MovieChat Forums > The Visual Bible: The Gospel of John (2003) Discussion > I saw this film last Friday in the theat...

I saw this film last Friday in the theater....

posted 20 years ago by oznickolaus
17 replies | jump to latest

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.

The film is already available as a 3 disk DVD set, and can be purchased directly from the film distributor. The web site is:

http://www.gospelofjohnthefilm.com/

[–] PeskyBear511 20 years ago

S White - You mention many of the people who have played Jesus, (Robert Powell, et al), and yet you left out Brian Deacon. If you are not familiar with the movie "Jesus" http://us.imdb.com/title/tt0079368/ I would encourage you to find it. Most Christian books stores will either have or can order a copy. It too is based verbatim on the Gospel of Luke. I think you will find this one too much to your liking. :-)

[–] oznickolaus 20 years ago

Thank you for the recomendation! I ordered the Jesus film with Brian Deacan several weeks agao and expect it to arrive any day now. I did see this film back in 1079, when I was a kid, but I remember very little about it. So, I am looking forward to seeing it again!

John

[–] PeskyBear511 20 years ago

John-

Fantastic! I am glad that you were able to get ahold of a copy. There are actually two versions of the film. A short version and the full length. Several years ago Campus Crusade for Christ had mounted a campaign to spread the Gospel of Jesus over the easter holiday. Through many generious donations, local CCFC organizations were able to purchase shortend versions of the film (about 83 mins, compared to the actual 117 mins), and send almost each household in their given city a copy of the film. While I own a opy of the short version, I would love to see again (as well as own) the long version.

Please drop me a line after you have gotten it and seen it a time or two. I would love to hear your thoughts on it. I hope this finds you well.

GOD bless. =-)

Philip

[–] oznickolaus 20 years ago

Hey Philip!

I received my copy of the Jesus Project DVD in the mail Saturday, and I began watching it late last night. I only got about 45 mins into it, when I realized how late it was and that I needed to head to bed.

So far I do indeed like Brian Deacon's performance. Something that is very important to me in a "Jesus" actor is that he smiles, which is something Mr. Deacon does quite often. On a petty note, his wig bugs the heck out of me!!!!!

My one major complaint so far, is that yet again, Mary Magdalene is wrongly portrayed as a prostitute, in addition to being the unnamed harlot who washes Jesus' feet with her hair. Considering that the DVD box boasts that this is the most historically and Biblically accurate film of Jesus, it seems odd that such a simple and Biblically obvious mistake would be made.

But I hope to watch the rest of the film tonight. It's funny, but I remembered a few of the scenes I saw last night, from when I watched this film as a child on HBO.

John

[–] PeskyBear511 20 years ago

John-

Glad you liked what you have seen so far. (Sorry about the wig. I had no control over it....*snicker*)

I will have to re-read Luke and rewatch the movie with regards to Mary. I had never eactly though about that point and will need to research it further on my own. If this is indeed in error, that would be a shame. However, if one prostitute by chance should see the film and realize that she too has been given the gift of salvation, how wonderful that would be. :-)

May GOD continue to bless and uphold you, giving you as strong witness as well.

Philip

[–] oznickolaus 20 years ago

I encourage you to look for the info on Mary Magdalene. I have done much reasearch on her myself and her whole "character" has evolved into something very beautiful to me.

And yes, i agree with you on in reguards to a prostitute seeing the film and knowing she will be forgiven if she accepts Christ. But the effect would still be the same if it wasn't Mary in the role.

J

[–] PeskyBear511 20 years ago

John-

Sorry I have been AWOL the past few weeks. Please drop me a line here as I would like to correspond w/ you directly and get your insights in Mary.

Thanks again for your encouragement. Hope this finds you well. Just remember how very special and precious to GOD that you are. :-)

Philip

[–] oznickolaus 20 years ago

Hey there! My email address is:

[email protected]

Feel free to drop me a line anytime!

John

[–] lcal169 20 years ago

You must remember the entire Scriptures and in Luke 8, Mary Magdalene was the woman who had 7 demons leave her. Since she was possessed by 7 demons, she may have been sexually immoral, we do not know the details, but Mary Magdalene was NOT the woman who wiped Jesus' feet with her hair, that was Mary of Bethany, sister of Martha and Lazarus. If you read in John, it was Mary of Bethany, not Magdalene who wiped his feet. Jesus of Nazareth has Mary Magdalene as the one, but is inaccurate.
Also John does not give as much detail about Jesus on the cross as Matthew, but does not mean that Jesus did not speak to the other two men who were also on their crosses. That wasn't the point to have John re tell the exact same view as Matthew or else we would have 4 books that read the same way.
We need to remember that not all the disciples were with Jesus at the same time every day of their lives together. I'm sure Jesus had gone off a while with some and at other times with some of the others, so some of the things shared by Matthew may not have been witnessed by John or Mark or Luke. Remember, Luke and Mark were not of the "12".

[–] oznickolaus 20 years ago

Yes, Mary Magdalene was the woman that had 7 demons cast from her, but she was not a whore. To lable her as one is wrong, as the Bible never tells us who or what the demons were, only how many. Many assume that they were the "Seven Deadly Sins":

Pride
Greed
Envy
Anger
Lust
Gluttony
Sloth

But, the Bible does not say this. So to make a film, and claim that it is "Biblically accurate", yet portray Magdalene as a whore, is wrong.

John

[–] oznickolaus 20 years ago

Also John does not give as much detail about Jesus on the cross as Matthew, but does not mean that Jesus did not speak to the other two men who were also on their crosses. That wasn't the point to have John re tell the exact same view as Matthew or else we would have 4 books that read the same way.
We need to remember that not all the disciples were with Jesus at the same time every day of their lives together. I'm sure Jesus had gone off a while with some and at other times with some of the others, so some of the things shared by Matthew may not have been witnessed by John or Mark or Luke.

Yes, this is very true, but they should also NOT contradict each other either. For example, The other gospels all know that Mary, the Mother of Jesus, and Mary Magdalene were at the foot of the Cross, yet in the 4th Gospel, attributed to John, the two Marys AND John were there. So, you could ask yourself why do the other Gospel writers know the 2 Marys were there and NOT John as well. Some say it's because they were in hiding, which is a bogus excuse, as they DO know that the Marys were there.

John

[–] terminator7408 20 years ago

This movie was in theaters??? when was it made?

[–] SHJ-BVM 20 years ago

The movie was made in 2003. It had a very limited release in theaters. You could basically order the DVD or VHS at the time it was in the theaters.

www.GospelofJohntheFilm.com

Patricia

"not my will but Yours be done" Luke 22:45

[–] Husker4theSpurs 20 years ago

It just came to a theatre around here in Omaha, NE. Today as a matter of fact.

[–] a70eezchild 20 years ago

Oh, my goodness...I missed it in the theatre here in Omaha...which one had it???
This is one of my new favorite movies. I, of course, own the DVD, but would have loved to see it on the big screen!

"I am telling you the truth!"

[–] DOAsaturnPhil 20 years ago

It "opens" here in Billings, MT this upcoming Friday, probably as a precursor for "The Passion".

[–] 20 years ago

[deleted]