What I liked the most for this version of Jesus-picture, is the point of view that Jesus has broken with the tradition of his people to fight for the Promised Land. No more war but look out for peace and freedom in your hearth and the hearth of mankind. It's a very eastern, almost Budhistic view of life.So Jesus didn't want to follow the Zelotes uprating while the sword doesn't (didn't) bring peace. This is a nice switch after the God of wrath in the series starting by Adam and Eve to Esther at the end. Well done.

This film honors the last three years of Jesus of Nazareth, his crucifixion and resurrection. It is the study of a great man, and projects the consequences of His teachings into the present.Raised Catholic, I left the church at 16 after many missteps by both myself and the church. For instance, I was taught at an early age that anyone not baptized in the Church would suffer eternal damnation. I questioned the priests about the souls of the billions who had never heard of Christ, the millions baptized in other faiths. I never heard a logical answer. So I became a fallen away Catholic, searching years for a spiritual home. 10 years ago I found refuge in Red Tara practice, a branch of Buddhism that honors Tara, Mother of the Victorious Ones. That's a sidebar, but an important one as you read this review.Right out of the chute, it is very brave for storytellers to tackle a comprehensive biography about any avatar, and do it in a fair, open minded manner. Filming it is complicated further by all the behind the scenes politics, egos, financing, and Hollywood glamor. Consider also the legion of religious institutions that have sprung up in 2000 years staking claim as the one true faith of Jesus Christ, and the task is quite formidable.The production values are impressive. Perhaps the times are not presented as gritty and dirty as they must in fact have been, but the historical and anecdotal research has been extensive, and sincerely executed.Though there are CGI sequences, my imagination was gratefully allowed to rest in many "real" locations. Future producers of this Holy story be forewarned! Jesus did not deliver His sermons to computer generated crowds, and God willing never shall! There is a disappointing lack of racially diverse casting, a glaring fault compounded by many Western European accents, including a standout Scottish brogue in the mouth of John the Baptist.Despite these faults, the filmmakers show quite a bit of rapport for not only the Master and his followers, but His opponents, specifically Caiaphas, Pilate, Herod, and Judas. I was particularly taken with the script's focus on the "character" development of these antagonists in social and political contexts presented with painstaking clarity and compassion.One example: Judas' portrayal was a startling revelation of a man dedicated to the overthrow of Roman and Jewish authoritarianism. On his revolutionary course Judas crosses paths with the Master, who invites him to become one of His apostles. As Judas' sees it, if in fact there is a Messiah, and if Jesus proves to be the Messiah, that Messiah must lead the violent overthrow of the entrenched and corrupt status quo. Judas has reason to believe Jesus is that Messiah. After all, he witnesses incidents in which the Messiah's actions might favor such a revolution, i.e., the violence with which Jesus throws the money changers out of the Temple.As Jesus preaches, lives, loves, harmonizes, a schism widens between Apostle and Master that ultimately leads to betrayal. Well known as that betrayal is, what is thought provoking and even haunting here is that the complex relationship of Master and Apostle is developed and nurtured by the Christ, who knew (and did not keep it secret) that Judas would in fact betray Him. This film's portrayal allows the viewer to experience the complexity on a personal level, thereby opening up to the viewer a sense of freedom regarding interpretation of the Scriptures. (The film's greatest gift is this freedom to challenge the sacred text.) It explodes the myth of the Evil, Despicable, and Damnable Judas. Neither does it let him off the hook. One can reject the details; however, one cannot reject the sincerity with which the enigma of Judas is investigated. The film opens the way for the individual to test and surmise, even penetrate the betrayal of God by man in ways uncharted heretofore -- especially by the individual seeker.It is mentally exhilarating to explore with the filmmakers the historical currents and events in the background through which a person of New Testament times -- be it Jew, Roman, priest, gentile -- moved. Seeing Jesus negotiate those currents gave considerable weight to the Word Made Flesh doctrine; it gives Jesus substantiation, because he is vulnerable to what all human beings face regardless of space and time.Its one thing to tell me to love God and my neighbor, another to witness it in practice, and quite another to personally realize it's practice in the context of Roman occupation, civil unrest, and scriptural wrangling and money changing in the temple. The film gives me concrete clues as to how I might actively embrace the Golden Rule in my daily practice in a world equally chaotic.The strongest element in this film is the portrayal of Jesus (Jeremy Sisto) in script and performance as a person that I could not only relate to, but found I liked. Here's a person with extraordinary powers and insights, who lives moment to moment, embracing life. Too often the church(es) portray Him as a divinity without a clue about food, children, marriage, joy, finances, politics, and so on. Not this Jesus.He is no longer a mystical, mythical figure out of reach because of teachings and traditions and institutions and time long gone. Seeing Him walk so carefree and carefully in a tumultuous, dangerous era, gives me hope, confidence, and above all a God given sense of freedom on the road to spiritual awareness.

I enjoyed this film immensely I loved Jesus of Nazareth too, but this Jesus laughs,cries, but most importantly.....HE BLINKS HIS EYES!!!!! Seeing G.W. Bailey as Livio it kept reminding me of the "Police Academy" movies. Gary Oldman's Pilate, was very accurate to the description by Josephus, of Pilate's cruelty. I'm probably going to be offending a lot of catholics here, but the storyline was way too Catholicized for my taste. The baptism for example, John the Baptizer puts a cupped handful of water while Jesus is kneeling in the Jordan "Puddle" on Jesus' head the Greek word for baptize is BAPTIZO which means to IMMERSE in the crucifixion scene it looks like a Jew is doing the nailing, The Romans were the ones who did the nailing. and why could they not use the entire Greek Latin and Hebrew on the Title instead of just INRI?? Jaqueline Bisset I believe is too much of a sex symbol to play the Virgin Mary.

Some good points, but many bad points too...The actor who plays Jesus - strong and likable. The actor who plays a good Jewish priest, actually he doesn't say much, he just stands there crying/watching. Just thought his look, looked really genuine.The Crucifixion scene - very strong and incredible gripping, terrifying, it also show the historical correct way how people were crucified; nails in writs instead of palms, carrying of the short crossbeam only, not the whole cross. Also the screaming was very terrifying/gripping and brought tears to my eyes. The second Satan scene, just before the trials/Crucifixion scenes, is very strong and interesting. ("In the name of Jesus") Jesus just having fun, goofing around parts. Nice and refreshing.But there are many many weak points:Acting, a LOT of bad acting/bad actors. Overall direction is not very good or just bad most of the times.Overall the movie is very weak, but is somewhat redeemed by the very strong second Satan and Crucifixion scenes. Which were incredibly gripping and touching.Thanks for reading.