Despite all the controversy and resulting media attention surrounding Mel Gibson’s The Passion of the Christ, I knew relatively little about the film going in other than that the story centered on the final hours of Jesus’ life, and that it contained an almost endless supply of horrific violence.

What I knew turned out to be true. Except for a few flashbacks, the story begins when Judas Iscariot betrays Jesus, and ends just after Jesus dies. Within that time frame, director and co-writer Gibson stakes out with excruciating detail the violence inflicted on Jesus prior to his death -- and when I say excruciating, I mean it.

If The Passion of the Christ is not the most violent and gory film I’ve seen, it’s close to it. More than a few times, I had to turn my head or just close my eyes. In fact, I could understand if someone couldn’t sit through the whole film -- it’s that graphic. But the violence and gore are not gratuitous, and, from my experience of the film, are neither overdone nor unnecessary. Whipping, beating, crucifixion, and other forms of torture, by nature, are not pretty sights, and Gibson thrusts you into Jesus’ life in those hours and lets you experience it all from a front-row seat. In contrast to the sanitized biblical epics we’ve seen for decades, The Passion of the Christ seems frighteningly real.

But this isn’t just two hours of endless violence for violence’s sake. What Gibson accomplishes with the bloodshed is, somewhat surprisingly, quite touching. It’s one thing to have the story of Jesus read to you in church with your own ideas of what the time and places looked like. It’s quite another to see Jesus and his life portrayed so authentically. Gibson and Co. have to be commended for producing such an uncompromised vision (including, surprisingly, the use of the languages of the time; you’ll likely be reading the English subtitles for the duration of the film). For many, particularly Christians, this film will be a moving experience.

If there is a flaw in The Passion of the Christ, it’s slight, but it’s this: Gibson drags Passion out for about a minute too long. Following Jesus’ death on the cross are some scenes that occur likely because Gibson wanted to give the ending of the film more impact and, in the case of the final scene, end with a positive image after the two hours of grit that precede it. I don’t think The Passion of the Christ needed it. In fact, there were a couple of points that I noticed where he could have clipped it off, making the film at least as powerful, if not more so. But, as I said, it’s a minor thing.

Undoubtedly, The Passion of the Christ will appeal to Christians -- its purpose is obviously to deliver a powerful message of what Christians believe Jesus did for mankind. Jewish people, on the other hand, will be understandably upset -- the Jewish high priests in the film are depicted as selfish men looking after their own interests and, as far as Gibson tells the story, as the main instigators leading to the charge to ensure that Jesus is killed. What’s historically accurate I’ll have to leave to the biblical scholars to decide. But religious beliefs aside, it’s hard to deny the skillful filmmaking, the outstanding acting (particularly from James Caviezel, who plays Jesus), the strength of the images, and the power of the story. The Passion of the Christ is controversial and violent. It is also a wonderful example of how powerful the film medium can be. It ranks among the best films I’ve seen in years.

• Go Back