So Peter Jackson puts together a great trilogy of movies called “Lord of the Rings” based on a book. Then Anthony Minghella slaps together another flick called “Cold Mountain,” again, based on a book.

So what’s the big deal about Mel Gibson directing a movie based on a book?

Seriously, Gibson has stirred up a great big bowl of gumbo over “The Passion of the Christ,” and for all the talk about why he filmed it, let’s just take a moment to assess whether he did a good job.

I have to say I’ve seen better movies, but I’ve also seen worse. I liked “Cold Mountain” a whole lot more, but I liked “Cat in the Hat” a whole lot less.

I’ll admit the story is inspirational and has me intrigued as to its veracity. I’ve heard that Gibson put a lot of effort into making the movie historically accurate.

But I found a lot of flaws in this movie. First off, there is virtually no acting to judge in this movie. For the most part, it’s a two-hour presentation of people looking very stoically into the camera.

The most annoying things, however, are the poor voice-overs littered throughout the movie that are intended to add emotion to an already tormenting story.

From the whimpering of Mary as she watches her son go through what he goes through to the sound effects of Jesus actually suffering, it all feels a bit contrived.

Then the last 15 minutes of the movie is punctuated by an annoying cadence underlying the entire soundtrack.

I don’t know if Gibson put it there or if it was a side effect of the film system at Skyline Cinemas, but there was a “thump, thump, thump” going on all the way through the climax of the movie.

All the warnings of how violent the movie is are definitely spot-on. And every last moment of the violence is devoted entirely to Jesus and/or his body.

In that respect, kudos to the makeup artists. The authenticity of the wounds inflicted on Jesus are impressive.

That and the use of the Latin, Aramaic and Hebrew languages with subtitles in the movie brought the story somewhat to life.

But aside from that, it felt like Gibson was relying on the emotional trauma inherent in the story of Jesus’ crucifixion to carry the show. For some people I’m sure it worked, but I’m a little too pragmatic for that.

Delving into the hoopla

Kimberly Nicoletti

FILM

I’ve avoided the media hype about “The Passion of the Christ,” but it’s nearly impossible to walk into the movie and have an untainted experience.

I went in with my Catholic upbringing. I went in after speaking to a Jewish friend about her personal experiences with anti-Semitism. I walked out perplexed with religion.

In general, I approached “Passion” with more emotion than Richard.

I had no problem with the acting and didn’t notice thumps, poor voice-overs or annoying whimpers or sound effects.

On the other hand, the makeup bothered me – Jesus’ scars and blood seemed overdone.

And showing God’s teardrop fall from the sky and Satan in hell alone was overkill. It hit viewers over the head with a message instead of letting the story speak for itself.

But overall, it’s an intense experience, mostly because of the graphic violence and subject matter.

I hate violent movies, but Mel Gibson didn’t add any gratuitous violence. Every action serves to drive home the suffering a man named Jesus endured.

In fact, the portrayal of Jesus as flesh rather than spirit stands out. The film shows his temptation, his doubt, his pain. It focuses less on the divine aspect of Jesus and more on the human.

Whether you’re agnostic or you believe Jesus is your savior, the story can stimulate deeper thoughts and feelings. Religious people often find new inspiration watching text come to life. But religious beliefs aside, I think anyone can read symbolic meaning into the story without taking it literally.

“Passion” shows the temptation to escape responsibilities, take the easy way out, turn to anger and resentment and lose yourself. At one point, Satan asks Jesus, “Who are you?” It’s hard to argue that’s not a profound question, regardless of your religious beliefs.

The movie portrays the power of relationships and energetic closeness between people – especially as Mary walks down the street and stops at the exact location where Jesus hangs below in the dungeon. She puts her ear to the ground at the same time he looks up. It shows human conflict, fear and remorse.

And it depicts powerful women – women in touch with their intuition and their hearts. (On the other hand, Satan is a female. Surprisingly, women aren’t objecting to that.)

I don’t think it spawns any hatred toward Jews, though my opinion is like a man saying women don’t face discrimination. But I can only speak from my viewpoint.

In 10 years of Catholic school upbringing, I never considered that “Jews killed God.” The Bible teaches Jesus made a decision to die, so there aren’t any “villains” in the story.

Regardless of “who’s right and who’s wrong” in the debates about “Passion,” it saddens – and perplexes – me that people continue to inflict pain upon others in the name of religion.

The message of “Passion” is love, but the reaction to “Passion” hasn’t been all loving. That’s what bothers me most about this movie.