O Jovem Messias

first - a bizarre film. for the not inspired cast, for the large isles of non sense, for the absence of precise purpose. it is not a Christian film and not a religious one. only a strange embroidery of fragments from the Gnostic Gospels, few good actors in uncomfortable roles and a chaotic story. the dialogues, the acting, the generous message - all is fake or wrong or almost blasphemy. result - a kind of surrogate. the young Adam Greaves - Neal is far to be the perfect choice for a role who represents only source of confusion. Sara Lazzaro must be a second Olivia Hussley from the Jesus of Zeffireli. but her role remains a sketch. Jonathan Bailey gives a barefooted Herod without any precise purpose because his status is only as decoration. Sean Bean, the poor Sean Bean... Jane Lapotaire does her the best try but the old Sarah is impossible to be credible as result of confuse script. the Bible is ignored and the Gnostic texts as used only as pretext. the result - a film with interesting idea about nothing. or only an exercise of blasphemy.

Let's face it: no Gospel or historical source asserts, or even suggests, that Jesus met a character named Ben-Hur, gave him a drink of cold water and stared down a centurion who didn't appreciate it, cured Mom and Sister Hur of leprosy, and then paused on His way to the cross to receive a drink of cold water from Ben-Hur. Didn't happen folks; ain't in the Bible. But these fictional possibilities were woven together by Civil War general under his beech tree in Indiana, and in Sante Fe while he was governor of the New Mexico Territory where he offered amnesty to Billy the Kid, just like in Young Guns II. But when Lew Wallace presented his novel, BEN-HUR, to the world, it has not only been in print continuously, it has also inspired three films, at least; inspired President Garfield to appoint Wallace as Minister to the Ottoman Empire; gave its name to a sandwich sold in a diner in Crawfordville, IN, and also named a mutual burial insurance society, also in Crawfordsville. All that, and it was FICTIONAL, based upon what Lew Wallace thought was plausible.

The Young Messiah is exactly the same genre. It does not claim to be a Biblical explication, nor does it quietly pretend to be. It presents a fictional child of Jesus based upon plausibilities, accounts both Scriptural and outside the Bible, and a little bit of poetic vision thrown in. Same thing that Lew Wallace did in Ben Hur.

Yes we can quibble about details. I, too, believe that the Three Wise Men (whom I believe to be certain Roman notables, but I will not say who in this forum) arrived when Jesus was a toddler. But, shucks, Lew Wallace puts them in Bethlehem shortly after Jesus' birth, and two major films put them right next to the shepherds who also visited the stable---just like in the nativity figurines we purchase the day after Thanksgiving from better department stores. Not Biblically accurate---nope---but they still broadcast Charlton Heston as Ben Hur at Easter time. The same latitude should be granted to this movie. The Young Messiah film deserves to inherit the latitude established for it by its predecessors---Lew Wallace, Edward Bulwer-Lytton, Henryk Sienkiewicz, and even Par Lagerkvist. El Greco painted a crucifixion scene, but the city depicted behind Christ on the Cross was not Jerusalem but Toledo in Spain---now that's latitude---and it is considered a priceless masterpiece.

When I was a Junior in High School, my A. P. literature class was expected to read all of John Milton's epic poem, Paradise Lost, in three weeks. I wondered how such a long poem could be derived from such a slender account in the Biblical book of Genesis. Then I found out how: John Milton, with that great organ-like iambic pentameter, used some latitude; a whole lot of latitude, to create a magnificent poetic masterpiece. So, instead of quibling about exact details, as if this film were a lesson in Sunday School, let's receive it as a work of art intended in the same spirit as these other pieces of literature and art that I have cited.

I have been a Christian since 1994, and recently converted to the Eastern Orthodox Faith. My Orthodox faith is not disturbed by the film. I am only an amateur in film appreciation, although a published poet elsewhere, and I found the photography beautiful, the dialogue convincing, and the portrait of Jesus poignant, winsome, and a little bit fun (not like reading Kazantzakis' Last Temptation Of Christ). My faith is not so weak that an inaccuracy in the film will cause me to lose my spiritual balance. I just keep telling myself, "It's only a mpvie, only a movie." A very fine movie; at times, a very spiritual movie; and throughout, a very human movie. It deserves as much respect as our inaccurate Nativity scenes that we put up on the mantle, above the Christmas stockings hanging there, on Thanksgiving afternoon, after Grandma's fine Turkey with all the fixin's.

Very well done, well paced, with beautiful cinematography and acting. Traces the life of Jesus as a child for a year. Does not follow scripture of course as it is based on an Anne Rice novel, but has the spirit of the Bible and is so well done.

In the Young Messiah movie, some of the star actors are Sean Bean, David Bradley and Sara Lazzaro. The Young Messiah is a drama and takes place in Egypt. This film is also featured on Netflix, Youtube, Amazon Prime and many others as well. Considering that the film took place in egypt, everything looked realistic and was captivating to the eye. During the movie, all the actors performed very well and it was clear that they understood their role.

Overall, the Young Messiah is about Jesus' childhood, starting at 7 years old, and he's exploring the different curiosities he has about himself. However, many people in the city know about the young the messiah and the miracles he can perform. But still have yet to know who he is. He's valued and also wanted by people for the gifts he has, yet as a young boy. He's still unsure on why his parents are so protective of him. There's also a pharaoh that sends his men to look for Jesus.

During the film Satan is present but no one else can see him, other than Jesus. He also appears as a human. In the bible it does not mention that Jesus sees a demon in human form. In Matthew 2:13, it states that joseph was told to flee with Mary and jesus to egypt. This is because pharaoh herod wil search and destroy him. This is very accurate to the Young Messiah. Jesus proclaimed Satan not to touch him, and Satan was astonished by the authority that Jesus had. Matthew 4:6 also plays a factor in the temptations that Satan was trying to give to Jesus. As a result in the book of Luke, the film does not relate to each other. Overall, the film does provide a good perspective for the way Jesus was as a child. Yet there are still a lot of details that are missing within the movie.

Despite some literary license taken with the Bible, the movie still offers great food for thought for considering what Jesus's developmental days might have been like...for Jesus and for all concerned in his presence.

The acting is superb (far better than "Risen") with a beautiful Biblical backdrop. The director focuses often on facial close-ups and the actors respond with looks that offer more than words might describe.

Sara Lazaro is perfect as Mary. Sean Bean outstanding as Severus. Adam Greaves-Neal carefully crafts a compelling young Jesus.

Bible readers know Jesus' first recorded miracle didn't happen till much later and the Wise Men didn't appear right at Jesus' birth, but putting that aside (and the slip-on sandals...I don't think those were that popular then) the movie explores some complexities that might not always be considered when thinking of a young Jesus and overall succeeds in doing it in an uplifting, yet not hokey manner.