User reviews

Out of all the reviews I have written thus far, this one may arguably be the toughest. Not because Young Messiah is a particularly good movie; it's not. I struggle because while it might be easy to lampoon a movie for being amateurish, inept, casually racist, remarkably insincere, thematically dubious and egregiously pandering; this movie's greatest sin however is it's a bore. Clocking in at a sluggish one hour and fifty one minutes, I constantly was asking myself if this film might have been improved if they replaced all the supporting characters with mannequins. Perhaps if Graham Chapman's ghost popped up and sung "Always Look on the Bright Side of Life" there'd be signs of actual, you know, life.

The film starts with the young Jesus (Greaves-Neal) living in Alexandria with his parents Joseph (Walsh), Mary (Lazzaro) and their extended family. After drawn-out moments of pensive staring and one half-hearted occasion of necromancy, the family decides to trek back to Judiah since the infamous King Herod is dead. Then the family walks, and walks, and walks until finally they don't. They stop in Nazareth, then Jerusalem slowly realizing that their movements are being monitored by Severus (Bean), a Roman centurion tasked with finding a certain seven-year-old with a knack for miracles.

The main source of attempted tension comes from Severus and Herod Jr. (Bailey) trying to find the mythic child of Bethlehem. The film takes great pains in making Herod as traditionally evil as possible complete with effeminate, overly dramatic mannerisms, a testy anger and an almost stunning lack of awareness. Sean Bean fairs a little better as Severus by simply phoning it in as the bad guy with a complicated past. Yet even his jaded, near expressionless presence can't make the film exciting. The moments of "chase" are largely missed connections with supporting characters pointing north and saying "he went that a- way." Meanwhile Severus prattles on about Roman steel. We all know the story of Jesus, or at least we know enough to assume he's not captured by Romans at seven-years-old so why is this dull chase the centerpiece of this dribble? At no point in time will a reasonable viewer think Jesus is in any real harm so why the cloak and daggers BS?

The secondary source of tension comes from Joseph's unwillingness to speak to Jesus about his origins because of...reasons. What those reasons are, we're never made privy to. Half-realized conversations happen with such regularity that one would be hard-pressed to find anyone's reasons for doing anything in this movie. Jesus on the other hand seems to take things in stride, performing miracles, showing off in front of rabbis and otherwise being the embodiment of Christ in miniature form. That's great and all, but he's not exactly an interesting character. Instead he's every "the one," "the special," the superhero Metropolis needs," we've seen thousands of times before. I understand Jesus's tale is the granddaddy of all heroes journeys but this film approaches the source material with such a pitiful lack of imagination that Jesus doesn't feel like a messiah but an X-Man.

With a subject so revered by countless believers, I'm surprised just how painfully conventional Young Messiah is. The film is adapted from "Christ the Lord: Out of Egypt" written by Anne Rice who injects religious iconography into all her books with such regularity, that I'm surprised she's not a nun by now. Brought to moribund life by director Cyrus Nowrasteh, the cinematography and editing is film-school, senior thesis level atypical. There are some moments approaching the ethereal in the vein of music video expressionism, but then we're brought right back into the heavy- handed pandering that's become a hallmark of these kinds of movies.

The best thing that can be said about Young Messiah is at least it panders without fear-mongering or demonizing other groups. Movies like God's Not Dead (2014) and Left Behind (2014) preach with such bluster, that the only thing stopping them from being malignantly harmful is their amateurishness. I long for the day when we expect more from these kinds of movies other than them being benignly boring. It is possible, if you're willing to sit through rarefied gems like The Tree of Life (2011) or Au Hasard Balthazar (1966) or The Passion of Joan of Arc (1928). Otherwise you may just have to get your spiritual fulfillment watching your nephew's nativity play.

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.

Jesus (Adam Greaves-Neal), Mary (Sara Lazzaro) and Joseph (Vincent Walsh) had fled from Bethlehem to Egypt to avoid King Herod's decree of killing every male baby hoping to kill Jesus, a rival that threatened him. When they learn of King Herod's death, the family returns home to Nazareth only to become aware that Herod's son (Jonathan Bailey) is after the same thing as his father. Jesus at 7-years of age is aware that his family is keeping secrets from him.

The birth of Jesus, the finding of Jesus in the Temple by Mary, and the wedding in Canaan are the three events we are most familiar with until Jesus begins his ministry at 30-years of age. In this story we see that Jesus doesn't really know who he is. He can do things like perform miracles, but doesn't know why he can do these things. He asks many questions and eventually Mary tells him of his birth and who he really is and that he must hide his powers until God tells him when he can use them.

We see Roman Centurion Severus (Sean Bean) ordered by Herod to find and kill Jesus and this takes up most of the movie. And yes, they do meet for a second time. (A second time???)

We also see The Demon (Rory Keenan) following Jesus as he is not sure who Jesus is. Jesus is the only one who can see and hear The Demon.

This is not a Christian exposé, so to speak, so we do not get a lot of Christianity and benefits thereof. But no worries as this Is not a revival. (Thank you)

This is a story made up by Anne Rice - the Vampire authoress - about a boy learning who he is and the family and friends protecting him from harm.

However, if those of you who have read the Valtorta books you know Jesus knew who he was from the very start. Be that as it may, this is a refreshing look into "maybe it was like this." Everything was constructive and nothing was destructive and it's a very enjoyable story.

You can almost believe that Jesus may have looked like and behaved as we see Adam Greaves-Neal behave in this story. And that's a nice touch.

This is a well presented production and the acting all around is very good. (7/10)

Violence: Yes, some not much. Sex: No. Nudity: No. Language: No.

There are so many things wrong with this movie. I am fine that they wanted to make a speculative movie about Jesus as a youth, but at least use the facts we do know. Let's start with the fact that they have him meet the Wise Men as a babe. He was close to 2 years old when they arrive. Also Joseph and Mary had left prior to the children being killed. Then the reason they leave Egypt since they are told it is safe. Ummmm, this movie is all about it not being safe. Then they have him going to the temple at age 7, he was 12. And why do they always have Jesus not knowing who he is? I am pretty certain Joseph and Mary told Christ who He was from the earliest days. And even if they didn't He would know since He is the Son of God. Yes everyone knows the secret that He is God except Him. I don't buy it. About the only thing they got correct was I am sure Satan tried to tempt him. Serious Train Wreck!

So many reviewers cry foul. It's non scriptural here, or blasphemous there when the truth is, we know precious little about the childhood of our Lord and Savior veiled in flesh. Is it really all that far fetched? Could he have performed miracles at a young age, before he knew that he was the Christ? I don't know... and neither do you. I don't mean to be rude or disrespectful, only trying to make a point. I'm a lifelong Christian and student of the scriptures. There's no definitive evidence that Jesus of Nazareth didn't live the life depicted in this film. I'm not suggesting that it's a true account, because nobody knows I'm only saying that it's within the realm of possibility. I think that the film was respectful and in good taste. Nothing to offend a reasonable Christian.

Be informed! The Young Messiah's high production quality probably makes its content more disturbing, because many people will see it and form a concept of Jesus from it. Like The Da Vinci Code, the film—based on a novel by Anne Rice (Interview With the Vampire)—is loosely based on Gnostic texts widely deemed heretical. (In those texts, the boy Jesus strikes a playmate dead and then resurrects him, makes clay birds alive, etc.) The story's main premise is that young Jesus has no clue he's the Son of God. As in the Harry Potter saga, the young hero gradually discovers his supernatural powers and struggles to control them and to discover his destiny. Yet it's being billed as a "Christian-themed" Easter film and even being supported by some big ministry groups. Mary and Joseph try to protect Jesus from the backlash from his accidental miracles. In a totally fictional suspense subplot, Herod discovers Jesus' name, age, home, and family and sends a Roman soldier to track and kill him. Don't be bamboozled—read the Bible for yourself.

A lot of people are rating this low because it's not biblically accurate. I am a Christian, but I usually HATE Christian movies; they are usually so cheesy and poorly made. But this movie pleasantly surprised me. Here's the thing: In the bible, we are given VERY little detail about Jesus' childhood. This movie is an exploration on a short time in Jesus' childhood and what it might have looked like. It's an interesting take on what it MIGHT have been like, but probably wasn't and that's fine. Just go into this movie knowing that the creators took a lot of artistic liberties. And I think those artistic liberties worked very well. It was moving and exciting and at times, very funny. The acting was great and the script was better than any Christian movie I've ever seen. It's an impactful movie that is loosely based on historical figures, but mostly an imagined tale rooted in the Savior of the World's innocent youth.

The film is not biblical in any way it is just fiction. My own idea is that Jesus already knew his message since he was born cause he wasn't just a little human boy he was the logos the incarnate Word of God. But it is good in being creative.

Take a breathtaking journey into a year in the life of "The Young Messiah". What was Jesus like as a kid? How do you explain what He went through to become who He is and was? Miracles are in this movie - A question-asking young boy who truly didn't know the power He would later use to save the souls of the Earth. Jesus is played by a beautiful young boy who is very good in his role. With his parents (Mary and Joseph), they flee the town they are in. On their journey, young Jesus begins to learn and do things He doesn't quite understand at first - Jesus as a child is so amazing because even with my being a Christian, it didn't make me look at Jesus any different than I do now (with respect and love) - Forgiveness was yet to be known - but Jesus was more than a forgiver, even as a child - Watch what happens and go see the movie - It's worth a watch.

The Young Messiah is a film based on the life of Jesus, the wise boy from Nazareth. It's a biblical drama. It tells the story of Jesus, a young boy who is the son of Mary and Joseph living in Alexandria. It centers on a period in Jesus' life when he asks insightful questions about his own life. He wishes to learn the truth about his life.

Mary, Joseph, and 7-year-old Jesus travel from Egypt to Nazareth after young Jesus miraculously revives someone. When King Herod hears about this, he orders the child's death. Roman centurion, Severus, begins pursuing the family across the desert, searching for the very special seven year old boy. Mary and Joseph are growingly concerned about his safety. Jesus convinces them to travel for the Passover. Jesus and his natural curiosity learns more about the world and his extraordinary abilities.

Two aspects of the film that I really enjoyed were the scenery and/or background. They appeared to have done extensive research into how to make the location they were in appear historically accurate. It recreated the experience of entering Bethlehem in a time of massacure. It produced an excellent history lesson, which I clearly understood. I loved how we were able to see Bethlehem both before and after the massacre. Both the filming location and the historical component was beautiful.

I think the fact that it didn't feel particularly biblically true was something I didn't like. According to Luke 2, the family attends Passover every year. Compared to the movie, where Jesus has to persuade his family to return to Nazareth, this is totally different. Jesus was 12 years old when he was in the temple, according to Luke 2, contrary to the movie where he is only 7 years old. The fact that Jesus was unaware of his own divinity disturbed me the most. Jesus would not be possible without omniscience. They also decided to make James, who is Jesus' brother according to the Bible, his cousin. That caught my attention greatly. However, I'm not attempting to refute the biblical truth of the film entirely. The time frame in which the events took place had a beautiful interpretation.

This movie was entertaining to see. I've never really tried to imagine how a young Jesus might have behaved. I adored the notion of how a young Jesus might handle circumstances. To make the movie more biblically true, I believe I would make small alterations. Apart from that, this movie is fantastic-but only for those who are able to tell fact from fiction when it comes to the bible. I wouldn't want non-Christians to watch this movie and take all it says as gospel.

It wasn't until seeing the credits that I found this is based on an Anne Rice (Interview With The Vampire) novel of the same name. Had I know that, I would not have seen it before reading the reviews.

Information is collected from sources that have no secular evidence in antiquity, and much of the information is over dramatized by the writer. Granted, the Bible does not disclose the Savior's life around this period, but the referenced miracles are from the apocrypha documents that cannot be dated to the time of Christ (some of them being up to 300 years after the event).

If you are looking for reasonable fiction, this film gets a 5 of 10 vote. If you are looking for a faith-based or spiritual movie, as the name suggests, look elsewhere.

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.

The Young Messiah movie is a drama about the Young Jesus and his experience in his kid years and what it may have looked like. It stars Adam Greaves-Neel as Jesus, Vincent Walsh as His father Joseph, and Sarah Lazzaro as Marry. They both take this journey from Egypt back to Nazareth which was back to their homeland. On this journey, we take a look at what he did, and his family's struggles as a whole in dealing with the fact that he was Jesus. From this journey, we are taken into a new light of perspective on the life of Jesus and learn a new way of looking at the idea of faith.

Mary and Joseph fled with Jesus to Egypt after a massacre of baby boys being killed by the order of the king in their hometown, Herod, due to wanting to kill Jesus the Messiah at the time. When news of Herod's death came to both of them, they wanted to go back to their home nation. From here, most of the movie is on their journey to His homeland and Him learning of the world. He finds that His parents are keeping secrets from Him that hold him back from knowing who He is and why He is different. As this journey progresses Herod's son hears news of Jesus is alive and wants to kill him like his father and sets a soldier (played by Sean Bean) to kill Him. Here we follow His journey of running away but also a discovering aspect of who He is.

I thought the realness of the family was portrayed very well through the acting and directing. From each perspective even Jesus, you could see, struggled. Conflict with each individual was focused on and personally, most of the time I wouldn't visually see that thinking of Jesus' family when He was young. You saw Joseph and Mary's struggle to figure out how to raise a child that is the Son of God and whether or not they should tell Him everything as He was an innocent kid at the time. Then the Roman Soldier, chasing the family, is also in conflict inwardly because he knows something is different about this mission, to kill Jesus. And the acting to show that was very well portrayed. We even get to see the passage of Jesus in the temple at one point where Mary and Joseph lost Him (Luke 2:41-52) with a twist to it going with the main theme.

Something that I didn't like as much was how they portrayed Jesus in the movie. I liked how they made Him innocent and made Him human-like, but it was the fact that He didn't know who He was in the movie. Jesus basically thought He was a regular kid and was oblivious because His parents were hiding the truth out of fear. But to me, I feel like they should have made Him know who He was going from knowledge of the bible where it talks about Him, and God is the same (John 10:30). I would still also want to keep at the same time an innocent and human-like portrayal. I feel that His God aspect was taken out a little, which is why I would change that conflict within the movie.

What I basically think of the film is that it is a well-made portrayal of the life of Jesus as a young kid, sticking to the aspect of authenticity and a good message of faith. I believe the way Jesus was portrayed could have been different, but it didn't hinder the good quality of the movie. So, future viewers, see it as a film that portrays Jesus' young life and His journey to finding who He is. In my opinion, it gives a good perspective on the whole narrative of His life. That is why this movie is worth watching.

Think for a moment. Jesus was born from a Virgin Mary, but the movie made James older than Jesus.

This film addresses the childhood of Jesus Christ and is based on a novel by Anne Rice, an author who has been an atheist for years, and this book will have been written shortly after her conversion to the Christian faith. Jesus is the most striking historical and religious figure in all of human history and it means so much to so many people that it is necessary to treat him with care when making a film. Making this film was a bold and courageous step, but also dangerous, as we know almost nothing about Jesus' life during his childhood and youth.

The film, as I said, is largely based on an Anne Rice novel, and it is most likely that the author has gone to seek most of her information about Jesus' youth from the Gnostic texts and the apocryphal gospels. There are immense ideas that the film conveys, moreover, they are totally at odds with the Catholic Church, which states that Jesus would not have worked miracles in his youth and had a normal childhood, except for the famous episode where, at the age of twelve, he disappears on his parents' side and is found debating with the doctors and wise men of the Jerusalem Temple. However, here we can see Jesus performing several miracles without knowing who he really is and why he is doing it. Blasphemy ... for those who believe what is in the Bible, of course.

When I saw the film, I felt that he tried to avoid being too preachy. However, the film is so lukewarm and makes such a mess with Jesus' youth that it is difficult to swallow. The cast's bland performance doesn't help. Adam Greaves-Neal is quite weak and warm for the character, he lacks charisma. Furthermore, he, Sara Lazzaro and Vincent Walsh seem too Western to represent Jews from the Middle East. In fact, this applies to virtually the entire cast. Rory Keenan has very strange hair and is bored in his role as Satan. Christian McKay was OK, but it sucks to see how an uncle of Jesus seems to know more about Jesus' future role than Jesus himself. Jonathan Bailey is weird and only exists in the film to bring a classic and manic villain to life.

Technically, we have everything we could hope for, without major surprises. A regular and nothing special photograph, sets and costumes that try to recreate the time but seem to have been made with material and props from the "Passion of the Christ", "Gladiator" (those Roman military uniforms) or from the "Rome" series. The soundtrack is as bland, dispassionate and warm as the film itself.

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.

I appreciate any Christian entertainment. I, without a doubt, loved the scenery, sets, customs and positive portrayals. But are we still thinking Jesus would speak the Kings English?? I guess to appeal to more audiences.

I thought this is a great adaptation of the young story of Jesus of Nazareth . Although e-discovery poor reviews and I MB Di thought it was a good story.

It is a bold attempt to write a screenplay about young Messiah's life and turn it into movie since we have no canonical sources (perhaps it is so for a reason) apart from one clear episode in the Gospel. And the authors should be congratulated for this attempt (perhaps it is first one). For today's audience the movie would appear rather emotionally flat. And there is no special effects, not unexpected and shocking turns along the way. But it has good side too. It shows that the life of young Messiah probably was simple and very human. It shows that Jesus had to learn who he really was and his earthly parents had to help him to find it out. It could be very true.

Boring movie. Bad script. Bad casting (with the exception of Sean Bean). Slow pace would be an overstatement. Halfway through the movie I found myself rooting for the Romans. The only amazing thing about this movie is that they were able to make a trailer out of it that made me want to watch it. Hats of to the maker of the trailer. As for the rest... next please.