Review aggregator
Rotten Tomatoes reports an approval rating of 49% based on 277 critical reviews. The website's critical consensus reads: "Director Mel Gibson's zeal is unmistakable, but
The Passion of the Christ will leave many viewers emotionally drained rather than spiritually uplifted." On
Metacritic, the film has a weighted average of 47 out of 100, based on 44 critics, indicating "mixed or average reviews". Audiences polled by
CinemaScore gave the film a rare "A+" grade. In a positive review for
Time, its critic
Richard Corliss called
The Passion of the Christ "a serious, handsome, excruciating film that radiates total commitment". White also noted that it was odd to see Gibson offer audiences "an intellectual challenge" with the film.
Roger Ebert from the
Chicago Sun-Times gave the movie four out of four stars, calling it "the most violent film I have ever seen" as well as reflecting on how it struck him, a former
altar boy: "What Gibson has provided for me, for the first time in my life, is a visceral idea of what the Passion consisted of. That his film is superficial in terms of the surrounding message—that we get only a few passing references to the teachings of Jesus—is, I suppose, not the point. This is not a sermon or a homily, but a visualization of the central event in the Christian religion. Take it or leave it." In a negative review for
Slate,
David Edelstein called
The Passion of the Christ "a two-hour-and-six-minute
snuff movie".
Jami Bernard of the
New York Daily News felt it was "the most virulently anti-Semitic movie made since the
German propaganda films of World War II". In the
Dallas Observer,
Robert Wilonsky wrote that he found the film "too turgid to awe the nonbelievers, too zealous to inspire and often too silly to take seriously, with its demonic hallucinations that look like escapees from a
David Lynch film; I swear I couldn't find the devil carrying around a hairy-backed midget anywhere in the text I read". In 2010,
Time listed it as one of the most "ridiculously violent" films of all time.
Disputed papal endorsement On December 5, 2003,
Passion of the Christ co-producer
Stephen McEveety gave a rough cut of the film to Archbishop
Stanisław Dziwisz, the pope's secretary. Pope
John Paul II watched the film in his private apartment with Archbishop Dziwisz that night, and later met with McEveety Noonan had emailed
Joaquín Navarro-Valls, the head of the Vatican's press office, for confirmation before writing her column, surprised that the "famously close-mouthed" Navarro-Valls had approved the use of the "It is as it was" quote, and his emailed response stated he had no other comment at that time. and the
Associated Press independently confirmed the story, citing Vatican sources. A dispute emerged a few days later, when an anonymous Vatican official told
Catholic News Service "There was no declaration, no judgment from the pope." But Allen defended his earlier reporting, saying that his official source was adamant about the veracity of the original story. Columnist
Frank Rich for
The New York Times wrote that the statement was "being exploited by the Gibson camp", and that when he asked Michelini about the meeting, Michelini said Dziwisz had reported the pope's words as "It is as it was", and said the pope also called the film "incredibile", an Italian word Michelini translated as "amazing". The following day, Archbishop Dziwisz told CNS, "The Holy Father told no one his opinion of this film." This denial resulted in a round of commentators who accused the film producers of fabricating a papal quote to market their movie. According to
Rod Dreher in the
Dallas Morning News, McEveety was sent an email from papal spokesman Navarro-Valls that supported the Noonan account, and suggested "It is as it was" could be used as the
leitmotif in discussions on the film and said to "Repeat the words again and again and again." Dreher emailed Navarro-Valls a copy of the email McEveety had received, and Navarro-Valls emailed Dreher back and said, "I can categorically deny its authenticity." Allen noted that while Dziwisz stated that Pope John Paul II made no declaration about this movie, other Vatican officials were "continuing to insist" the pope did say it, and other sources claimed they had heard Dziwisz say the pope said it on other occasions, and Allen called the situation "kind of a mess". A representative from Gibson's Icon Productions expressed surprise at Dziwisz's statements after the correspondence and conversations between film representatives and the pope's official spokesperson, Navarro-Valls, and stated "there is no reason to believe that the pope's support of the film 'isn't as it was.'" The ADL itself also released a statement about the yet-to-be-released film: For filmmakers to do justice to the biblical accounts of the passion, they must complement their artistic vision with sound scholarship, which includes knowledge of how the passion accounts have been used historically to disparage and attack Jews and Judaism. Absent such scholarly and theological understanding, productions such as
The Passion could likely falsify history and fuel the
animus of those who hate Jews.
Rabbi Daniel Lapin, the head of the
Toward Tradition organization, criticized this statement, and said of
Abraham Foxman, the head of the ADL, "what he is saying is that the only way to escape the wrath of Foxman is to repudiate your faith". In
The Nation, reviewer
Katha Pollitt wrote: "Gibson has violated just about every precept of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops own 1988 'Criteria' for the portrayal of Jews in dramatizations of the Passion (no bloodthirsty Jews, no rabble, no use of Scripture that reinforces negative stereotypes of Jews.) [...] The priests have big noses and gnarly faces, lumpish bodies, yellow teeth;
Herod Antipas and his court are a bizarre collection of oily-haired,
epicene perverts. The 'good Jews' look like Italian movie stars (Magdalene actually
is an Italian movie star,
Monica Bellucci);
Jesus's mother, who would have been around 50 and appeared 70, could pass for a ripe 35." Jesuit priest Fr.
William Fulco, S.J. of Loyola Marymount University—and the film's translator for
Hebrew dialogue—specifically disagreed with that assessment, and disagreed with concerns that the film accused the Jewish community of
deicide. In
The Guardian, Jewish biblical scholar and expert on the
historical Jesus,
Géza Vermes wrote a highly critical review of the movie: he stated that the movie is "horribly gory, historically wrong - and it will inspire judeophobia". According to Vermes, "the real problem is not with his attitudes or avowed intentions, but with the lack of appropriate steps taken to prevent visual images from inspiring judeophobia. Caiaphas and his priestly colleagues often struggle not to smile when they see the defeat of Christ. In the film they allow their policemen to beat him up in open court without protest. In the Gospels itself they are depicted as doing things according to the book and reject the witnesses who testify against Jesus. This does not seem to be so in the film. These are dangerous opportunities for inspiring vengeful sentiments". One specific scene in the film perceived as an example of anti-Semitism was in the dialogue of Caiaphas, when he states "Blood curse|His blood [is] on us and on our children!" (Mt 27:25), a quote historically interpreted by some as a curse taken upon by the Jewish people. Certain Jewish groups asked this be removed from the film. However, only the subtitles were removed; the original dialogue remains in the Hebrew soundtrack. When asked about this scene, Gibson said: "I wanted it in. My brother said I was wimping out if I didn't include it. But, man, if I included that in there, they'd be coming after me at my house. They'd come to kill me." In an interview with the
Detroit Free Press, when asked about the scene, he said, "It's one little passage, and I believe it, but I don't and never have believed it refers to Jews, and implicates them in any sort of curse. It's directed at all of us, all men who were there, and all that came after. His blood is on us, and that's what Jesus wanted. But I finally had to admit that one of the reasons I felt strongly about keeping it, aside from the fact it's true, is that I didn't want to let someone else dictate what could or couldn't be said." The allegations of antisemitism were satirized in the
South Park episode "
The Passion of the Jew", which focuses on the reactions of the protagonists to the film. In the episode,
Eric Cartman leads a neo-Nazi rally whilst dressed as
Adolf Hitler,
Kyle Broflovski has nightmares about the excessive violence and complains about the Jews' apparent responsibility for the death of Jesus, and
Stan Marsh and
Kenny McCormick go to Mel Gibson to get a refund. Allegations of the film's antisemitism were intensified after Mel Gibson's 2006 arrest for
driving under the influence in Malibu, California, where during the arrest, he made antisemitic remarks against the arresting officer. He was recorded saying to the officer, "Fucking Jews... the Jews are responsible for all the wars in the world. Are you a Jew?"
Reactions to allegations of antisemitism gave
The Passion of the Christ a positive review and defended it against allegations of anti-semitism. Conservative columnist
Cal Thomas also disagreed with allegations of antisemitism and wrote in
Townhall: "To those in the Jewish community who worry that the film might contain anti-Semitic elements, or encourage people to persecute Jews, fear not. The film does not indict Jews for the death of Jesus." Bob Smithouser of
Focus on the Family's
Plugged In also believed that the film was trying to convey the evils and sins of humanity rather than specifically targeting Jews, stating: "The anthropomorphic portrayal of Satan as a player in these events brilliantly pulls the proceedings into the supernatural realm—a fact that should have quelled the much-publicized cries of anti-Semitism since it shows a diabolical force at work beyond any political and religious agendas of the Jews and Romans." Asked by
Bill O'Reilly if his movie would "upset Jews", Gibson responded, "It's not meant to. I think it's meant to just tell the truth. I want to be as truthful as possible." In an interview for
The Globe and Mail, he added: "If anyone has distorted Gospel passages to rationalize cruelty towards Jews or anyone, it's in defiance of repeated Papal condemnation. The Papacy has condemned racism in any form... Jesus died for the sins of all times, and I'll be the first on the line for culpability."
Criticism of excessive violence A.O. Scott in
The New York Times wrote "
The Passion of the Christ is so relentlessly focused on the savagery of Jesus' final hours that this film seems to arise less from love than from wrath, and to succeed more in assaulting the spirit than in uplifting it."
David Edelstein,
Slates film critic, dubbed the film "a two-hour-and-six-minute snuff movie—
The Jesus Chainsaw Massacre—that thinks it's an act of faith", and further criticized Gibson for focusing on the brutality of Jesus' execution, instead of his religious teachings. Critic
Armond White, in his review of the film for Africana.com, offered another perspective on the violence in the film. He wrote, "Surely Gibson knows (better than anyone in Hollywood is willing to admit) that violence sells. It's problematic that this time, Gibson has made a film that asks for a sensitive, serious, personal response to violence rather than his usual glorifying of vengeance."
Accolades ==Sequels==