by MATTHEW HAYS

Witness the controversies, outrages and brouhahas over Mel Gibson's latest film, the eagerly anticipated dramatic reconfiguration of the last 12 hours in Jesus Christ's life, The Passion of the Christ. In what can only be seen as a massive Christmas-comes-early publicity gift to the folks behind this film, some prominent Jews are denouncing it as anti-Semitic, while others are questioning its historical validity.

Gibson, for his part, argues simply that this movie is a dramatic rendering of historical fact. That's right, Gibson is so sure that the Bible is a historical document that he's claiming this movie is as close to what actually happened as is humanly possible. Apparently, there was a great deal of soft focus and slow motion in this period. (His claims are so stupid that I can't even be bothered to get into them here; suffice it to say, I actually find it pretty goddamned hilarious that a bunch of evangelicals are sitting down to watch this, consuming it as though it were recently-discovered documentary footage.)

Aside from the controversy (the film didn't strike me as particularly anti-Semitic) and the arguments about fact, I think it best to simply appraise this film on the basis upon which Gibson is presenting it. Trouble is, as a historical epic, I'm not sure this film is really that fantastic. Yes, it boasts some very impressive production values, including gorgeous set pieces and costumes. And the gory bits, in which JC is flailed, tortured and cut up - well, they didn't skimp on the Ragu spaghetti sauce, let me tell you.

Among Gibson's many nutty opinions, he has stated that he rejects Vatican II, the '60s step forward in theological thought by the Catholic hierarchy. Apparently, Gibson doesn't believe in progress in the medium of cinema either. In a post-David Lean world, for example, filmmakers have actually brought up some of the problems inherent in representing history, incorporating these issues in their work. Not with irony-challenged Gibson; instead, this is a just-the-facts-ma'am, ultra-simplistic telling of the Bible's words, as Gibson sees them. It's gory all right, and it's definitely unsettling to watch someone get a whipping like dear old Jesus did, but frankly, any slightly-more-than-competent director could have delivered this, given the tens of millions of dollars Gibson had at his disposal. I saw Gibson interviewed by Diane Sawyer. Mad genius? Mad, yes, but genius? No way. As with Braveheart, Gibson's stylistic high concept is shifting into slo-mo to drive home a point.

Sadly, The Passion of the Christ joins a litany of controversy-soaked movies where the media surrounding the film is infinitely more interesting than the movie itself. Sawyer's interview with Gibson, which aired on ABC last week, was a wondrously titillating nutjob-celebrity extravaganza. And Christopher Hitchens' Vanity Fair piece on the film is typically hilarious, the author at his very best. The Passion of the Christ, on the other hand, merely confirmed my own diehard atheism. Spread the good word. Don't believe the hype.

The Passion of the Christ is now playing

>> Movie Listings