Hijo de Dios

There are a few caveats to this review. First of all, I didn't initially realize that this film was a spin off of The Bible miniseries from the History channel. It's one of those TV shows I was meaning to check out, but haven't found the time to, and then mixed reviews held me back. Secondly, I must admit that I'm probably not well-versed enough in the good book or theology in general to judge every single nuance of this film.

All that being said, I expected this film to be worse, given some of the reviews I've read. Some folks have written this off as a bore, but I found myself pretty well-engaged in the film. It runs pretty briskly, breezing through one scene after another to cover all of Jesus' life in a short couple of hours. There are bursts of melodrama, violence, political intrigue, and an overall sense of wonder at times. The film plays out in a straight and earnest fashion.

As far as the content goes, it's going to be a hit-and-a-miss. The film generally strings all the major events from the New Testament into some kind of narrative, although it's never clear where Jesus and his apostles are going from one minute to the next, and why. It's like they just wander around and do stuff, and when they get to where they're going, it's like, "hey, it's time for such-and-such a scene." So you see many of the major events one-after-another, but on a thin thread of a plot. Characters act the part, but nothing much is revealed about their deepest motivations or feelings, so they come off as one-dimensional caricatures.

The biggest issue with the film, however, are the artistic liberties taken with the source material. It's not word-for-word faithful to the Bible, which is understandable, since the film would have probably droned on for hours if it was. However, the film can be nit-picked for getting certain facts wrong: the manner in which Jesus resurrects Lazarus differs from what's in the Bible, Jesus causing a ruckus in the temple occurs way sooner than it should have, Peter denouncing Jesus thrice happens later than it should have, and so on. The film throws in more scenes with Pilate's wife, for no apparent reason. The biggest omission, however, is the absence of the most important villain: Satan. He's nowhere to be seen at all. I only learned later that these scenes were actually cut, because of concerns that Satan looked too much like President Obama. Ugh, really? Well, fine, whatever. Because of all that, Jesus only has to put up with evil people in this movie; the film does a fine job of underscoring the evil of human beings at certain times, but without the Devil tempting and testing Christ (and subverting humanity), some important lessons and themes are cut out (including the biggest one of them all: good triumphing over evil).

So what's left? The good news is that there are still a few solid messages in the film that Christians can relate to. Faith in Jesus is the biggest theme emphasized, and that's enough reason for many folks to love the film. I think the movie also does a fine and dandy job of highlighting the oppression and savagery of the era (for the film has its violent parts), which gives His sacrifice a bit more weight.

The film is crafted with okay photography and editing. Acting is nothing to scream about; Diogo Morgado looks the part and does his best to be warm and nice, but the man has no real commanding presence. Greg Hicks plays a total jerk as Pilate, for better or for worse. All the apostles are alright. I hated the writing in this film; most lines have been warped around to the point where they lost their impact (seriously, lines like "let he who is without sin cast the first stone" is delivered as "I'll give my stone to the first man who tells me that he has never sinned," and it just doesn't sound good). Most lines are over-simplified to the point of losing any sense of elegance; the whole mustard seed parable was truncated so much, I found it laughable and stupid. Even the Lord's Prayer had its last line cut off, further distancing the film from the real villain of "evil." The film's sets, props, and costumes are great. Special effects are bad. Music sounds like more of the same.

It's a straight dramatization of the key events of Jesus' story, and it gets some things right and some things wrong. Experts can probably nit-pick on many different issues, while novices may find the film enlightening. Christians in general may get a kick out of it regardless. If you're a fan of The Bible miniseries already, then the film is likely just an extended episode for you. As it is though, I personally value The Passion of the Christ the most, because it covers a lot of similar ground with more realism, more attention to detail, and more power. Son of God is a fine and dandy depiction, but little more.

3/5 (Entertainment: Pretty Good | Content: Average | Film: Average)

I saw this movie opening weekend. I really enjoyed it. A lot of the reviews I read, especially the more negative ones, seem rooted in the writer's resistance to anything pertaining to Christ more than a pure review of the film itself. Whether it be Son of God or The passion of the Christ there are those who will condemn it out of hand. But then Jesus had that effect in his day as well as now.

The movie itself was very interesting. It portrayed a version of how things may have played out without being too heavy handed or following any one religious approach. Having it as part of a series was not enough. It needed to be released as a single unit, a film that will keep intact the story of a historical figure who so impacted the work that the calendar is divided around his life.

Thank you Mark and Roma for simply telling the story without melodrama, over dependence on special effects or cinema tricks. Thank you for a film easy to follow, suited for everyone and true to the story of Christ.

Son of God is a beautiful movie, and a fabulous way to spend a rainy afternoon! The illustrative messages in Mark Burnett's artfully done movie are many. Yes, it educates us on the beginnings of Christianity and shows us what faith in God can look like, but it also provides a scaffold for human beings wanting to lead a purposeful life and calls on us to love and help each other.

Forgiveness, sharing, turning the other cheek, are some of life's lessons that we may tend to 'forget' about as we go along our busy, hectic, and sometimes difficult lives. The feeling that I can do better swept over me throughout this film.

Today, as Christians live in danger all around the world--in the Middle East, Turkey, Indonesia, Africa, London, Spain, the U.S. (Twin Towers, Pentagon, Pennsylvania field), and other countries, it strikes me that this is also a brave Hollywood movie. Brave because it's an American made, Christian movie put forth when references of 'God' are actually disappearing from American way of life--the family's plaque at Purdue University, the 'prayers' at Arlington, our President's version of the Gettysburg Address (to name a few). So, if you ask me, Mark Burnett and Roma Downey actually put together a beautiful, brave, Christian movie and I'd like to thank all who helped!

A New Age false Christ saying various words not found in the Gospels with more than half the folks who are fans of Jesus praising this film as authentic proves Christendom may be in trouble due to Bible illiteracy! One reviewer said she felt the Holy Spirit another said Great Documentary on another site. I'm pretty sure the Holy Spirit who the New Testament says lead and guides us into all truth is not applauding false words placed in Jesus mouth he never said.

Jesus never said he came to change the world. I challenge anyone to find that verse in any of the Gospels. It is not there! This was not his mission in his first coming into the world. He said he came to seek and save the lost (sinners).

Here is what Jesus said: Matthew 7:13 "Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. 14 But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a FEW find it" Did you all get the few will find it part! Most of this world will reject Jesus in favor of a lie and fall into deception right up till Jesus returns. From the looks of it the falling away has already began with this type of New Age Jesus and folks are falling for changed Gospel calling it accurate.

Too many changes from the Gospel text made this film lose credibility among my non-believing friends who now question the Bible as a whole. Therefore this film defeated its purpose by too many revisions. If you are going to sell a film as the non-fiction Bible why change major parts into fiction and words Jesus did not say in the Gospels?

In the Gospel of Matthew, chapter 24 Jesus told his Disciples things will get worst with false Christ and tribulations, NOT better.

Until Jesus second coming to this world he said in Matthew chapter 24 things will get worst & worst in this world, so how could they have Jesus telling Peter in this film he came to change the world? To see how bad things are going to be in this world, according to the Bible also read the Book of Revelation, the last book in the New Testament Bible.

Jesus first coming to earth was not to change the world. That will take place in the Second arrival of Christ when he cast Satan into the lake of fire to never get out.

Why this super gorgeous Jesus? Isaiah chapter 53:2 said the Messiah would not have outward beauty to make him appealing based on his physical beauty. Roma dropped the ball on this one by casting a overly good looking Jesus.

Jesus was a Middle Eastern Jew, not a male, model that looks like he is a surfer on the beaches of California. Judas had to point him out from the rest of the disciples ( and did so with a kiss of betrayal) because Jesus obviously looked like all the rest of the Middle Eastern Jews.

The bad guys in this film were more Middle Eastern looking. Christians are trying to win folks to Christ, not come off as racially bias & possibly offend people of color. Seems any wise person would not make most all the bad guys look Middle Eastern Jews and Jesus European with light hair! Why take the risk of making some think we Christians are promoting negative stereotypes against them? Not saying this was the purpose of the film just saying it is a negative to make the others more Middle Eastern looking that were against Jesus. I found this could be extremely offensive to insult half the population of color. Did anyone even consider how this comes across?

A major flaw in this film was that it ruined one of the most important scenes in the Gospel of John where Jesus wept. The Gospels never had Jesus going into the Tomb of Lazarus to get him out. Jesus stayed outside and wept with the crowd to show his compassion and how his can relate to our sorrows!!!!

The film failed to tell the story of what happened when Jesus raised Lazarus from the dead according to what was written in the Gospel of John. For this reason and the fact that they put many words in my Savior's mouth he never said I rate this film very low.

I value every word in the Bible and for this reason loathe when it is changed. And Yes, I read the entire Bible word for word, verse by verse so it is hard for me to take this film serious or love it with them placing words in Jesus mouth he never uttered. The proof is easy to find just open your Bibles and read it and compare!

This movie was very enjoyable to watch, to experience how this could have happened from accounts written from John's memories and experiences. The problem with movies that are faith based, is that there will be people that will be negative about them for that reason alone. Or, if one goes to see this movie with preconceived notions that it is inaccurate and should be analyzed for errors, then you probably will not like anything about it because of your own attitude. However, if you go with the intention to watch a good movie and relax and take it all in, then you will be quite pleased. The actor who portrayed Jesus was excellent in making him to be so believably real, approachable, and charismatic. The man who played Pilot was my second most liked actor. He, too, was very believable as a Roman tribune with seething anger, annoyed with his assignment of keeping Jerusalem under control by thwarting any dissidents and rebel forces. Overall, I was pleased and inspired by this engaging film.