Killing Jesus

I found this film highly watchable. It was excellent viewing. It presented the historical context of Jesus's life in an intelligent way, explaining the tensions and conflicts between the Romans, their Jewish puppets and the people. There are many moving scenes. Judas and his betrayal are treated in a refreshingly new way, avoiding stereotypes. There is something real and gritty about the portrayal which neither of confirms nor denies that Jesus was truly the son of God. This is a film which can move and appeal to even non- believers because there are no incredible miracles; only a brave and charismatic man preaching a new creed of love and forgiveness in a society where stoning was still the punishment for adultery. You don't have to believe in God to be humbled and moved by this powerful story of that message, and how Jesus paid the ultimate price for confronting and challenging the Jewish religious authorities.

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.

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.

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.

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.