106 reviews
I have seen "King of Kings", "The Greatest Story Ever Told", "Jesus of Nazareth", "The Jesus Film", "Jesus Christ, Superstar", and now, "The Gospel According to John." This, to me, is the most scriptural presentation so far. The acting was superb considering the actors had to contend with a dialogue that was taken straight out of the Bible. The actor who portrayed Jesus (Cusick) gave a very refreshing portrayal of Jesus, the man. I especially liked it when he smiled! I remember Max von Sydow's and Robert Powell's portrayal of Jesus and they were too "somber"...
It seemed like I was reading the Gospel of John while watching the film. Though the movie was quite long (the gospel account has 21 chapters!),I was never bored.
It seemed like I was reading the Gospel of John while watching the film. Though the movie was quite long (the gospel account has 21 chapters!),I was never bored.
In the simple words of my 7 year old child, "I felt like we were really there!". Indeed, Gospel of John enables the viewer to not only feel like an eyewitness to the events that transpired during Jesus' earthly ministry, but also to experience beautifully narrated scripture from John's Gospel that is seamlessly woven throughout the entire film.
This film presents a rare opportunity to immerse yourself within The Greatest Story Ever Told and to allow you heart to be drawn nearer to God and his one and only Son. Don't miss it!
This film presents a rare opportunity to immerse yourself within The Greatest Story Ever Told and to allow you heart to be drawn nearer to God and his one and only Son. Don't miss it!
I recently saw this film -- and ADORED it. It's a rich, engrossing film. I did not even know that it was a word-for-word depiction of the Gospel until a friend told me. Once the film was over, the audience CHEERED. It was wild.
I am telling all my friends to see it. It's also (FINALLY) available on DVD or VHS through their web site. I love giving movies for gifts and this will be a nice choice for people this year.
I am telling all my friends to see it. It's also (FINALLY) available on DVD or VHS through their web site. I love giving movies for gifts and this will be a nice choice for people this year.
There are four gospels in the New Testament. Matthew, Mark and Luke are referred to as the `synoptic' gospels. They see Jesus `with the same eye'. Their `eyewitness accounts' are remarkably alike. John is startlingly different in its details, style and tone -- so much so, that this gospel almost didn't make it into the accepted canon of New Testament books.
`The Gospel of John' purports to be a faithful retelling of the fourth gospel. It employs every single word of the text, as rendered by the Good News Bible translation. The film combines dialogue with narration by veteran actor Christopher Plummer. The result is an understandably wordy script. One of my friends used the term `verbose'.
Was it wise or foolish to adopt this approach? That depends on your point of view. It means that the actor playing Jesus must deliver lengthy speeches, especially Jesus' farewell after the Last Supper. This runs the risk of being a deadly bore in cinematic terms. I must confess, I kept nodding off during this segment of the film. To his credit, the director tries to compensate by cutting away to a montage of black-and-white flashback images suggested by Jesus' words. This gives the audience a much-needed visual breather.
On the other hand, and this is a good thing, using the integral text of John's gospel obliges us truly to listen -- to hear the Word. I lost track of how often Jesus said, `I am telling you the truth.' Some might find this annoyingly repetitive. But it certainly hammers home the theme of John's gospel. As if in counterpoint to Pilate's cynical barb, `What is truth?' we have Jesus' ringing declaration, `I am the Truth!' (This is often obscured by older translations, such as `Amen, amen, I say to you'.)
I found `The Gospel of John' highly instructive, not just for what it says, but what is does not say. I realized, for the first time, why John recounts events absent from Matthew, Mark and Luke, while ignoring those familiar to us from their accounts. It struck me that the author of the fourth gospel assumes we are already conversant with all this material. For instance, John does not describe the institution of the Eucharist at the Last Supper, yet abounds in references to bread and wine. Again, John does not tell us what became of John the Baptist (he was beheaded by Herod) or Judas the traitor (he hanged himself). John takes it for granted that we know.
I also realized how often Jesus says, `I am who I am' (three times) and finally, `Before Abraham was, I am.' Jesus applies to Himself the phrase used by Yahweh in the Old Testament as His name. In other words, in John's gospel, Jesus clearly equates Himself with God (`The Father and I are one').
As represented in this film, Jesus is thoroughly human in that He suffers and dies. Yet He also radiates the power of divinity -- not so much in the form of miracles, as in a sense of righteousness, a certainty about His mission. Even Jesus' outrage at the commercialization of Temple worship seems more like the fulmination of an exasperated Old Testament God. We do not see Jesus tempted by Satan or agonizing in the garden of Gethsemane. Jesus knows exactly who He is and what He is doing, even though His followers may not.
The real `stars' of the film are Jesus' opponents, `the Jewish authorities' (Pharisees, Sadducees and scribes) and their hapless instrument, Pontius Pilate. The apostles, on the other hand, are curiously lifeless in this film rendering of John's gospel. Even Judas is given little in the way of motivation. John's explanation is that he was a thief who pilfered the apostles' common purse and sold His master out of simple greed. This explanation may have been enough for the evangelist, but it is far from satisfying in literary or cinematic terms.
The film portrays Mary, the mother of Jesus, as a woman of mature years. Her visual representation comes as something of a shock, compared to Olivia Hussey's incarnation of the Virgin in `Jesus of Nazareth'. I was reminded of Michelangelo's Pietà. Someone pointed out to the sculptor that the mother looked strangely younger than the son. Michelangelo replied that, since the Virgin had been pure and sinless, he could not imagine her aging and decaying. Jesus' mother in `The Gospel of John' thus runs counter to a certain iconographic tradition.
The other women in this film, as in John's gospel, get short shrift. We barely get any sense of Mary Magdalen, or Mary and Martha of Bethany. The most fully developed female character is the Samaritan at the well, played by an actress whose face and voice deliver exactly the right note of hard-bitten cynicism. One only wishes she were not so wild-eyed once she realizes she is speaking to the promised Messiah.
The same excessive theatricality is found in John the Baptist, Nathanael (whom Jesus saw beneath the fig tree before meeting him) and doubting Thomas (whose exclamation, `My Lord and my God!' rings hollow).
A film such as `The Gospel of John' cannot be judged entirely according to the usual canons of cinematic art. In other words, we cannot judge `The Gospel of John' simply on the basis of artistic merit or entertainment value. Ultimately, we must ask: Is the film theologically sound? Does it succeed in conveying the gospel message? How do we, the audience, respond to that message and especially the messenger, Jesus Himself?
In the final analysis -- and this is a question all filmgoers must answer for themselves -- would we heed the Jesus of `The Gospel of John' when He invites us to `Follow me'?
`The Gospel of John' purports to be a faithful retelling of the fourth gospel. It employs every single word of the text, as rendered by the Good News Bible translation. The film combines dialogue with narration by veteran actor Christopher Plummer. The result is an understandably wordy script. One of my friends used the term `verbose'.
Was it wise or foolish to adopt this approach? That depends on your point of view. It means that the actor playing Jesus must deliver lengthy speeches, especially Jesus' farewell after the Last Supper. This runs the risk of being a deadly bore in cinematic terms. I must confess, I kept nodding off during this segment of the film. To his credit, the director tries to compensate by cutting away to a montage of black-and-white flashback images suggested by Jesus' words. This gives the audience a much-needed visual breather.
On the other hand, and this is a good thing, using the integral text of John's gospel obliges us truly to listen -- to hear the Word. I lost track of how often Jesus said, `I am telling you the truth.' Some might find this annoyingly repetitive. But it certainly hammers home the theme of John's gospel. As if in counterpoint to Pilate's cynical barb, `What is truth?' we have Jesus' ringing declaration, `I am the Truth!' (This is often obscured by older translations, such as `Amen, amen, I say to you'.)
I found `The Gospel of John' highly instructive, not just for what it says, but what is does not say. I realized, for the first time, why John recounts events absent from Matthew, Mark and Luke, while ignoring those familiar to us from their accounts. It struck me that the author of the fourth gospel assumes we are already conversant with all this material. For instance, John does not describe the institution of the Eucharist at the Last Supper, yet abounds in references to bread and wine. Again, John does not tell us what became of John the Baptist (he was beheaded by Herod) or Judas the traitor (he hanged himself). John takes it for granted that we know.
I also realized how often Jesus says, `I am who I am' (three times) and finally, `Before Abraham was, I am.' Jesus applies to Himself the phrase used by Yahweh in the Old Testament as His name. In other words, in John's gospel, Jesus clearly equates Himself with God (`The Father and I are one').
As represented in this film, Jesus is thoroughly human in that He suffers and dies. Yet He also radiates the power of divinity -- not so much in the form of miracles, as in a sense of righteousness, a certainty about His mission. Even Jesus' outrage at the commercialization of Temple worship seems more like the fulmination of an exasperated Old Testament God. We do not see Jesus tempted by Satan or agonizing in the garden of Gethsemane. Jesus knows exactly who He is and what He is doing, even though His followers may not.
The real `stars' of the film are Jesus' opponents, `the Jewish authorities' (Pharisees, Sadducees and scribes) and their hapless instrument, Pontius Pilate. The apostles, on the other hand, are curiously lifeless in this film rendering of John's gospel. Even Judas is given little in the way of motivation. John's explanation is that he was a thief who pilfered the apostles' common purse and sold His master out of simple greed. This explanation may have been enough for the evangelist, but it is far from satisfying in literary or cinematic terms.
The film portrays Mary, the mother of Jesus, as a woman of mature years. Her visual representation comes as something of a shock, compared to Olivia Hussey's incarnation of the Virgin in `Jesus of Nazareth'. I was reminded of Michelangelo's Pietà. Someone pointed out to the sculptor that the mother looked strangely younger than the son. Michelangelo replied that, since the Virgin had been pure and sinless, he could not imagine her aging and decaying. Jesus' mother in `The Gospel of John' thus runs counter to a certain iconographic tradition.
The other women in this film, as in John's gospel, get short shrift. We barely get any sense of Mary Magdalen, or Mary and Martha of Bethany. The most fully developed female character is the Samaritan at the well, played by an actress whose face and voice deliver exactly the right note of hard-bitten cynicism. One only wishes she were not so wild-eyed once she realizes she is speaking to the promised Messiah.
The same excessive theatricality is found in John the Baptist, Nathanael (whom Jesus saw beneath the fig tree before meeting him) and doubting Thomas (whose exclamation, `My Lord and my God!' rings hollow).
A film such as `The Gospel of John' cannot be judged entirely according to the usual canons of cinematic art. In other words, we cannot judge `The Gospel of John' simply on the basis of artistic merit or entertainment value. Ultimately, we must ask: Is the film theologically sound? Does it succeed in conveying the gospel message? How do we, the audience, respond to that message and especially the messenger, Jesus Himself?
In the final analysis -- and this is a question all filmgoers must answer for themselves -- would we heed the Jesus of `The Gospel of John' when He invites us to `Follow me'?
- livewire-6
- Jan 23, 2004
- Permalink
This film premiered at the Toronto International Film Festival. Amazingly, it avoided all of the mistakes made in most other attempts to tell this story. The Bible's presentation of the story of Jesus is based primarily on four narratives--each stamped with its author's own personality and unique perspective.
Many previous films have sampled more than one of the Biblical narratives on the life of Christ. Also, they needlessly added scenes not found in the original sources. The authors of those screenplays in merely sampling from several sources, lost the unique focus of each respective author and diluted the overall effect of the story.
This film is based on John Goldsmith's screenplay which deftly avoids all the laughably silly cliches of previous film versions. Goldsmith's screenplay is based on only one man's perspective, that of Jesus' disciple John. Many stories with which the viewer is familiar, such as the nativity, are missing from John's gospel and therefore also from this wonderfully complex and yet lucid screenplay. Jesus' words are not here presented as pious platitudes, but occur within a context where Jesus responded to those around him.
The dialogue is solely based on the Good News Bible (also known as Today's English Version) Christopher Plummer very ably supplies the verse by verse narration from the same source. His delivery re-enforces the clarity of what is on the screen. Most of the other actors were not known to me--which I felt helped. (What part could one give to an actor who previously portrayed a drug dealer?)
Jesus is brilliantly portrayed by Henry Ian Cusick as Jesus the man with human emotions, Jesus the visionary resented by the religious establishment of his day. This Jesus did not refer to them for his authority. Cusick, convincingly portrays Jesus the carpenter as a handsome, masculine, very charismatic man. Cusick is very much equal to the task. I spoke very briefly with Cusick after the screening, thanking him for his portrayal of a part that is loaded with hazards--all of which he avoided. I hope we see a great deal more of this fine actor.
The music by Jeff Danna is wonderful--well beyond what I could have hoped for.
One friend of mine at the screening expressed his concern that this film in portraying Jesus' death at the hands of the Jewish establishment might make it vulnerable to accusations of Antisemitism. I reassured him that in its earliest days, Christianity was a sect within Judaism. Almost all the people portrayed in The Gospel of John were Jewish. It was not until the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans in AD 70 that the Christian sect became predominately Gentile.
Director Philip Saville has done an enviable job directing a project that was fraught with artistic traps.
I hope this film receives very wide distribution. Even Christian conservatives should be very happy with it.
Many previous films have sampled more than one of the Biblical narratives on the life of Christ. Also, they needlessly added scenes not found in the original sources. The authors of those screenplays in merely sampling from several sources, lost the unique focus of each respective author and diluted the overall effect of the story.
This film is based on John Goldsmith's screenplay which deftly avoids all the laughably silly cliches of previous film versions. Goldsmith's screenplay is based on only one man's perspective, that of Jesus' disciple John. Many stories with which the viewer is familiar, such as the nativity, are missing from John's gospel and therefore also from this wonderfully complex and yet lucid screenplay. Jesus' words are not here presented as pious platitudes, but occur within a context where Jesus responded to those around him.
The dialogue is solely based on the Good News Bible (also known as Today's English Version) Christopher Plummer very ably supplies the verse by verse narration from the same source. His delivery re-enforces the clarity of what is on the screen. Most of the other actors were not known to me--which I felt helped. (What part could one give to an actor who previously portrayed a drug dealer?)
Jesus is brilliantly portrayed by Henry Ian Cusick as Jesus the man with human emotions, Jesus the visionary resented by the religious establishment of his day. This Jesus did not refer to them for his authority. Cusick, convincingly portrays Jesus the carpenter as a handsome, masculine, very charismatic man. Cusick is very much equal to the task. I spoke very briefly with Cusick after the screening, thanking him for his portrayal of a part that is loaded with hazards--all of which he avoided. I hope we see a great deal more of this fine actor.
The music by Jeff Danna is wonderful--well beyond what I could have hoped for.
One friend of mine at the screening expressed his concern that this film in portraying Jesus' death at the hands of the Jewish establishment might make it vulnerable to accusations of Antisemitism. I reassured him that in its earliest days, Christianity was a sect within Judaism. Almost all the people portrayed in The Gospel of John were Jewish. It was not until the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans in AD 70 that the Christian sect became predominately Gentile.
Director Philip Saville has done an enviable job directing a project that was fraught with artistic traps.
I hope this film receives very wide distribution. Even Christian conservatives should be very happy with it.
- adykstra-1
- Sep 11, 2003
- Permalink
Henry Ian Cusick does a fantastic job of capturing the kindhearted, casual, loving Jesus any of us would want as our friend. It reminds me of that drawing of Christ laughing!
In some of the older portrayals, Jesus comes off as wooden, isolated and somehow above everyone else. Not here! Jesus smiles at others' limited understandings, but with compassion, as if he wants to teach them something by his very presence.
The best special effect had to be the walking on the water. Beautiful photography throughout - Filmed in and near Malaga in Spain, it does Jerusalem and Israel proud!
Please consider inviting your friends to see this film. It has so much to offer and it gets the point across - Jesus is the Savior of the world!
In some of the older portrayals, Jesus comes off as wooden, isolated and somehow above everyone else. Not here! Jesus smiles at others' limited understandings, but with compassion, as if he wants to teach them something by his very presence.
The best special effect had to be the walking on the water. Beautiful photography throughout - Filmed in and near Malaga in Spain, it does Jerusalem and Israel proud!
Please consider inviting your friends to see this film. It has so much to offer and it gets the point across - Jesus is the Savior of the world!
This film was surprisingly very good. Unlike Mel Gibson's "The Passion of Christ" this movie can serve both Christians and non-Christians as a cohesive educational experience. But this isn't a boring, conservative Christian movie. All really good dramas are character-driven and the potrayal/interpretation of Jesus in this movie is so strong that if I were the crying type I very well might have. Jesus is very genuine, compassionate, emotional, yet self-controlled. At first I wasn't quite sold by Henry Ian Cusick's style, but his sincerity was really consistent throughout the movie and I was convinced about 20 minutes into the movie at most. Other users have commented on how they were surprised by Jesus's impatience with the discples or loud tone when speaking to the Pharisees but I have to say, if you've read the Gospels then you should expect Jesus to be demonstrative and uninhibited, as circumstances dictate.
As others have said, this movie is a faithful adaptation of the gospel of John. I thought that having every single word of the book either spoken by characters or narrated was a necessary and intelligent decision to make. To hear the Word allows you to consider the actors & director's interpretation of certain events & verses, and also to simply consider the Word for yourself in a comprehensive manner. After all, how often does one ever read straight through the book of John?
Watching this movie really helps the Christian understand Jesus' incredibly difficult situation. I'm not talking about the crucifiction, but the fact that Jesus as the Son of God is incarnated into a man and has to tell men who he really is. To put it more clearly, imagine if God incarnate stood before you as an average looking human being and said "I am the Son of God." Unless you saw a miracle it you would not be willing to suspend disbelief. I empathized with Jesus when he emphatically said, "I am telling you the truth!" so many times throughout the movie.
In conclusion, this movie is really worth your time to watch. Although it is very long and you may lose focus at times during the middle portion I would still highly recommend it. It isn't perfect but overall it's a fantastic piece of work.
As others have said, this movie is a faithful adaptation of the gospel of John. I thought that having every single word of the book either spoken by characters or narrated was a necessary and intelligent decision to make. To hear the Word allows you to consider the actors & director's interpretation of certain events & verses, and also to simply consider the Word for yourself in a comprehensive manner. After all, how often does one ever read straight through the book of John?
Watching this movie really helps the Christian understand Jesus' incredibly difficult situation. I'm not talking about the crucifiction, but the fact that Jesus as the Son of God is incarnated into a man and has to tell men who he really is. To put it more clearly, imagine if God incarnate stood before you as an average looking human being and said "I am the Son of God." Unless you saw a miracle it you would not be willing to suspend disbelief. I empathized with Jesus when he emphatically said, "I am telling you the truth!" so many times throughout the movie.
In conclusion, this movie is really worth your time to watch. Although it is very long and you may lose focus at times during the middle portion I would still highly recommend it. It isn't perfect but overall it's a fantastic piece of work.
THE GOSPEL OF JOHN (2003) has been released in Poland recently. Some people did not feel encouraged to see it since they claimed that Gibson's PASSION was enough to see being the utmost naturalism of the death of Christ. However, this film is worth seeing since it is entirely different, and so is its aim even though both movies are about Jesus Christ. Therefore, I don't even dare compare them, unless I limit my comparison to the choice of the cast.
This movie by Philip Saville concentrates on the life and message of Christ only according to what John the Apostle said. As a result, it may sometimes be boring since it seems not to leave much interpretation, and the content may be condensed since John's Gospel is not that wide as Mathew's, for instance. It does not concentrate that much on what happened but rather centers on the message of Christ. However, being word for word from one Gospel only, it is a unique experience not so widespread in cinema so far. The cast, however, are limited in their performances and if you are a movie fan and expect to evaluate it as a MOVIE, you will be disappointed. Hardly any originality! Nevertheless, it is important to state that the director makes good use of the Holy Scriptures and what we get is a chance to know the New Testament better in a more visualized manner.
Some scenes are made in a very memorable way, for instance, the wedding at Cana and Jesus' first miracle; the moment He brings his friend Lazarus back to life from the dead; His first meeting with Mary Magdalene after resurrection. Truly, moments that have an impact on the faith of a viewer! SPOILERS: There are, however, scenes that disappointed me, particularly, the Last Supper. The director does not show the gist of this event, i.e. the beginning of the Holy Eucharist. It is so important for the Christian that skipping it is a harm done to the life and message of love that Jesus brought. Even if it is not in John, this should be added. And isn't the presence of Mary Magdalene on the Last Supper controversial? Another simplification is the figure of Virgin Mary who has a very profound spiritual connection with Her Son and which is not very noticeable in the movie. The director skips the word "woman" that Jesus says to his mother from the cross. This word has its roots in the pro-to Gospel, in the book of Genesis and the prophesy about the struggle of the outcome of the snake and the outcome of the "woman". Therefore, skipping it may occur to be a severe simplification of the Bible.
The cast perform well, some very well, but it is difficult to evaluate their performances because of, as I already mentioned, the narrator and limited interpretation of particular characters. Henry Ian Cusick is not bad as Jesus, however, he is not that good as some earlier portrayals of Christ. Sometimes, I get the feeling that he did not feel the role profoundly enough. Here, I must admit that Robert Powell in Zeffirelli's Jesus of Nazareth (1977) was better. He clearly combined Christ's divinity and humanity. The same can be said about Jim Caviezel in Gibson's latest film. Daniel Kash's portrayal of Simon Peter is really good! I liked his performance of a man weak on the one hand but of great faith on the other hand. Scott Handy does a memorable job as John the Baptist... he is as good as Michael York in Zeffirelli's movie. However, Alan Van Sprang's Judas is not that memorable as Luca Lionello's in THE PASSION. The same can be said about Cedric Smith as Caiaphas. Mattia Sbragia or Anthony Quinn are incomparable.
SPOILER! As far as the narrator and the limited originality in the movie are concerned, I feel a need to draw your attention to one more thing. Consider how the crowds move. It's deadly boring and horribly unnatural! Like in a silent movie... Comparing it to Gibson's naturalist PASSION, this movie is boring as far as this aspect is concerned.
However, in spite of some drawbacks of the film (mostly technical), I would be unjust to say that THE GOSPEL OF JOHN (2003) is not worth seeing. In no way! It is a good movie, in most cases, it achieves its aim of the Visual Bible, some moments are moving and help a viewer get to know Jesus and His Message more profoundly. It indeed shows the truth about Jesus being totally based on the Gospel of John, the only disciple who did not leave Jesus till the cross and the sorrow of Golgotha. And one more thing - the film is not violent at all, which makes it possible for all kinds of viewers to see.
I rate it 7/10 as a movie. See and evaluate for yourself. It's good to keep in mind that a movie is still a movie, but can occur to be useful, especially at Easter when the whole Christian world is particularly full of joy thanks to the Risen Christ.
This movie by Philip Saville concentrates on the life and message of Christ only according to what John the Apostle said. As a result, it may sometimes be boring since it seems not to leave much interpretation, and the content may be condensed since John's Gospel is not that wide as Mathew's, for instance. It does not concentrate that much on what happened but rather centers on the message of Christ. However, being word for word from one Gospel only, it is a unique experience not so widespread in cinema so far. The cast, however, are limited in their performances and if you are a movie fan and expect to evaluate it as a MOVIE, you will be disappointed. Hardly any originality! Nevertheless, it is important to state that the director makes good use of the Holy Scriptures and what we get is a chance to know the New Testament better in a more visualized manner.
Some scenes are made in a very memorable way, for instance, the wedding at Cana and Jesus' first miracle; the moment He brings his friend Lazarus back to life from the dead; His first meeting with Mary Magdalene after resurrection. Truly, moments that have an impact on the faith of a viewer! SPOILERS: There are, however, scenes that disappointed me, particularly, the Last Supper. The director does not show the gist of this event, i.e. the beginning of the Holy Eucharist. It is so important for the Christian that skipping it is a harm done to the life and message of love that Jesus brought. Even if it is not in John, this should be added. And isn't the presence of Mary Magdalene on the Last Supper controversial? Another simplification is the figure of Virgin Mary who has a very profound spiritual connection with Her Son and which is not very noticeable in the movie. The director skips the word "woman" that Jesus says to his mother from the cross. This word has its roots in the pro-to Gospel, in the book of Genesis and the prophesy about the struggle of the outcome of the snake and the outcome of the "woman". Therefore, skipping it may occur to be a severe simplification of the Bible.
The cast perform well, some very well, but it is difficult to evaluate their performances because of, as I already mentioned, the narrator and limited interpretation of particular characters. Henry Ian Cusick is not bad as Jesus, however, he is not that good as some earlier portrayals of Christ. Sometimes, I get the feeling that he did not feel the role profoundly enough. Here, I must admit that Robert Powell in Zeffirelli's Jesus of Nazareth (1977) was better. He clearly combined Christ's divinity and humanity. The same can be said about Jim Caviezel in Gibson's latest film. Daniel Kash's portrayal of Simon Peter is really good! I liked his performance of a man weak on the one hand but of great faith on the other hand. Scott Handy does a memorable job as John the Baptist... he is as good as Michael York in Zeffirelli's movie. However, Alan Van Sprang's Judas is not that memorable as Luca Lionello's in THE PASSION. The same can be said about Cedric Smith as Caiaphas. Mattia Sbragia or Anthony Quinn are incomparable.
SPOILER! As far as the narrator and the limited originality in the movie are concerned, I feel a need to draw your attention to one more thing. Consider how the crowds move. It's deadly boring and horribly unnatural! Like in a silent movie... Comparing it to Gibson's naturalist PASSION, this movie is boring as far as this aspect is concerned.
However, in spite of some drawbacks of the film (mostly technical), I would be unjust to say that THE GOSPEL OF JOHN (2003) is not worth seeing. In no way! It is a good movie, in most cases, it achieves its aim of the Visual Bible, some moments are moving and help a viewer get to know Jesus and His Message more profoundly. It indeed shows the truth about Jesus being totally based on the Gospel of John, the only disciple who did not leave Jesus till the cross and the sorrow of Golgotha. And one more thing - the film is not violent at all, which makes it possible for all kinds of viewers to see.
I rate it 7/10 as a movie. See and evaluate for yourself. It's good to keep in mind that a movie is still a movie, but can occur to be useful, especially at Easter when the whole Christian world is particularly full of joy thanks to the Risen Christ.
- marcin_kukuczka
- Mar 23, 2005
- Permalink
I loved this movie, and I am actually a Muslim. The fact that the screenplay is so word for word faithful adds alot to the movie. And the acting and directing are fantastic. The film does a wonderful job of making you feel what life was like for Jesus, his disciples, and those he came across. I hope there will be such films made of the other gospels soon.
- chinaski-5
- Dec 27, 2003
- Permalink
I just finished watching this on DVD,and while it was a vast improvement over Mel Gibson's The Passion,it is so repetitive as to become annoying! Jesus says"I Tell You The Truth" so many times I wouldn't attempt to count them! I'm afraid I did not care much for the Jesus character in this film. He just wasn't very personable. To me,I guess the best biblical movie and best Jesus character will always be "The King Of Kings" with Jeffrey Hunter.This movie seemed soooo long and tedious,but that may have been because all the repetitions and Jesus' instigating personality just got on my nerves,and I could not really enjoy it. I certainly would not choose to watch it again, as I do King Of Kings, with pleasure.
I have watched this movie several times, often following the script word by word from the Book of John. Both Christ's humanity and his deity are included in the portrayal. The film is compelling, revealing the power of Christ's teachings and the struggles he endures to convey his message to not only his disciples, but also to the religious leaders and common people of the day. The story is fuller because the historical context of the time and the impact of politics on the events leading to the crucifixion are included. The dialogue between Christ and his disciples, the religious leaders and those he heals is brought to life. The scene where He drives the money changers from the temple shows a side of his character that is often down played. I would recommend this film above any other version of the life of Christ. I would strongly encourage those who are interested in a more meaningful rendition of the book of John to take time out to view the film.
I saw this movie last weekend. The weekend before I saw "Passion of the Christ". The "Gospel of John" is truly a line-by-line presentation of the Gospel of John, and I thought the actors did an excellent job. The movie was top-quality in all aspects, which was a pleasant surprise. Too many past Christian-produced films have been pretty low on the quality standard. Anyway, the best part of this movie is that the spoken dialogue and the narration is actually what's written in the English translation of the Bible, and that is the most important thing here. God says that it's "his word that goes out and does the work it was sent to do", and that "faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of God." People don't need to hear opinions, variations, or whatever. The world's full of that stuff, and yes there's a place for it. However, what will be most effective in touching people's hearts is for them to read/hear the word of God, and that is the main reason why this film is most excellent.
Everyone should see this film.
Everyone should see this film.
- jimmyboy13
- Apr 2, 2004
- Permalink
A long movie, with long dialogues. But those dialogues establish the claims of Jesus of Nazareth. For seekers of Truth, this is a must-see. For entertainment seekers, this film has a little for you. No drama is higher than when God became Man and walked among us, then died to buy forgiveness for our sins! Highest recommendation!
The Gospel Of John is actually one of my childhood movies. My Mom had this on DVD but never opened it. Once, when I was about 11, I asked my Mom if I could watch it and she said sure. I loved it, and I have seen it a few times since.
Now I live with my Grandma, and I have my own copy of it. To this day, it is one of the best Biblical movies ever made, and certainly one of the most Biblically accurate.
The plot seems rather pointless to summarize. It is the life of Jesus as written in the 4th book of the New Testament. What makes the movie so great is that it follows the book verbatim from the Good News Translation. I'll dive into that in a moment.
Most of the cast are unfamiliar to most, however, the narrator ("In the beginning was The Word...") is none other than Christiopher Plummer, aka Captain VonTrapp from The Sound of Music.
This is the 2nd of 3 major roles he had in Jesus movies. Beforehand, he played the Herod who married his brother's wife in Jesus of Nazareth, and later he voiced the Nativity Herod in The Star.
Jesus Himself is played by Henry Ian Cusick. I don't know if I'd say he's one of my favorite Jesus actors, but he is very good in the part.
The best part of the movie is that it is very close to Scripture- something missing from Jesus movies like 1961's King of Kings. That's a good movie, but it strays too much from The Bible. The Gospel of John is just that, and much of the film's power comes from that.
In fact, the last time I saw it, a few months ago, I watched it after a long stressful day, and within a half hour, I felt peace overcome my stress. It's a very uplifiting experience.
Despite giving it a 10/10, I do have one nit-pick. As I said before, the movie quotes the Good News Translation. I love the King James translation, but even NIV or ESV would have been more fitting.
Some verses with the GNT are too modern and don't sound like Jesus. Take the Doubting Thomas scene. In John 20:29, Jesus tells Thomas: "Blessed are those who have not seen and yet believe." In the Good News version, Jesus says: "HAPPY are those who have not seen...", which felt out of place.
This minor complaint does not diminish the rest of the movie though. At exactly 3 hours, it is somewhat slow, but constantly moving and engaging.
Biblical epics are my favorite movie genre, and The Gospel of John is one of my favorites. I have a church friend who told me it's her favorite movie because of its closeness to The Bible. If you want an uplifting Bible movie that actually sticks to the source, there are few I can recommend any higher than this one.
Bonus Recomendations: This movie is from The Visual Bible, who also did Matthew and Acts. These movies are also well done.
Now I live with my Grandma, and I have my own copy of it. To this day, it is one of the best Biblical movies ever made, and certainly one of the most Biblically accurate.
The plot seems rather pointless to summarize. It is the life of Jesus as written in the 4th book of the New Testament. What makes the movie so great is that it follows the book verbatim from the Good News Translation. I'll dive into that in a moment.
Most of the cast are unfamiliar to most, however, the narrator ("In the beginning was The Word...") is none other than Christiopher Plummer, aka Captain VonTrapp from The Sound of Music.
This is the 2nd of 3 major roles he had in Jesus movies. Beforehand, he played the Herod who married his brother's wife in Jesus of Nazareth, and later he voiced the Nativity Herod in The Star.
Jesus Himself is played by Henry Ian Cusick. I don't know if I'd say he's one of my favorite Jesus actors, but he is very good in the part.
The best part of the movie is that it is very close to Scripture- something missing from Jesus movies like 1961's King of Kings. That's a good movie, but it strays too much from The Bible. The Gospel of John is just that, and much of the film's power comes from that.
In fact, the last time I saw it, a few months ago, I watched it after a long stressful day, and within a half hour, I felt peace overcome my stress. It's a very uplifiting experience.
Despite giving it a 10/10, I do have one nit-pick. As I said before, the movie quotes the Good News Translation. I love the King James translation, but even NIV or ESV would have been more fitting.
Some verses with the GNT are too modern and don't sound like Jesus. Take the Doubting Thomas scene. In John 20:29, Jesus tells Thomas: "Blessed are those who have not seen and yet believe." In the Good News version, Jesus says: "HAPPY are those who have not seen...", which felt out of place.
This minor complaint does not diminish the rest of the movie though. At exactly 3 hours, it is somewhat slow, but constantly moving and engaging.
Biblical epics are my favorite movie genre, and The Gospel of John is one of my favorites. I have a church friend who told me it's her favorite movie because of its closeness to The Bible. If you want an uplifting Bible movie that actually sticks to the source, there are few I can recommend any higher than this one.
Bonus Recomendations: This movie is from The Visual Bible, who also did Matthew and Acts. These movies are also well done.
- filmbuff-05706
- Nov 20, 2022
- Permalink
I have known and loved Jesus for 30 years, and this movie helped me know and love Him even more. The scenery, music and top-quality narration helped to make this biblical drama a real winner. I was thrilled to see it done so accurately and so well! Congratulations on a great success!
The production values of this film are first rate. My only quibble is why they cast such an Anglo-looking actor in the title role. The most striking point made was to set so much of the "action" in the city of Jerusalem. The confrontations between Jesus and the authorities make the crucifixion much more understandable. "John" has Jesus make many visits to the city, unlike the synoptics. who portray him as a Galilean country preacher. The length of the film works against it since one is ill advised to buy the large cokes before going in, as there is no break.
In all the furor over "The Passion of the Christ," almost no one seemed to notice "The Gospel of John," a film that slipped in and out of theaters without causing the slightest stir almost six months prior to the release of Gibson's controversial opus. Using the Good News Bible as its source, this three-hour film is a near word-for-word adaptation of the book believed by many scholars to be the most theologically advanced and least historically reliable of the four canonical gospels.
Although the idea of providing so doggedly literal a translation might have seemed like a good one on paper, the fact is that the concept fails for one very obvious reason - which is that the narrator (in this case Christopher Plummer) becomes utterly superfluous as a storytelling device. Since film is largely a visual medium, the narrator keeps telling us things we can clearly see with our own eyes. If Jesus is shown looking at his disciples, the narrator informs us that "Jesus looked at his disciples"; if the crowd finds a grassy hill on which to sit down, the ubiquitous voice intones "the hill was covered with grass and the crowd sat down." And this sort of pointless iteration of the obvious goes on throughout the duration of the film. The result is that it not only draws the story out to an unconscionable length, but we actually find ourselves snickering at wholly inappropriate moments. My own personal favorite comes when we see Jesus rising from a crouching position while the narrator enlightens us with the information that "Jesus straightened up." Another problem with this approach is that the very words of Jesus, being entirely unedited, come out as turgid monologues. Somehow, all these speeches don't seem quite so longwinded when you're reading them. (It should be noted that the ENTIRE text has not actually been reproduced in the screenplay, for we are at least spared most of the "he said"- type fillers in the dialogue scenes).
Henry Ian Cusick does what he can with the role of Christ, but since John's account provides us with the least "human" Jesus of the four, the actor has a difficult time bringing the Savior to life as a flesh-and-blood human being. Many of the other actors - particularly Steven Russell as Pilate and a large number of the crowd-scene extras - turn in surprisingly amateurish performances.
It would be interesting to see filmmakers take this same literalist approach with Matthew, Mark and Luke, if only to observe how they would deal with the discrepancies between John's account and the other three. For instance, John sets the cleansing of the temple early on in Jesus' ministry instead of at the start of Passion Week as the Synoptic writers do. Moreover, Matthew shows Mary Magdalene on Easter morning learning of Jesus' resurrection from an angel in the empty tomb, while John has her find out from Jesus himself. The poor servant of the high priest who falls victim to Peter's sword, doesn't even get his ear reattached here, as he does in "The Passion." The film also cheats a bit by showing Jesus being baptized, even though, in John's account, the event is neither mentioned nor recorded.
The movie has been handsomely shot on location, and there are a few effective moments along the way, but the literal-minded rigidity of the exercise ends up draining all the life and passion out of the story (particularly in contrast to Gibson's work). The crucifixion here is so utterly mundane and undramatic that it's hard not to be bored during the event (where are Matthew's darkness, earthquake and resurrected bodies when you need them?)
Like a cinematic version of Books on Tape, "The Gospel of John" might be appropriate for use as a Sunday school primer, but it has very little to offer in the way of either inspiration or entertainment.
Although the idea of providing so doggedly literal a translation might have seemed like a good one on paper, the fact is that the concept fails for one very obvious reason - which is that the narrator (in this case Christopher Plummer) becomes utterly superfluous as a storytelling device. Since film is largely a visual medium, the narrator keeps telling us things we can clearly see with our own eyes. If Jesus is shown looking at his disciples, the narrator informs us that "Jesus looked at his disciples"; if the crowd finds a grassy hill on which to sit down, the ubiquitous voice intones "the hill was covered with grass and the crowd sat down." And this sort of pointless iteration of the obvious goes on throughout the duration of the film. The result is that it not only draws the story out to an unconscionable length, but we actually find ourselves snickering at wholly inappropriate moments. My own personal favorite comes when we see Jesus rising from a crouching position while the narrator enlightens us with the information that "Jesus straightened up." Another problem with this approach is that the very words of Jesus, being entirely unedited, come out as turgid monologues. Somehow, all these speeches don't seem quite so longwinded when you're reading them. (It should be noted that the ENTIRE text has not actually been reproduced in the screenplay, for we are at least spared most of the "he said"- type fillers in the dialogue scenes).
Henry Ian Cusick does what he can with the role of Christ, but since John's account provides us with the least "human" Jesus of the four, the actor has a difficult time bringing the Savior to life as a flesh-and-blood human being. Many of the other actors - particularly Steven Russell as Pilate and a large number of the crowd-scene extras - turn in surprisingly amateurish performances.
It would be interesting to see filmmakers take this same literalist approach with Matthew, Mark and Luke, if only to observe how they would deal with the discrepancies between John's account and the other three. For instance, John sets the cleansing of the temple early on in Jesus' ministry instead of at the start of Passion Week as the Synoptic writers do. Moreover, Matthew shows Mary Magdalene on Easter morning learning of Jesus' resurrection from an angel in the empty tomb, while John has her find out from Jesus himself. The poor servant of the high priest who falls victim to Peter's sword, doesn't even get his ear reattached here, as he does in "The Passion." The film also cheats a bit by showing Jesus being baptized, even though, in John's account, the event is neither mentioned nor recorded.
The movie has been handsomely shot on location, and there are a few effective moments along the way, but the literal-minded rigidity of the exercise ends up draining all the life and passion out of the story (particularly in contrast to Gibson's work). The crucifixion here is so utterly mundane and undramatic that it's hard not to be bored during the event (where are Matthew's darkness, earthquake and resurrected bodies when you need them?)
Like a cinematic version of Books on Tape, "The Gospel of John" might be appropriate for use as a Sunday school primer, but it has very little to offer in the way of either inspiration or entertainment.
Other Biblically-based stories headline with actors who are known for a certain body of work to add viewer draw. That can be distracting. When the "script" is the Bible, there should not be any ad-libbing or creative license with the dialogue. Although I was familiar with Henry Ian Cusick as "Desmond" from the FOX show "Lost" he will now be known to me as the best actor to play Jesus that I have seen. Many actors seem to overact the part. Mr. Cusick's portrayal seemed realistic. For example, there are times when you can see him portraying Christ's exasperation with the lack of belief from his disciples without going overboard into frustration. I never realized how often Jesus had to tell peopleeven His disciplesthat he was speaking the truth.
The accents are not authentic: So. I found myself noticing things from the scripture that made the story so much more complete that I couldn't care less that all of the actors weren't Hebrew.
Christopher Plummer's narration is soothing and well-read without drawing attention away from the story. Other viewers have commented that he stated the obvious, but he is reading the Gospel from the Good News version and nothing is omitted.
The soundtrack blended into the story perfectly.
My favorite parts are where Jesus is talking to His Father. How wonderful it must have been for the disciples to actually witness.
In summary, the film comes together like a choir with each part lending to the greatness of the end product. The message of Jesus' humanity AND deity at the same time (hypostatic union) are perfectly juxtaposed into one film that bears witness to the message of His Love.
I purchased several copies immediately.
The accents are not authentic: So. I found myself noticing things from the scripture that made the story so much more complete that I couldn't care less that all of the actors weren't Hebrew.
Christopher Plummer's narration is soothing and well-read without drawing attention away from the story. Other viewers have commented that he stated the obvious, but he is reading the Gospel from the Good News version and nothing is omitted.
The soundtrack blended into the story perfectly.
My favorite parts are where Jesus is talking to His Father. How wonderful it must have been for the disciples to actually witness.
In summary, the film comes together like a choir with each part lending to the greatness of the end product. The message of Jesus' humanity AND deity at the same time (hypostatic union) are perfectly juxtaposed into one film that bears witness to the message of His Love.
I purchased several copies immediately.
- stephsales
- Jan 18, 2007
- Permalink
- shynggysramazanov
- Oct 3, 2018
- Permalink
I read about "The Gospel of John" in the newspapers, and the first thing that crossed my mind was, "Why another Jesus movie?" With "The Passion" coming just around the corner, "The Gospel of John" seemed a bit overshadowed by all of the hype Mel Gibson's movie was getting. Still, I did my research, being a fan of Jesus movies, and found some pretty good reviews. I still didn't expect it to be as good as it was, and as soon as I popped the DVD into my TV I was mesmerized for the entire three hours of the movie.
Henry Ian Cusick is absolutely amazing in his role of Jesus Christ. His only competition would be Robert Powell of "Jesus of Nazareth", but Cusick's performance was unlike any I'd seen before (and I've seen "Jesus" the miniseries with Jeremy Sisto, "Jesus" with Brian Deacon, "Matthew" with Bruce Marchiano, "The Greatest Story Ever Told" with Max Von Sydow, "King of Kings" with Jeff Hunter, "The King of Kings" with H.B. Warner, "Jesus of Nazareth" with Robert Powell, and both versions of "Jesus Christ Superstar"). His potrayal of Christ is absolutely effortless, which is even more impressive considering the fact that he's speaking word for word from the book of John. Not only does he do wonders with the script, but his overall interpretation of Jesus is unique and, for me, very inspiring. Cusick's Christ knows his mission and carries it out with determination, and, most of all, authority; but this doesn't hold back his human side either, and he is very believable as a loving, caring Christ (the single tear running down his face during the raising of Lazarus was so touching and convincing that it made ME cry). Some may believe that his attitude toward the Pharisees was harsh, and I'll admit that I was a bit taken back when he raised his voice more than once throughout the movie-- but as it progresses, his emotions seem appropriate for someone desperately trying to teach a message of salvation that no one seems to want to accept.
The special effects were very well-done. The scene where Jesus is walking on the water is finally convincing...
The only problem I had with the movie was that it seemed to shy away from the crucifixion. I was a bit disappointed at the way the movie zipped through one of the most crucial parts of the Gospel, especially with Cusick's passionate performance throughout the first couple of hours of the movie. The end result is about two hours and thirty minutes of beautiful cinematography and brilliant acting, and a really "blah" finale. The directors really missed the chance to make an impression by failing to utilize the most dramatic part of Christ's life. Cusick could have worked wonders with it.
As for the rest of the cast, each member was perfect. Even the minor roles were believable-- the Pharisees and the people on the street gave very in-depth, and occassionally passionate, performances.
"The Gospel of John" was one of the best potrayals of Christ I have ever seen. I highly recommend it, and just a heads up--the "Special Features" addition to the DVD set is a great bonus!
Henry Ian Cusick is absolutely amazing in his role of Jesus Christ. His only competition would be Robert Powell of "Jesus of Nazareth", but Cusick's performance was unlike any I'd seen before (and I've seen "Jesus" the miniseries with Jeremy Sisto, "Jesus" with Brian Deacon, "Matthew" with Bruce Marchiano, "The Greatest Story Ever Told" with Max Von Sydow, "King of Kings" with Jeff Hunter, "The King of Kings" with H.B. Warner, "Jesus of Nazareth" with Robert Powell, and both versions of "Jesus Christ Superstar"). His potrayal of Christ is absolutely effortless, which is even more impressive considering the fact that he's speaking word for word from the book of John. Not only does he do wonders with the script, but his overall interpretation of Jesus is unique and, for me, very inspiring. Cusick's Christ knows his mission and carries it out with determination, and, most of all, authority; but this doesn't hold back his human side either, and he is very believable as a loving, caring Christ (the single tear running down his face during the raising of Lazarus was so touching and convincing that it made ME cry). Some may believe that his attitude toward the Pharisees was harsh, and I'll admit that I was a bit taken back when he raised his voice more than once throughout the movie-- but as it progresses, his emotions seem appropriate for someone desperately trying to teach a message of salvation that no one seems to want to accept.
The special effects were very well-done. The scene where Jesus is walking on the water is finally convincing...
The only problem I had with the movie was that it seemed to shy away from the crucifixion. I was a bit disappointed at the way the movie zipped through one of the most crucial parts of the Gospel, especially with Cusick's passionate performance throughout the first couple of hours of the movie. The end result is about two hours and thirty minutes of beautiful cinematography and brilliant acting, and a really "blah" finale. The directors really missed the chance to make an impression by failing to utilize the most dramatic part of Christ's life. Cusick could have worked wonders with it.
As for the rest of the cast, each member was perfect. Even the minor roles were believable-- the Pharisees and the people on the street gave very in-depth, and occassionally passionate, performances.
"The Gospel of John" was one of the best potrayals of Christ I have ever seen. I highly recommend it, and just a heads up--the "Special Features" addition to the DVD set is a great bonus!
- pyhee_the_ii
- Dec 15, 2003
- Permalink
Although I haven't seen "The Passion of the Christ", I have seen this film (as well as others portraying the life of Jesus Christ).
Although I disagree with the previous viewer's comments concerning the matter of the full Cross, I, nevertheless, share in their great deal of enthusiasm for the film.
First, and most importantly, a film that presents...the knowledge through which a viewer can come to eternal life...is invaluable!!! Of course, other films have been made about the life of Jesus Christ, yet only one that I know of followed the words of Christ (i.e., "The Jesus Film"), and it was based on The Gospel of Mark, not The Gospel of John. Why is this significant? It is noteworthy that The Gospel of John is the only Book of the Bible that has, as its stated purpose, sharing with the reader what he, or she, must do to become saved; therefore, needless to say, this film, from an evangelistic standpoint, is of immense value.
Second, this film has a lot for which to be commended insofar as it uses, for its script, the words of Scripture itself. As I have written elsewhere, people can speculate all they want. They can say that Jesus must have done this or that, etc. but, in the end, it is merely that--speculation. (I could say, for example, that The Apostle Paul must have been a fine orator since he was such a fine writer...but be speaking contra to the apparent truth of the Scriptures ("Now I, Paul . . . who in presence am lowly among you . . . . 'For his letters,' they say, 'are weighty and powerful, but his bodily presence is weak, and his speech contemptible' ", NKJV).
Third, Mr. Cusick did a fine job of portraying a "balanced" Jesus: His anger, His cynicism, His compassion, His warmth. I believe he was aided, of course, by a fine script.
I cannot recommend this film highly enough...if for no other reason than that you, the viewer, might come to a knowledge of the Truth...and, in coming to the knowledge of the Truth that you, too, might trust in Jesus, God the Son, as the Messiah!
Although I disagree with the previous viewer's comments concerning the matter of the full Cross, I, nevertheless, share in their great deal of enthusiasm for the film.
First, and most importantly, a film that presents...the knowledge through which a viewer can come to eternal life...is invaluable!!! Of course, other films have been made about the life of Jesus Christ, yet only one that I know of followed the words of Christ (i.e., "The Jesus Film"), and it was based on The Gospel of Mark, not The Gospel of John. Why is this significant? It is noteworthy that The Gospel of John is the only Book of the Bible that has, as its stated purpose, sharing with the reader what he, or she, must do to become saved; therefore, needless to say, this film, from an evangelistic standpoint, is of immense value.
Second, this film has a lot for which to be commended insofar as it uses, for its script, the words of Scripture itself. As I have written elsewhere, people can speculate all they want. They can say that Jesus must have done this or that, etc. but, in the end, it is merely that--speculation. (I could say, for example, that The Apostle Paul must have been a fine orator since he was such a fine writer...but be speaking contra to the apparent truth of the Scriptures ("Now I, Paul . . . who in presence am lowly among you . . . . 'For his letters,' they say, 'are weighty and powerful, but his bodily presence is weak, and his speech contemptible' ", NKJV).
Third, Mr. Cusick did a fine job of portraying a "balanced" Jesus: His anger, His cynicism, His compassion, His warmth. I believe he was aided, of course, by a fine script.
I cannot recommend this film highly enough...if for no other reason than that you, the viewer, might come to a knowledge of the Truth...and, in coming to the knowledge of the Truth that you, too, might trust in Jesus, God the Son, as the Messiah!
I have read a few reviews on this film that criticized it for being a "Bible lesson" and too "literal" to the Gospel of John, with whom it shares it's title. My question of them is, "What on Earth did you expect??"
Hearing about a non-controversial "Life of Jesus" movie, being released in the theaters was a very exciting thing for me. I have always been fascinated by Biblical films, and finding one that didn't have protests or threats of being banned was a pleasant surprise for this modern age. I am truly looking forward to the Mel Gibson film, "The Passion of the Christ", but have grown tired of all the "he said/she said" crap that has become associated with it.
So, when my local cineplex announced that "The Gospel of John" was coming, I was at one of the first showings this past Friday.....and I am VERY glad I went!
Yes, the film is VERY literal to the Biblical Gospel that many feel the apostle John penned. Since there is really no proof that John actually IS the "Beloved Disciple" mentioned in the book, you must take this film with a slight gain of salt at the very beginning. With that in mind, the film makers have produced a very beautiful retelling of the Life of Jesus Christ.
Because it sticks very strictly to the Book of John, and ONLY that Gospel, there are indeed a few important episodes in Jesus' miraculous life missing. For example, while the scene of Jesus announcing Judas as his betrayer is there, the "Last Supper" itself is missing....as it isn't mentioned in this particular book of the Bible. Same with Jesus appearing before Herod as part of his "trial".....not in the Book of John, so not in the movie.
Henry Ian Cusick makes a very believable Jesus Christ. Some of the reviews have accused him of being too harsh and "never having been moved by the Holy Spirit". Please.... Cusick is gives a very moving performance as the Son of God. He does a very fine job of using the EXACT words the author of the Gospel of John "scripted" for him. While being very limited to a script that must be said verbatim, Cusick is divine, AS WELL AS human. This Jesus smiles, and actually looks happy with his followers and teaching his Father's message, unlike the Jesus of Robert Powell, which seems to be the majority favorite. Jeremy Sisto is still gives my favorite performance as Jesus, but Henry Ian Cusick is a VERY CLOSE second.
My few complaints with the movie are more like questions. Why would you cast an actress in her 60's to play the Mother of Jesus. If Mary was 14 or 15 when Jesus was born, and he died for our sins at age 33, then she should be in her late 40's at the time of his death. Not so in this case. Diana Berriman is a fine actress, but just too old for the role.
Also, since the Bible NO WHERE states that Mary Magdalene is a repentant whore, why would you dress her like one in the first of her too few scenes on screen? When first seen, Lynsey Baxter is dressed a bright orange tunic, with a ton of make-up and long dangly ear rings. Why??? Mary Magdalene was NOT a prostitute, and since this film attempts to be a LITERAL filming of the 4th Gospel, then why would they depict Mary in this fashion???
My final complaint with the film, is simply with the Gospel itself. Of all the Gospels telling of Jesus time on Earth, John is the one that doesn't "mesh" with the others. But that is by no means the fault of the film makers.
I highly recommend seeing "The Gospel of John", especially before the long awaited and highly controversial, Catholic dominated Mel Gibson film is released in February.
>
Hearing about a non-controversial "Life of Jesus" movie, being released in the theaters was a very exciting thing for me. I have always been fascinated by Biblical films, and finding one that didn't have protests or threats of being banned was a pleasant surprise for this modern age. I am truly looking forward to the Mel Gibson film, "The Passion of the Christ", but have grown tired of all the "he said/she said" crap that has become associated with it.
So, when my local cineplex announced that "The Gospel of John" was coming, I was at one of the first showings this past Friday.....and I am VERY glad I went!
Yes, the film is VERY literal to the Biblical Gospel that many feel the apostle John penned. Since there is really no proof that John actually IS the "Beloved Disciple" mentioned in the book, you must take this film with a slight gain of salt at the very beginning. With that in mind, the film makers have produced a very beautiful retelling of the Life of Jesus Christ.
Because it sticks very strictly to the Book of John, and ONLY that Gospel, there are indeed a few important episodes in Jesus' miraculous life missing. For example, while the scene of Jesus announcing Judas as his betrayer is there, the "Last Supper" itself is missing....as it isn't mentioned in this particular book of the Bible. Same with Jesus appearing before Herod as part of his "trial".....not in the Book of John, so not in the movie.
Henry Ian Cusick makes a very believable Jesus Christ. Some of the reviews have accused him of being too harsh and "never having been moved by the Holy Spirit". Please.... Cusick is gives a very moving performance as the Son of God. He does a very fine job of using the EXACT words the author of the Gospel of John "scripted" for him. While being very limited to a script that must be said verbatim, Cusick is divine, AS WELL AS human. This Jesus smiles, and actually looks happy with his followers and teaching his Father's message, unlike the Jesus of Robert Powell, which seems to be the majority favorite. Jeremy Sisto is still gives my favorite performance as Jesus, but Henry Ian Cusick is a VERY CLOSE second.
My few complaints with the movie are more like questions. Why would you cast an actress in her 60's to play the Mother of Jesus. If Mary was 14 or 15 when Jesus was born, and he died for our sins at age 33, then she should be in her late 40's at the time of his death. Not so in this case. Diana Berriman is a fine actress, but just too old for the role.
Also, since the Bible NO WHERE states that Mary Magdalene is a repentant whore, why would you dress her like one in the first of her too few scenes on screen? When first seen, Lynsey Baxter is dressed a bright orange tunic, with a ton of make-up and long dangly ear rings. Why??? Mary Magdalene was NOT a prostitute, and since this film attempts to be a LITERAL filming of the 4th Gospel, then why would they depict Mary in this fashion???
My final complaint with the film, is simply with the Gospel itself. Of all the Gospels telling of Jesus time on Earth, John is the one that doesn't "mesh" with the others. But that is by no means the fault of the film makers.
I highly recommend seeing "The Gospel of John", especially before the long awaited and highly controversial, Catholic dominated Mel Gibson film is released in February.
>
- oznickolaus
- Jan 18, 2004
- Permalink
My wife and I made a special spiritual pilgrimage on our first year anniversary to view Gospel of John. The nearest place it was showing was 8 hours away in Hickory, North Carolina. We arrived Saturday morning, found the theater and waited patiently for the 2 PM showing. We were not disappointed.
For three hours we were riveted to our seats. We did not buy popcorn, drinks or snacks because we felt the movie deserved our undivided attention. When the movie was over, we wept at how wonderful the portrayal of Jesus was and how wonderful the entire movie was. We wished we could just stay and pray because this movie does draw one closer to the Lord and the perfect time to acknowledge that is immediately after the movie. But, after the credits rolled, rock music came on the speakers and we ventured out into the "real" world.
The experience is worthwhile..
For three hours we were riveted to our seats. We did not buy popcorn, drinks or snacks because we felt the movie deserved our undivided attention. When the movie was over, we wept at how wonderful the portrayal of Jesus was and how wonderful the entire movie was. We wished we could just stay and pray because this movie does draw one closer to the Lord and the perfect time to acknowledge that is immediately after the movie. But, after the credits rolled, rock music came on the speakers and we ventured out into the "real" world.
The experience is worthwhile..
It's a word for word depiction of the book of John. The script is The Book of John. So it's pure and unfiltered scripture on that sense. The acting is good, music is good. But the Spirit of the film is 10/10 because it stays 100% true to the Bible and doesn't stray away even a centimeter.
If you watched this movie you just read The Gospel of John.
If you watched this movie you just read The Gospel of John.
- jonnydreamer
- Mar 17, 2020
- Permalink