Creating a film that paints a picture of historical events is difficult. Accuracy and realism are ultimately what the cast and crew strive for. That task becomes infinitely harder when you have no first person accounts of the day or the event you wish to portray. Finally, add to all that a story that represents the basis of religious belief for a vast majority of this country and of the world. Not one person can call all this an easy task. In my opinion, however, Mel Gibson and his team have taken that challenge and not only created a dramatic piece of thought provoking and inspirational entertainement, but have also sparked a controversy among the nation, just as his film's title character did over 2000 years ago. As a critic, a responsibility is created to review a movie based on story, flow, acting and the overall experience. The Passion of the Christ is a work of art that has come to be a source of controversy and speculation, especially among the political and religious communities for obvious reasons. My intention is to critique a film, and not to let religious bias overshadow my moviegoing experience. I will admit though, it's a difficult prospect. 'Passion' follows the writings taken from the Bible and other religious and historical texts recounting the last 12 hours of Jesus of Nazareth's life. Filmmakers chose to have the actors speak the languages of the time, Aramaic and Latin, but provides English subtitles that seemed unobtrusive to the storytelling. If you know nothing of the Bible, the film makers reveal Jesus' life through flashbacks, as one of teaching compassion, forgiveness and love. These flashbacks are few and juxtaposed between scenes of His arrest, persecution and eventual death at the hands of those in power at the time who felt threatened by His following. Accused of blasphemy against the church, He is horribly beaten, tortured and nailed to a wooden cross to die in the score of just 12 hours. In a word. 'Passion' is intense. The movie is given an R rating for violence, for which it deserves, but unlike slasher movies, the violence is used in a succesful attempt at realism, rather than simply shock value. Punishments for this era in history were brutal and often unrelenting for criminals. Christians are taught that Jesus suffered and died for the people, releasing them from the wrong doings they comitted and opening them up to forgiveness. Until now, his suffering was never so vividly and stunningly defined. James Caviezel's portrayal of Jesus' pain and agony is accented by a magnificent make up and prosthetic effects team. His body is whipped and slashed so much so that little of his it is left unscathed. Caviezel's performance is inspiring and not only eclispes those of his fellow actors, but of those that have portrayed Christ before him. I found myself truly riveted to my seat. So focused was I in fact, that I hadn't noticed the normally stunning and sexually charged Monica Bellucci as Magdalen until the end of the film, despite the fact that she had been in nearly every other scene. It should also be said that Maia Morgenstern plays a Mary who is not portrayed in beams of holy light or elegant blue robes, but of a woman for the times, concerned only with the safety of her son, not a messiah or a blasphemer. I want to clarify hat this is not a movie to take your children to, primarily do to the gratuitous violence, but also because of the subtitles. At times, the movie can be difficult to watch and based on those that I screened this with, religious or not, it can be highly emotional. For Christians, the film brings to life the teachings of their church, viscerally, but believably and accurately. For the non-religious, 'Passion' is a pseudo-epic tale, similar to Gladiator or Saving Private Ryan in that it doesn't skip around a 'necessary brutal' depiction of the time and events that took place. It is a well known and oft told story, that despite a few innacuracies and some artistic detail, is masterfully woven into a film that will undoubtedly be remembered beyond it's controversey.