Review of The Passion of the Christ (2004) by Lawrence W — 28 Feb 2013

This film is just another example of movie critics with limited intelligence who cannot for one split second comprehend anything beyond Dr. Suess. Calling this film pornographic and Sadomasochist while in the same breath applauding films like Kill Bill, Django Unchained, Hostel, Saw and other brutal films is not only the telltale sign of an Uber hypocrite but also the sign of an ignoramus.

Critics loved to slam this film because they could not comprehend the fact that Mel Gibson took a very dry and emotionless description of the crucifixion of Christ in the Gospels and showed the world what Jesus really went through, using historical references of what a real Roman scourging, torture and crucifixion was like. Taking the story of the Gospels, the dialogue and the message of Christ Gibson gave the story of the death of Christ life and meaning.

I have seen some of the most bizarre excuses critics have made for not liking this film, from the length of Jesus' hair in the film to the Bible not saying anything about ravens picking at the eyes of the 2 thieves crucified with Jesus. The position of the nails, Jesus' eye color, skin color, everything was used in petty fashion to discredit this film. And you know what? That is a sign that the critics had NOTHING credible against the movie. When you have to invent stuff to complain about you should just stop and go bang your head against a wall for awhile and leave well enough alone.

This film is a masterpiece of modern cinema, a beautifully acted and brutal tale of the sacrifice Jesus Christ made to give not just Christians, but the entire world a chance for salvation. Whether or not it is historically accurate is a debatable issue, but it comes very close to Biblical and historical accuracy as far as most people can see.

Don't be intimidated by Critics. Most of them are too simple minded to understand anything that makes them think.