Have just read a review of The Passion of the Christ that manages to articulate my response to the film in a way that my garbled glibness never could. The review is by The Age's Tom Ryan [who I think I have quoted before to bring some clarity to my attempts at expressing an opinion about a film. I think his spot-on-ness also helped with The Crime of Father Amaro. Hmmmm, I think I might love this guy]. Anyway, of Mel's film, he writes,

"It's adventurous and uncompromising in various ways... But it's also content to ride along on the intensity of the violence and the audience's knowledge of what's to come without ever doing any more than sketching in a human context for Christ's sacrifice."
"Had Gibson spent time detailing [the human factors and political context] more precisely, the film might have worked much better as a drama".

Exactly baby. See, the film didn't work! Oh Tom, you do my thinking much better than me. Unsung hero of Australian film review, you are. Forget the Schembri/Martin debate [which Adrian Martin clearly wins, btw], Ryan is the go [but so is Martin]. Anyway, yay Tom Ryan.