I think Walleye expresses my opinion well when he says that a movie can do more than a painting. I think that Gibson BEGAN to touch on the past life of Jesus (and 40thStreet you're right when you say I probably wanted something that wasn't his intention), and if he was going to do a passion play about the death, then why include those flashbacks in the first place? I've studied Medieval and Renaissance Theater at length, and I don't recall too many flashbacks akin to those in plays about the crucifixion. Maybe 2/3rds of the way through, he wanted to ease up on the "passion play" element and switched more to a conventional storytelling method?

All I'm saying is something felt not quite cohesive to me in the film's storytelling. If he wanted it to be a passion play about nothing but the death, cool. But he didn't do that. He included a lot of the past in flashback. But he didn't include enough backstory or conflict/resolution to make it a full modern-day cinematic narrative.