Brilliant! I Cried Like a Baby!

I'm not a Christian but was raised in a semi-Catholic household and have read the Bible 6 times, the Qu'ran twice, and various other religious documents. I like nearly all kinds of movies, whether it has explosions/sex or not. :-/ I can enjoy the 1957 film "12 Angry Men" and the 2000 film "Gladiator" equally.

My point of view in a nutshell (I could write a lengthy essay but I'll condense it):


Positives:

1) It is simplistic and easy to follow

2) The gentleman who played Jesus was easily accessible and genuinely likable. I was particularly impressed at how he guided Niki through her own questions. I came across one poster in another thread who said Jesus made it seem like even he didn't know the answers, but I have plenty of friends who will pretend they don't know something--when they obviously do--just to have someone sort of hash it out on their own. It means more that way.

3) For the most part, the major questions are asked. And for the most part, they are (kind of) answered. This has a negative to it as well, however (will come back to this).

4) It got right into the plot and didn't bother with too much introduction.


Negatives:

1) The ending. My personal feeling is this: Christians who watch a well-dressed blond man suddenly transform into 1st century Jesus may find it heart-warming, but if you are intending to use it as a tool to witness to the average non-Christian, they are going to find that INCREDIBLY cheesy and probably bust out laughing when they otherwise might not have. I know I did. It almost ruined the whole movie, which is unfair but true. I was hoping he would just fade away or a bright light would temporarily blind Niki and he'd be gone... then again, it can't be more ridiculous than the idea that Jesus would ACTUALLY have dinner with somebody (I mean, it's a great premise for a book/movie, but... come on...)

2) I was confused at first as to when this movie was made. While Niki's car and clothes easily fit into this decade, I was thinking it was set in 1994 for some reason until she mentioned Osama bin Laden, a name I doubt many people knew before the New York and Washington, D.C. terrorist attacks of 2001. I think it might have been due to the quality of the camcorders. However, I must also realize this was not a high-budget film, so this is a rather menial negative and very easily forgivable.

3) As a lawyer, Niki had a profound lack of rebuttals. I could think of several follow-up questions she could have asked to many of her questions and Jesus's "question-answers." Again, I understand this movie could be a TV miniseries if EVERYTHING was addressed, but one thing that heavily bothered me was the usage of the Hindu belief that the universe has always existed, and Niki mentioned that science pointed to the universe having a definite starting point. The problem I saw, as a non-Christian but not an atheist, was the hypocrisy of using a scientific theory based on fact to disprove a Hindu belief, but then most Christians will not adhere to the idea that the Earth is more than 6,000 years old despite all the dinosaur bones we keep digging up and dating (for one example).

4) The nail scars. When Niki says that she thought he was crucified through the hands, he denies this and says through the wrists to support the weight. In fact, we still can't be sure of how Romans crucified. There is evidence for at least two: nails through the wrists, or nails through the hands with rope tied around the arms for extra support. In essence, this could either be an error on the part of the oral Christian tradition or the scribes who copied the Gospels, which suggests that perhaps our current Bible is not as perfect as many Christians claim (I am not saying it's not to be trusted--I am saying it is a divine document that has been subjected to millennia of human hands and opinions). However, I have also heard that in those days, the wrist was actually considered part of the hand. Who knows if this is true? It's a detail that really may not matter but it's still something to think about (this isn't quite the same thing as his example of a detail not being relevant to the story, this is about accepting that there are mistakes or accidental/intentional omissions in the Bible).


Like I said, there is a lot more I could post, but I can leave it at that. I hope my contribution is taken as informative rather than scathing, because it's not my wish to offend anyone of any faith here.

"And tonight... you're gonna break your one rule..."