Color of the Cross

The movie was great, but should not have used any pacifiers strictly bloodline facts, the Middle East and Africa before Rome was Black, Brown, Light Skined and Proud. The introduction of the non colored Jews came well after the slaughter of the original Jews decedents of the tribe of Judah. this statement shouldn't be a shock popular history is almost always re written by the ones in power to reflect themselves and blow up or burn the truth lick the Sphinx and other artifacts throughout history. Contrary to popular believes black is back the meek shall inherit the earth but with less cruelty, seek and you shall find the truth choose not and and continue with blindness. God Bless all.

I tried to see this film with high indulgence. And it has many good points, from the image of large family and the Pesah supper scenes to the racial perspective ( for the last, I ignored the difference between Hamitic and Semitic ). The only sin, in essence, is not inspired use of this point of view. The second big mistake - the dialogue , from fragmented message of Jesus to the innovations of scriptwriter. And , sure, the embarassing pieces of freedom of interpretation , from the presence of Saint Joseph to the relation between Saint Mary Magdalene and Judah or the attitudes against Romans. Sure, the image of Black Jesus , more than decent proposed by Jean Claude La Marre, is not wrong, but it impose a fair drive of it. Unfortunatelly, the color of skin becomes the only subject. But, sure, each film about The Savior is a personal testimony of director and his team. But it is fair to expect more than this supperficial aspect ruling a film about Him.

I believe this movie is created at the time in our history to bring all families and churches together. We are all one therefore each have a right to see Jesus as He looked and acts to them. So I say thumbs up to Mr. LaMarre for showing everyone how Jesus fulfill the role as a man of color. Well I have to say this movie I would personally recommend to all Churches to take their congregation and let everyone have a review of how they feel about Jesus being portrayed as a man of Color. I have seen the movie and would go again to see the movie. I especially like the fact that it showed Jesus as a family man with sisters and brothers. Also, it showed how Joseph didn't leave his wife because of her divine revelation of carrying the Messiah. So I say again, go see the movie and discuss it with your church family and I believe you will find out just how people are thinking. This as I have said could truly bring Unity to the body of Christ. Because I believe that the most races day of the week is on Sunday in the Church.

Love seeing the true essence of the people of the bible with earth tone skin. For it seems to make Jesus "white" is acceptable even though it is clear, that the Bible is truly our history & filled with black and brown people with beautiful wooly hair. There's an abundance of christian movies made with white/europe characters, falsely betrayed as the true people. If color didn't matter why not make the people of the bible "black".

We need more biblical imagery to be accurate such as this movie along with great content, please continue to make more!

I wasn't particularly bothered by the racially charged angle this movie takes, nor was I too bent out of shape about the historical inaccuracies. I mean, hey, this is a fictional drama not a documentary. So, much like the masterpiece "Amadeus" which took extreme historical liberties about the life of Mozart yet delivered a creative & satisfying experience, I was hoping to get the same here.

But right in the first 10 minutes, in Jesus's first scene, we encounter what I consider to be a fatal flaw which carries through the rest of the film. Practically the first words out of Jesus's mouth are that he is the son of god, the messiah, and that his Father will take care of things. This is coupled with the actor's portrayal of a stoic, divine hero who is (to quote Amadeus) "so lofty you'd think he sh!tz marble!" Now, Christians, non-Christians and atheists alike, please correct me if I'm wrong. But I thought the one thing we can all agree upon and the 1 thing that defined the essence of Jesus was that he tried to teach the world humility and service. Not pride, for Chrissake! (Oops, sorry, 12 Hail Marys) I don't believe he ever proclaimed himself to be the Son of God (that came later from followers after his death), and like other landmark historical figures like Gandhi and even Mohammed, he made it a point that he didn't want people deifying him or treating him as anything more than a simple human being whose example we can all follow.

"The Color of the Cross" portrays a Jesus who is like a high commander who gives his disciples orders, who is never seen working while his followers put up the tents, cook and clean, and who annoyingly keeps referring to himself as the supernatural Son of God. Again correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't the real Jesus wash the feet of lepers to show that he was no better than anyone? To fail at this one crucial point, to me, renders the entire film flawed. It's not about Jesus (whether or not Jesus was the son of God or just a man, doesn't matter) because it fails to portray the 1 thing Jesus was supposedly all about: humanity.

You can read all the other reviews for other reasons why this promising film failed, but I just wanted to chime in my 2 cents on why I think it crashed in the first 10 minutes. Well, who knows if we'll ever get an accurate portrayal of Jesus, but for my money I'll stick with those classic Cecil B Demille movies which, even if they got the facts wrong, at least kept the spirit true to what we would like to believe.