure. If Jesus Christ is an immortal being, and the son of God no less, then any amount of suffering her endured in human form doesn't really matter, does it? It's horrible, but the suffering will be over in the blink of an eye. But maybe the "visualization of the suffering" is simply a metaphor for something greater than the literal pain inflicted upon him. Maybe it's the visualization of him taking on all the sin and suffering of humankind?
Ultimately, I can't give the movie 4 or 5 stars, because it's pretty one-dimensional and doesn't change anything I already thought going into watching this re-telling of Christ's last moments on earth. But, I do like it well enough to give it a fairly neutral 3-star rating because Caviezel puts his entire self into the role.
Rating: 3/5 stars
Comments
Post a Comment