The Gospel of John

Rating:
Summary: I believe in christ.
Review: After watching the DVD and reading some of the reviews on this movie I have to wonder. Why do some people tear a movie apart while others love it?

Simply put, there is a division and that is what Christ said there would be in this world, a division between believers and non-believers. I'm not saying that the people that didn't like this film are non-belevers, I saying just as we have different opinions on this movie so does the world with Christ. I thought this movie was excellent, far above the recent Mell Gibson film "The Passion" on the same subject.

Most people think they can be saved anytime they want to but in this movie you hear Jesus say "work when you have the light" meaning the spirit but a man cannot come to me unless my father drawls him" just think about this and this is what the sinner man needs to hear because many are being miss-lead by other movies, preachers, teachers all over this world "the blind shall lead the blind and they all shall fall in the ditch". If you want to know the truth about Christ read the "King James Version" not the International or another version of the bible that has been altered for easy reading. Read Matthew through Revelation and then read it again and again absorbing the scriptures and most of all pray whenever you get the chance from the depths of your soul (heart)-cry out and he will hear you. You must be very sincere though!

This movie I believe is the most-true to the Bible film that has been made thus far. If you can't read or just don't want to read the Bible then I would advise anyone that is not saved to watch this movie and keep on watching it over and over and praying with all you have.

Remember, "If you drawl nigh unto him then he will drawl nigh unto you"



Rating:
Summary: Joseph Fiennes probably does not look like Martin Luther!!!
Review: But, it's a nice fantasy. I enjoyed this version of the Luther story. Martin Luther was a complex character and I think Joseph Fiennes portrayed him in a way that shed some new light on him. He also may have softened some of the difficult realities about him. I don't believe Martin Luther was prepared to grasp the division his writings created and perhaps those in power in Germany exploited the popularity of his writings for their own gain. It is so hard to see and understand clearly from our perspective in 2004 what the mindset was and what influences were during Luther's lifetime. He left a mark on history, intentional or not, that caused brother to rise up against brother and we continue the battle in various ways today. I'm sorry that this film was so narrowly distributed.

Rating:
Summary: missing the point-christians!!
Review: I am compelled to write in response to the previous reviews of this film and other films depicting our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ. These reviewers find fault after fault with this film, and others like it-failing to realize the obvious benefit to the heathen who watches it. If an unbeliever sees this film and is led to read the actual word of God, I am all for it, even if there are mistakes made in accuracy!! One does not need to fully understand EVERYTHING about our Lord to be saved from wrath, only that Christ is the Son of God, that he made the acceptable and final sacfrifice of himself on the cross for his/her sins, that he was buried, and that he rose from the dead on the third day! Growth and understanding will surely come as God nutures HIS relationship with the sinner according to HIS GRACE. These movies in my opinion are more for the unbeliever.We should pray that MORE souls see these movies, and that they will put their faith in Christ Jesus. AMEN Thank you

Rating:
Summary: An outstanding portrayal of Jesus -- one of the best!
Review: I really love this DVD! The Gospel of John features an outstanding cast, most notably Henry Ian Cusick, an actor in his 30's who brings out the human side of Jesus but does it in such a reverent yet dynamic fashion. Here is a strong rather than wimpy Jesus. Here is a Jesus who is serious but who also laughs and shows his anger. This human portrayal of Christ does not detract from the divine side of Christ; rather it enhances it. The Bible speaks of Jesus Christ, both as the Son of God and the Son of Man - the Word who became flesh. Cusick makes the words of Christ come alive through his dynamic portrayal.

Cusick's acting is just as outstanding as Robert Powell (Jesus of Nazareth) and James Caviezel (The Passion of the Christ).

Another outstanding actor is Daniel Kash, who plays Simon Peter with a lot of feeling and passion. He brings out the different sides of Peter.

The only actors I felt were miscast were: the actress who played the Samaritan woman (she portrayed the Samaritan woman like a homeless person with a slight mental problem); the actress who played Mary the mother of Jesus (she looks more advanced in age than Mary seems to be).

Even though this film is taken word-for-word from the Good News Bible, the actors speaking make the words flow dramatically so that it does not sound like people just reading a script in a play, they make it into a real feature-length movie. I also enjoyed Christopher Plummer's outstanding narration -- Plummer is a perfect choice as a narrator since he is so accomplished an actor both in film and in the theatre. His eloquent narration holds the whole narratives together and guides the viewer smoothly along the verses and chapters of the Gospel without distraction.

This movie helped to give me a better appreciation of Jesus' work and teachings. It brought out the whole theme of the Gospel of John: Jesus truly is the Son of God; through believing in Him we may receive eternal life!

I enjoyed the special features on the 3rd disc. It offered interviews of Henry Ian Cusick and Christopher Plummer and also gave us a glimpse of how the movie was made.

If you want a movie that does full justice in portraying Jesus according to what the Bible says, look no further. This movie is excellent and gets better through repeated viewings. I hope you will be blessed as much as I was through watching it!

Rating:
Summary: An outstanding film on Jesus Christ
Review: I saw this film last night and could not believe the caliber of acting, directing, cinematography, music and most important of all, an absolutely amazing portrayal of Jesus and his life as per the Gospel of John.
This is a true film, not just another religious movie that falls a bit short on acting or directing because of just focusing on getting out Jesus' teachings on film, No. This is truly a film of Oscar caliber. Even a complete non believer would have to admit to the brilliance of this film as a cimematic accomplishment of groundbreaking proportions.
When you watch it, you're watching a strong Shakespearean-esque cast and a director that has an awesome command of the dialogue and acting choices the cast makes. It takes a 2000 year old "script" word for word and translates it into pure genius on film.
All the scenes are beautifully crafted and the actors all made very strong creative choices that were always in line with the spirit of the gospel. Jesus was portrayed with a great balance of power, conviction, compassion and even fierceness when appropriate. No one note acting cliches of "look how holy I am" in this version. He was portrayed very multifaceted. >Some may find this film hard to watch because it stays completely devoted to The Gospel of John, so that means we don't get to see a fusion of many of Jesus famous parables or known sayings as we get to see in for example the film 'Jesus of Nazereth'. However, that is part of the brilliance of this film, that they stayed only with the John gospel and found amazing ways to keep it alive and creative. For example, you would think that the narration might be a bit bland, what could you do with the narrative details in the John Gospel? Nevertheless, it was done in the tone of a great storyteller weaving out an exciting and moving story that keeps you entralled with a great unfolding story of a great man-Jesus.
There has never been a Jesus film like this one. A real artists film that is free of controversy (unlike The Last Temptation of Christ which is artistic but very controversial)and glued to the text.
It almost saddens me that this film doesn't seem to be headed towards major release. If you can't get to see it on the big screen, it's very well worth buying on DVD. This film truly deserves the overused expression "Masterpiece".

Rating:
Summary: Bible Literalism Run Amuck
Review: 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.





Rating:
Summary: Jesus for Psychology
Review: In just three hours of watching the Gospel of John I learnt so much about the psychology of Jesus, I am telling you the truth! This movie has beautiful scenery and landscape, and the dialogue is poetic and emotionally expressive.

Rating:
Summary: A Spiritual Feast
Review: Jesus the Messiah is portrayed as God's joyous, loving, and forgiving Son in Director Philip Saville's "The Gospel of John." The film, as the title suggests, is based on the fourth gospel which is the preferred scriptural text in the Eastern Orthodox Church. The East emphasizes life, resurrection, and redemption. Hence the film is a stark contrast from Mel Gibson's Catholic theological emphasis of suffering in "The Passion."

Nominated this year for two Genie Awards, the primary national film award of Canada, The Gospel of John is needlessly repetitive. The screen writer (John Goldsmith) needed some editorial assistance.

The actors, however, offer solid performances. Jesus (Henry Ian Cusick) beams with friendship, good cheer, and acceptance. Even when he chides the apostles for disbelief or for being dense Jesus does so in a nurturing way. The actor possessed an aura or presence that made Jesus unique - of this world and yet of another. John the Baptist (Scott Handy), although a small role, is brilliantly and memorably portrayed as a mysterious, contemplative prophet. The film is woven together by the rich, Shakespearean trained voice of narrator Christopher Plummer.

A few colleagues with whom I attended a showing thought the cinematography muddy. There's merit to the criticism that some scenes were too narrowly focused. It didn't, however, disrupt my overall enjoyment of the film. The opening scene is well done - the morning sun rising with Plummer narrating, "In the beginning was the Word." There are similar well-crafted scenes. The narration and dialogue of the actors, massaged with several additions, had an almost poetic ring.

The movie has tasteful, realistic depictions of the life of Jesus without high drama. Blood and water, for example, drips from the wound of Christ - it doesn't come forth like a rain storm as in the Gibson film. Angels at the tomb of the resurrected Jesus are shown as bright light. It is one of several believable supernatural interpretations of scripture.

The film focused on a positive message that is shown to be timeless and everlasting with an emphasis on the post-resurrected Son of God. Probably 30 minutes is devoted to the risen Jesus. It's an important reminder to stay focused on the end result.

In one scene the living Christ says to a disciple, "If I should have John [the Evangelist] live till I return what is that to you." I recall watching the film and thinking of an ancient icon, "Ladder of Divine Ascent," where monks journey up the long ladder of life while staying focused on the living Christ. If you worry about your own soul and avoid all the many distractions along the way, there won't be time to worry about anything else.

The film offered a believable depiction of Christ's divine and human duality - a great prophet and teacher who travels through life to emerge as the savior of mankind. It's a challenging, complicated theme to bring together in cinema, yet it's done effortlessly. There are sub-themes - an intense eye contact with Mary Magdalene - gently suggests that she may have had a role that complemented both the divine and, especially, human nature of Jesus. It's done tastefully.

From my Eastern theological perspective I would have liked to have seen a greater role for the Mother of God. Gibson does this quite successfully in his film, but in The Gospel of John the Theotokos is just another disciple, though holy.

The film made me reflect on the many faces, or more properly, the many interpretations of Jesus. Theologically I felt at ease with this caring, nonjudgmental portrayal. But is this the Jesus I'll meet on judgment day? Time will tell.

Rating:
Summary: A decent film as such, but I much prefer the Book
Review: Let me say first that I don't think "Jesus films" are a good idea at all; you'll find out why shortly. But because this one is better than most, let us proceed...

Mostly because of the music featured on the Web site's original previews, I've seen THE GOSPEL OF JOHN -- both the movie (in theatres) and the DVD. Also, I'm very familiar with the recordings published by Esther Lamandier that were cited in the movie. I was pleased with the richness and diversity of Jeff Danna's film score, and thus bought the soundtrack (reviewed elsewhere).

First, the positive qualities of the film: Henry van Cusick brings an energy and =joie de vivre= to his role that one doesn't often see in portrayals of Jesus. (He actually makes us believe that someone as skinny as I used to be could drive out the money-changers and their cattle from the Temple.) The other parts seem well-cast too; the chief Pharisee in the Sanhedrin (who carries so much of the film's villany) very nearly steals the show through his =gravitas=. Much attention to physical detail exists in the film, which (if you know what you're looking at) can be very educational. And by purely human standards, the film is very emotive and uplifting.

Unfortunately, for me the negative qualities of the film are far more numerous. First, and most severely, portrayals of Jesus in art are clear violations of the Second Commandment -- something even the Catholic Church as late as Tertullian's time understood. Second, the portrayal we are offered is the same old skinny, long-haired, dirt-poor icon that was compiled centuries after the New Testament was written -- an icon which has nothing to do with the Bible or history (and which does not limit its errors to mere appearance). Third, many other historical details -- far too numerous to list here -- are completely overlooked by the film. Since when was the Passover celebrated with =leavened= pita bread, for example? All these lacks don't exactly build my faith in the film makers or in their supposedly expert consultants in religion and culture.

One nit I especially want to pick is the way Mme. Lamandier's musical contributions are described. You may read a longer critique elsewhere, where the soundtrack is offered. Suffice it to say here that Mme. Lamandier's melodic renditions (contrary to advertisement) are almost entirely not in Aramaic, but in biblical Hebrew. The Hebrew melodies themselves were restituted from the Masoretic accentuation by Suzanne Haik-Vantoura, who thankfully is mentioned properly in the film credits. (See my reviews of the book and the recording called THE MUSIC OF THE BIBLE REVEALED, sold elsewhere on Amazon.com.)

There are reasons why in antiquity, the Hebrew Bible was sung aloud (Ps. 119:54) and the Greek New Testament was read aloud (Rev. 1:1-3). One of them is that "faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the Word of God." Faith typically doesn't come by seeing (as Jesus noted for Thomas' benefit!), let alone by seeing a false and self-limiting concept of Jesus. But at least this particular false concept of Jesus is less perverse than that given to us by THE PASSION.

Rating:
Summary: The most Biblical account of Jesus ever put on film.
Review: The Gospel of John Film is an excellent portrayal of the life of Jesus Christ. It is a faithful word-for-word account of the Book of John, using the Good News Translation (while this translation may not be as sophisticated as some others, it does not compromise any doctrinal truths). One may watch the film with his or her Bible and follow along verse for verse.

With a totally Inspired script, the Gospel of John Film, accurately proclaims what Jesus Himself proclaimed; that He is God Incarnate, the only Way of salvation. Not a politically correct claim in this day and age but a timeless Truth for those who hold to Biblical inerrancy.

The cinematography and acting are first rate, on par with Hollywood's best, and capture the unique glory and authority of Jesus. Scenes such as John 8:58 where Jesus declares, "Before Abraham was born, I AM" are powerful indeed and force the viewer into the classic "trilemma" of C.S. Lewis (Jesus claimed to be God; Is He a lunatic, a liar, or is He Lord?). This tension is witnessed by the simple yet dramitic scene where a Pharisee, awestruck by Jesus, asks Him, "Who are You?" Who, indeed! Watch this film and find out.

<< 1 2 >>