There has been much discussion in the blogs of my friends about Mel Gibson's portrayal of The Passion of the Christ. I have refrained from adding my own utterances until now. Having very recently returned from a screening of this film, and having read The Book, I now feel far more qualified to comment, than previously.

I had read that this is a particularly violent film. I had even read about people having heart attacks and dying during screenings. Yet a morbid curiosity led me to actually go and see the film for myself.

The film starts off in the Garden of Gethsemene and it starts well. For me, though, it very quickly lost credibility with a most peculiar personification of The Devil. Satan didn't hang around for very long, but did make a few other cameo appearances throughout the film, which I felt detracted from the story and added nothing.

When the figure of Jesus received violent beatings in front of Caiaphas, the High Priest, I began to see what previous reviewers had meant. This was a very violent film. Nothing though had prepared me for the outrageously gruesome scenes that were to follow.

The scourging at the pillar was the most horrific series of scenes that I have ever seen on film. There really are no words that can describe the relentless brutality so graphically demonstrated here. At once, I understood why people took ill in previous screenings. I felt uncomfortable myself, and even considered leaving the theatre, which is something that I have never done.

Further on in the film (and I don't think I'll be spoiling the plot for my reader, here: The Story is better known than that of The Titanic), the director forces us to watch large nails being driven through the very palms of a man. I really felt that this was wholly unnecessary and, to be honest, terrible film-making. Hitchcock and Spielberg have produced many more disturbing scenes without dwelling on such bloody detail. I think Gibson could have taken a leaf or two out of their books.

And speaking of books, whilst the story showed very little deviation from the one that I have read, I do wish that those responsible for writing the screenplay had spent a little more time concentrating on the details, rather than considering how much more gore they could fit into a two-hour timeslot.

After the film, I am left wondering: why did Mel Gibson make it? Kris' thoughts that, "Gibson is trying to say that Jesus was a man who died in a very, very, very, very horrible way" seem to sum it all up nicely. This is something that did not come as news to me. The story of Christ's journey to Calvery is a terribly gruesome story, filled with pain, suffering and injustice. However, I cannot see any justification for the terribly explicit scenes of gore in this film.

Dear reader, I could not recommend going to see this film unless you particularly want to see a man being whipped until he looks like something left in the corner of a butcher's floor. That is not to say that I would want to discourage you from going, you understand? If you want to know the story, I can only suggest that you read The Book.