I am not even going to continue keeping track of how many entries there have been in this annual horror movie series. Suffice it to say that this is the fifth entry from the 2000s (where we have previously covered 2000, 2001, 2002, and 2003), and thus we are officially halfway through the decade. And if you want to do the deeper dive, we have also done lists for every year in the 1990s decade as well as for the years 1980 and 1981.
On some level you could say this for every horror decade, but the 2000s are a bit odd as a decade. They start out still riding the wave of the commercially successful teen horror craze of the late 1990s. The decade is also known for the myriad re-imaginings of and outright remakes of classic and older horror films. You get the re-emergence and explosion of zombie movies. You get the explosion of Asian horror followed by the myriad American remakes of those successful Asian horror films. You also get the fuller transition away from practical effects and toward visual effects and computer-generated imagery (CGI). As such, the 2000s have sadly been somewhat remembered as the era of bad and overused CGI, and the glut of needless remakes. However, there were also original and quality films created each of these years that are worth watching. And some of those remakes or re-imaginings are not necessarily as bad as either you remember or were led to believe. Most of them definitely are, but not all of them.
On this list, we are just doing a straightforward top six horror film selections from 2004. And like with previous lists, we also throw in some of what we call “tangential bonus films” at the end. These are films that incorporate horror elements but, in our view at least, do not primarily fit within the horror genre. These tangential bonus films are thus not actually horror films per se but are films that should be enjoyed by horror fans for their comedic, dramatic, or other use of horror elements and subject matter.
2004 was an interesting and varied year for blockbuster cinema. While there were a number of prominent sequels and franchise films at the top of the global box office (e.g. Shrek 2, Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban, and Spider-Man 2, to name a few), there were also a good amount of solo films that left an impact on popular culture. The religious craze around The Passion of the Christ is certainly one example of that. But 2004 was also the year of a disaster movie like The Day After Tomorrow, one of the better sword and sandal epics in Troy, and even sci-fi action movies like I, Robot.
When it comes to horror cinema, after the down year that was 2003, the year 2004 was a significant improvement on a number of fronts. One of them was the launch of the Saw franchise which would go on to become one of the biggest and most financially successful horror franchises ever. However, the singular most exciting thing in the horror world in 2004 was the explosive return of zombie movies to the forefront of horror cinema and even breaking into the mainstream! 2002 was really the beginning of this with the release of 28 Days Later. But 2004 was when that next wave of zombie movies really took off. There were actually a lot of zombie movies released in 2004, and they run the full spectrum from all time greats to utter drivel and even to weird arthouse movies. If you are curious about an example of an arthouse zombie movie then you should check out They Came Back released in 2004. Because 2004 really was the year of the zombie, we of course include a couple of the great zombie movies from the year. However, 2004 was not just zombies, so we do include some quality films from the other horror subgenres. There was no shortage of enjoyable horror (and horror adjacent) movies in 2004 and I actually feel a little bad about having to leave some films off the list.
1. Shaun of the Dead
MPAA Rating: R
For as much as I love Saw and a few other horror movies that you will see subsequently on this list, as soon as I started thinking about horror movies from 2004 and realized that Shaun of the Dead came out that year, then this film was always going to be in the top spot. Some might want to quibble on this and say that Shaun of the Dead is more of a horror comedy than a proper horror movie. While this definitely is a film that incorporates comedy, the story and the execution of the film are not reliant upon the humor to make it work. Shaun of the Dead is first and foremost a great zombie movie as a zombie movie. If you keep the story as it is but strip out all of the jokes and the gags, then this movie would still work as a straightforward zombie horror movie. Unlike some other horror comedies or satirical horror fare, one of the strengths of the film is that it takes the horror narrative seriously. While the movie makes reference to and has fun with the zombie concept, the film never truly debases itself or the (sub)genre. It is the difference between making fun with someone versus making fun of someone. Both can be funny but they are not the same thing. Shaun of the Dead has fun with the zombie subgenre but it comes from a place of love and reverence for the great films that came before it. Again, Shaun of the Dead works in every way as a great zombie movie, and it is one that just also happens to be hilarious.
Shaun of the Dead is the brainchild of screenwriters Simon Pegg and Edgar Wright. The origins of the film go back to their television show Spaced and in particular the episode “Art” where Simon Pegg’s character has zombie hallucinations after staying up all night playing Resident Evil. The creative fun and success of that episode inspired them to expand and develop the concept into a feature length film. In addition to being written by Pegg and Wright, Edgar Wright directs and Simon Pegg stars as the titular Shaun. The story centers on our Shaun who is a 30 year old feeling pressure from his girlfriend, roommate, and family to finally grow up and accept responsibility in his life when a zombie apocalypse breaks out. Shaun and his friend Ed (played by Nick Frost) struggle to evade the zombies while connecting up with his girlfriend and his mother and find a safe place to survive the zombie tide. However, that plot summary hardly does it justice as this is one of the best screenplays you will encounter, especially in the horror genre. It is tightly written and everything is set up narratively ahead of time without it being obvious to the viewer that things are being set up. Edgar Wright also makes some brilliant directorial choices. Perhaps the most well known of them are the parallel scenes of Shaun walking to the local bodega with the first one happening before the zombie apocalypse and the second one happening the morning after where Shaun is still oblivious to the existence of the zombies.
Everything about this movie works. But to point another great component, the cast is wonderful. Simon Pegg and Nick Frost have incredible chemistry as our best friend duo of Shaun and Ed. We get quality supporting cast performances from really everyone including the likes of Kate Ashfield, Lucy Davis, Dylan Moran, Bill Nighy, Penelope Wilton, Jessica Stevenson, Peter Serafinowicz, and Rafe Spall. Again, Shaun of the Dead is one of the greatest zombie movies ever made and is up there in contention for the greatest horror movie of the entire decade.
2. Saw
MPAA Rating: R
Saw was the directorial debut of James Wan. It is a film that became both famous and infamous in popular culture. It was famous for being one of the most profitable horror movies ever, as it made over $100 million at the domestic box office on an approximately only $1 million budget. It is also famous for spawning one of the most successful horror movie franchises ever, and giving pop culture another iconic horror character in the form of the Jigsaw killer and the image of his puppet. The film is also infamous in popular culture, rightly or wrongly, for popularizing extreme violence in mainstream horror cinema. Now I would lean on the ‘wrongly’ side of that equation since the first Saw film is actually not that gory or violent compared to both its myriad sequels as well as to other horror films of its era. Much of the violence actually occurs offscreen. While the first film is often slapped with that ‘torture porn’ label, its placement under that category has more to do with its subject matter of a serial killer placing his victims in these elaborate traps rather than it has anything to do with actual on-screen gore. In that sense, because these Saw films were some of the most commercially successful horror films of the era and became a pop culture sensation and because they do in some way involve the ‘torture’ and graphic and brutal killing of human beings, they became the supposed poster child for the actually more brutal and gory films of this era that also had some commercial success, which would include films like Hostel (2005) and even the Texas Chainsaw Massacre remake from 2003. Now, that is not to say that this film does not have its share of violence, it is just not that type of gore and violence. The first Saw film is actually more of a dark crime/police mystery thriller and thus the level and type of violence and gore in it is more akin to that of Seven (1995). The Saw sequels do lean into more of the ‘torture porn’ descriptor, but the first Saw film is more cerebral in its aims.
Saw began in its embryonic form as a short film in 2003 directed by James Wan and with writer Leigh Whannell also starring. The pair expanded their concept into a slightly different feature length story about two people who wake up in a dirty bathroom chained to the pipes and with no memory of how they got there or why they are there. They are informed of their circumstances by the Jigsaw killer via a series of cassette tapes and the two have to devise a means of escape within the timeframe and using only the means that Jigsaw has allowed them. This first Saw film is a somewhat simple but fascinating concept that is actually executed reasonably well in both screenwriting and directorial vision. Leigh Whannell returns in front of the camera as Adam, one of the two men chained in the bathroom. However, the film is really anchored by the performances of the two biggest name actors in the film who bring a lot of gravitas to their scenes and thus make the film work. These are Cary Elwes, who plays Dr. Lawrence Gordon the other man chained, as well as Danny Glover who plays Detective David Tapp who is pursuing the Jigsaw killer. Again, both men provide strong performances that really help to sell the story to the audience. Overall the cast performs the material well, and includes the likes of Ken Leung, Dina Meyer, Michael Emerson, Benito Martinez, Monica Potter, Shawnee Smith, and of course Tobin Bell.
Saw met with mixed response from film critics at the time, but the consensus opinion on it seems to have only risen since then. These days, especially with the subsequent success of other James Wan films, the first Saw film is regarded as essentially a horror classic that has aged remarkably well. The first film of course remains the best entry in the entire franchise, but there are some other decent entries in there that might make the occasional appearance on these lists going forward. However, again, this first Saw film is not only the best in the series but has become a personal favorite of mine and was one of the films that solidified in me that I actually am a fan of horror movies. If not for Shaun of the Dead coming out the same year, Saw would have been far and away my choice for best/favorite horror movie from 2004.
3. Secret Window
MPAA Rating: PG13
This is a film whose inclusion might comes as a surprise to people. I mentioned above the trend within horror films of the 2000s to lean into the extreme, brutal, and graphic violence. Another trend at the time was to make horror films PG13 to try to appeal to a mass audience. Secret Window is one of these films that is often unjustly derided for supposedly adopting a PG13 rating to appeal to a wider audience. However, almost every aspect of that is incorrect. Secret Window is based on the Stephen King novella “Secret Window, Secret Garden” published in his Four Past Midnight collection in 1990. Stephen King has never been the author you turn to when you want gory horror stories. That is simply not what King does. He does horror stories that are humanistic and rooted in human emotional pain and anguish. King stories largely focus on ordinary people placed into or subjected to extraordinary circumstances. And likewise, while this film was reasonably successful commercially, it was not some breakout hit that say Saw actually was. Similarly, with the supposed watering down the subject matter, this film actually has a darker ending than King had in the novella. So, on no level does the common characterization of this film hold any water.
Regular readers will remember that I previously placed this film as my ninth favorite film adapted from the works of Stephen King. As I said back then: ”The story is one of King’s many great entries about writers who are plagued by the results of their work. I often like to joke that Stephen King is personally responsible for about half of all films about writers. Anyway, our main character, Morton Rainey, is a successful writer who is suffering from writer’s block while secluded in his cabin retreat following his wife’s infidelity and their pending divorce. One day he is confronted at his cabin house by a man from Mississippi, named John Shooter, who claims that Rainey committed plagiarism by stealing and publishing his story. Rainey of course denies this claim. Shooter however demands incontrovertible proof that Rainey’s story was written first, and threatens Rainey and those that he loves with violence. The stalking, threats, and violence escalate as the mysterious John Shooter character murders Rainey’s dog, sets an arson fire destroying Rainey’s primary house where his licentious wife is currently residing, and eventually commits multiple homicides. I do not want to give too much away, because I do enjoy the numerous twists and turns toward the end. Suffice it to say though that Morton Rainey is an unreliable narrator, to say the least, and that there is both more and less going on than the viewer is initially led to believe. I will also point out that the film has a different ending than King’s novella. However, I actually like the ending to the film better than King’s original ending, regardless of how heretical that thinking might be. Johnny Depp is actually quite good in this as Morton Rainey. I know that Depp can at times be a one dimensional or hit-or-miss type of an actor. But in Secret Window, Depp’s unique style generally works and feels appropriate to the character. Maria Bello is wonderful as Amy Rainey, Mort’s wife. But the true standout performance of this film is John Turturro who is absolutely fabulous as John Shooter.”
4. Dawn of the Dead
MPAA Rating: R
2004 was not just a big year for zombie movies. It was arguably the biggest individual year for zombie movies in terms of both the number of releases as well as the commercial success and pop culture influence of those releases. There is of course Shawn of the Dead above which is likely the most well known of the 2004 zombie movies, but another quality entry was Zack Snyder’s remake of Dawn of the Dead. The film is a remake of George Romero’s Dawn of the Dead released back in 1978. The original film is a true horror classic and no guarantees but it will surely make an appearance on our 1978 horror movie list whenever we get around to doing the 1970s. Now, the 2000s decade is notorious for its glut of horror remakes. And while the 2004 version of Dawn of the Dead is certainly one of those, it is the rare exception to the rule that remakes are bad. 2004 Dawn of the Dead is truly the rare horror remake that is not only good but is debatably as good and maybe even better than the original. Now people can take different stances on that question, but that you can even seriously have that type of conversation about a horror remake puts this film in rare company. It is up there with the three great 1980s horror remakes (The Thing, The Blob, and The Fly) in the category of some of the best horror remakes ever.
Now what is it that makes 2004’s Dawn of the Dead work so well? This film was the directorial debut of Zack Snyder and I would say that it is still the best film he has ever done. One of its definite strengths was James Gunn writing the screenplay. Snyder also uses the ‘fast zombie’ influence from 28 Days Later to good effect in making the danger of the zombies that much more imminent for the surviving humans. That eliminates one of the more unintentionally comedic aspects of Romero’s zombies in Dawn of the Dead where their slow movements allow them to be easily dispatched at times. Also, Snyder and Gunn made this film more as a reimagining of the 1978 film rather than trying to do a direct shot-for-shot style remake. This new version utilizes some similar settings (such as the shopping mall setting) and dynamics as the original but they create their own story rather than merely trying to replicate the original film. In that sense, you could almost retitle this film as something else and it would not have to be considered in the remake category at all. It could pass merely as a zombie film that is particularly influenced by or indebted to Romero’s Dawn of the Dead. So, maybe the best way to do a remake is to not actually do a remake, but instead do your own film as an extended homage.
5. The Village
MPAA Rating: PG13
I am not sure if any of you will be surprised to see this one here. It is certainly a divisive or polarizing film, and this film was hated by certain segments of critics and audiences when it came out. I am of course at least a casual fan of director M. Night Shyamalan and his three previous films, 1999’s The Sixth Sense, 2000’s Unbreakable, and 2002’s Signs, have all been featured on the lists for those years. By the time that The Village was released in the summer of 2004, Shyamalan hype had reached its zenith and fans and critics were so fixated on his supposed pattern or formula of twist endings that his filmmaking style became incorrectly caricatured as just being about setting up and pulling off the shocking twist. Yes, many of his previous films do contain plot twists in their climax. However, his film style and the quality of his work has never been as reliant upon the twist as it was portrayed in the media and popular culture of the time. This is supported by the fact that his aforementioned early films (and I would include the The Village in that category) hold up upon rewatch even now two decades later. In addition to being good at plot twists, Shyamalan’s work of this era shows a masterful development of atmosphere, character, and deep and powerful humanistic themes within the narrative. That coupled with solid production design, good cinematography, and strong acting performances is why so many of his early films should and have deservedly stood the test of time. Now, The Village became hated because a lot of people did not like the twist around the actual setting. And when the hype around the man is incorrectly though entirely around ‘the twist’ then people will inevitably be disappointed eventually. And that is disappointed not because of the actual lack of quality of the twist, but instead because you have built up the expectation of the mind blowing twist so much that eventually the bubble must burst.
Now, with my placement here at only number five on the list, you can correctly understand that there are a few other films from this strong year that I enjoyed more and even a few other films in the Shyamalan catalog that I enjoy more. However, if you remove the hype and the unrealistic expectations and watch The Village again from a more neutral or unbiased perspective, then what you will find is a rather solidly executed and meaningful film. It is a film that succeeds both in its humanistic themes and in its tense and atmospheric horror moments. Shyamalan wrote a strong script, and all of the characters are brought to life exceptionally well by this amazing cast that includes Bryce Dallas Howard, Joaquin Phoenix, Adrien Brody, Sigourney Weaver, William Hurt, Brendan Gleeson, Judy Greer, and others.
I think because of the cultural and critical backlash against Shyamalan, this film did not receive the accolades at the time that it deserved. Its only Academy Award nomination was for Best Original Score. This is one of those situations where if the Shyamalan hype was not as strong or even if there was merely a different name on that writer/director line, then I think this film would have fared better with film critics and even maybe with audiences. However, that Shyamalan name recognition was also one of the reasons why The Village performed reasonably well commercially and finished in the top twenty highest grossing films from 2004.
6. Mindhunters
MPAA Rating: R
As I have said on previous lists for 2001’s Jeepers Creepers and 2002’s The Mothman Prophecies, Mindhunters was one of the movies on these lists that I first saw not long after it came out on DVD. While I enjoyed it from the first time I ever saw it, I did not have the language back then in my high school years to articulate why I enjoyed it and why it was always a bit of a guilty pleasure film. For one, Mindhunters was directed by Renny Harlin and it looks like it in both the good and bad sense. Harlin has directed a number of decent and enjoyable films in the horror and action genres, but I would not say that he has ever produced a true masterpiece film. Harlin is often good at elevating B-movie material into films that are more stylish and enjoyable than they probably should be. That was certainly the case with 1999’s Deep Blue Sea which was in this same position on our horror list for that year. The same is true for 1988’s A Nightmare on Elm Street 4: The Dream Master and the same is true in the action genre for 1993’s Cliffhanger. While he certainly has a few clunkers in his filmography, he has also had a certain knack throughout his career, again, for elevating lesser material and making some films better and more enjoyable than they should be. That is very much the case with Mindhunters.
Our plot centers around a group of trainee FBI profilers that are sent to a remote island for a final training exercise. However, things go awry when a trap is set that kills one of their members. The team soon realizes that there is a serial killer on the island trying to kill them via elaborate traps, and that killer might even be one of them. Now if you thought that premise had a bit in common with Agatha Christie’s masterpiece mystery horror novel And Then There Were None from 1939, then you would be correct. That novel is one of my favorites and thus anything that draws obvious inspiration from it will have an appeal to me.
While the acting performances are adequate they are not anything that was going to win any awards. However, the ensemble cast works given the mix of aging star power and a collection of lesser known though recognizable actors. This is definitely the type of movie where at multiple points you will say ‘oh yeah I have seen that guy before’. In addition to the bigger names like Val Kilmer, Christian Slater, and even LL Cool J (who was also in Deep Blue Sea), we get a good ensemble of people including Kathryn Morris, Johnny Lee Miller, Clifton Collins, Eion Bailey, Will Kemp, and Patricia Velasquez.
Overall, Mindhunters is very much a Renny Harlin movie in all that the label entails, but it is reasonably effective and enjoyable as a mystery slasher type of film.
Tangential Bonus 1: Club Dread
MPAA Rating: R
Club Dread is another example of the type of movie for specifically why I include these tangential bonus sections on the annual horror lists. Club Dread is the type of horror comedy that is a bit too ridiculous and a bit too comedic to make the list as a proper horror movie. However, the movie is a lot of fun and should be enjoyed by horror (and specifically slasher) fans.
How to summarize this movie: What if the guys from Super Troopers did a horror/slasher comedy? That is really the only way to describe this film as it is completely accurate. Broken Lizard, the comedy group that made 2001’s police comedy film Super Troopers, decided to make their next movie a horror/slasher comedy about a mysterious and masked killer terrorizing the employees of an island resort. In terms of its overall tone and feel, Club Dread comes across to me as a more intentionally comedic version of I Still Know What You Did Last Summer (1998). That is also to say that I Still Know What You Did Last Summer is so bad that it is unintentionally comedic at points. Club Dread contains homages to several slasher movies. But at the same time, Club Dread contains the genuine gore and kills that you would expect from a slasher. It truly earns the R rating in that way, where others of this subgenre like your Scary Movie types usually earn the R rating more for the language, drug use, and sex content. Club Dread leans into the gore and almost works as an actual slasher movie. Is the killer’s motivation dumb and simplistic? Yes, but so are the killers’ motivations in a lot of slashers that should be better than they are. For me at least that is actually part of the joke and the satire that Club Dread is going for. Slashers often hint at more substance to the plot only to then disappoint by having that only as a red herring.
One definite highlight of the film is the appearance of Bill Paxton as Coconut Pete, a Jimmy Buffet type character that owns the island resort. I made the comparison to Scary Movie above and regular readers will remember that I included the first Scary Movie in this section on the year 2000 horror list. However, Club Dread is superior to anything in the Scary Movie series, including the first film. Unfortunately, Club Dread did not perform well commercially and only came in at number 182 in the 2004 domestic box office. However, it is fondly remembered and enjoyed by genre fans and lives on as a cult classic from the year. The theatrical release is good but there is an unrated version of the film that is even better.
Tangential Bonus 2: The Phantom of the Opera
MPAA Rating: PG13
There have been myriad versions of The Phantom of the Opera put to film over the years and decades going back even to the silent film era, with the classic 1925 film starring Lon Cheney being one of the best and most iconic. Now all Phantom of the Opera movies are based on the novel of the same name by Gaston Leroux published back in 1909. However, what makes this film different from other cinematic adaptations is that it is specifically a film version of the musical theater adaptation by Andrew Lloyd Webber that debuted in 1986. Hollywood has a long history with musical theater as there are numerous musicals based on films, and as in this case films based on musicals.
This film version of The Phantom of the Opera exhibits both the strengths and weaknesses that come with Hollywood adaptations of musicals. On the positives, it is fun to see some recognizable faces in the cast and here we get Gerard Butler as the Phantom, Patrick Wilson as Raoul, as well as people like Miranda Richardson, Minnie Driver, Simon Callow, and Ciaran Hinds in smaller roles. The production design is another clear highlight of the film as everything looks great. It was actually nominated for the Academy Awards for Best Art Direction and Best Cinematography. There are two main negatives that I have with this film. The first is the same complaint that many people have with Hollywood adaptations of musicals, and it is the flip side of the coin of having these recognizable actors in these roles. Musical roles are difficult to do, especially with the actual singing, and when casting for musical films, they often do not pick the best singers. I am not saying that any actor is particularly bad here. But keep in mind while watching the film that these are actors that are singing and that these are not professional singers. However, no musical version of The Phantom of the Opera can work without a good performance in the Christine character. And I agree with the consensus that Emmy Rossum is quite good in the role and is probably the best singer of the entire bunch. She actually received a Golden Globe nomination for Best Actress for this performance. The second negative about this film is that they shorten some of the songs. If you are a purist of the musical, then that might bother you.
Feel how you want about musicals. That is always a personal opinion. However, if you are looking for or are open to a horror (or horror adjacent) musical film, then this version of The Phantom of the Opera is one of the best. And remember kids: “You will curse the day you did not do all that the Phantom asked of you”.
Tangential Bonus 3: A Series of Unfortunate Events
MPAA Rating: PG
Lemony Snicket is the pen name of author Daniel Handler who is known for the series of children’s novels known as A Series of Unfortunate Events. This first book was published in 1999 and the final book was published in 2006. These books follow the ordeals of three orphaned siblings (the Baudelaire children) after the death of their parents. They are placed in the custody of the villain of the series, Count Olaf, who wants to deprive them of their monetary inheritance. This 2004 film is possibly the first adaptation of these stories in either film or television. I actually did not see this film when it came out originally as I dismissed it as just another weird children’s movie. So, I went into watching this movie expecting to not like it, and I was pleasantly surprised with both how charming it is as well as how amusingly dark the story is. Remember that the overarching story is this guy trying to kill these children but make it look like an accident so that he can get their deceased parents’ money. This film is a loose adaptation of the first three books in the series. This is evident in the film as the narrative progresses as a series of linear episodes involving the siblings as they move in with different relatives and caretakers while attempting to evade the duplicitous machinations of the villainous and murderous Count Olaf.
In addition to the strength of the story, there are really two major components that make this film stand out and be a recommendation. For one, the production design is outstanding. Everything looks quirky and darkly weird. The film was nominated for the Academy Awards for Best Art Direction, Best Costume Design, and Best Original Score. And they actually won the Academy Award for Best Makeup. Those nominations are certainly deserved. The other crucial component is the cast. In particular, Jim Carrey is simply amazing as the villainous Count Olaf. It is one of his best character performances ever, and that is saying something. The supporting cast is also rounded out by actors like Jude Law, Meryl Streep, Billy Connolly, Catherine O’Hara, etc. This is a solid movie that I regrettably overlooked when it came out. Do not repeat my mistake.
Tangential Bonus 4: The Passion of the Christ
MPAA Rating: R
I am not sure if the inclusion of The Passion of the Christ here will come as a surprise or not. If thinking back on this movie you remember it only as a Mel Gibson directorial project that catered to evangelicals and angered pretty much everyone else in its depiction of the final day of Jesus’ life, well then you are not incorrect but there is more to it. If that is all that you remember, then you are forgetting that Mel Gibson transformed the last hours of Jesus’ life into a splatter film. People can debate the specific origins of so-called ‘torture porn’ during the early-middle 2000s, but The Passion of the Christ is when torture porn went mainstream. It almost goes without saying, but I will say it: this movie is rated R for “sequences of graphic violence” and that is putting it mildly. This is objectively one of the goriest movies of the year. Plus, we also get some good supernatural horror in the film’s portrayal of Satan as well as the torture and death of Judas.
I mentioned above that The Passion of the Christ is when torture porn went mainstream, and I truly mean mainstream. The Passion of the Christ was a massive commercial hit and cultural phenomenon at the time. It was the third highest grossing movie in the United States in 2004. Seriously, torture porn Jesus outperformed Harry Potter in 2004. It was a wild time. The Passion of the Christ quickly became and it remains one of the highest grossing R rated movies ever.
In terms of the cast, most of the cast is lesser known European (and specifically Italian) actors. However, the two faces that will definitely be recognizable are Monica Bellucci as Mary Magdalene, and of course the only American in the movie Jim Caviezel as Jesus. The acting performances are reasonably strong, but Caviezel really leans into it and loses himself in the part. Another strength of the movie is actually the entirely Aramaic and Latin dialogue, which is effective in immersing the audience into the setting.
However, this is not a movie that you should go into looking for Biblical accuracy, as Mel Gibson certainly takes some liberties with the source material. But, if you are looking for the goriest Jesus movie that you will ever see, then The Passion of the Christ is your movie.
Doctored Entertainment 