The Passion of the Christ – Cinema Snob

The Nostalgia Critic and The Cinema Snob review The Passion of the Christ, and also join Santa Christ on a journey through North Jerusalem.

About thecinemasnob

Brad Jones portrays The Cinema Snob, a pretentious film snob who is stuck with reviewing Z-Grade exploitation flicks of the past. I'm a big guy. For you.


  1. Saw this on your YouTube channel earlier and I always love when this bloodbath disguised as a Jesus movie gets torn a new one.

    I remember seeing this with friends and my girlfriend at the time when it was out and it was hands down one of the hardest movies we ever sat through. Not because it was incredibly boring, but the blood and gore was shown so slowly that it was so painful to watch. Damn, I’m surprised Jesus wasn’t dead from the first lashing on his back.

    I never got any impression that this movie was trying to convey some message, but it felt more like Mel Gibson wanted to make a bloody Jesus movie that was barely even religious at all.

    Poor Santa Christ. That’s what he gets for being Anti Segaite!

  2. Kinda glad I never actually took the time to watch this movie after seeing this review. Two hours of religious torture porn? …That’s uplifting! But whatever, I guess people actually like watching this, and there’s not much I can say after that.

  3. The movie cannot be as bad as all that, given most of the jokes in this review had little to do with anything actually in the movie. The fake subtitles cannot be held against it, nor should the impatience of its reviewers (of course they wouldn’t enjoy this movie – it wasn’t speaking to them).

    This film is a niche film for hardcore, Southern-Baptist, fire-and-brimstone fundamentalist Christians. That said, it wasn’t my goblet of wine either, but I understood why it was made. Brad and Doug did, too, which is why I don’t get why they’d want to pick on this film. The film certainly fulfilled its intention: to depict the brutality of Christ’s crucifixion!

    And I disagree with Brad and Doug: the movie does show one aspect of Christ’s love: He underwent all this for the sake of those who were doing these things to Him, never once failing! If Christ’s death came quick, easy, and painless, it wouldn’t have succeeded in testing His resolve (moreover, many depictions of Christ on the cross don’t connote the extent of His suffering). But, again, this movie was made for a niche audience; not surprising most wouldn’t like it.

    • Honestly, it is actually that bad, but so is this review. Watch Hagan’s.

    • Snorgatch Pandalume

      Possibly because the entire point of this movie (and Christianity in general) is to make people feel bad about themselves (Jesus suffered and died to save you, even though you’re a sinner and you don’t deserve it–guilt guilt guilt). With a message like that, is it any wonder the history of Christianity is 2000 years of nonstop bloodshed?

      • Well, You certainly know what You’re talking about. Let an actual Christian say right off the bat that Jesus did not die to guilt-trip humanity, but to provide salvation. You know, heavenly bliss instead of endless torment and damnation? Regardless of Your beliefs, You could at least do the slightest bit of research before talking about “the entire point” of someone else’s.

        That being said, I’m not a fan of this movie myself. But honestly, that’s because I’m really sensitive to pain, gore and other such stuff in my movies. It does, however, serve as a reminder on what those Biblical passages are actually about. The Bible (thank God!) does not go into detail about all the horrible damage Jesus suffered, mostly because that’s not what’s the most important. The most important is He did it for us despite having the power to stop it any time.

        Not watching the review. I have a bad feeling that it might contain ridiculing of Christianity itself rather than the movie and I’ve seen enough of that all over the Internet. Mostly from people who don’t know what they’re talking about, but hey, Christians are the one group it’s fine to offend. Pass.

        Ugh, this comment came out way too bitter. Let me just explain I’m not a stick-up-my-butt jerk who looks to be offended. We have way too many of those already. I’m just Internet-tired, you know the feeling, right?

        • Snorgatch Pandalume

          Wow, the assumptions are flying fast and furious, aren’t they? For all you know I used to BE a Bible-believing Christian who knows the faith and its tenets inside and out. You also assume my problem is with the actions and teachings of Jesus as opposed to the actions and teachings of Christianity (Hint: they are NOT the same thing).
          You may not feel that the suffering of Jesus was what was most important, but it was clearly very important to Gibson, because he made 2+ hours of torture-porn about it, and to the people who paid money to watch it. And no, neither Doug nor Brad ridicules Christianity in this review, because their beef is with this particular movie and that is all.
          Christians are the one group it’s fine to offend? Seriously? Are you real comfy up there on your cross? Yes, your comment did come off as bitter, and if you knew that then why did you post it in that form? Was there some reason you couldn’t have gone back and edited it before you hit the Post Comment button?

          • @Snorgatch: I don’t feel the gore in this film was important to [the majority] who watched it. In fact, to the contrary.

            This film is for a very specific type of Christian as I described in my first post (the kind of Christians I tend to dislike). Those Christians tend to be older persons who hold (or held) deaconship or some other authoritarian position in their respective churches, hence they would encourage their congregations to see it.

            I know I’m generalizing and my thoughts are replete with presumption, but that’s truly how I see it. Most who saw this film were TOLD to see it, and/or (at the very least) didn’t know what they were in for.

            TPotC is a niche, artsy movie that unfortunately had a significant budget and a big name attached to it, thereby inclining many who would NOT benefit from seeing it to buy a ticket. This was the movie’s failing point.

            Again, most are accustomed to seeing a relatively intact Christ on the cross – He often looks almost serene hanging there! Even the Bible didn’t see a need to indicate much to the contrary.
            Even so, Christ’s suffering is an important aspect of His love and endurance, and it should not be taken for granted. But it may have been better portrayed as a 20-minute art piece than as a major motion picture.

          • Snogratch: Nope. Sorry. You made it quite clear you didn’t understand Christianity with your swipes. You were deliberately being a jerk. Sure, the guy you responded to said some stupid things, but I’m pretty sure you posted to piss Christians off.

            MartenFerret: No one I knew was told to go see it. It was a big budget Christian movie that depicted Jesus on the cross. We wanted to go see it. I mean, sure, we invited some people, but not from any authority.

            Plus I actually thought it was going to be a lot worse. Because this Jesus WAS completely intact on the cross. It was just a lot of blood makeup.

            The main complaint I heard from most people wasn’t that it was too gory (though they admitted it was really gory), but that it didn’t depict the Resurrection except with a tiny scene at the end. Protestants tend to be bigger on the Resurrection. There’s a reason why Easter is the big holiday, not Good Friday.

            Every Christian I know in real life liked it better than Noah, for example. Some do like God’s Not Dead, but all agree that Kirk Cameron’s stuff was crap.

            I do know people who are the type of Christian you dislike, and I dislike them, too. But they aren’t the only ones that liked this movie. Given the $370 million domestic box office. and ticket pricing, and the fact that most people only saw it once, it was seen by about 1/3 of the country when it came out.

  4. Diamanda did it. And played “Whip It” over Jesus’ torture. I fucking love Hagan.

  5. You guys did a really damn good review here, including the stuff about the Passion of the Santa Christ.
    (Mario and Luigi even sounding like Bob Hoskins and John Leguizamo… XD What a riot!)

    But for all the wise-cracks about this movie’s “authenticity”, I’m surprised you overlooked one of the most obvious:
    That those native to Jerusalem couldn’t have been white. At the very least, if this movie REALLY wanted to strive for authenticity with its use of Aramaic dialogue (that IS Aramaic, right? Correct me if I’m wrong), many of the major characters shouldn’t be played by such pasty-white actors.
    But that’s just me nitpicking on the base of anthropology. I really shouldn’t expect THAT much accuracy from a movie that seems convinced the human body can withstand that much torture and blood loss and skin being ripped off your own ribs. (Seriously, even “Saw” and “Hellsing” are calling bullsh** on that.)

    And I have to agree. Frodo sure as hell didn’t fall down as much as Jesus in this movie.

  6. As someone who was raised Jewish, I find this awesome right off the bat based on the fact that the cinema snob is reviewing it. Just the implication that this film is close to “elsa:she-wolf of the ss” is very gratifying.

  7. MidnightScreeningsman2014

    Love all the references brad made to all the horrible Christian movies he’s seen(but really not happy also no reference to war room one of brads most hated Christian movies and I don’t blame ya for not referencing the 50 shades of grey type Christian movie old fashioned but a war room reference would have been appreciated). Besides that love this review and is now my new favorite snob episode even though they had Santa Christ which kind of made me sad cause I love Santa Christ and think he’s the best god ever too bad he died(hope there’s another Santa Christ).

  8. lilith_ascennding

    Good review :). RIP Santa Christ :(. And while I haven’t seen a movie where Jesus invents Buddhism, I have seen an anime movie called Saint Young Men. The plot of this movie is that Jesus and Buddha are roommates vacationing in Japan for a year while trying to keep their identities hidden. Adorable shenanigans ensue. In all seriousness though, Saint Young Men is an excellent movie and I would highly recommend it.

  9. So many review of this movie and all make the same jokes.

    Yeah, the whole thing with the Romans bothers me too. Even in Asterix they’re more multidimensional.

    • You know who has the most multi dimensional depiction of the Romans (and everyone else) Jesus Christmas Superstar. Ya, I know, buy seriously, the complexity of the characters emotions is like the only thing they focus on in that.

      • Snorgatch Pandalume

        Jesus Christ, Superstar was a vastly superior movie (not that that’s saying a hell of a lot), largely because its purpose was to entertain, while this movie’s purpose was to bludgeon.

  10. Snorgatch Pandalume

    I laughed out loud when Brad mentioned the “twist” at the end. 🙂

  11. Good job with the meta humor, Brad. But if Santa Christ cries maple syrup & he loves pancakes, does he have to cry all over his pancakes every time he eats them?

    I lost it at the “FUCK OFF!” subtitles! Though, I noticed the nazi joke has the sub misspelled as “Hile Hitler,” instead of “Heil Hitler.” 😉

  12. 16:10 – Hey, that guy is sitting at a table. Like he’s on some sort of chair.

  13. Mario won’t be the same for me… or maybe he will…

  14. 4 words; Twelve Years A Slave.

    In a very similar vein to this movie; over the top torture porn.

  15. Dumb joke about this film…

    “Have you seen Passion of the Christ?:

    “No, but I read the book.”

  16. Thus Santa Christ dies for his love of Sega. But three days later he was reborn as the true savoir of Sega. SEGATA SANSHIRO!

  17. I just realized something; You two did a crossover without doing another Mythbusters sketch! How could you?!

  18. This is a first for The Cinema Snob. A crossover review on his own show instead of someone else’s, AND on a movie passed the 1995 cutoff date. …Unless you count The Passion of the Christ as a sequel or spin-off to Sodom and Gomorrah: The Last Seven Days.

    It’s weird for a Critic/Snob review where CS has a shaved head and NC has a shaved FACE.

    I’ve only seen The Passion of the Christ ONCE, and it was a couple years ago, and being a Christian, I thought it was a bloody, R-rated, and good film adaptation of a church’s Passion play. In speaking of which, I played an awesome Pontius Pilate in my senior year.

    4:51- At least Satan in this film doesn’t look like President Obama, thank heavens.

    Nice job on the Mario Bros. part, especially with Brad being Mario, because he’s the shortest of the two. =D

    16:25- For some reason to me, this whipper looks like The Irate Gamer. Well, at least we now know that being and Chris Bores fan is a sin.

    23:05- Don’t forget the flashbacks. They also add to the running time of this movie.

    26:54- Uh, last I checked, Jesus only fell THREE TIMES when he was carrying the cross, not two dozen.

    Final word: you guys were really fuckin’ brutal to Santa Christ in this episode.

    • Let’s put religion way way way way aside for a sec to discuss something more serious: was a real snake hurt in the scene where Jesus stomped on one?
      I’ve watched the scene repeatedly on youtube and it really looks that way. Animal cruelty is never funny, deep, or acceptable in movies. (I do want to thank doug and brad for bringing it to our attention though).

  19. It’s a shame this had to have the ‘Nostalgia’ Critic …

  20. For both Brad and Doug: This is one of your best reviews! Before coming across this yesterday, I learned that Jesus Christ has an IMDB page. Not just a character page but an IMDB page.

  21. I love the truck that drives by in the background at one point.

  22. Are non Catholics really so unfamiliar with the Stations of the Cross? Back when I was still in religion class we performed this exact story for the congregation once a year…except without the flash backs and ours wasn’t as bloody…we were one of those low budget churches. You guys aren’t the only ones though, even when the church paid for my religion class to see this movie I seemed to be the only one who realized that Mel Gibson just took the script for a really old pageant and padded it out to film length.

  23. I figured I’d give this Cinema Snob fellow a try. Since the Critic was in this review, I thought, how bad could it be? Well, my hatred for the Snob character is cemented. His voice and the way he talks is grating as hell. I hope that isn’t the way Brad Jones actually speaks. But whatever, aside from that, this review was pretty bad. Awful, actually. And I’ll explain why.

    I’m an atheist, and I actually liked this movie. It didn’t convert me or anything (I’ve seen better religious movies than this and they didn’t come close), but it was a very well-done depiction of the brutality of Jesus’s suffering. And if Doug and Brad didn’t care for it, fair enough, I can respect that. But throughout the course of this review, they barely talked about the flaws of the movie itself. Instead, they typed in unfunny subtitles, made unfunny commentary about them, kept up their yawn-inducing running joke about Jesus inventing the chair, and worst of all, kept cutting to their awful sketch about Santa Christ being whipped by the Mario Brothers that built up to absolutely freaking nothing. I shared Doug’s reaction of “UGGHHH” when it cut to the footage and “Oh, thank GOD” when it cut back. Why Mario and Luigi? Where’s the jokes? I was utterly mystified.

    Even when they actually decided to talk about the film itself, I was disappointed with their criticisms. They committed a crime that I think critics should avoid at all costs: they didn’t talk about what the film had actually done or was trying to do, but instead said what they wished it would have done. The two often expressed complaints that the movie wasn’t about “Jesus’s message of love and hope”. Sorry guys, but that wasn’t Mel Gibson’s intention at all. I may not be religious, but I understand that Christianity isn’t all rainbows and puppy dogs. It’s about suffering, agony, sin, guilt, and forgiveness. Maybe you guys hate all the parts of the Bible that don’t preach lovey-dovey peace and kindness, but Mel Gibson thought that showing Jesus’s brave endurance of horrible torture would make a very powerful film, and in my opinion, he thought right. It’s a two-hour depiction of one of the most iconic moments in human history, take it or leave it.

    I like how the Critic talked about how some random Bible scholars didn’t like it, as if that adds any weight to his opinion. Dominic Dawson, the one example that he gave, is universally regarded by Christians as a bad theologian, since he believes that Jesus was only human and wasn’t actually resurrected. While I agree with him, I don’t think the fact that he walked out of the theater can be used as a valid criticism of the movie’s theology. In short, while I feel that most of the events shown in this movie are works of ancient fiction, The Passion of the Christ is an excellent depiction of how they would have gone. People should talk more about what the movie is rather than what they feel it should have done. And if you’re going to make a review of it, please actually make it funny. I was bored out of my mind watching this.

    • Sorry, that’s Dominic Crossan, not Dawson. I don’t remember if it’s Critic or I that got it wrong, but I don’t like scrolling through this shitty review again to find out.

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.