Killing Jesus

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.

To quote Mr O'Reilly: "this is not a religious book. We do not address Jesus as the Messiah, only as a man who galvanized a remote area of the Roman Empire and made very powerful enemies while preaching a philosophy of peace and love." The book is the historical and secular version of the life of Jesus. I found the movie to be refreshing and interesting. The problem was of casting. Joe Doyle stood out as Judas. The rest of the apostles look to be Hebrews of the area. The movie assumes the viewer is familiar with events prior to Jesus's birth and his early life. This is a disservice to those who are not. Smoother transitions in time could have been done better. Over all it is a good movie and the young actor playing Jesus gives a solid performance.

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.

I understand when you make a movie about the life of Jesus, there has to be some liberty taken since there are big gaps in the story-line. That being said, this movie version of Jesus's life is like no other I've ever seen and that is for all the wrong reasons.

As many reviewers have stated before me, there are so many historical inaccuracies I stopped keeping count. You never get to understand why this Jesus would have any followers at all. In this version, he is a nice guy but not much more.

Too many holes in the story make this movie not worth the time spent to make and watch it.

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.