Reviews

"The Life Aquatic" is a righteous mess of a movie. Less a coherent piece, and more a series of vignettes loosely tied together by a rough sketch of a plot, the film is so hit-and-miss that it is nearly impossible to give a basic opinion on it. In the end though, it holds ones interest, (mostly) justifies its length, and is overall entertaining and charming, almost in spite of itself.

This is certainly the weakest of Anderson's films. Yet, a bad Wes Anderson film is still better than a lot of filmmakers' best films. And "Life Aquatic" isn't by any means BAD. What sets this one apart from his other three gems is that while his films very much create their own world, they contain characters and events that keep them just this side of total inaccessibility. That really isn't the case with "Life Aquatic"... it's a major plunge off the deep end. In addition, the artistry of his trademark melancholic humor is lost here; where his films have previously managed to explore the humorous aspects of the tragic ("Royal Tennenbaums" really perfected this), "Life Aquatic" just alternates between tragedy and comedy without ever finding any real balance or sense of congruency.

The comedy definitely works better than the tragedy in this film. At times, it even seems that incredibly dark plot twists are included only to reach a punch line. For example, a violent pirate attack puts Steve's entire crew in great peril, yet the scene turns outright hilarious when Steve grabs a gun and goes on a rampage shooting all the pirates, all the while wearing a Speedo. Other highlights include the goofy keyboard music piped into the diving helmets, the albino scout dolphins which Steve can't manage to ever get to go scout, and the theft of all the on-board equipment of a colleague. Another humorous element is how unbelievably ridiculous all the computer-generated sea creatures look. Seriously, it looks like they were designed in MS Paint, printed off, then pasted on top of the film. I don't mean this as a criticism... I'm sure the effect is intentional, and it is definitely amusing.

I'll be honest: thematically, I have no clue what is trying to be expressed with this film. Perhaps Anderson means this as a commentary on film-making in general. Maybe knowing there was no real way to follow up a masterpiece like "Tennenbaums" he just decided to make a film so insular that it only has meaning to him. Maybe the entire meaning of life is being revealed in this movie. Regardless what the idea is, I'm missing it. And ultimately, the movie didn't really make me want to care. Many elements of the plot indicate that some profound message is trying to come through: the death of people near and dear to Steve, the wrangling with the idea of a father/son relationship that begins when the son is 30, the mid-life loss of former glories. Yet, the presentation of all these elements is so totally incoherent that it doesn't really encourage the viewer to sort through this mess to discover the meaning.

I also have not figured out exactly how the music choices even remotely fit with the film. Much of the soundtrack consists of glam-era Bowie classics played on acoustic guitar and sung in Portugese... no, I'm not kidding. Why? I have no clue, but it is sort of fun to hear, and a nice testament to the talent of David Bowie that all these melodies are instantly identifiable even in such radically reworked form.

Ultimately, "The Life Aquatic" fails to really accomplish much of anything other than be bizarrely quirky and hilarious, which it is frequently. There's nothing wrong with making a film that is only these things, it's just that much more is clearly intended, and those elements unfortunately fall flat. Nonetheless, it is a quality piece of entertainment, well worth the cost of admission, and is certainly unique. In short, it is neither as good or as bad as anyone says it is.

Score: 6/10

So it was with much trepidation and even utter fear in my heart that I went to see this movie. After all, the last time I went to see a full-length adaptation of a favorite Christmas story, what I got was Ron Howard's absolutely God-awful "The Grinch". Having grown up with the book "The Polar Express" (according to my mom, I cited it as my favorite Christmas present when I was seven), I did not want to see this story bastardized in any way. Honestly, I was prepared for "Polar Express" to be a complete wreck. But instead…

It soared. Completely. What makes the film such a success is not so much even the story itself, but an execution which somehow manages to inject every frame of the film with a feeling of childlike wonder and exuberance. In addition, there are so many clever touches and details added throughout that a feeling of mystery and excitement just fills the viewer. Among these are the waiters dancing and singing while serving hot chocolate to the kids on the train (a very funny scene, as well), the factory where the presents are prepared, and a ghost-like hobo who is never really explained, but is incredibly crucial to the feel of the film. At one point, three of the children wander lost through the empty streets of Santa's North Pole town. As they wander, various old Christmas recordings are heard playing on phonographs throughout the town. The music provides a pleasant and nostalgic ambiance to the scene. It's touches like this that absolutely make the film.

I'll never understand why films seem to be required to be at least 90 minutes long. I would pay money to see a 40-minute film, as long as it were good. And even if it sucked, I would have at least wasted less time. What I'm getting at is I have no idea why a 32-page picture book needed to be a 99-minute movie. What this means is that the original story is VASTLY expanded upon. However, what is added in actually fits quite well with the essence and spirit of the book. Some of it is just sheer entertainment; the train track is like a roller coaster, characters ski on top of the cars, danger lurks around every step of the journey to the North Pole (but admittedly fun danger). Other aspects further illuminate and expand upon the book's basic theme of the virtue of belief in the implausible. So I have no idea why this was made into a full-length, but in the end, I'm glad it was. It didn't even feel too long (and I think everything is too long).

Much criticism has fallen on the look of the characters in the movie. I can agree to a point. While there is incredible visual detail in the faces, they usually seem void of expression. In general, a lot of the motion seems rather wooden, as well. The scenery, on the other hand, is gorgeous. Overall, the minor problems in animation (which really boil down to a matter of taste anyway) are certainly not enough to diminish what is an overwhelmingly successful movie. Score: 8/10

Okay, so let's get the bad news out of the way first. 'The Incredibles' does not touch 'Finding Nemo' in terms of greatness. The sheer beauty and ingenuity of that film is the type that comes along about once every fifty years, so perhaps it's unfair to compare. One of the key differences is that while 'Nemo' is very much a timeless tale with universal themes, 'The Incredibles' is very much of a particular time and place, that being modern America.

Indeed, Pixar has surprisingly managed to create one of the most socially relevant films in a year where nearly every film released attempts to be socially relevant. 'What?' you ask. 'Isn't this a cartoon and aren't cartoons for kids?' Actually, this cartoon isn't so much for kids, at least not very young ones. Excessive violence abounds and the villainy is actually threatening in a life-or-death kind of way. There has certainly never been another animated film with Disney's name on it that was as violent or as dark as this. Besides the content, the ideas and themes of the film really suggest an adult target audience.

So yeah, the kids sort of get left out here, but man, are the older folk in for a treat. At its core, 'The Incredibles' is a well-pointed satire of mainstream American life and the cultural standards that are imposed upon this nation's citizens. Within the first ten minutes, the film is depicting a man in midlife crisis and a family filled with discontent and dysfunction. As I said, this IS satire, so these problems are greatly amplified by the fact that this entire family consists of natural-born superheroes. What makes the film so poignant however, is that it not only depicts the problem, but delves deep into examining why it exists. Bob Parr sits at a cubicle all day and is forced to deny insurance claims to as many people as possible. This is what he spends his time doing, yet he is capable of not only being a truly productive member of society, but of achieving great good in the world. Hits a bit too close to home, doesn't it? In fact, the film shows each of its main characters shoved into a role of mediocrity where their real talents and potential go unused. This is bad for them, and it's bad for society as well. They are unable to give back to the world via the gifts they've been born with and they are unhappy in being forced to simply live standard lives. Indeed, 'The Incredibles' more than any other film in recent memory addresses the problem of a culture that tends to look down upon any individual talent, unless that talent involves the exploitation of someone for economic gain (see Bob's insurance job).

Greatness isn't allowed in this society. In fact, it is so forbidden that superheroes are outlawed altogether, after a rash of lawsuits over collateral damages… the most hilarious of which is from a man who sues over a broken leg which is incurred while he is rescued from a suicide attempt. So all superheroes are forced to live the normal, domestic lives that bore all the rest of us to tears. Of course, 'The Incredibles' isn't necessarily a dark film. In fact, once the members of this family are allowed to embrace their talents, the bonds between them rapidly flourish. So is the root of family dysfunction found in the decision to do what society seems to approve of rather than what natural talent dictates? It's an interesting question to ponder, and one which will certainly be pondered by anyone who sees this film.

Outside of theme, the execution of the movie in general, is quite excellent. Pixar has an incredible knack for picking up extraordinarily well-written scripts, and this is certainly no exception. The satire never gets in the way of an exciting story (which is all the more exciting due to the depth of the characters). In fact, I would go so far as to say this is one of the better action films I've seen. The vocal talents are great… all of them, so I won't bother mentioning just one or two names. And of course, the animation is absolutely first-rate. Even if someone could somehow hate everything else about this movie, he would have to admire it for the sheer brilliance of its visuals. Seriously, wow!

Of course, 'The Incredibles' is not without its flaws. The latter third of the film consists entirely of the family struggling and battling super-villain Syndrome. It's not that this section is poorly done; it just seems a bit incongruous with the rest of the film, as much of the satire is lost here. Syndrome himself is a problem, due to an overall lack of originality… he and his giant volcano hideout feel way too copped from about every James Bond film. While we're at it, the final battle of the Incredibles against Syndrome's giant evil robot seems to go on much longer than necessary, perhaps because we see Mr. Incredible battle the exact same robot an hour earlier.

Of course, these are nit-picks in what is overwhelmingly a very funny, exciting, and even poignant film. Score: 8/10

In a word, stunning.

Bob and Charlotte are Americans in Tokyo. Much of the movie is atmospheric and devoted to giving the viewer the feeling of being lost and horribly out of place. Indeed, that's certainly the way Bob and Charlotte seem to feel. However, that out-of-place feeling runs much deeper for them than simply being strangers in a strange land, unable to communicate with virtually everyone around. The setting serves as both the wake-up call and the parallel to the deeper lost feeling which plagues them, that of being lost within their own lives. In a person's familiar homeland, it is so easy to draw superficial parallels between oneself and observed strangers, perhaps ignoring a glaring difference. However, in a strange land where the person is completely unfamiliar with the culture and the lifestyle, it is hard to attempt to make any connection whatsoever to people observed. Those people seem to be comfortable, if not happy. They're fairly content, situated in their lives. Some even seem to have a spiritual balance. Yet, both Bob and Charlotte don't feel they have any of this. They don't know what they want out of life, but they know they don't have it. Their lives are empty, and the drastic change in their surroundings makes them realize, probably for the first time, how terribly lonely it feels to live in a world where every other person seems to be able to make sense of life, while they can't.

As I said, many of the scenes in the film are simply atmospheric. Others serve to reveal great depths about the characters. Bill Murray and Scarlett Johansson are stunning in such scenes. Without speaking, both manage to allow the audience a peak inside these characters by simply reacting to what they observe. The best example is when Charlotte watches a wedding from afar. Her gaze betrays so much… her idealized perception of how beautiful marriage can be, but mostly her mournfulness that her own marriage is so distant from that.

Other short scenes are comedic. Sure, some of them don't really serve to move the story forward, but Ms. Coppola is smart enough to know that tender laughter goes down so smooth with such a large dose of melancholia. Murray provides most of the laughs here, particularly in the scenes where he shoots his whiskey ads. A night out on the town with resident friends of Charlotte also provides some lighter moments, including a toy-laser gun chase out of a club and down the streets. This takes us into a karaoke scene, in which countless things happen. The overall partying and drunken renditions of songs is fun and hilarious. However, it's also here that the bond between Bob and Charlotte really begins to grow. The musical selections also are interesting in terms of what's going on between the two characters. From an audience standpoint, the scene is particularly noteworthy for Johansson's rendition of the Pretender's classic 'Brass in Pocket'. She is a goddess and here she creates what may be the sexiest sixty seconds in film ever.

Speaking of music, it plays a crucial role in this movie. The song choices throughout, underscore both the melancholy and the ethereal elements of the film. The strongest selection, though, has to be MBV's 'Sometimes' which plays as the cab takes the very drunken Bob and Charlotte through the city and back to their hotel on their night out. The visuals of the bright city lights passing by through the car window are an amazing visual for the song, just as the song perfectly captures the feel of the entire film.

Of course, the relationship between Bob and Charlotte gradually grows, resulting in the film's very few multi-minute scenes. These scenes stand out boldly from the very short snippets that make up more than half the film, and for good reason. The night-out segment is lengthy, and very important. It builds the foundation for the couple's relationship. The centerpiece of the film, then, has to be the conversation the two have on Bob's bed late one night. Here the theme of loneliness and discontent is laid out plainly. 'Does it ever get any easier?' asks Charlotte, without assigning any specific subject to her 'it'. 'No. (pause) Yes,' replies Bob. Perfect.

Within several days these two make each other feel things they never knew they could feel and have things they never even knew they wanted. Certainly, both are unhappy with their marriages, yet one of the great accomplishments of the film is making the audience sympathetic to that unhappiness without condescending to either of the spouses.

Of course, such good things must end eventually. The goodbye is gut-wrenching. Never before has the closing of an elevator door wreaked such havoc on my psyche. Of course, that isn't the finale. Bob finds Charlotte again, but the way that scene is handled is just too perfect to spoil here. Suffice it to say it stays very true to the spirit of the film: sad, yet hopeful against all odds.

I love 'Lost in Translation'. However, I can't really recommend this movie to everyone. For those who need hugely dramatic moments in their movies and themes that are explicitly stated, this is the wrong choice. This film is for the open-minded, for those who appreciate subtlety, for those who obsess over how the small details in life affect everything. It isn't hard to admire the craft and beauty of this film and to be generally entertained by it. However, the emotions portrayed in it feel so personal that it's probably hard to LOVE this movie without really relating to it. Don't worry. NOT relating to it can't be a bad thing. It probably means you're well-adjusted, somewhat content, and at least have some clue what it is you want out of life. For the rest of us though, this film absolutely means everything. Score: 10/10

"Collateral" is basically a strong movie. The action sizzles, particularly in a wild showdown scene in a dance club. The acting among the film's two leads is top-notch, and the dialogue is thoughtful, original, and often thought-provoking. Why then, was there just a hint of disappointment lurking in my head while watching it?

One issue might be that the other Mann-directed films I've seen are near perfect, particularly "Heat". Yeah, speaking of "Heat", "Collateral" has very much the same feel as that masterwork (Cops and criminals in L.A., lots or aerial shots, villains who demand the audience's respect). Yet "Heat" was a film that completely blew a hole in the wall engulfing the field of cops-and-robbers crime movies. "Collateral", on the other hand, feels a bit more resigned to its genre. No matter though, as suspense/thrillers go, this is among the best.

Why, you ask? For one thing, the story is good. While the action propels the film, the focus of the story is basically on cab driver Max (Jamie Fox) and how the traumatic experience which hit-man Vincent (Tom Cruise) puts him through impacts his character. In addition to the good storytelling and well-drawn characters, the film is full of interesting ideas. While I wouldn't call "Collateral" a philosophical film, questions posed by Vincent arouse striking issues about mankind. How, he asks, can seeing one criminal die traumatize a person, while watching thousands of innocent people die on the news every day have no impact? Constant provocation of this sort is thrown at Max, and even as he is abused by this man, there's no denying that his life is bettered greatly by the experience and from simply being around Vincent. Basically, this film will appease anyone looking for a thrill and a lot of intense action. However, for thoughtful souls who are much more turned on by ideas than actions, this film's deeper level will serve well.

Which is why, I guess, the ending is such a letdown. Throughout, this film manages to entertain while being thought-provoking, then suddenly, the climax begins and all the ideas and issues raised are given a back seat to a big finish barely distinguishable from countless other action/suspense movies. What really gets irritating is the endless lineup of implausible occurrences thrown at the viewer in such a short time. How a bullet can be shot straight into the side of someone's head, yet only graze his ear is a mystery I don't think I'll ever solve. Nor will I solve the mystery of why subway chase scenes are so popular. Anyhow, it's a shame to stick an otherwise quite good film with such a lame ending. Honestly, going for 'big' really wasn't the way to end this movie. Even with all the fantastic, gripping action scenes, the film's best moments are the conversations held between characters in Max's cab. These scenes are the heart of the film. Staying true to that heart and letting the film quietly wind down would have been so much more effective. Score: 7/10

So, at this point, it seems silly to argue any of the points Moore makes (or attempts to make) in this film, or to discuss the validity of any of his facts. All this has been covered in much detail by every journalist on the planet.

What I will do, is analyze "Fahrenheit 9/11" as a piece of film. Let's get the bad news out of the way first: this film is fairly sloppily put together. It's rather disorganized and digresses way too often (sometimes even digressing from its digressions). However, as infuriating as the structure can be, the material is strong enough overall that it transcends the messy editing.

In general, Moore executes his points very well. By now everyone has heard the tale of where Mr. Bush was when he heard of the second plane hitting the WTC on 9/11. Yet, nothing prepared me to see that look on our president's face. That was not the look of someone who is scared for the country he leads... it's the look of someone who wants very badly to pretend nothing is happening in the hopes it will just go away. Moore nicely juxtaposes INCREDIBLY disturbing comments from U.S. soldiers in Iraq with political blather about the humanitarian causes of war. He does the same trick a few minutes later when he shows the devastating effects of our bombs on Iraqi civilians as Rumsfeld gleefully rambles about our 'humane missiles'. Another chilling segment shows Bush practicing his 'serious look' before giving an address to the nation on September 11. Another nice move is Moore's refusal to spare Colin Powell in his lambasting of this administration. Sure, Powell may be the only voice of reason among Mr. Bush's peers, but he's a part of the public deception game, nonetheless.

Of course, for every four hits in this film (of which there are dozens more I failed to mention), there's a major miss. His conspiracy theory about the 2000 election comes off as goofy left-field trash. His closing 'thank you' to those who are willing to fight for us reeks of trying to appease the masses, given his underlying attitude that war is pointless. Most of all (and I know many will hate me for saying this), an extended segment from the teary-eyed mother of a killed soldier falls embarrassingly flat. I do not question the woman's mental suffering, but she comes off so poorly on camera that Moore should know better than to put it in the film. On top of it, it's hard to see this segment as much more than the exploiting of this woman's loss to make a political point. Her running around Washington screaming "why me? why me?!" is not something the public should be seeing. What did Moore say to her? "I'm going to drive you to Washington and turn on the camera, and you freak out, okay?"?

Let's talk about restraint. For the most part, Moore holds back from the absolute trashing of the president he could have made. Anyone who has read any of his work or looked at his website for ten seconds knows he absolutely hates the man. And making Bush look bad isn't hard to do. So Moore could have made a documentary on nothing but why George is a horrible leader. Yet instead, he mostly focuses on what one thing George has done that affects every American. This is very commendable. However, some bitterness is still lurking around the edges. He comments on the soft linen sheets Bush slept on the night of Sept. 10. Who cares? I bet Moore did too, as well as most other Americans. Linen is a popular material to make sheets out of. Some of his 'Bushisms' are pulled out of context and sound far worse that way, notably the president's comments on dictatorship. Footage of Bush being on vacation seems a bit silly too. Is Bush a bad leader because he likes to go hunting? Geez, if only Moore had someone around him to say "Man, don't put that in there... you're undermining your own cause."

As far as entertainment value goes, Moore does a good job of balancing comedy with the incredibly dark subject matter. Amazingly, I probably smiled or laughed about every 5 minutes of the movie, which is nice for a movie filled with images of countless dead and wounded. However, much like "Columbine" I couldn't help but feel that it drags quite a bit in its last 20 minutes. It's too long. I say that about more than half of the movies I see, but I'm always right.

I don't understand the controversy over this film. Like I said, it's in no way a bash-Bush marathon. I mean, come on... Bush wants to destroy all nature, have maniacal Christian Fundamentalists rewrite our Constitution, and make us all eat oil for dinner at night. Yet, Moore doesn't even touch these subjects (okay, maybe the oil a bit). Instead, he focuses on making a case for America's great modern tragedy: death and destruction on a mass scale because of this administration's ability to weave a good story and scare the crap out of everyone.

Moore succeeds at making his point, despite the film's many flaws. I can't imagine seeing this and still thinking Bush is a good leader and there's a good reason to be blowing stuff up in Iraq. I give him bonus points for sheer boldness: this has to be the most direct political statement ever made on film. He also does a good job of making a watchable piece of work, despite the excessive length. Score: 7/10.

Somehow, I just saw this film for the first time the other night. My excuse is that I was born in 1982 and it takes a really long time to see every 'classic' that was made up to that point, especially when I'm barely able to keep up with the ones made in my lifetime. Anyhow, this was an incredibly creative film in many ways: Allen jumps into asides unexpectedly, at one point even dragging other characters into them; the story is told in seemingly random sequence; the characters are complex and every scene serves to develop them (as opposed the Hollywood's usual 5 minute 'crash course' in its characters). Allen takes small jabs at the L.A. lifestyle, which are frequently hilarious (there's no litter because they turn all their trash into TV shows... awesome!), and gives love to sweet, sweet NYC.

As far as the comedy goes, this is one funny movie! I laughed very frequently (a euphoric, free kind of laugh, as opposed to the guilty, cringing kind of laugh that most modern comedy induces). While it may not be fall-out-of-your chair funny, it's sly, wise, original, stylistically varied humor, which is always refreshing.

Watching this made me realize how much it must have influenced the makers of some of my favorite films about relationships ("High Fidelity", "Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind"), and also how much I apparently love this sub genre of melancholy comedies (Shall we call them 'melanomedies'?). Indeed, "Annie Hall" is a melancholy film, as it focuses on the full spectrum of a romantic relationship. That spectrum involves a few wonderful highs, but unbearable pain as well. The overall feel of the film as well as its final voice-over keep it from being depressive in any sense, but this is certainly not a feel-good movie. This is a film that dares to venture outside of the very unreal world in which most movie characters seem to reside and into the world that makes up the hearts and minds of most average individuals For that, this movie fan is incredibly grateful.

The only criticism of this film I have (and it's a small knit-pick, mind you) is that it occasionally tends to meander totally off-track from anything relating to its overall story and purpose, as if Woody had a list of funny sketches lying around that he promised himself he'd slip into his next film one way or another. It works out okay, because the film is always entertaining and his transitions are smooth, but there are a few parts that really seem unnecessary in a film that's otherwise so thematically focused.

Whatever, this is still a wonderful little film with extraordinary acting from its two leads and writing more clever than 99.9% of all other films made, ever. Bravo! 8/10

Two word review: insanely disappointing.

I was very much looking forward to this film and was expecting and hoping to be deeply moved and involved, as one would expect from a film with the word 'passion' it its title. Not only was I unmoved, but I had to fight to even stay focused on it. I was glad I managed, because the film had some deeply rewarding moments, and I certainly wouldn't suffer through watching it again just to catch them.

I'll start with said rewarding moments, just to appease the masses. With few exceptions, every time the film did ACTUAL DRAMA (as opposed to the gimmickry which makes up its other 95%), it thrived. Every exchange and flashback involving Mother Mary was simply marvelous, the final flashback sequence in particular (which is too good to spoil). The denial by Peter was excellently done and the look between he and Jesus was easily the film's single most intense moment. The Garden of Gethsemane scene is fairly strong up to the point when the Romans show up.

Other good things about this film: I enjoyed the score (though it sometimes didn't seem to fit the film, it would sound great on its own!) The acting was fairly solid (though once again, very few scenes required actual acting). The camerawork was very good, and most of the effects looked good.

Anyhow, the problem with the film is that there are five brilliant minutes scattered throughout that are all sheer beauty, maybe another ten that are decent but nothing special, and the rest of it is pointless, heartless, and numbing.

Much has been made of the gore issue. I personally have no problem with excessive violence and gore, if it's done right and adds to the overall effect of the film. In this film, the gore is indeed well-done but the problem is that it IS the overall effect of the film... there's barely anything else. Essentially, it's redundant and numbing. The first few shots of flesh-tearing and blood-shedding are disturbing and make their point. The viewer can't help but really feel them deeply. However, a little goes a long way. After a full minute of it, it becomes numbing and loses all effect. After ten minutes, it's basically boring, redundant and pointless. Speaking of redundancy, how many times does Christ have to fall over on the way to Golgotha? That sequence easily ate up 20 minutes. After a solid hour of torture sequences there is no way that any more depiction of pain can possibly make any impact, but to run the same trudge-and-fall sequence over and over and over is just outright silly.

Okay, even if somehow a viewer manages to be continually engrossed by the endless depiction of pain, here's the irrefutable flaw of the film: it means nothing in the context of the film. In order for viewers to be moved by such a depiction, the character undergoing such suffering must be extremely well-developed. Here, Christ barely has character at all, which is an insult to any of his followers. The same goes for everyone except Pilate and Mother Mary. Gibson assumes all the characters are already developed for him via the Bible. This is stupid. 1.If his goal is to reach and move the masses, it might be nice to inform anyone unfamiliar with the story who these people are and what this whole mess of a movie is supposed to mean. 2.I don't care what a film is about, all action is totally pointless unless the characters are developed in it...

Which brings me to my main point of why "The Passion of The Christ" ultimately fails. On its own terms, this movie means nothing. According to this film, Jesus is virtuous because he has an amazing pain tolerance and that's about it. The only way this film could ever be remotely moving would be if you are a believer and constantly think to yourself every 30 seconds of watching "he's suffering this so I don't have to." However, the film itself should be making that statement to you. I mean, it shouldn't require EFFORT to be moved by it. However, without this effort, the film is nothing more than a well done faux-snuff film. In fact, aside from a few seconds of Jesus praying I would go so far as to say this film is practically devoid of any spiritual content whatsoever. Sure if you link everything in it to your outside knowledge of the characters and events, it may work. But a piece of art should not rely entirely on outside sources to make it have meaning.

Overall, this movie is very gimmicky. The most obvious gimmick is shock effect, which fails because the brutality is only shocking for the first 30 seconds of its 90 minutes. Second, is never-ending slow-motion which is used to the point that real time shots actually seem like some special "fast-motion" effect. The third is pretentious "artiness" which is supposed to be some original symbolism: the devil carries a deformed infant that has the head of a creepy old bald man, some CGI scary goblin thing pops up next to Judas and shrieks, faces of children morph into demons, other pointless morbid images abound. Basically, this points to the fact that Gibson would make an awesome horror movie: he loves endless brutality and gore and has a knack for creepy inexplicable images. However, in this film, all these images are either distracting or laughable.

I tried so hard to get into this movie I almost wore myself out in the process. Some of the flashbacks to Jesus' life (WHAT? He had a life outside of endless torture???) started to be affecting, but always cut off after about twenty seconds and never meshed with the rest of the film well at all (with the exception of his domestic life with his mother). After being numbed almost to death by the endless torture and crucifixion sequence, I figured I would at least be moved by the resurrection. However, that ten-second scene felt more like a footnote and wouldn't have been missed if it were excluded altogether. The few beautiful moments almost seemed in contrast, rather than supplementary to, the overall feel of the film, which was overwhelmingly morbid and soulless.

I can think of few stories that have more passion and beauty in them than the story of Christ. It should take no effort to create a film which captures at least some of that passion and beauty. Yet somehow, Gibson practically misses all of it by a mile. Excepting a few moving parts (we'll generously say they total five minutes scattered throughout), he has essentially made a film as effective as staring at a monolith for two hours. It's almost as if he painstakingly labored to systematically remove any passion, warmth or feeling from the story altogether. Basically, if passion is judged by volume of blood content, "The Passion..." delivers in spades. Otherwise, it's a film with the most self-contradicting title ever.

This film is an insult to Christians in its depiction of Christ as little more than a punching bag. It is an insult to fans of film in its insistence that film need not contain elements such as character, theme, and feeling. However, I don't see how it's insulting to Jews in any way. If "Schindler's List" was insulting to Germans, "Braveheart" insulting to English people, "Pearl Harbor" insulting to Japanese, and "Titanic" insulting to all boats, one may have a case. Anyhow, unless you are a huge fan watching a person be relentlessly tortured, avoid this film at all cost.

All in all, this movie simply leaves me scared that I share this earth with someone who claims to pour all his heart and soul into a work of art and comes up with this.