I saw the movie last night in a sold out theater here in Richmond. Obviously, there were a lot of church-goers in attendance - the majority of the crowd, I'd assume. There were no previews before the movie, but the began a pre-movie twenty-minute commercial series during which they aired a 5 minute behind-the-scenes sneak preview of Van Helsing. I considered this slightly ironic considering the opposing subjects of these two very different movies.

The movie opens with an introductory passage from Isaiah 53, a prophetical passage of Christ's death written 700 years before his birth. This fades to the Garden of Gethsemane on the night of Jesus' betrayal. Gibson takes a bit of creative liberty by introducing an androgenous Satan, who tempts Jesus through taunts and doubtful thoughts. While there is no record of Satan being present in the garden in the gospels, it is hard to believe that he would be anywhere else on the eve of his anticipated "victory." After all, there was much work to be done, and plans were going full steam ahead (as evidenced by Judas' betrayal of Jesus to the Pharisees, the disciples inabiltity to stay awake and pray, et al.).

The film continues to march unflinchingly through the suffering and death Christ endured on our behalf, using flashbacks to relieve tension and offer insight into his humanity. A personal favorite was a flashback when Jesus recalls carefree days of crafting furniture in Nazareth and his interaction with his mother, Mary. It provides a natural and human feel to a character who is generally portrayed as stoic and judgemental.

Other flashbacks provide highlight and context into the life of Christ, often transitioning between his peaceful ministry and his cruel death. For example, Peter denies him, and we jump to the moment when the bombastic apostle vows his allegiance unto death. A glimpse of Pilate’s water bowl launches a memory of the Lord washing his disciples’ feet in the upper room. There is the stark transition from Jesus’ scorned march down the Via Dolorosa to images from his triumphal entry into Jerusalem on Palm Sunday. Then there’s the flash from the removal of Christ’s robe at Golgotha to the unwrapping of the bread during the Last Supper (“This is my body, which is broken for you”).

Not much is seen of the disciples. Out of the twelve, only four are mentioned by name, with John receiving the most prominent camera time. Peter is correctly portrayed as impulsive and outspoken, first in his act of cutting off the ear of the high priest's servant and later in his denial of knowing Christ. While these events are accurate, they stop short of telling the rest of the story: Peter's forgiveness, restoration, and eventual position as the "rock" of the New Testament church. Judas, after his betrayal of Jesus, slowly succumbs to the temptation of suicide. The film takes a few creative liberties during his maddening descent of mental anguish, showing the taunting of Satan and his minions which eventually leads to Judas hanging himself over a putrefying animal carcass.

The brutality and violence of the movie was often painful to watch, but I would venture to say that the movie was no more graphic than Braveheart or Saving Private Ryan. The difference is that, in this case, the brutality is a senseless act performed to an innocent man as opposed to violence in a war-time situation. Scenes show soldiers continually striking and spitting at Jesus. They press a crown of thorns onto his head, drawing lots of blood. Guards relish the punishment they’re dishing out, and what begins as a mean-spirited caning leads to an inhumane whipping that tears the flesh from Christ’s face and body. He is literally shredded - exposing ribs and vital tissue - and then is dragged across the floor through pools of his own blood. Jesus' arms are dislocated as nails are driven through his flesh, into the cross beams, and out the other side. Gibson has portrayed the physical abuse much the way it is described in Scripture.

Christians will experience a bizarre emotional paradox while viewing the brutality. Each blow to the face, lash with the whip and nail through his flesh is simultaneously repellent and indisputable testimony of divine love.

Gibson spend a lot of time focusing on Simon of Cyrene, the man commanded to carry Christ’s cross when the weight becomes too much for him. Much of that interaction is speculation, but the prevailing point is that those who carry his cross are forever changed.

There is an odd point during Christ's flagellation when Satan appears triumphantly confident, holding an ugly "baby" which seems to be equally developed and yet not quite so. I'm not sure if Gibson was implying some sort of spiritual significance, but based on the way that Satan was cradling and flaunting the baby, and the smirk on the baby's face upon seeing Jesus in his weakened state, I'm assuming that the portrayal was of the grooming of the coming antichrist.

Parts of the movie tended to drag out, portraying the agonizing length of time of the crucifixion process. Conversely, the final moments of the film offer only a brief glimpse of the resurrected Christ, which fade quickly to the credits. The implications are that Christ's death becomes more powerful than his resurrection and victory. I can't help but wonder if Gibson might have abbreviated some of the longer, drawn-out scenes, substituting them for some post-resurrection experiences (Jesus' interaction with Mary Magdelene, his revealing of himself to his disciples and hundreds of others, the reaction of the Pharasee's when they discovered their failed plan, and Jesus' triumphal assention into heaven).

It's difficult to measure the success of such a movie. If one were to classify it by its earnings, critics are likely slam it for its monetary gain. At the same time, Gibson's attention to detail and accuracy in an attempt to illicit emotional response has put him under fire claiming the movie contains senseless brutality. And while the church is hoping to see spiritual awakenings from the movie, only time will tell whether that is to happen.

The thing to remember in the end is that, while this movie is faithful to the essentials of the biblical account, it is not a substitute gospel. It is still just a movie.