since i had to do this for film studies recently i just thought i'd put it on here and see if anyone had any constructive critisism about the writing style. don't be shy. insult me.



Much has been made of the historical accuracy of Mel Gibson’s labour of love and to a layman such as myself, the cinematography, the production values, the use of Aramaic and Latin and commendable performances throughout combine to make the portrayal of The Christ’s last twelve hours all very authentic.
Whether this makes for an enjoyable viewing experience is another matter altogether but that was not really Mel’s intention. In fact, the majority of the film is designed to make the viewer feel as uncomfortable as possible as Jim Caviezel playing the Son of God is repeatedly and unrelentingly beaten and tortured in a variety of brutal and graphic ways. I defy anyone to sit through this and not wince, as frenzied Romans wielding spiked flails rip Caviezel’s flesh open, or when the nails are driven though his hands and feet during the crucifixion (incidentally by Gibson himself). Excellent use of sound and make-up make the violence all the more horrific.
Flashbacks offer insight to his relationships with other characters and Jesus’ earlier life such as a discussion with the excellent Maia Morgenstern as Mary about carpentry, and act as brief respite to all the bloodshed but these are too few and too brief and we are soon brought back to yet another savage beating. The crucifixion scene also seems to pass altogether too quickly in relation to the previous hour and a half spent torturously leading up to it. If you took out all the slow motion shots of Christ falling or being struck and ran them at normal speed it would cut the run time dramatically, but nevertheless is an effective way to enhance Christ’s suffering further.

The overall feeling after seeing the film has finished is that of relief that you won’t have to carry on witnessing what must be one of the most prolonged torture scenes ever committed to film. However, surely this means the film is a resounding success, as Gibson seems to have an extreme desire to make sure each and every one of us feel guilty for the sins of mankind as blatantly shown with Mary’s final gaze into the eyes of the viewer while holding her sons cut down body.

Okay, you asked for it. I'm a professional writer/editor, so I have some small knowledge.

Overall, it's good. Some of the sentences are a bit long, and some words could be replaced with more accurate terms (for example, replace "if you took out all the shots" with "if you removed all the shots"), but otherwise there's not much wrong. It seems to be written in your personal style, which is something that one can't really critique.

Yeah, 'removed' does sound better. I'll keep an eye on how long my sentences are getting the next one i do.
thanks for the feedback