The Passion - part 1 and controversy

So, what to make of part 1 of "The Passion"? Actually, I enjoyed it. It was told well: Jesus' relationship with the disciples (them wanting to follow but not really 100% sure what he's on about) seemed to mirror the picture in the Gospels (especially Mark) and Jesus' humorous introduction of James and John was good. James Nesbitt made a good Pilate. And it was good to have the 3 points of view as well, especially the political machinations of the religious authorities as they tried to make sense of Jesus and how to deal with Him.
The programme was very ambiguous in its portrayal of Jesus: at the start, Caiaphas was seen sanctioning the use of the Temple Tax to help the family of a murdered man; a short while later, Jesus argues that it is unfair that a child should have to pay to enter. Also, the crowds around him didn't seem that huge, especially in the scenes where he's teaching in the temple. Perhaps I've had a wrong impression of those scenes, but part of me couldn't help wondering "What's all the fuss about? Aside from turning over the tables, he's not creating that much of a stir".
But apart from that, I enjoyed it and am looking forward to the next episode. It tells the story well and, actually, makes you think about what happened. Which can only be a good thing.

Oh, the controversy bit: basically, it looks like the Sunday Telegraph's been taking a few liberties with people's views of The Passion in order to kick up a bit of a stink about it (reverting to anti-BBC mode, then). While I'm all for positive views of Jesus being given (which may not come as much of a shock), that isn't necessarily the BBC's mission. And in any case, the Bible doesn't say the position Jesus was in, so how do we know they got it wrong and how doe sit mislead people? Is our salvation dependent on the exact position Jesus was in when he was crucified? Somehow, I don't think so...