Change Your Image
JCBar
Reviews
Der Untergang (2004)
Outstanding Depiction of Hitler's Last Days
Downfall has nothing new to actually say about the last days in Berlin after the war. But while I've read many stories about 'Hitler and Eva committing suicide, the fate of Goebbels' children, Hitler's dog being killed etc'; to see these acts in this faithfully recorded story of the last days in the Bunker, brought home just how terrible those days were to its inhabitants. And while you realize that most of the participants helped bring on these events themselves, you can't still feel something towards them as human beings.
Now, I'm stopping short (very short) of saying this film made me feel sympathetic towards Hitler or the SS members that were caught in the final days (although I did feel that way towards the civilians); and I'm also stopping short of having any of my original feelings change towards Germany's role in killing millions. But this film was unique in that it was generally low key in its depictions, was realistic, and managed to tell a familiar story in a way unlike any other film I've seen about Hitler – and at the same time not portraying the entire German military and other Nazi supporters as cardboard cutout monsters. Not even Magda Goebbels (Corinna Harfounch) is entirely displayed that way (despite her horrific act, and undying loyalty to Hitler).
The acting from all is outstanding – esp the superb performance of Bruno Ganz as Hitler. The whole tone of the film was believable from start to finish. The one negative I could find was that at 155 mins, it might have been a little too long, but I'm not sure what scenes or story lines could have been left out.
All in all simply an outstanding film.
P.S. I Love You (2007)
I know better but...
Well, this movie has a lot going against it the dialogue isn't all that realistic, the friends' interaction has the same artificiality, the plot is a little too cute. And when you throw in a slighty paunchy Harry Connick Jr, who has a 'syndrome' that makes him just a little bit obnoxious as he woos the widow Hilary, you really have a formula for a dreadful little film. And I don't know what it is with Scottish (or many other) actors who affect an Irish accent most of the time they come off sounding like the 'lucky charms' leprechaun, but I guess most Americans do too, so I can't really hold that against anyone.
Some scenes are painful, and forced most notably the Lisa Kudrow scenes as she 'auditions' men she meets at social events, the drunk scenes with Hilary, and the bedroom chatter of the two main actors. And why they have Hilary walking on the Yankee dugout towards the end of the film, while Harry reads to her at the end is simply so contrived I could hardly pay much attention to what Harry was saying.
But I like Hilary Swank, who at least has a film where she is a bit more feminine than we've seen her recently. And I like Gerard Butler and Gina Gershon, and most of the others esp Jeffrey Dean Morgan as the man Hilary meets while visiting Ireland, who actually does sound Irish, although I'm told he was raised in Seattle. And there is one really effective plot surprise as well.
And I like some of the lines, and some of the scenes, and all of the Irish countryside, and Kathy Bates, who plays Hilary's mother who urges her daughter to move on with life, and and and
so despite knowing better, I did enjoy this film. But it's really not all that good. But it sure is likable; even Harry is most of the time.
Dan in Real Life (2007)
Real Life?
This movie is so bad that I just had to watch it to the end to prove to myself that a movie could get progressively more idiotic as it went on - and I was rewarded for it I could say that I was right. There are so many false notes in this film that I'm not sure it's possible to include them all. The cute meeting between Steve and Juliet, the aerobics scene, the shower scene, the interaction between Steve and his obnoxious children, the charades, the talent show, the bowling alley scene at end
.blah blah blah. I have rarely seen such an unrealistic family and if I'm insulting all the families that have extended stay-overs with a dozen or so people, AND they play charades AND in costume yet, I apologize.
The movie has nice people in it, but the movie is treacle and I mean that in a bad way - but I don't want to insult treacle either.
Piñero (2001)
Could see no reason...
I was eager to see Pinero, liking the actor Benjamin Bratt. I thought it might be similar to other Hispanic themed films, like 'Before Night Falls', or 'The Sea Within' - both films that I enjoyed.
Unfortunately, that is not the case here. The film falls short on several levels. I thought Bratt overacted, more times coming off like a swaggering quasi-cool Hispanic Matthew McConaughey (and I don't think we need another one) rather than a 'street wise' urban poet.
His Pinero character does not have one shred of likability to him, and his art apparently does not age well, for I found the poetry he created somewhat shopworn. Like others, I could see no real reason that this guy was an important character or artist, or why exactly he was a 'New York sensation'.
The directing style was also confusing. It's probably just me, but I was sometimes not sure what decade I was in, what action was being 'staged', and what was actually happening in real time. This jump cut editing also seems a bit dated as well.
In short, I still like Benjamin Bratt (not that he needs an endorsement), but I did not find this to be a good film.
Shortbus (2006)
...looking for a lower rating
Absolutely the most boring, distasteful, shallow, amateurish
I'm running out of adjectives here
piece of excrement on film I have ever seen. I kept looking for a lower rating. I thought other films like 'You and Me and Everyone I Know', 'The Cook, the Thief, His
' were the absolute nadir BEFORE I saw 'Shortbus', but I was wrong
very very very wrong.
This 'film' by John Cameron Mitchell is puzzling. He must have thought this was the way to get it distributed, get it noticed, or get some publicity. Why on earth would any serious filmmaker go this route? The people I feel most sorry for are the poor actors who thought this might help their careers if in fact any of them are card-carrying members.
Anyway, enough time spent on this waste of money, film, and resources
Nubes de verano (2004)
Not a bad film
This is a film that grows on you. Initially you are put off by the four principle players - Ana and Daniel, a happily married couple on vacation, and Robert and Beatriz - cousins living in the resort town. And while you never really warm to the sleazy Robert, the other three actors are very affecting, and effective.
Like most Spanish films I view, it is dialog driven. And like most, you start to like the melodic sounds of Spanish more and more. The plot hinges on whether or not Robert and his cousin will be able to bed the couple (separately of course), and they promise to help one another in this quest.
After awhile, Beatriz abandons the plan out of decency, but Robert continues on. What happens eventually is open to some kind of interpretation, but I think the majority will opt for what appears the most convenient one.
As mentioned in the other review (and I find it hard to believe that there is only one other review of this fine film), the final scene does tell it all. But it doesn't quite spell it out for you.
The area the film is made in is beautiful, the females involved are seductive, and the music is quite endearing. The one thing I found to criticize was the scene where Robert is accosted by one of his cousin's admirers it was unbelievable, with somewhat puzzling an aftermath. Robert looks like he could have handled himself much better with the slightly built actor playing the friend, and the 'beating' wasn't as bad as a grandmother might have done to a purse snatcher
but like I said, not much to criticize in this small likable film.
Little Children (2006)
Excellent - nothing much else to add
I thought this film was the best film I saw last year. While unsavory, unsettling, and disturbing (most times that combo is poison), I found its overall message one of redemption. The film is also suspenseful, thoughtful, and ultimately hopeful.
The principle actors are all outstanding Patrick Wilson in particular but there is not much differentiation among them in quality. The film takes many turns, and just when you think you know where the scene is going, it changes, then you change your view, and then it changes again.
And what I found especially good about the film was that with each different story that was on the screen (Sarah and Brad; Ronnie and his Mother; Larry and Brad etc), you were engrossed with that part of the story, and were able to somewhat forget about the other story lines until you were jarred back to them, and then you had to realize that 'oh wait, we haven't resolved that issue yet'
. and so on. I find that most films do not quite place you in that situation.
In summary, a great, if somewhat unsettling movie, with great performances by each actor.
Running with Scissors (2006)
Comedy?
Not sure why this film was advertised as a wild, quirky, laugh filled comedy. There is not much in this movie that will entertain, nor amuse the moviegoer. Annette Bening (whose acting was touted as being Oscar worthy) comes off here as mannered, with her performance seeming routine. Brian Cox's character is confusing and irritating, and the lead playing Augusten Joseph Cross appears to simply not have the personality to carry his role. The best thing about the film is Evan Rachel Wood, but she is not enough to endorse this boring, unsavory film.
The film disappeared quickly and it seems with good reason. I found some of the scenes distasteful (the scene with Brian Cox and his just utilized toilet rivals some of the worst scenes in 'You and Me and Everyone We Know' and 'The Squid and the Whale'), some embarrassing, and most of them unsettling. I found the whole experience a waste of time. Don't you waste your time
The Cook, the Thief, His Wife & Her Lover (1989)
Holds the distinction...
This film adds a new dimension to the phrase 'bad indie' film. We're talking over the top, like it was intentional, 'what else can we do' - 'bad indie'. From the first scene of excrement smearing, to the last scene of cannibalism, the movie appalls and makes you want to go rent 'You and me and Everyone we know' - it's that bad a film.
The title is the plot, and the revolting mechanics are mostly brought about by Michael Gambon an actor I like. His wife Helen Mirren is another actor I like. Tim Roth and Ciaran Hinds also play roles I like them too. I'm halfway thinking it's me, it's me who is an idiot these people all wouldn't have been that idle all at once to accept roles in this absolutely terrible endeavor; and then not be able to see what a worthless film it would be, would they? Then since I'm kinda thick and didn't realize it myself, I see that it's an 'an allegory for Thatcherism'
ahhh, that explains it. Hatred for the PM is what drove these Brit actors to this paycheck
OK, I would do pretty much the same thing for an actor's paycheck too.
But no way is this film worth the time, nor the patience, nor the amount of churn your stomach will do over the course of its either 2 hour uncut version, or its 98 min US version. As far as it being called 'art' by many, it's art if you consider Serrano's crucifix in urine art; or all of Mapplethorpe's work art. I'm an old man, have seen many films, and this one holds the distinction of being the bad film to end all bad films.
The Three Burials of Melquiades Estrada (2005)
Marvelous acting; thoughtful
'Three Burials..' is a very entertaining film. Thoughtful, lyrical, well acted, and with breathtaking cinematography by Chris Menges, the film will remind some of the last obligation Texas ranger Woodrow Call performed for his friend Augustus in 'Lonesome Dove' namely to return a friend home for burial.
Tommy Lee Jones directs as well as stars, and his first effort in directing is admirable. The film also stars Barry Pepper as a border patrol agent forced to accompany the main character on the task; as well as Melissa Leo - with an unforgettable Levon Helm in a brief scene or two.
The film is not perfect by any means. Some scenes are repeated unnecessarily (alright, we know the pretty wife is bored; and dead bodies are gruesome when exhumed), and some linger on too long. And while some of the scenes are also a bit stretched and one scene is extremely coincidental - the movie still works well.
I also noticed that there was more chemistry between Tommy Lee's character and his friend Melquiades in their short scenes together, than there was between Heath and Jake in all of 'Brokeback'. The irony is that this film will probably last a tenth as long as the better publicized 'Brokeback' before being pulled.
Yes (2004)
Gotta hand it to writer/director
'Yes' is terrible for sure. But you have to admire someone out there at least trying to be different. The movie's dialogue is in iambic pentameter as everyone knows by now (which is what interested me in renting it); and while I recognize the difficulty of creating such a screenplay, all too often it comes off sounding like Dr Suess.
The main actors are 'good enough', but I could find no real 'fire' between the principles - their scenes seem forced. The music has no allure, and the supporting characters, while trying hard, still fall short of competence.
Like I said, the effort is admirable, but the movie is just another bad bad indie...
Prime (2005)
Amazed at how dull...
I'm not sure what is worse a bad film like the indie mess 'You and Me and Everyone We Know' where you sit back and are in absolute agony and confusion; or a film like this one - where you are completely puzzled by how vapid and boring the proceedings are. Well, I do know which one I would vote for; still, I can't help but think how wasted the talents of Meryl Streep and Uma Thurman are in the absolutely dulling 'Prime'. And you could make a case I suppose, that for the money and star power wasted, maybe 'Prime' is more painful.
The movie has little to recommend it. The lead actor Bryan Greenberg displays no charm or the personality necessary to indicate why a 'seasoned' woman like Uma Thurman would find him worthy of attention, let alone be compelled to rhapsodize on his penis. On the other side of the equation, Uma looks her age and then some, and why a 23 year old (with none of the maturity necessary to even appreciate an older woman) would be drawn to her is also baffling. Meryl Streep is invisible in a role for the first time that I can remember, and truly gives the appearance of phoning in her role.
The film isn't terrifically bad it's not an abysmal failure that will harm anyone's career. It's just a boring boring film, with pedestrian dialog, and perfunctory performances. Don't waste your time, but also don't go out and rent 'You and Me and Everyone We Know' either
A History of Violence (2005)
Not a Cronenberg Classic
The movie was not quite as many critics hailed it it was cartoon-like (probably naturally since it was based on a graphic novel) and overly violent. The sex scenes were borderline ridiculous, with both Maria Bello and Viggo being somewhat too old to engage in 'cheerleader' sex, and later again with 'bang your back against the stairs' coupling.
The script was banal at times, and unrealistic in spots. The scene where Viggo tells his son that you 'can't solve problems by hitting people' five seconds before he hits his son himself was laughable. William Hurt was somewhat wasted, and why his 8 minutes of screen time got nominated (the main reason I rented the DVD) is somewhat mystifying. In short, an overrated film for the most part.
Still the film was entertaining and engaging enough to recommend it to anyone who is a Cronenberg fan. It had satisfying set scenes involving the son and the town bully; strong vignettes with the menacing Ed Harris; and the short sequence with Hurt (while not worthy of a nomination) still was worth viewing. And for the first half of the film it did generate a certain amount of suspense. So, okay it wasn't quite the film I expected, but at least it wasn't 'You and Me and Everyone We Know'. I rather sit thru 'oldtimer' cheerleader sex anytime
Keane (2004)
Not Even Close
I like Damian Lewis. I like street dramas. I like little children who are trusting and don't get hurt by their trust. I have empathy for 'lost' souls on the streets. I'm not entirely unfeeling.
But 'Keane' is a bore. It did nothing towards making me understand the title character's predicament, how he got there, if his story was true, or if he even had a story. I only know he was getting a government check, lived (for about a week and ½) in some motel, and was delusional.
Damian Lewis can act well enough, and doesn't need me to tell him this performance was competent enough. But he didn't make Keane sympathetic, interesting, nor worthy of 94 minutes of closeups. I'm in the minority on this I can see, but this is an independent film that gives independent films the reputation of 'independent' films as in '
for an independent film it wasn't bad'. Only in this case it wasn't even close to being 'not bad'.
Hustle & Flow (2005)
Movie OK, problem with nomination...
OK I know this movie wasn't made for old white guys like me. I rented it because Terrence Howard was nominated for best actor, and I was curious. So the fact that I don't think rap is an art form, don't think it's music, don't think it's worthy of the money it generates is irrelevant. I find the whole rapper, guns, ho's, violence, ghetto deal with the strutting, macho posturing that accompanies it to be very irritating. And while I understand the money they have (and I don't) is a big factor to this dislike, hopefully I'm not too obvious about it
But as to the film, Terrence does a fine job of playing a ghetto black he was very believable as some no-hoper hustler. And my equally old wife and I watched the whole movie and found it entertaining, funny at times, and were very appreciative that it wasn't as profane and violent as it could have been. So the movie is not the issue, although I couldn't refrain from commenting on rap above.
But I do not understand the acting 'stretch' I keep hearing regarding the lead actor; and why this justifies his nomination in this somewhat above average film. He's an actor, and judging from his role in 'Crash', he can play other roles as well. But that's just it I don't think for a black actor, that playing upper class, and then playing ghetto is all that tough of a stretch. Oprah does it whenever she wants to make a point, Denzel does it at a drop of a hat; Richard Pryor was another example; heck, I bet you could even throw in Bill Cosby. Black entertainers do this easily (and hopefully this doesn't qualify as insensitive stereotyping). Hell, almost all the rappers who go on to acting roles CAN act between these extremes. Now, some might say 'why should you penalize this talent (or even minimize it) by not recognizing it at award time? You wouldn't talk about ignoring or penalizing Bobby Bonds just because he makes it look easy would you?'. And I don't have an answer for that one it's a good point.
Possibly this performance being nominated is not all that bad a deal anyway. It's just that maybe it took a nomination away from a Morgan Freeman, or heck even a Jeff Daniels. Besides, I'm still carrying a grudge that Guy Pearce wasn't nominated for 'Memento'.
The Thing About My Folks (2005)
Entertaining enough but...
'The Thing About My Folks' is an adequate film, with enough laughs and entertaining scenes to make it worthwhile for a DVD rental.
Peter Falk proves he still has his talent, and Reiser is as charming as he was on his long running TV show - if you liked him on 'Mad About You', then you'll like him here.
The film was written by Rieser, and while I found it beneath him to throw in three (three!) flatulence jokes in the first 30 minutes, thankfully the last hour or so of the film was relatively lowbrow-humor free. Another criticism was that some of the the profanity laced, and sex themed talk between father and son was a bit unrealistic - I can't imagine ever talking to my father about his first time sleeping with my mother (cheesh, why on earth would you care?). But like I said, it is an entertaining enough film just to watch both leads.
Brokeback Mountain (2005)
Disappointing
Brokeback Mountain is one of the most disappointing films I've seen this year. By now all know about the 'gay cowboy' film. And that aspect of the story did not bother me at all. I don't care who falls in love with whom. The sex scenes did not faze me, nor did I even find them all that graphic or jarring.
The main problem I had, besides it being somewhat dull, was this - I was unconvinced that the two leads even liked each - I could discern no chemistry between them. Plus, I couldn't connect with them either - as characters, as victims, or even as star crossed lovers. The only character I cared about (always a bad sign when you start looking for people to care about in a film) was Michelle Williams, who plays the wife of Heath Ledger's character, and stands out the most here for her overall excellent performance.
As far as the rest of the performances go, there is not a bad one. But I was surprised at the accents - Heath Ledger's accent sounds like every Aussie or Brit actor who 'can't' do an American accent - or hams up a Southern one so clichéd that a Foghorn Leghorn image springs up. And I'm not sure a Wyoming cowboy would sound that way anyway. As far as Jake Gyllenhaal's Texas accent, I found it nondescript being not all sure he was even attempting one.
Spoiler coming - and while the off-screen (for the most part) murder takes place in Texas, and not in Wyoming, the allusion to the Matthew Shephard killing is one that I waited for the entire movie esp with the foreshadowing of the two cowboys being 'shepherds' in the beginning of the film, the story of the two other cowboys (who were beat to death) that Ennis tells Jack about, and the fact that the movie takes place in Wyoming. But that is not a major complaint that was mostly my fault. Most will find that the movie is really not a preachy movie it is primarily just a love story between these two men. I just wish it hadn't been as dull as it was.
King of the Corner (2004)
Genuine, Realistic Story
Congrats should go out to Peter Reigert for his virtual one man effort 'King of the Corner'. He co-wrote the screenplay, produced, directed, and stars in this wonderful, 'small' film - and small is in no way a negative adjective here.
Peter Riegert stars as Leo - a man seemingly stalled, and bored with his job. There are hints at a disintegrating marriage, and also with a flawed relationship with a daughter. How he copes over a period of several weeks with these factors is the plot line of this film.
While a bit slow at times (one could be more positive and say lyrical), 'King of the Corner' is one of those labor of loves that is well worth the time and money that was expended. And that is unusual for most 'pet' projects.
Millions (2004)
Charming film; effective interplay
Danny Boyle ('28 Days Later', 'Trainspotting') directs a different kind of film with 'Millions', but shows that no matter what the subject is, he has a certain style with offbeat stories.
By now, most know the story of this film. Despite a botched advertising campaign that tried to hide the younger boy's affection for saints and the religious, and only concentrated on small boys trying to spend found money, it apparently found its audience which continues to grow thru the rentals.
The two boys (Alex Etel as Damian, Lewis McGibbon as Anthony) turn in fine performances, and their interplay is effective and realistic, but never too precocious. To have one be knowledgeable in finance, and the other knowledgeable in the ethereal added to their relationship. The boys' father James Nesbitt is also quite good, although I never quite got his accent at times sounding almost Scots/Irish, other times generic British, but that could just be my flat ear, which gets worse and worse each year.
While not as charming or entertaining as 'Dear Frankie', a film I couldn't keep comparing it to, 'Millions' is still a wonderful movie. The reference to the other movie is not even germane - I just wanted to bring up another well-made movie. It's rare to find films like these two, and they deserve any mention they can get.
Dear Frankie (2004)
Very sweet; very effective
This Scottish film is extremely well conceived, acted, and casted. All the roles portray 'real' people, acting believably, and using acceptable logic. As with the similar movie 'Millions', this film lets filmgoers know that somewhere, some people are still creating intimate, thoughtful movies that deal with lives on a not-so-grand scale.
Emily Mortimer as Frankie's mother Lizzie turns in the best performance, but it is Jack McElhone as Frankie that you are most drawn to - not only for his believable performance, but for his 'ordinariness' - if one is allowed to use that adjective.
The movie has some minor irritants. I'm not sure we needed the drawn out scene between Lizzie and Frankie's 'real' father, nor the last scene with the sister-in-law chasing Lizzie down after the scene at the hospital; but all in all the movie works very well.
And while it must have been tempting to put a Hollywood type ending to the film, it was nice to see that they didn't. In short, this is a very enjoyable movie. But you'll have to listen very carefully - for a country that speaks English, you sure have to work at understanding every one of the sentences (or at least some of them).
The Squid and the Whale (2005)
Uncomfortable
This movie is collecting excellent reviews throughout the country - and while rightfully so, it is still such an uncomfortable film to watch that I wonder if anyone will truly be glad that they sat through its viewing. And I would caution anyone expecting (based on some of the reviews) 'a touching story', or a 'wildly comical' one.
The acting is first class of course. Jeff Daniels should finally be recognized by the Academy (for what that's worth); and the scenes designed to make the viewer squirm are all believable. The younger actors all are competent, but most of the situations that the youngest (Owen Kline) is involved in makes you wonder why there aren't laws created to keep minors out of R rated movies (or at least the scenes in R rated movies that make them R rated movies). But like I said, it's an uncomfortable movie and of course meant to be one.
In short, I found the movie to be a 2 and 1/2 hour film that only ran approx 90 mins. And that cannot be a resounding endorsement for any movie.
Me and You and Everyone We Know (2005)
Don't include me...
I was swayed after hearing about other reviews of this movie - my son for one, who quoted Ebert, who liked the film as well (and by the way the movie scenes you describe in your review are 'perverse and explicit'. I'm not sure how you came to the conclusion they weren't). I did not like nor appreciate the movie - maybe because of my age or personality, or I don't know what. Maybe I just do not have the tolerance, the imagination, nor the patience for independent films like 'You and Me and Everyone We Know'.
But to me this film is simply a case of someone who thinks their thoughts - no matter how random or disgusting - are worthy of recording for posterity, and then finding someone to bankroll them so they can make a movie. The film has little to recommend it - save the performance of the younger son - who then has this positive undermined by some of the most distasteful dialog ever written.
But others will find it daring, innovative, and quite possibly charming. I don't know how, but they will.
Crash (2004)
I'm not entirely buying into it, but...
Thirty minutes into 'Crash', I was slightly put off and irritated. And at the time Don Cheadle's character insulted his girlfriend/partner's culture, I was about ready to stop viewing. The film's premise seemed to me outdated, outlandish, and just a bit naïve.
But I stayed. And I stayed primarily by accepting this film not as an indictment of America, nor as a primer on race relations in California, but as a movie about jerks plain and simple. White, black, yellow, and brown jerks (well, maybe not brown - I can't remember any egregiously bad behaviour from that group) all of them flawed, and all of them human. And by staying, I was able to actually say I found the film entertaining to watch, with several well thought out points to make. Moreover, I thought all the actors were realistic, and the story never dragged.
While several of the vignettes are pretty coincidental (you might say contrived) the Matt Dillon/Thandie Newton one in particular by and large the randomness of the characters' relationships works well. Paul Haggis, the writer and director of the film, does an excellent job of keeping the dialogue realistic, and the scene setup logical. And the music not only complements each scene well, but is evocatively apropos as well.
While I don't find its overall argument (which I think is 'you have no idea who you are, but you are racist') truthful, the movie did make you think. Also, unlike most movies today, this film is not forgotten two hrs after you leave the theater (or return the DVD in this case).
Celebrity (1998)
Almost done with Woody
What a waste of Kenneth Branagh - although he did a dead on impersonation of Woody Allen, I'm not sure we needed another one. For an actor I admire, he certainly wore out his welcome after the first 30 minutes.
Moreover, the film is rife with situations that just do not seem real. The scene with Charlize Theron was unbelievable - sure, a jaded New Yorker like Lee would certainly drive off the road because of some sexual comment; and of course a writer who had already written two novels would only have one copy of his third; and of course a women getting ready to be married would see a hooker about the fine points of fellatio (an absolutely abysmal scene with Bebe Neuwirth); and of course and of course and....the movie is full of those moments. This is a below standard Woody Allen film with none of the charm of some of his best. He goes to the well often enough with his films in terms of style and content, but this time he certainly brought a teacup.
The Passion of the Christ (2004)
Perfect in Intent
I don't understand the criticisms this film has received. It's too violent, it's too literal, it's not about the 'gentle' Jesus, it's not about the Resurrection, it's upsetting
etc. The film is about the last hours of Jesus' life pretty clear. Mel Gibson expressly wanted the film to be about Jesus' suffering. His viewpoint (which he said over and over again) was that not enough people actually realized what suffering a crucifixion entailed, and that through the ages, it had become sanitized and watered down so much that all most understood or thought was that Jesus eventually suffocated on the cross after being whipped.
Mel Gibson made that quite clear when he was making the film, and it was quite clear as he was trying to find a distributor - that this was a film that wasn't going to shy away from the graphic agony Jesus suffered.
Now about the other main criticism it's anti Semitic. I don't find it to be, although I'm not Jewish, a scholar, nor particularly bible knowledgeable. I do know that it follows some bible versions. That the Romans crucified Jesus at the instigation of the Pharisees and the crowd is well known. I don't find it relevant criticism the film will not sway anyone one way or the other regardless.
I found the film to be almost perfect; not necessarily as a movie however, but in conveying what the filmmaker wanted. In that aspect it was. While I don't believe that the scourging needed to be as drawn out as it was, that is really the only criticism I have. The director wanted us to experience what a crucifixion was and he succeeded. He wanted us to see Jesus' suffering and he did. And thankfully he ended the film well with a 'restored' Jesus. The film makes us feel, suffer, cry, and eventually be joyful in a renewed Christ. I'm not sure what else was necessary.