Got that Passion-fever? Haha, me neither.

The reviews are in -- at least, some of them -- and the results are mixed. Some people really like it, while some others really don't. The common denominator among both the positive and the negative reviews is the protracted, graphic violence of the movie. Ebert writes:

...the film is the most violent I have ever seen. It will probably be the most violent you have ever seen. This is not a criticism but an observation; the film is unsuitable for younger viewers, but works powerfully for those who can endure it. The MPAA's R rating is definitive proof that the organization either will never give the NC-17 rating for violence alone, or was intimidated by the subject matter. If it had been anyone other than Jesus up on that cross, I have a feeling that NC-17 would have been automatic.

I'm probably going to go check it out on thursday, depending on my schedule, and I'll post my thoughts here.

But from what I've seen in the previews: I swear that Gibson's shot of the descencing hammer upon the cross looks exactly like the axe from Braveheart. Good to see Mel staying fresh.

UPDATE: Drudge whines that the New York Times slams the movie, pointing instead to a New York Post story about how some fans love it. Of course, Drudge doesn't mention that the actual review from the NY Post is rather negative:

Indeed, it is overwrought, sadistic way beyond the point of overkill, and oddly, spiritually dry given its subject. But then, unlike the great Passions of the past, it is a product of a distinctly perverted sensibility.

(...)

Eventually, "Passion" becomes a kind of pornographic catalog of Christ's suffering. And like pornography, it's initially powerful but eventually becomes numbing.

(...)

What distinguishes the film from the long tradition of gruesome martyrology in religious art is its lack of any sense of the meaning or reason for Christ's sacrifice.

The message of Jesus' death is all but drowned in Gibson's morbid enthusiasm for shots of metal tearing flesh, as if Christ was crucified so that Gibson - along with his hard-working make-up and sound people - could indulge his obsession with torture.

But as a historically accurate piece of art?

"Monty Python's Life of Brian" offers a more accurate guide.

Hehehe.