In 35 A.D., a Roman tribune is sent to Palestine to investigate the death and possible resurrection of a certain Jesus from Nasareth. The Final Inquiry must have been a pretty difficult task for action hero Dolph Lundgren but he somehow did pulled it off. The storyline is simple and not that hard to follow plus the acting was not that bad and some of the bing names like Max Von Sydow and F. Murray Abraham? I was amazed that even took their roles as well. It's definitely better than most faith and religion movies as well although no Passion of the Christ..

Well… at least the music was good. I had such hopes for this film but was quickly disappointed. It includes some well known, good actors mixed with some that they must have picked up off the street. The two primary lead actors (Daniele Liotti and Mónica Cruz) provide both visual appeal and good acting though better directing could have enhanced the final output. The directing and editing are so bad that I am convinced either their budget was seriously in deficit or they half-heartedly approached the project. So much good have been done with the storyline to show the aftermath of Christ's crucifixion that the #1 proof for the resurrection is that the disciples who scattered in fear suddenly became courageous and willing to speak the truth of having seen the risen Christ knowing that this admission would mean certain persecution, torture and death. Sadly, this movie only hints at the truth and instead brings in fiction that wasn't needed. The truth is incredible enough.The movie is weak, lacks conviction, and is a disappointment. The only true redeeming quality is the soundtrack.

The original movie, made in 1986 and starring Keith Carradine and Harvey Keitel, is a little-known gem of an intellectual thriller, with a plot that takes numerous unexpected twists.This "remake" (hardly that, since the title, basic premise, and name of the lead character are all that remain) is essentially a Sunday school movie made by hacks, full of pious posturing. It's pretty to look at, but utterly lacking in suspense, narrative drive, good acting, or just about anything else you might desire in a movie.I am beginning to think that any movie with Valerio Massimo Manfredi's name in the credits is going to be very, very bad.

I want to comment on what someone already said.The comment was upset at treatment of Jewish practice portrayed in the film. However, the rules on adultery and trials, well ... if you want to be upset, be upset at the gospels.The gospels portrayed the trial as a crooked rush job. Likewise, the stoning for adultery (and in the past, rural areas did not always strictly follow the dictates of the law) was referenced in a favorite scene in the Bible as well. The Bible had no "backstory" underlining that really the stoning in practice was a last result and rarely done practice. We were meant to see it as barbaric, the crowd driven more by passion than reason (before Jesus came around to guilt them). In fact, some gospels had various scenes that put Jewish practice in bad light. At times unfairly. For instance, the money-changing in the temple -- you needed that to allow people from all over to have the right sort of coin to give their offering. It surely had some bad flavor, but it was not just about a "band of thieves." Lashing out like Jesus did kinda suggests why some thought the guy a tad bit dangerous especially in an age of rebels and revolts. If one wants a "historical" reflection of what "actually" happened, which honestly would be not a bad way to go, they wouldn't be as reliant on scripture and all. The conceit of this movie also would not really be possible, to be totally honest about it.