The Passion of the Christ [2004] Movie Reviews on CinemaClock

That was trash. It was horribly inaccurate, I mean where was Satan in St. Luke, nowhere, because he wasn't. Truly the first appearance by "Satan" in the movie was supposed to be an angel giving Jesus power if you read St. Luke. I am an atheist but I did read the part of the New Testament from which this movie was based on (very loosely) In the movie the whole temple cracks in half, but it does not occur that way in the bible, St luke 23:45 "And the sun was darkened, and the veil of the temple was rent in the midst." Mel Gibson was just trying to profit of naive Christian people, ones that haven't read any of the bible, and he should be ashamed. Mel should be ashamed of what he made here, there are too many inaccuracies to list. Well another was that King Herod appeared about Jesus' age in the movie, despite the fact that he was already a king when Jesus was a baby. As for historical inaccuracies, they had the "shroud" in the movie which had been proven to be not real when they had found it, and also Pontius Pilate wasn't really a nice man throughout history, so I have hard time believing he was so easy on Jesus. Lastly I would just to say this movie was overly gory, and it was unnecessary for this kind of movie, the gore level was better suited for The Patriot, or Braveheart.