Der junge Messias

Let's face it: no Gospel or historical source asserts, or even suggests, that Jesus met a character named Ben-Hur, gave him a drink of cold water and stared down a centurion who didn't appreciate it, cured Mom and Sister Hur of leprosy, and then paused on His way to the cross to receive a drink of cold water from Ben-Hur. Didn't happen folks; ain't in the Bible. But these fictional possibilities were woven together by Civil War general under his beech tree in Indiana, and in Sante Fe while he was governor of the New Mexico Territory where he offered amnesty to Billy the Kid, just like in Young Guns II. But when Lew Wallace presented his novel, BEN-HUR, to the world, it has not only been in print continuously, it has also inspired three films, at least; inspired President Garfield to appoint Wallace as Minister to the Ottoman Empire; gave its name to a sandwich sold in a diner in Crawfordville, IN, and also named a mutual burial insurance society, also in Crawfordsville. All that, and it was FICTIONAL, based upon what Lew Wallace thought was plausible.

The Young Messiah is exactly the same genre. It does not claim to be a Biblical explication, nor does it quietly pretend to be. It presents a fictional child of Jesus based upon plausibilities, accounts both Scriptural and outside the Bible, and a little bit of poetic vision thrown in. Same thing that Lew Wallace did in Ben Hur.

Yes we can quibble about details. I, too, believe that the Three Wise Men (whom I believe to be certain Roman notables, but I will not say who in this forum) arrived when Jesus was a toddler. But, shucks, Lew Wallace puts them in Bethlehem shortly after Jesus' birth, and two major films put them right next to the shepherds who also visited the stable---just like in the nativity figurines we purchase the day after Thanksgiving from better department stores. Not Biblically accurate---nope---but they still broadcast Charlton Heston as Ben Hur at Easter time. The same latitude should be granted to this movie. The Young Messiah film deserves to inherit the latitude established for it by its predecessors---Lew Wallace, Edward Bulwer-Lytton, Henryk Sienkiewicz, and even Par Lagerkvist. El Greco painted a crucifixion scene, but the city depicted behind Christ on the Cross was not Jerusalem but Toledo in Spain---now that's latitude---and it is considered a priceless masterpiece.

When I was a Junior in High School, my A. P. literature class was expected to read all of John Milton's epic poem, Paradise Lost, in three weeks. I wondered how such a long poem could be derived from such a slender account in the Biblical book of Genesis. Then I found out how: John Milton, with that great organ-like iambic pentameter, used some latitude; a whole lot of latitude, to create a magnificent poetic masterpiece. So, instead of quibling about exact details, as if this film were a lesson in Sunday School, let's receive it as a work of art intended in the same spirit as these other pieces of literature and art that I have cited.

I have been a Christian since 1994, and recently converted to the Eastern Orthodox Faith. My Orthodox faith is not disturbed by the film. I am only an amateur in film appreciation, although a published poet elsewhere, and I found the photography beautiful, the dialogue convincing, and the portrait of Jesus poignant, winsome, and a little bit fun (not like reading Kazantzakis' Last Temptation Of Christ). My faith is not so weak that an inaccuracy in the film will cause me to lose my spiritual balance. I just keep telling myself, "It's only a mpvie, only a movie." A very fine movie; at times, a very spiritual movie; and throughout, a very human movie. It deserves as much respect as our inaccurate Nativity scenes that we put up on the mantle, above the Christmas stockings hanging there, on Thanksgiving afternoon, after Grandma's fine Turkey with all the fixin's.

first - a bizarre film. for the not inspired cast, for the large isles of non sense, for the absence of precise purpose. it is not a Christian film and not a religious one. only a strange embroidery of fragments from the Gnostic Gospels, few good actors in uncomfortable roles and a chaotic story. the dialogues, the acting, the generous message - all is fake or wrong or almost blasphemy. result - a kind of surrogate. the young Adam Greaves - Neal is far to be the perfect choice for a role who represents only source of confusion. Sara Lazzaro must be a second Olivia Hussley from the Jesus of Zeffireli. but her role remains a sketch. Jonathan Bailey gives a barefooted Herod without any precise purpose because his status is only as decoration. Sean Bean, the poor Sean Bean... Jane Lapotaire does her the best try but the old Sarah is impossible to be credible as result of confuse script. the Bible is ignored and the Gnostic texts as used only as pretext. the result - a film with interesting idea about nothing. or only an exercise of blasphemy.

Despite some literary license taken with the Bible, the movie still offers great food for thought for considering what Jesus's developmental days might have been like...for Jesus and for all concerned in his presence.

The acting is superb (far better than "Risen") with a beautiful Biblical backdrop. The director focuses often on facial close-ups and the actors respond with looks that offer more than words might describe.

Sara Lazaro is perfect as Mary. Sean Bean outstanding as Severus. Adam Greaves-Neal carefully crafts a compelling young Jesus.

Bible readers know Jesus' first recorded miracle didn't happen till much later and the Wise Men didn't appear right at Jesus' birth, but putting that aside (and the slip-on sandals...I don't think those were that popular then) the movie explores some complexities that might not always be considered when thinking of a young Jesus and overall succeeds in doing it in an uplifting, yet not hokey manner.

The Young Messiah is about Jesus' young life and the New Testament, it mainly talks about how Jesus was able to outrun Herod's soldiers and perform miracles while doing it. The setting in Young Messiah is based around outer Egypt but they never stay in one place and constantly travel. Adam Greaves Neal plays Jesus, Sara Lazzaro plays Mary, Jonathan Bailey plays Herod,Sean Bean plays Severus, and Vincent Walsh plays Joseph. I feel like they did a pretty good job at the casting because it felt like those were the actual people and the acting was amazing too.

In the Beginning of the Movie we are introduced to Jesus, as Jesus was minding his business he was getting pushed around by another boy. While this was happening a demon appeared killing the boy and blaming it on Jesus. Due to this lie Jesus was escorted to his house thinking what happened to the boy and how he died, so he went to the boy's house and used his remarkable powers to raise the boy from the dead. So Mary, Joseph, and his brother embarked on a journey from Egypt to Nazareth. Word begins to spread about Jesus and his powers, The King Herod hears about this and orders the death of Jesus. Severus takes Herod's orders and pursues jesus. Mary and Joseph start to worry about Jesus' safety since he's becoming more curious about who he really is and what he can do.

I honestly Love the acting in this movie because these actors really sell their role, it feels like they are actually the characters in the movie. Like for example how Severus had the flashbacks the night where Herod ordered the soldiers to murder infants, you could see the regret and guilt in his eyes. By seeing that you know he didnt want to do it, he obviously knew that what he was doing was completely unethical. Another thing I like to discuss is cosmetics and costumes. The costumes were made really well it really felt like the movie was made back in their era, same with the cosmetics. One example I would like to bring up was the people that were being crucified, seeing how much detail they put into those crosses were spine chilling. It looked like they actually crucified people up there.

Overall this movie was a solid 8/10, I really enjoyed how detailed the story was. I don't really know if this was historically accurate but it felt like I learned a lot of things about Jesus' early life. I also love how almost every characters had a big role in the movie and how certain outcomes lead to different events.

A lot of people are rating this low because it's not biblically accurate. I am a Christian, but I usually HATE Christian movies; they are usually so cheesy and poorly made. But this movie pleasantly surprised me. Here's the thing: In the bible, we are given VERY little detail about Jesus' childhood. This movie is an exploration on a short time in Jesus' childhood and what it might have looked like. It's an interesting take on what it MIGHT have been like, but probably wasn't and that's fine. Just go into this movie knowing that the creators took a lot of artistic liberties. And I think those artistic liberties worked very well. It was moving and exciting and at times, very funny. The acting was great and the script was better than any Christian movie I've ever seen. It's an impactful movie that is loosely based on historical figures, but mostly an imagined tale rooted in the Savior of the World's innocent youth.