I just saw it last night. I definitely have some opinions about it, but before I poison the well with my own opinions, let’s hear yours.
I suspect this tread will contain unboxed spoilers.
I saw it and thought it was beautfully filmed, anti-Semitic garbage.
In case you missed it earlier this year, this was the “official” SDMB POTC thread:
I would repeat my impressions here, but since my post was the last in that 4-page thread, I’m afraid they must not have been very interesting. 
Thanks for the link. I read through your entire post (but not the entire thread), and found it intersting and insightful.
Never saw it. No interest in watching a torture/snuff film, no matter how holy the subject.
I “liked” it (how much of it can you really like?), but don’t really feel I need to see it again. I’ll consider watching it again when Good Friday rolls around.
I found it interesting in a paradoxical way.
I put myself in the role of the Christian theist when I watched the film and what I found was that I didn’t like the Romans or the Hebrews who played a part in the film. As bad as it is to say, but by putting on the God goggles negative emotions towards my fellow man came to the surface.
This is interesting because, IIRC, the prominent Christian position on Christ is that he preached to ‘love thy neighbor’ and love God. Neither of these two things were instilled in me during the film.
So, as I said, it’s a paradox. It’s a film about Christ that doesn’t mention (at all, does it?) what Christ stood for. My memory is a bit fuzzy though, but in any event, the center piece of the film was the brutal torment of Christ and not on Christ’s message.
“Love thy neighbor”, “Love thy enemy”, and “Greater love hath no man” were definitely used in the flashbacks.
I saw it three times in the theatres- choked up during the very human moments (the flashback of him teasing with His Mom, his fall while carrying the cross & Mary’s flashback to him falling as a child), watched cringing during the flogging & crucifying, & simultaneously wept & cheered at the Resurrection (and I think I laughed once during the Pitting of Satan).
I haven’t gotten the DVD yet. Will definitely do so. Soon after it came out, my church played the Crucifixion part during Communion & I almost broke down.
I’m still working my way through that other thread, but I may as well render my opinion now.
I won’t go into historicity or theology, as they have been done to death, so I’ll limit my review to technical aspects and artistic choices.
First, I’ll say that I thought the cinematography was excellent, but didn’t have much of a chance to show itself off. This could have been a visually stunning movie, but it wasn’t. If it was Gibson’s aim to put us in the action as it actually looked, however, then what visual stunnery there was was way out of place. The Gethsemene scenes, for instance, were too well lit to be lit only by moonlight. Yes, one must consider the verisimilitude of the medium, but if you’re going to take the artistic approach, then take the artistic approach. If you insist on realism, stick with realism. This movie waffled too much.
The score, I thought, was largely understated, and so was perfect for this movie.
The choice of language was, I thought, a good one. I almost wish it had been sans subtitles. I can see what Gibson was going for, and it would have worked.
The joke about the table was way out of place. Was this suddenly a comedy I was watching? And the joke is stale. It’s been used in so many historical movies and TV shows that it’s really run out of steam.
The scenes where Christ’s cross was turned over (onto his stomach) had so much comic potential that I’m almost sorry they didn’t go for it. Just as the cross was about to tip over, an “oh crap!” look on his face would have been pure comedy gold. When was turned back over, we actually got this comedy payoff.
And the bird pecking out the guy’s eyes? What was that all about? Just silly. In fact, the whole last part of the movie devolved into a big revenge fantasy.
What was up with all of the demon-kids? Including the Christ baby himself? We’ve gone straight into science fiction here. Great effect, bad movie for it.
I also have a problem with evil characters that are scarred, unshaven, have bad teeth, and sit around going “Mwa ha ha” at everything. So cliche.
For all this, though, I realize that making a Passion movie is not an easy task. The line between profound and stupid is an easy one to cross, so props to Mel for doing as well as he did. And props to an amazing cast and crew.
Badly filmed (too much slow mo, too much weird stuff). Innaccurate. Needlessly brutal. Gibson had to invent several tortures that weren’t described in either the Bible or Roman history to try and awe us.
Anti-semitic, but perhaps unintentionally so. the attempts to excuse Pilate were laughable.
One more thing I forgot to mention:
Mary wipes Jesus’ blood off of his face with a white linen. She’s left holding the bloody linen, with a perfect Shroud of Turin impression of His face. Silly, silly. Woulda been funnier if it looked like a happy face a la Forrest Gump.
Laughed my ass off! 
Uh, that’s Veronica. It’s the Sixth Station of the Cross. I can’t find a Bible quote, but us Catholics are renowned for our lack of Biblical knowledge.
I don’t recall if I posted to the other thread.
I thought it was a horror movie, and I thought it was depressing that Mel (and apparently so many others) apparently relate strongly to this aspect of the Jesus story, given how little emphasis was put on the more positive elements of the ministry (and I say this as an atheist). Yeah, I know, it’s a passion play, and this is how they’ve worked for hundreds of years, back to the earliest days of religious performance in Christian Europe. I still think it’s depressing that the guilt and torment is apparently more meaningful than the redemption to so many people.
I also thought it provided an interesting connection to the large number of Mel’s characters who have endured brutal torture on screen. He apparently identifies quite closely with Jesus himself, and puts a high value on suffering. In other words, in my view, the man just ain’t right.
As far as the actual filmmaking, from a technical point of view, I saw it as somewhat better than competent, but not outstanding. Good cinematography, generally good but occasionally odd editing, very good musical score, pretty good acting with the limitation that Gibson appears to have deliberately directed all the humanity out of his archetypes. Quite a few choices that just plain didn’t work: the screaming devil just about made me laugh aloud.
I am further depressed in that I predict this thing to be nominated for Best Picture in February, out of sheer momentum.
The link doesn’t work.
I’m waiting for the “Special Edition” one with Joel, Mike and the Bots 
[looks around for lightning]
well, they did set this one up for a sequel* though…
*i haven’t really seen this movie yet, haven’t decided if i want to, it’ll be a rental if anything…
As an agnostic, I suppose my true duty was to watch this with all expectation of ridiculing it. But I didn’t. I loves me a good passion play. Hell, JCS2000 is one of my all time favorite movies. So I watched this wanting to take it seriously. I wanted to be moved by it. But by the end I was either laughing out loud or yelling “Oh, give me a break!” But truly I was disappointed in it.
I also have a problem with this and other passion plays, and I guess the Bible itself – Pilate truly seems like he wants any excuse to not prosecute Christ. But when he asks “Are you a king?”, Jesus says the equivalent of “I know you are but what am I?” It’s like he’s being deliberately obtuse. How can I feel much sympathy for a guy that can’t answer a simple question?
That’s because my coding sucked.
Let’s try it the old school way:
I’m an Atheist, but I love the Jesus and am interested in his life. The Passion (which couldn’t have been a more unfitting title, in my opinion) was positively horrid, and how anyone can find this sorry excuse for a film the least bit inspiring should check out my local Sunday school’s nativity play. Just as by the book- and no overdone slow motion or creepy CGI’d yellow eyes! I suppose it’s what Gibson had to work with- by the book (which is why I didn’t find it particularly controversial or offensive, at least no more than The Bible itself)- but what an utter drag.
How about they remake the movie, except substituting Marrissa Amber Flores Picard Gordon for Jesus H.?