"The Passion of the Christ" drew in $20 million $26.6 million on it's first day. I find it somehow reassuring that in today's modern world a biblical story with the biblical violence can still draw.

I won't be seeing it until this afternoon so I can't comment specifically about what's in the film but these lines in a Yahoo! News story caught my attention.

In Salt Lake City, curiosity about the film among many Mormons was outweighed by church teachings that discourage viewing R-rated movies.

"I don't think our Lord would want me to see an R-rated film about his son," said 20-year-old Shawn Watts, a Mormon missionary.

I'm sorry, but Jesus and the Disciples LIVED an NC-17 version of the actual events. Sure, the movie is violent, that's because the Crucifixion itself was violent. God saw fit to actually put Jesus and his Disciples through these events; I find it hard to imagine that God would find it sinful for people to watch it. Sure he preached a message of peace and love, but to pretend that his life and death was this Sunday School, well coifed, sanitized version of his life I think takes something away from the story. It's taught that he died for our sins, but he didn't just pass away peacefully in his sleep. Like thousands of people in Roman times he was beaten, whipped and tortured. He was attached to the cross with nails driven through his flesh and left to die. Of course this was violent. Of course this was bloody. But it's what happened. It’s what Jesus went through. It’s what Christians believe Jesus suffered to redeem our sins and a real depiction of what happened isn't going to be straight out of the storybooks from Sunday School.

RealPolitik has a pretty good take on the whole deal.

Not that anyone cares but I have started and scrapped nearly a half dozen ideas so far.
...
All of those ideas developed wonderfully except there was no real point to any of them. You either get it or you don't. Gibson wasn't attempting to convert the unconverted or tell those who believed anything they didn't already know...he was merely telling the story, he wasn't explaining it to you. That seems to be one of the hot button issues with most of the negative reviews. They seem to echo the High Priest's request for a sign of divinity, yet Gibson's Jesus never really delivers for them. Which leads us to the second most popular complaint, the blood.

It seems that most of the negative reviews seem utterly appalled at the violence in Passion. This while one such reviewer rated the hideous gore-fest at the end of Kill Bill Vol. I the best fight scene he'd ever seen. Others wondered why Christ wasn't shiny and holy looking and seemingly detached on the cross like in all the previous depictions they'd seen. Reading through the naysayers complaints about the gore severely juxtaposed with their fawnings over the "realism" in other films they'd reviewed. The accuracy of the sets, the perfection of the dialog and the realism of the scenes. One has to wonder what they think a human being who has been beaten, caned, flayed open, thrown in a dirty dungeon over night, beaten some more, marched through dusty streets straining and sweating, beaten some more, fallen in the dirt and stone, beaten some more and then literally nailed to some planks of wood looks like?

--American RealPolitik: You Either Get It, Or You Don't

--Addendum--
This morning I watched Deborah Norville's show that I Tivo'd last night. On the show a Rabbi was asked what he would have done differently if he were the one making the movie.

His answer?

"It shouldn't have focused on one person." Violence is fine in films like Saving Private Ryan because there are so many people. The Passion shouldn't have just focused on the suffering of one person.

Go back and read that again, I'll wait...

He thinks Gibson shouldn't have focused on one person. He thinks the story of the death of God's only son shouldn't have focused so much on the man who was dying for everyone’s sins.

That just amazed me.