I have a kind of distaste for late Medieval and Renaissance depictions of the Crucifixion in general.
The thing is a lot of the work is idealised and tame, and often based along Classicised forms. In Iconography and in early Medieval work there is a kind of simplisitc brutality in these scenes, but as time goes on and art becomes more specialised and desirable by the aristocracy, the work becomes toned down and decorative, for the purposes of "good taste" which, as far as I am concerned, renders the effect Sacrifice null. It blunts its force. We ought to be pretty much sickened at the sight of this our Lord, hanging, physically ruined and disfigured, exhausted, because of what we have done. In a lot Crucifixion scenes He just seems to be mildly put out or taken in some kind of ecstasy.
I also seriously think that this is something Gibson did right with the Passion. It might not be the most realistic depiction, but it's certainly closer to the mark than anything Reubens or Velazquez came out with. You can also tell by the fact that many lukewarms and anti-Christians, when seeing this film, were completley blindsided by the violence of it and, not knowing how to react properly or process what they had just seen, dismissed it as being pure "torture porn".
Also, question for art buffs - does anyone have any idea why the theives are often depicted with their hands bound behind the patibulum,and often just with ropes, not nails, or behind their heads? Was this for some theological or just stylistic reason? It's a style I've seen a lot, but I have never found a reason why.