Response to Horard Schumann's review
I agree with your reading of the movie and would describe it very much the same way; in fact I have (http://www.chrisknipp.com/writing/viewtopic.php?t=267). It would be a shame if James Cazievel's performance lacks conviction because he apparently is a passionate "fire and brimstone" Catholic (whatever precisely that means) and his shared beliefs with Gibson are obviously one of the main reasons why he is in the role of Jesus Christ. It may be that it's simply impossible for Cazievel to have "presence" under the brutal circumstances of the way the movie is staged and shot. He seems to have produced a heroic physical effort, and suffered a dislocated shoulder during the filmiing, I seem to recall. The role was an ordeal. I recommend to anyone seeing the gentler, more truly "Christian" cinematic version, Pier Paolo Pasolini's "Il vangelo secondo Matteo" (Gospel According to Saint Mathew) from 1964 in black and white and otherwise restrained from gore and excess. It's a bit odd; Pasolini's movies always are. But his use of post-neorealist methods lends a simplicity and authenticity to the production that is very touching. Have you ever seen the bumper sticker, "How would Jesus drive?" Well what would Jesus drive? Would he drive a Mercedes SUV with supercharger and 4-wheel drive like Gibson's film, or would he drive a little 1960's Citroen 4C? I think the latter.
I have been told by an friend who's a Catholic priest in Istanbul that Pilate is a saint in the Armenian church; for, obviously, his attempt to prevent Jesus from being killed; and my clerical friend points out that Pilate is not as negative a figure in the Christian tradition as some of us have been led to believe. I think anduril may have given information on this earlier. The good father also has told me that Gethsemene is traditionally linked with the Garden of Eden, hence the logic of having evil snakes present.
I agree that Maia Morgenstern is excellent, though I find the flashbacks sketchy and sentimental.
YOu describe the role the movie is likely to play and the general philosophical and religious issues very well, as is usual in your writing. In my case this movie has only heightened my sense of the combativeness of the three major monotheistic religions and put me off sympathizing with any of them, for the moment anyway. It's really been a huge turnoff, and in that sense it has had the powerful effect it seeks, but the wrong one.
One can't certainly avoid getting extensively involved in theological issues in discussing any film on this topic, and we have done so. But we shouldn't ever forget that this is a movie and can be judged on how it suceeds as one. In that essential context the cheesy quality of the subsidiary characters, many of whom appear to be standard-issue Cinecittą heavies, is ultimately damning to the quality of the movie, despite all Mel Gibson's personal millions spent. I can think of a lot of ways he could have spent his money better to accomplish Christian goals.
The Passion of the Christ
It was totally life changing for me! It was very touching! I am very religious & I thought it was great. The graphics were very well done! Perfect!