Killing Jesus

Bill O'Reilly seems to be an opponent of abortion, so why this one? Most scenes are curiously flat, uninspired, incomplete, and lacking the balls of a bull butterfly. Missing features: no writing on the ground at saving the adulteress, the healing the leprous woman was just touchy- feelly, the ear of the high priest's servant wasn't healed, no open tomb, etc. Some production values were excellent, but still uneven. The big Sea of Galilee "fish on!" looked like it was filmed in a stagnant West Texas cow tank. Suggestion: spend a few more bucks to get enough extras. Even non- believers must concede that these events were big at the time, and would attract large crowds. Crucifixions in particular were always a large draw.

This level of incompetence cannot be accidental, so why intentional? Didn't some famous guy with an English accent once say, "When Hollywood political correctness and the real facts differ, film the political correctness?"Or maybe just the typical Hollywood Easter scam, take the money and run. I strongly suspect that Bill O'Reilly has lost a chunk of his core constituency. I have read O'Reilly's book and, knew that the perspective was deliberately squeezed dry of faith elements, yet I reasoned thus. Any TV show that gets the post-modernist viewer watching about Jesus is better than nothing. I was wrong. It is possible that this is the only message about Jesus that many viewers will ever get.

This is three hours of my life that I will never get back. (Why was it billed as a four hour event?) Hate to use the old cheap shot, but it has never been more appropriate. Read the book, its better. That is, the Real Book.

the purpose of this film is the big question who remains after its end. because it is not portrait of the Savior or the portrait of a Prophet. the Gospels are only pretext. the implication of good actors - decorative. and the desire to redefine His existence and work - wrong. too long, too innovative and unclear, it is an exercise to present a good guy who has not specific identity, who not gives a specific message, who looking like Christ but at the level of poor sketch. something missing. and it is something fundamental for do a credible story, to remind the word of Jesus, for be a real testimony about a mission and about sacrifice. it is not a problem of freedom of expression or about the religious believes. but the manner to send a credible vision about the second person of Saint Trinity.

I am so happy to get this type of program but I don't understand why all the inaccuracies. It's not as if the story of Jesus isn't compelling enough without having to tweak it to keep the audience watching. Some of the inaccuracies seemed just random and serviced no purpose and others seemed very intentional and purposely misleading. I'm not sure which is worse. Who did the producers make this for anyway? It was not provocative enough for non-believers and not accurate enough for believers. A note to the producers: Next time, if you intend to tell a Christian story, get the facts right. At best the inaccuracies are a distraction and at worst they are insulting to those who know what is historically accurate. I feel confident that you won't lose believers or non-believers if Christian stories are well done and true.

This is not an anti-Bill O'Reilly review as some others are. I like Bill. I watch his show most nights. I have enjoyed all of his "Killing" books, and "Killing Lincoln" was the best non-fiction book I have ever read.

That said, the movie was a huge disappointment. Not sure I can say anything not already said, but to summarize the shortcomings, not with the book, but with just the movie:

1. Whoever cast Haaz Sleiman as Jesus made a horrible choice. While he looked more like a Jew of the period than some people who have played the part, his acting was just plain bad.

2. Having the actors mumble their lines (especially Sleiman) was not a good choice.

3. I have seen high school plays with more realistic-looking beards and wigs than the ones used in this movie. They were comical!

4. Jesus didn't know who he was until John the Baptist told him? Really?

5. Was 20 or 30 really the largest crowd they could buy to follow Jesus?

6. So the movie was designed to be emotionally dark, but did it have to be literally dark and hard to see at times as well? 7. The sound was poor.

8. Despite Bill's assurances otherwise, I found that some of the violence and torture was much more explicit and graphic than necessary.

9. Jesus seemed dazed and confused much of the time. What was the actor trying to portray? Was this just bad directing?

10. Jesus' accent changed from time to time. Sometimes he sounded like an Arab, sometimes like he was from India, sometimes Scotland, and sometimes the accent was just so heavy I have no idea what he was saying or trying to be.

In short, a great book turned into a terrible movie due to bad acting, directing, and production. At least you can watch it for free, but be prepared to turn it off before the end. I did.

No need for a spoiler alert. This movie was spoiled before I wrote this. I understand that this was not the Bible. I understand that it was to depict only what was historically supportable. I understand that it was not a spiritual telling of the story. What I do not understand is how they managed to cast the lead with an actor who could not act. The actor portraying Jesus was terrible. O'reilly kept telling us on his FNC show that this Muslim actor "nailed" the audition. Given the performance I witnessed I can only believe that the actor was so nervous that he doubled up on the Valium. If not, the actor apparently nailed the audition by simply hitting his mark and mumbling his line (shades of Marlon in Apocalypse Now). I've seen greater emotional range from a cockatoo. When Jesus told his disciples, "Follow ME, and I will make you "Fishers of MEN!" I'm sure he gave it more emotion than the line, "would you like fries with that?". Too many better movies of the Bible - don't waste your time on the one. Try the one where Jesus ends up on Gilligan's Island.