The Gospel of John

The Gospel of John is an inspiring telling of Jesus life and his mission. The story pictures main teachings and wonders done by Jesus: his first birth, baptism, feeding 5000 people, raising Lazarus, last Supper, crucifixion, and resurrection. All the scenes are told by narration using the original script from the Gospel of John. The film creates a thrilling atmosphere. It is not a blockbuster and does not have a huge budget, but the picture is aesthetically beautiful. Decorations are natural, which makes it look sincere. The environment looks real and makes you believe in the legitimacy of the story. Although most scenes were shot in Morocco, producers have undertaken a good work in selecting proper scenery to make the picture look like Palestinian nature. I think that setting a plausible scenery was crucial in creating immersing atmosphere of the movie. The picture does not have special effects and fancy decorations, but cast plays extremely well, which fulfills the viewer's satisfaction. The cast is very well selected. Each character looks authentic and harmoniously merge with the Middle Asian atmosphere. The designer also has undertaken a good work with the dressing and grim, which makes a viewer immerse into the story even more. The picture has an interesting format of storytelling. The whole movie is told through narration. The narration is a special ingredient of this picture. The narrator creates an atmosphere of this film. With a pleasant voice and diction, a narrator can make a viewer believe that his saying is Jesus' saying. I think that, for a producer, choosing a good narrator was the main priority for this picture. The use of the original text as a script of the movie is a genius move. It makes the movie preserve gospel's canonical feel. When Jesus tells his teachings, he often uses the phrase: "Truly, truly, I say to you..." This simple phrase from the Gospel makes Jesus sayings in the movie extremely sincere and convincing. In addition, due to the nature of the Gospel, the script flows and is pleasant to the ear. Listening to it becomes relaxing and sends you to meditation. There exist two versions of "The Gospel of John", with the other being filmed in 2003. I have watched about half an hour of it, but my reaction has been that the 2014 version of the Gospel was much better. Mainly because in the 2014 version of the Gospel the story is being told using the Gospel itself. No dialogs or long scenes, but a constant narration of the Gospel of John. It is like listening to an audiobook, but with a visual representation of the story. I think that the 2014 version is much more enlightening. The only thing that I hesitate about is the choice of actor for the role of Jesus. The role was given to Selva Rasalingam, a British actor with historical roots in Sri-Lanka. I have no doubts about his artistic talent; he was sincere and very plausible in his role of Jesus. However, it is something about his look that makes me feel uncertain. He has very sharp facial features that look hawkish. The reason for my uncertainty is the canonical look that Jesus has in all his depictions. The 2003 version of the Gospel has more Jesus looking actor. In the 2014 version, Jesus has a very aggressive look with a sharp nose and thick eyebrows. When someone thinks of Jesus, the image immediately comes from famous depictions of Raphael, Da Vinci, and Bloch. Jesus obtained some kind of canonical imagery of having an extremely kind look. Therefore, it is quite unusual to see a new representation of Jesus. In addition to the aggressive look, Jesus in the 2014 Gospel of John has a somewhat aggressive attitude too. This is debatable too, as I cannot adequately evaluate Jesus' attitude, as I do not know the attitude of a real Jesus. However, in the movie, it seems like Jesus is angry at people for not believing in him and his doings. This is especially notable in his debate with Pharisees when they passionately argued about who Jesus really is. The words of Jesus were still original, as the script was the Gospel of John itself, but the delivery of the actor was mildly aggressive. It contributes to the alternative representation of Jesus. The representation of Jesus in the 2014 Gospel of John is unusual, but I guess that this choice was made intentionally. People are used to the canonical imagery of the Holy Jesus. I think that producers wanted to show a different Jesus, with a different, more aggressive, look. The one, who is holy and ever kind, but can be harsh and severe when his teachings are not heard. This is a different Jesus on the outside, but on the inside, he is still a saint, who loves and forgives everyone. It is an interesting move from the filmmakers, which definitely leaves a mark and makes this version of the Gospel prominent. I would suggest watching this movie, as it is well directed and has an interesting format. The imagery of Jesus creates a different experience and makes a viewer think about his own beliefs about Jesus and his doings.

I've seen I guess every movie made about the "Bible" and It's many stories. While most are based on getting box-office receipts, this movie does not appear to be looking for material gain. It provides in a most understandable way, The Gospel of John. While it is the New International version, it nonetheless provides the Life of Jesus as observed by John the Baptist...accurately and straight from the source without revision; and without the bias of poet's license of Hollywood writers. It gives anyone, Christian or not, a down to earth perspective and new understanding of the real story of the life of Jesus Christ.

Many times bible oriented films are made to satisfy the writer's, producer's or directors particular criteria of how the script should be changed or otherwise rewritten to suit the eye of the camera; or the director's own interpretation. It is difficult to go wrong when one chooses simply to make the scenes exactly according to the script written about 2000 years ago. While the Bible is still being read today, many, if not all biblical oriented movies don't carry the same longevity.

I found this method of the telling of johns gospel ,incredible. Though the actors spoke a none English language ,I felt their acting to be captivating .The emotions they expressed while john was narrated,were authentic. The melding of the narrating ,with reverse subtitle style,was unique ,and spot on. Great job director Batty. The setting for the the telling of the story was beautiful to say the least, the look of the land ,texture ,and feel ,made me thirst ! Very realistic clothing also ,no 1950s Moses here. The authenticity of the sack cloth ,down to the sandals and well worn canes. Drew you in even more. Characters. Characters that the only thing more realistic than there acting was their look . Really ,they are authentic, I do not want to give away to much but let's just say that they are very good in all aspects of their craft. I can't say enough good about this telling of Johns gospel you gotta see it .Great job to the men and women who made this come to life . With that I would like to say Thank you , May the glory be to God !

This film has an authentic feel. The casting of Jesus is the best I've ever seen. The script is the text of John plus nothing. The film is visually simple and realistic. The people actually look Middle Eastern, like the real characters in the Gospel. What a novel idea!

The story is carried by the facial expressions of the actors, since there is a narrator speaking over the actual dialogue. This is not a big budget epic, and it is quite different from other Bible films. If you want to grasp the content of the Gospel of John in a visually gripping way, without all of the typical glamor or director's distortions, This is the film.

I absolutely love this movie. It is narrated verse by verse from the Gospel of John, beginning to end. I wish there was a movie like this for every book of the Bible. I'd watch them all, over and over.

I've watched/listened (sometimes in the background while doing other things on the computer) this movie probably close to 20 times now. I had my wife watch it a few times, told my friends and relatives about it as well. Everyone who has watched it really liked it.

I tried to watch the King James Version, narrated by Brian Cox (on Netflix). I love his voice and narration, but the Old English language just doesn't sound natural like the New International Version narrated by David Harewood does.