In order to criticize something, you must first understand the intent. In regard to the review, "Gibson's bloody 'The Passion of the Christ' god awful (March 5)," the writer clearly has a misunderstanding. If Mel Gibson had intended to retell the Bible and portray the life of Jesus, then this review would be valid, but his intent was otherwise. In his interview with Diane Sawyer, Gibson referenced Isaiah 53:5, saying Jesus Christ "was beaten for our iniquities, He was wounded for our transgressions and by his wounds we are healed. That's the point of the film."

Gibson knew what he was doing, he knew the point he was making, and he obviously succeeded. If you feel the "technical achievements are obscured by Gibson's relentless obsession with making us feel every crack of every whip," then again, you really missed the point of the film. Gibson said he wanted the film to push the viewer over the edge so that they see "the enormity of that sacrifice." Calling the film "masochism" is also wrong since there is no pleasure in the beating endured by Jesus. Gibson's intent was to show the last 12 hours of Jesus' life, and to show Him dying for all of us.

Before you criticize a film for what it is not, make sure you understand what it was meant to be.