A lot of the attention given to Passion seems to focus upon Gibson. While it is an accomplishment for him, I was really floored by the performance of Caviezel as Jesus.
I have been following his work since I first saw him in The Thin Red Line, and am glad that he finally has a movie getting him attention. I also thought he had the makings of a classic star with his work in Count of Monte Cristo and would love to see him in roles similar to that one in the future.
While I doubt it will happen now, I have always thought of him as an ideal actor to play Jesse Custer in a big screen version of Preacher (a comic book) if it ever got made.

i agree that Jim Caviezel deserves MAJOR props for his work in this film!
what he endured during filming, not to mention the performance wrought from it, is enough to give him credit.

I liked Frequency.

Hated Count of Monte Cristo.

He was ok in The Thin Red Line.

Never saw Angel Eyes.

I first saw him in Thin Red Line and thought he was great in that. Haven't seen him in anything since then, but was glad to hear he was going to be in this movie and tonight I finally get to see him in it!

Highwaymen also looks good, but I've been hearing mixed things about that one.

He's the bomb as Jesus, yo!

Fo sheezy my Jeezy?

I never saw Thin Red Line, but as soon as I saw Frequency I was hooked with his skills. Count was equally impressive. Never saw Angel Eyes.

I've only seen him in Count... but thought he did great in it.

Fo shizzle my Jeezizle

I never knew that he was in The Rock (Cage/Connery) until I saw his credits on IMDB.

Which part?

Any actor who takes his licks for a role (he got hit by lightning!) has got my respect. Heh. Otherwise, I think he's a solid actor with some good films under his belt.

I have always liked Jim Caviezel since I saw him in Frequency. Plus he graduated from the same college as me, the University of Washington.

He's the pilot that, before he gets the command not to, bombs Alcatraz.

Caviezel can also be seen in the deleted scenes from Any Given Sunday

A lot of people didn't care for Monte Cristo, but I found it to be a fun popcorn movie. That was what a matinee movie should be like IMO; very entertaining, but not totally devoid of intelligence with courteous Matrix-style effects.

I didn't see Angel Eyes as it had the backside of Bennifer in it.

Always liked the guy since Frequency. Very low key but gives great performances.

While I have liked Caviezel very much in the past I was completely unimpressed by his performance in Passion. In the "present time" scenes he was always either just showing pain and suffering or occasionally uttering one of his famous quotes from the Bible. In the flashback scenes he was Chris from Northern Exposure.

He obviously went through a lot during the filming but I didn't see that translating to anything but a competent but uninspired acting job on the screen. I don't think it was a lack of acting skills on his part but more a fault of the direction. I think he could have been replaced by many other actors and it wouldn't have made any difference.

I think by far the best acting job was done by the guy who played Pilate but that was diminished (for me) by the whitewash that was afforded this vicious and cruel historical figure (granted that is in good measure based on the Biblical accounts).

Well, he *was* being flogged with his skin actually being torn out, crowned with thorns, carried a cross and crucified. How else is one supposed to act that out? That's being just a little bit too nitpicky IMO.

I thought that stuff was excessive to the point of becoming cartoonish. For me, it lost any impact it might otherwise have had. I really do not see how he could have survived the second round of beating from the Romans, let alone being able to carry that entire cross a single step afterwards

I thought Mel blew this movie bigtime and maybe that's just me (well, I know my wife felt exactly the same way). I think Mel blew this entire movie bigtime in many ways but I realize many, many people completely disagree with me.

That's the point the devil was making at the beginning of the movie. That no MAN could carry this burden. But Jesus could, and did so of His own accord which goes to show that he was *more* than just man.

I still would have thought in his human persona he could not survive what other humans could not survive (after all, the cross did kill him). That is what would make sense to me but I'm just an atheist.

If the beating would have killed anyone else (as it apperared to me it would have), it seems no one in the film saw anything remarkable in it.

I thought he was supposed to be god in human form, not some sort of physical superhuman.

That's where I've seen him before!

I loved The Count of Monte Cristo... but haven't seen anything else he's done either. According to the imdb, he's playing JESUS in the next Lethal Weapon movie!

Actually, the cross didn't kill him. Remember when he said, "It is accomplished." Then he says something like "Into your hands I commend my Spirit." He CHOSE to die, in a sense. I know that sounds weird. There were many times in the movie (and the Bible) that Jesus could have avoided death if he just denied who he was. He was all too willing to be arrested while his disciples ran away. Jesus knew he had to die. And, for some reason, he had to die on the cross. Jesus is fully human but yet fully God. So, he can bleed like a human but he can also walk on water. So, it's not inconceivable that Jesus kept himself alive until he was on the cross. This is just my take. This isn't popular theology.

jarofclay, i agree with what you've posted above. at least that's been my opinion.