Note to readers: during one of our site upgrades, the original review seems to have been lost. Thus, I am reposting it here, as I feel it’s one of my better pieces. This is the article I published here on the day PASSION first opened

I arrive at the Sony lot at approximately 1:30, for the 2pm Monday screening of “The Passion of the one-and-only Jesus Christ.” There has been a 10 a.m. show, but only aging early risers like Kevin Thomas actually enjoy seeing a movie at that hour. A security guard asks if I’m there to audition: Noting my hair, he says he saw an actor on the lot in flag-colored pants and jacket. I tell him no, I’m here to see the Jesus movie. “Don’t go rooting for the Romans, now!” he says. I say that I heard they’re actually the good guys in the movie, and it’s the Jews who are villains. He utters some noncommittal response.

Entering the screening room, I head for the front, and sit beside a distinguished-looking couple. There’s an earring on the floor in front of me, so I ask the couple if it’s theirs. They take it, and seem to know who it belongs to. The man asks me if I work for the studio. I say no, I’m a movie reviewer. He seems pleased by that, and asks who I write for. I tell him the New Times chain, and he asks if the Village Voice is part of that. It isn’t, but at least he’s got the right concept, which is more than most people comprehend. He asks when my review will run, and I tell him we already have a New Times review by another writer, but I may do something for my own site. I tell him the URL, and he repeats it, then asks what the L stands for. I say Luke. He offers his hand.

“Luke, pleased to meet you. I’m Bob Dornan, and this is my wife Sally.”

Now, those of you not from California may need a bit of context here. Bob Dornan is a former Republican congressman from Orange County, a firebrand conservative in a similar camp to Wally George and Dr. Ted Baehr, known as “B-1 Bob” for his gung-ho military views. In Michael Moore’s book “Downsize This,” there’s a whole chapter in which Moore analyzes Dornan’s occasionally erratic behavior and then tries to have him committed. Needless to say, Bob and I are the sort of folks who you might not expect to see having a cordial conversation. Yet we were, and we were about to see a movie about loving your enemies, so why dwell on the disagreements? He’s certainly the last person I’d expect to see at a press screening, though “The Lonely Passion of Jesus H. Christ” is a special case, obviously.

Instead of politics, we discuss the merits of sitting in the front row of a theater. Bob and Sally and I agree that people who sit at the back are lame. Sally theorizes that it may be so they can watch the audience reaction (not a bad theory; I agree with Bob that the critic is supposed to go with one’s own reaction, but certainly if one dislikes a film and the audience loves it, that’s something to mention). I offer a theory of my own — that one reason many critics don’t like action movies is that they sit way back at a distance, and don’t get immersed in the thing.

Bob says one of the museums in Europe has the nameplate from the original cross of Jesus, and it’s so frail looking you’d think it would turn to dust if you touched it. Sally asks what I thought of “Jesus of Nazareth.” I told her I remember liking it, but haven’t seen it since I was a kid. This leads to some discussion on the current whereabouts of actor Robert Powell.

Manohla Dargis and David Poland both mock my front-row stance. Jeff Wells simply waves hello.

So, onto the movie itself:

First of all, I’m not going to go into the background of whether or not the New Testament is anti-Semitic. Newsweek has a good piece on that you can read HERE. [alas, lost link; I'm not gonna go digging for that one again -- LYT]

As to whether or not “the Jews” killed Christ, I don’t think even fundamentalism really supports that. John 3:16, the favorite Bible verse of many a devotee, clearly states that God Himself sent his son to die, because he so loved the world.

As to historical accuracy, Jeff Wells did a good piece on that some months ago. Nails through the palms = unrealistic for supporting a man’s weight, despite what Audioslave songs might have you believe (and Aramaic and Latin might not be the correct languages, historically; even Movieguide says so). The ersatz-Catholic thriller “Stigmata” explained this. Still, Mel Gibson’s a devout Catholic, and most crucifixes show nails through the palms. Also indicating the Catholic perspective is the use of all the Stations of the Cross.

And those are…? Basically, Catholics have blocked out the entire march to the cross scene-by-scene, and each scene is a “station,” expanding on things mentioned merely in passing in one gospel or another. Among other things, the stations spell out exactly how many times Jesus fell down.

In general, I’m going to assume that “plot spoilers” are irrelevant to the bestest story ever known. Mel adds a few things that aren’t in the Gospels, though. Among other things, after Jesus is captured, en route to the Sanhedrin, he is wrapped in chains and thrown off the side of a bridge bungee-jump style, probably cracking his ribs. Judas (Luca Lionello) is at the foot of the bridge, and he shudders to see this. Then a CGI wolf-demon briefly materializes behind Judas. Not making this up.

As to anti-Semitism: Well, I guess it goes without saying that I’m not Jewish. I can’t experience this movie as a Jew. David Poland, who is Jewish, finds it anti-Semitic. I don’t (in contrast, David doesn’t find “In America” racist, while I do). First of all, even though Jesus is played by lilywhite Jim Caviezel (albeit with brown contacts and darkened skin), there are a mix of Jews with traditionally “Semitic” facial features and those without on both sides. As to the Jewish priesthood, Mel makes it clear that they don’t all agree about executing Jesus, and after the execution, when God fucks up their shit in the Temple, they all seem to regret it. Many people will take from this movie whatever baggage they brought in. I could make a case that the film’s point is that religious nutbags are insensitive fuckheads who support the inhumane death penalty even when it’s clearly wrong.

Gays and transgenders should be more offended than Jews. King Herod is depicted as an obese mincing queen, while Satan (Rosalinda Celentano) appears as an androgynous, bald woman with a man’s voice. If Satan looked like Dustin Hoffman, we could talk serious anti-Semitism, but this devil seems like a butch lesbian to me.

I am concerned that fundamentalist parents will take their children to this and give them nightmares for the rest of their lives. Not only is the film brutal in its torture of Christ — at one point, a cat o’nine tails sinks into his flesh and sends little chunks of Jesus-meat flying into the face of a Roman torturer — it’s also scary: Satan has an army of demon-children, whose faces occasionally morph into those of hairy old men. One of the kids bites a chunk out of Judas’ arm. There’s a dead donkey consumed by maggots. A crow pecks out the eye of a man who’s still alive. I once joked about Spawn creator Todd McFarlane doing gruesome Jesus toys, but this movie would be no stretch at all. Movieguide hypocritically considers this film acceptable to all ages, but it is most definitely not, no more so than “When the Wind Blows” (a cartoon about old people dying from nuclear war) was for me at age 6.

Gibson’s a bombastic director — we know this. I know the dove is the symbol of the Holy Ghost, but cinematically, a slo-motion dove is the symbol of past-his-prime John Woo. Slo-mo is excessive here. The ancient language is a nice touch, way better than Shakespearean English or Marty Scorsese’s Brooklyn street talk. I do applaud the subtitles, though. The most subtle touch is when the woman, I think named Veronica, wipes Jesus’ face en route to Calvary, and an imprint of his face appears on her cloth. Gibson doesn’t hammer that image home, but lets us catch it if we can.

I may sound like I’m dogging the movie, but overall, I think it’s a good one. It packs a helluva punch, and you feel every ounce of the brutality. In dealing with just the last day of Jesus’ life, the movie basically depicts the pacifist Jesus, the one who preaches love, as opposed to the intolerant, genocidal bastard who appears in John’s dream in Revelation. The flick shows Jesus as a man, humanizing him rather than making him an abstract holier-than-thou symbol. There’s a flashback scene showing him working as a carpenter that adds much-needed humanity — that he’s impudent to his mother, even in jest, during that scene implies that he may not have been so sinless after all. The most brutal moment in the film is when Jesus falls in front of his mother’s eyes, and we flash back to toddler Jesus falling on the hard ground in front of younger mom. Any kid can relate.

Scripturally, I have one or two issues — the film opens with a quote from Isaiah, and many serious scholars believe Isaiah was predicting a Messiah for his day, NOT Jesus, as was retroactively proclaimed. Also, Mary Magdalene (Monica Bellucci, showing up solely to look pained) is depicted as the prostitute from the “He who is without sin, cast the first stone” story; as far as I remember, the Bible never says that was her — it was just assumed later.

Hey Mel, I have to ask, what’s up with your nose fetish? Satan has a maggot crawl out of her nose and back in again, while Judas, during the first Sanhedrin trial, scratches his nose against the temple wall repeatedly. Does he have allergies? Is he drunk? Whassupwitdat? Is it a Semitic thing?

Major kudos, though, on the handling of Peter’s (not-related-to-Danny Francesco De Vito’s) threefold denial: I’ve seen it done before, but this is the first time I’ve believed and understood why he’d be that way.

Also cool is the way the resurrection is handled. Some may find it too Terminator-like, but I found it a welcome understatement within the sermon.

So what if you don’t believe? Hey, I don’t believe it literally, but it is a movie, after all — it’s a great story, too, certainly as compelling as “Dead Man Walking.” Think of it as sci-fi: A being with near-endless power (Galactus, maybe?) is disappointed in his creation, but to preserve it, makes himself vulnerable on the same level so that his creations may torture and kill him, and he can share in their weaknesses in order to provide redemption. If you didn’t know that was a Bible story, you’d go see it. C’mon.

Have to admit, though, I am curious as to how my more vehemently atheistic friends will react.

Bob’s wife Sally was in shock afterwards, I just nodded and said, “I know.” It’s a strong film, and I imagine many Christians who consciously shield themselves from graphic violence may never have experienced anything like it.

Manohla Dargis, meanwhile…well, I guess I shouldn’t spill the beans, since she’s working on her own piece. But the hate mail should be interesting.