ReaderKenka Let's be realistic.

RipDelight This is a tender, generous movie that likes its characters and presents them as real people, full of flaws and strengths.

Ezmae Chang This is a small, humorous movie in some ways, but it has a huge heart. What a nice experience.

Philippa All of these films share one commonality, that being a kind of emotional center that humanizes a cast of monsters.

Kirpianuscus the purpose of this film is the big question who remains after its end. because it is not portrait of the Savior or the portrait of a Prophet. the Gospels are only pretext. the implication of good actors - decorative. and the desire to redefine His existence and work - wrong. too long, too innovative and unclear, it is an exercise to present a good guy who has not specific identity, who not gives a specific message, who looking like Christ but at the level of poor sketch. something missing. and it is something fundamental for do a credible story, to remind the word of Jesus, for be a real testimony about a mission and about sacrifice. it is not a problem of freedom of expression or about the religious believes. but the manner to send a credible vision about the second person of Saint Trinity.

Chris Patko Poor acting and half the bible was missing. Of course Bill Oreilly Knows everything about everything more than anyone else. Bill knows more about Reagan, Abraham Lincoln and now Jesus than anyone else. Bill Oreilly Is a now it all. There are many better Jesus stories than this, I would pass. Too much detail and info left out.What happen to the thief on the cross? What happen to the sky turning to night? What happen to the earth quake and the thief on the cross? All left out.Bill Oreilly is now smarter than the bible in his egomaniacs mind.I could only imagine how poorly the rest of Bills novels are. Bill should stick to his Fox News show where Everyone is Afraid of him and Jumps to his command. This movie as is horrible from the acting to the presentation.

spirit11 There are plenty of reviews focusing on one or another aspect of this film, and therein lies the problem. It has flashes of greatness weighted down by a lack of direction. By trying to be all things to all viewers, it ends up being unsatisfying to all. I visited the accompanying website where you have the option to view the same events from three different points of view. That summarizes the problem with the film. On the web site you can choose an angle and stick with it. In the film you cannot, and the attempt to show all three points of view simultaneously leads to nothing but confusion.The relatively high rating is for flashes of quality that will stick with me. The scourging of Jesus is extremely vivid, and will stay with me. The crucifixion likewise gave an image that I found very realistic--I walked away thinking I had better idea what crucifixion was really like. Seeing the character of Jesus show real struggles with his temper also put more of a face to the man--I had a better sense of the Biblical teaching of "fully human" really means. But these insights were few and far between and ultimately couldn't overcome the other problems with the film.

will-barrows I was intrigued that Ridley Scott would produce a re-telling of the Christ story written by a conservative catholic TV commentator for National Geographic. I watched it guardedly, but was moved by it in the end. Bill O'Reilly's focus is the political situation in Palestine at the time, and although Jesus is the central character, the story really focuses on other people's reaction to -and expectations of- Jesus. It's not surprising that none of the miracles are shown on screen as the authorities had not seen them and would most likely be dismissive of them anyway. The result is high drama and tension as the authorities keep arguing over jurisdictional issues.