For others this is a hard film to watch because it’s almost the equivalent of watching a snuff film - a snuff film starring the lord and savior of mankind, but a violent snuff film nonetheless. Maybe that was in the cut footage though. Well, I checked the end credits and didn’t see my name up there, so I’m pretty certain I didn’t cause the scourging. To them, this torture and inevitable death shown on screen was done by them - Christ died because of their sins. For a lot of people it’s a hard movie because of their beliefs. No matter how you cut (or recut) it, this is a hard movie to watch. Personally, I don’t think anyone should watch a movie this powerful and devastating often enough to catch the changes, but I’m sure there are some out there who have. I’ll be honest, I haven’t watched The Passion of the Christ enough to catch all of the changes in The Passion Recut, although some of the more gratuitous shots are obviously missing. How does removing five to seven minutes of that open the picture to a wider audience?

I get that Gibson felt he was making the movie more attractive to a broad audience, but at the end of the day this movie showcases Jesus being tortured. The film, which is about Christ’s capture, torture, and eventual death, is now having some of that torture removed. This is a movie I don’t quite comprehend. Now, a year after its initial release, Gibson has compromised his film again, releasing The Passion Recut, his same film minus around five to seven minutes of graphic violence (the reported amount of time cut seems to vary from interview to interview).

The passion of christ movie 123 moies