User reviews

The Son of God is a powerful true story about Jesus Christ's story from his birth to his resurrection. It has been called a TV movie that got a theatrical release. That is true to a point. The effects and acting could have been better, but if you are going to see effects or acting then I suggest Gravity or American Hustle. The reason you watch a movie like this is to get a vague idea of what it was like to be Jesus or a disciple. The story was a bit jumpy, but it had about 30 years to cover in 2 hours. The center of the movie is about Jesus' last trip, to Jerusalem. The story itself is very moving and touching. It is a must see or Christians or anyone of faith. Diogo Morgado, Jesus, was phenomenal and a gem in this movie. All in all, it is gripping, heart-breaking, and captivating that will be sure to have you in tears.

There are a few caveats to this review. First of all, I didn't initially realize that this film was a spin off of The Bible miniseries from the History channel. It's one of those TV shows I was meaning to check out, but haven't found the time to, and then mixed reviews held me back. Secondly, I must admit that I'm probably not well-versed enough in the good book or theology in general to judge every single nuance of this film.

All that being said, I expected this film to be worse, given some of the reviews I've read. Some folks have written this off as a bore, but I found myself pretty well-engaged in the film. It runs pretty briskly, breezing through one scene after another to cover all of Jesus' life in a short couple of hours. There are bursts of melodrama, violence, political intrigue, and an overall sense of wonder at times. The film plays out in a straight and earnest fashion.

As far as the content goes, it's going to be a hit-and-a-miss. The film generally strings all the major events from the New Testament into some kind of narrative, although it's never clear where Jesus and his apostles are going from one minute to the next, and why. It's like they just wander around and do stuff, and when they get to where they're going, it's like, "hey, it's time for such-and-such a scene." So you see many of the major events one-after-another, but on a thin thread of a plot. Characters act the part, but nothing much is revealed about their deepest motivations or feelings, so they come off as one-dimensional caricatures.

The biggest issue with the film, however, are the artistic liberties taken with the source material. It's not word-for-word faithful to the Bible, which is understandable, since the film would have probably droned on for hours if it was. However, the film can be nit-picked for getting certain facts wrong: the manner in which Jesus resurrects Lazarus differs from what's in the Bible, Jesus causing a ruckus in the temple occurs way sooner than it should have, Peter denouncing Jesus thrice happens later than it should have, and so on. The film throws in more scenes with Pilate's wife, for no apparent reason. The biggest omission, however, is the absence of the most important villain: Satan. He's nowhere to be seen at all. I only learned later that these scenes were actually cut, because of concerns that Satan looked too much like President Obama. Ugh, really? Well, fine, whatever. Because of all that, Jesus only has to put up with evil people in this movie; the film does a fine job of underscoring the evil of human beings at certain times, but without the Devil tempting and testing Christ (and subverting humanity), some important lessons and themes are cut out (including the biggest one of them all: good triumphing over evil).

So what's left? The good news is that there are still a few solid messages in the film that Christians can relate to. Faith in Jesus is the biggest theme emphasized, and that's enough reason for many folks to love the film. I think the movie also does a fine and dandy job of highlighting the oppression and savagery of the era (for the film has its violent parts), which gives His sacrifice a bit more weight.

The film is crafted with okay photography and editing. Acting is nothing to scream about; Diogo Morgado looks the part and does his best to be warm and nice, but the man has no real commanding presence. Greg Hicks plays a total jerk as Pilate, for better or for worse. All the apostles are alright. I hated the writing in this film; most lines have been warped around to the point where they lost their impact (seriously, lines like "let he who is without sin cast the first stone" is delivered as "I'll give my stone to the first man who tells me that he has never sinned," and it just doesn't sound good). Most lines are over-simplified to the point of losing any sense of elegance; the whole mustard seed parable was truncated so much, I found it laughable and stupid. Even the Lord's Prayer had its last line cut off, further distancing the film from the real villain of "evil." The film's sets, props, and costumes are great. Special effects are bad. Music sounds like more of the same.

It's a straight dramatization of the key events of Jesus' story, and it gets some things right and some things wrong. Experts can probably nit-pick on many different issues, while novices may find the film enlightening. Christians in general may get a kick out of it regardless. If you're a fan of The Bible miniseries already, then the film is likely just an extended episode for you. As it is though, I personally value The Passion of the Christ the most, because it covers a lot of similar ground with more realism, more attention to detail, and more power. Son of God is a fine and dandy depiction, but little more.

3/5 (Entertainment: Pretty Good | Content: Average | Film: Average)

In case you don't know, "Son of God" is a spin-off of the successful History Channel mini-series, "The Bible." The movie was filmed at the same time as the show. In fact, it's the extended footage of the Jesus section of the series. But there was a reason all of that footage was cut. If it wasn't good enough for television, how can this possibly be good enough for the cinema?

Well, it's not. This movie is a bore. With an unnecessary 138 minute run-time, the film drags through dialogue delivered at a pace slow enough for the slothful to keep up. Even then the script isn't interesting. The selections of the gospel that get quoted are mercilessly butchered. And that's another thing, if not the most important criticism of a movie of this caliber -- the filmmakers had no respect for the source material.

The story misses on minor and major elements. Anyone with anything better than a felt-board understanding of Sunday school Bible stories will be able to identify the inaccuracies. And they are many: from theology to dialogue to locations to the people involved and the list goes on. If the filmmakers don't care for even simple and easy details, how can we believe that they care about the more complicated matters addressed by the gospel of Jesus Christ? Sadly, they don't.

Truth be told, creators Roma Downey and Mark Burnett are New Age believers. They soak up multiple forms of paganism, mysticism, and spirituality -- like a lot of celebrities do. It doesn't take more than a little bit of Googling to know what any celebrity believes. Yet the American church has been duped into promoting this trite, vapid representation of the Bible to make the Downey/Burnett couplehood a fishing boat-load of cash.

It's no surprise that Joel Osteen, K-Love, T.D. Jakes, and Rick Warren gobbled this thing right up. But Mark Driscoll, Louie Giglio, Focus On the Family, Liberty University, and the Women of Faith conferences should have done their research and known better. "Oh, she was in 'Touched By an Angel' and he made 'Survivor' and they claim to be Christians and God told them to make this! Let's promote the hell out of it!"

The Jesus portrayed in "Son of God" is not the Jesus of the Bible. In the vein of the film being just downright boring, Diogo Morgado puts forth one of the worst depictions of Jesus I've ever seen. He's pretty passionless, as is the rest of the disciples and the attitudes of the crowds who follow him. The climax and resolution of the story don't resonate because the previous hundred minutes of the movie haven't given us any reason to care.

Whether you're arguing from a theological standpoint, or just as a movie-lover, the film is devoid of content. It's worthless. There's nothing redeemable about this film. Save the money, save the time. And for heaven's sake, know your Bible. As long as the church is out there ready to promote anything with the word "God" on it, we're going to get horrible material like this.

For those who are expecting a repeat of the Mel Gibson movie, then prepare to be disappointed ... or pleasantly surprised. This movie is the sanitized version of the Gibson extravaganza. It is the movie that Gibson would have made if he had decided to ease off on the gratuitous depictions of violence. Depicting violence in a movie about Christ is unavoidable; it is part of the story. The violence has to be shown. The question is: how, without the violence itself becoming the main theme? This movie sticks to the story about Jesus; the violence is a part of the story. He is beaten, mocked, scorned, discredited, tortured, crucified and murdered. The story is told in its entirety. Yet, the director succeeds in telling the story in a straightforward non-sensationalist manner. By emphasizing Christ's humanity he brings the audience into the story. Regardless of your religious beliefs, one can relate to Jesus, his ministry and what he is trying to accomplish. His actions are plausible and understandable. His preaching is simple, sensible and comprehensible. His suffering and anguish is pitiful; his resurrection miraculous. Here the movie is strongest. Unlike the Gibson film, the resurrection is given full treatment and concludes the movie on a positive note, which is appropriate. The story of Jesus Christ requires no embellishment; it speaks for itself. Jesus was born, conducted his ministry, was betrayed, and was sacrificed. This is how the story is depicted in this movie. What more should anyone expect?

Son of God is a beautiful movie, and a fabulous way to spend a rainy afternoon! The illustrative messages in Mark Burnett's artfully done movie are many. Yes, it educates us on the beginnings of Christianity and shows us what faith in God can look like, but it also provides a scaffold for human beings wanting to lead a purposeful life and calls on us to love and help each other.

Forgiveness, sharing, turning the other cheek, are some of life's lessons that we may tend to 'forget' about as we go along our busy, hectic, and sometimes difficult lives. The feeling that I can do better swept over me throughout this film.

Today, as Christians live in danger all around the world--in the Middle East, Turkey, Indonesia, Africa, London, Spain, the U.S. (Twin Towers, Pentagon, Pennsylvania field), and other countries, it strikes me that this is also a brave Hollywood movie. Brave because it's an American made, Christian movie put forth when references of 'God' are actually disappearing from American way of life--the family's plaque at Purdue University, the 'prayers' at Arlington, our President's version of the Gettysburg Address (to name a few). So, if you ask me, Mark Burnett and Roma Downey actually put together a beautiful, brave, Christian movie and I'd like to thank all who helped!

This movie is an embarrassment. A wimpy, insecure Jesus spends two hours wandering around in a long, hippy-esque robe, hitting the high points of the Gospels and not even getting them right! I was mentally correcting Jesus the entire film, as only half the quote would be correct: The "Our Father" (you know, the quintessential Christian prayer...) left out the final line: "lead us not into temptation but deliver us from evil." Not surprising, as evil was a completely non-existent theme in this movie about Christ- Who came to save us from sin and evil. Kinda a huge deal that was totally skipped over. Most striking to me of all was that you never sensed that Christ had a Presence. He seemed like a total wimp. And yet in His time, the people said, "What manner of man is this, that even the waves and sea obey Him?" Christ was strong, and His presence was compelling: men left family and livelihood and followed Him, such was the force of His personality. The Jesus of Son of God- honestly, I wouldn't even want to grab a beer with Him, much less be crucified upside down rather than denounce my faith in Him (Peter's death). Bottom line: if you are a practicing Christian and/or very familiar with the New Testament, don't go. The constant misquoting/leaving out key portions/ totally missing the entire point of a dialogue will drive you batty. If you're not Christian, definitely don't go. It's embarrassing to us Christians.

I do have to take exception with the reviews that declare this movie 'boring' because it didn't go all out with special effects – or quote entire passages of the Bible. I thought that this movie was trying to portray a humble man who was simply going about the business of living out his destiny. Which is exactly who Jesus was. I found it refreshing not to have a slam-bang all-out special effects, miracle exploding on the screen, drama-in-you-face version of this life. The important points were there. In fact, just the important moments and quotes that were needed and wanted. I kept thinking as I'm watching, how could anyone have doubts about this Son of God when it was all such a life as usual, normal people time and yet….and yet…here we are 2014 years later, and this is still the most important person who ever walked on this earth. And everyone knows His name and what He did and who He was. No. This movie was precisely what it needed to be and no more. I took extra tissue, but still it wasn't enough. Watching the end of the earthly life of My Lord was so painful, so heart-rending that, indeed, I cried as much as I feared I would. Maybe more.

Big, daring movies with Russell Crowe's Noah, Brad Pitt's Pilate and Christian Bale's Exodus are all a part of Hollywood's year of the Bible. Risk is at the heart of great story--especially this, the "greatest story ever told."

Every Jesus film will have faithless critics that caricature the movie. Every Jesus film will have some of "the faithful" bickering over whatever artistic license filmmakers employ.

So, is Son of God worth the risk? Financially, Hollywood will likely say yes. The buzz for Son of God is big. Perhaps it will match viewership with The Bible miniseries that the movie is derived from.

But is the Son of God worth a trip to the cinema? It depends on perspective.

The dramatic introduction, as with the rest of the story, is narrated by John--Jesus' closest friend and disciple. Seeing everything from the garden to the promised land in a minute is dazzling. We have The Bible miniseries to thank for this.

Some blame the miniseries adaptation for disjointed early parts of the movie. I actually found it unified and quick-paced in the scripting…though not in the editing. Dramatic pauses between lines could have been cut throughout. However, the miracles, teachings and confrontations with pharisees, political revolutionaries and Roman forces are woven tightly. Nicodemus (and Matthew) gave dimension to the pharisees. Unfortunately the Barabbas, Malchus and Pilate characters lack depth.

Nearing the crucifixion, the tension ramps well. There was a poignant contrast of prayers by Roman rulers, the Jewish High Priest and Jesus. The whipping and journey to Golgotha was less intense than Gibson's Passion of the Christ. Still, I noticed several weeping in the theater.

After Jesus' last words, "Go into all the world and preach the good news..." Peter gives what I took as the point of this film, "My brothers…my sisters, we have work to do."

For people of faith, I believe we should work to extend grace toward filmmakers, understanding their humanity and forgiving whatever errors we perceive. Major motion pictures about faith stories will be blessings--not perfect miracles.

For filmmakers who are eying this type of production, I'd say there is much more work needed to create authentic stories that will resonate with this audience's sensibilities.

For this year of the Bible to be worth the risk, and go beyond 2014, filmmakers and the faith community alike will need to work out differences in artistry and theology to make successful films that will endure.

I've always been fascinated by people who write historical fiction and fan fiction. I like the idea of taking either characters from history or established characters of fiction, and creating new stories or extended back-stories about them. It's the creative license granted to writers that allows them to use their imagination to conjure up new stories. It breaks my heart to say Son of God might as well be historical fiction.

I premise everything by saying I am by no means a Biblical scholar. I am proud of how far I have come in my faith journey having read the Bible more in the last three years than I had in all my time previous to that. Furthermore, I am light-years away from being where I'd like to be in terms of being versed in Scripture, and every day I discover something new and different about the Good Book. That being said, it was surprising to me how much I knew and recalled about the story of Jesus. In the context of viewing the film, I found myself questioning lots of points along the way.

The movie begins with a voice over. The narrator is John, author of one of the four gospels. From that moment on, I assumed - and maybe this is where I went wrong - the movie is a portrayal of Jesus' life as told by the Book of John. Not exactly.

For starters, there are changes in chronology from the movie to the Gospel of John. Jesus going to Jerusalem and chasing out the merchants occurs early in John (John 2:13-21), but in the movie, that scene is presented much later. The movie also omits what I consider to be major moments in the life of Jesus, such as the performance of His first miracle at the Wedding in Cana, and the testimony of John the Baptist.

Another example: In the movie, Jesus learns of Lazarus' death, is taken to his tomb, whereupon He enters the tomb, declares to Lazarus, "I am the Resurrection," and brings Lazarus back to life. According to the Gospel of John, Jesus declaration about being the Resurrection was made to Martha (John 11:25), and Jesus never entered the tomb of Lazarus. Instead, He called out to Lazarus from outside the tomb, "Lazarus, come out!" (John 11:43).

The arrest of Jesus gets overly complicated if we're again expecting the movie to be told from the perspective of John. When they come to arrest Jesus, Peter lashes out, grabs a sword, and slices off the ear of one of the high priest's servant. In the movie, Jesus tells Peter, "He who lives by the sword dies by the sword." Jesus then proceeds to heal the ear of the servant. Biblically speaking, this did happen. However, the matter of the sword is accounted in the Gospel of Matthew (Matthew 26:52), and the healing of the ear in the Gospel of Luke (Luke 22:51). John's telling of the arrest of Jesus is completely different.

Pivotal in the story of Jesus' arrest is Peter's denial of Jesus. We all know the story: Peter declares his loyalty to Jesus, a loyalty for which he is willing to die. Jesus replies, ""Die for me? I tell you the truth, Peter—before the rooster crows tomorrow morning, you will deny three times that you even know me." (John 13:38). Peter did go on to deny Jesus three times, with a time gap between the first and second denials. In the movie, Jesus tells Peter he will deny Him 'before the sun comes up tomorrow'. In the next scene, it's already daylight, and Peter goes on to deny Jesus in one, quick, thirty second scene.

One final criticism is the portrayal of Pontius Pilate as a blood- lusting, brutal, and barbaric governor who couldn't care less about the Jewish people he was governing. Growing up, I only knew of Pilate as the reluctant one who did not want to condemn Jesus to death. The phrase "I wash my hands of this" is derived from Pilate's reluctance as accounted in Matthew 27:24. The writers of the movie chose to portray Pilate as an over-the-top and cruel prefect with only selfish intentions and ambitions. To make matter's worse, the film makes the character of Pilate's wife a somewhat pivotal figure. She's mentioned in scripture only once (Matthew 27:19) and not by name. In the film, she has a recurring presence that is based solely on the imaginative interpretation of the screenwriter.

This brings us back to the issue of creative license. I understand many of my points can easily be dismissed as nitpicking. As I discussed the movie with my friends, they brought up valid points about the positive message of the film and how Jesus is portrayed as loving and courageous. I get that, and I agree the film has its merits. However, my concern is that in the end, the movie is deceiving anyone who doesn't know Jesus and confusing those who do.

Taking creative liberties with former presidents or characters from a vampire series is wholly inconsequential. We the audience understand it is fiction. As followers of Christ, however, we believe God's Word to be the living truth, and I recoil at the idea of re-writing the gospels for the sake of theatrical gain. What's worse, there's no need to do it. The story of Jesus is a beautiful and inspiring story. What the producers of this film have done is, instead, to present Jesus in a cartoonish manner. The writing comes across as if someone put together the script not with a Bible in hand, but rather with a series of Cliff's Notes of the four gospels.

"I am the way, the truth, and the life." (John 14:6). Those are Jesus' own words. When telling His story, it's my personal opinion that is should be as close to the truth as possible.

Life of Christ is intelligently told in this highly regarded epic dealing with a dramatic recreation of the life of Christ with a mostly unknown cast . It is a religious and anguishing epic where the eternal questions of faith and doubt become resolved . It is narrated under view point of the Apostle John who is living in exile as he tells his story, as he results to be the last surviving disciple of Christ . This epic movie develops Jesus Christ's journey from Galilee to Golgotha is portrayed here in thought-provoking as well as enjoyable treatment .

Jesus was born to a Virgin Mary , and three visiting wise men , Three Magician Kings , declare "Him" the future King . 33 years later, an adult Jesus Christ (Diego Morgado) knows he has a destiny to fulfill and travels to Galilee and begins recruiting followers , they would become His disciples from Peter the fisherman (Darwin Shaw) , John (Sebastian Knapp) , Thomas (Matthew Gravelle) , Matthew the tax collector , the traitor Judas Iscariote to Mary Magdalene (Amber Rose Revah) . He also draws the attention of the Pharisees , the Jewish religious leaders as Caiaphas (Adrian Schiller) . As the Pharisees claim Jesus is blaspheming God by forgiving sins, which is something only God can do . Jesus responds by saying he is the Son of God . It is a colorful version of Jesus Christ's life , though overlong , with a true religious treatment and being spectacularly shot in 2014 and profesionally directed by Christopher Spencer . It chronicles the life and ministry of Jesus Christ from the Annunciation , Crucifixion , Resurrection , and to the Ascention . Interesting retelling at the life and teachings of Christ and his several miracles , along the way Jesus builds a huge following , who begin to call Him the Messiah. The film includes all of the major events referred to in the New Testament with descriptive Biblical passages ; his birth in Bethlehem and visit by three Magician Kings who , subsequently , go to the Palace of Herod the Great ; his baptism by John the Baptist ; the numerous miracles , such as : cripples walking , blind men seeing , the fishes and the loaves , Lazarus' resurrection . Adding appearance of notorious histocal/religious roles as Herod Antipas , Pilatus : Greg Hicks , his wife Claudia : Louise Delamere , Barabbas ,Joseph of Arimathea , Simon of Cyrene as well as his relationship to 12 apostles and so on . However , not completely reverential at some Biblical characters . And including holy sentences as "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?". Stars an agreeable Diego Morgado in exactly the right role , he gives a dedicated effort at the character , his acting has power , nobility and subtlety . Being a big budgeted production , produced by Roma Downey who also played Virgin Mary. In fact , this film is one of the episodes of the mini-series The Bible (2013) also financed by Downey and that was formed by the following chapters : Courage , Passion , Betrayal, Mission , Survival , Hope , Homeland , Kingdom , In the Beginning . Going on a second season in 2015 : A. D. The Bible Continues (TV Series) formed by 12 episodes . It packs a glowing and evocative cinematography with an attractive visual style . As well as enormous and majestic art design . And a sensitive and memorable soundtrack by the prestigious Hans Zimmer .

Jesus life has been adapted several times , such as : ¨King of Kings¨ (released in 1927) , it is the yardstick by which all Jesus movies are to be measure , being first silent version by Cecil B. DeMille with H. B. Wagner . ¨The greatest story ever told¨ (1965) by George Stevents with Max Von Sidow , Charlton Heston , José Ferrer , Sidney Poitier , Claude Rains , Dorothy McGuire , Sal Mineo, John Wayne . Other pictures dealing with his divine presence are the following ones :¨King of Kings¨(1961) by Nicholas Ray with Jeffrey Hunter , Robert Ryan , Ron Randel , Hurd Hatfield , Rip Torn , Frank Thring , Carmen Sevilla ; ¨Gospel according to Matthew¨ by Pier Paolo Pasolini with Enrique Irazoqui as Jesus ; ¨Jesus Christ Superstar¨(1977) by Norman Jewison with Ted Neeley and Carl Anderson ; ¨Jesus of Nazareth¨(1977) by Franco Zeffirelli with Robert Powell , Olivia Hussey , James Mason , Laurence Olivier , Anne Brancfort , Fernando Rey ; ¨Last temptation of Christ¨ by Martin Scorsese with Willem Dafoe , David Bowie , Harvey Keitel , Ian Holm , Harry Dean Staton ; ¨Jesus¨(1999) by Roger Young with Jeremy Sisto, Gary Oldman , debra Messing , Luca Zingaretti, Armin Mueller-Stahl , and ¨The Passion of the Christ¨ (2004) by Mel Gibson with James Cazievel , Maia Morgenstern and Monica Belucci .

Wowsers! If you're interested in a TV movie on the big screen than this is the movie for you. Featuring a Portuguese actor playing Jesus (because Son of God forbid that an actual Middle Easterner played Jesus in a Jesus movie, lest the Faithful go wild) it is literally the Jesus part of The Bible miniseries that played on cable last year with some extra scenes. The production values are exactly what you'd expect for a TV movie - horrible.

They were hoping for a Passion of the Christ like hit, but the movie is almost gone from theaters and it's not even Easter. Ticket sales fell 61% in it's second week , even though it expanded into more theaters.

If you want a good movie about Jesus, Passion of the Christ is where it's at.

I saw this movie opening weekend. I really enjoyed it. A lot of the reviews I read, especially the more negative ones, seem rooted in the writer's resistance to anything pertaining to Christ more than a pure review of the film itself. Whether it be Son of God or The passion of the Christ there are those who will condemn it out of hand. But then Jesus had that effect in his day as well as now.

The movie itself was very interesting. It portrayed a version of how things may have played out without being too heavy handed or following any one religious approach. Having it as part of a series was not enough. It needed to be released as a single unit, a film that will keep intact the story of a historical figure who so impacted the work that the calendar is divided around his life.

Thank you Mark and Roma for simply telling the story without melodrama, over dependence on special effects or cinema tricks. Thank you for a film easy to follow, suited for everyone and true to the story of Christ.

So the film is an adaption of the Bible Series on the History Channel. A lot of new scenes, some smooshed together. It is obviously not a Word-for-word reading of the Gospel of John, although it generally tries to follow the Gospel of John. For a two hour movie it does a good job of telling the story. You cannot tell the Gospel story word for word in two hours. So please stop criticizing this movie for not doing that.

A lot of folks are knit picky on this film, and rightfully, if you're evaluating it as a theologian, you can. It's inaccurate.

HOWEVER, if you're evaluating this movie from the angle that someone who hasn't read the Bible, you will realize that they will actually for the first time hear the Gospel Story. Did the real Jesus say it exactly the way he did in the movie? Actually, no. He said it in Aramaic.

If you're looking for a great film taken WORD-for-WORD from the Gospel of John, I highly recommend watching "The Gospel of John - Visual Bible - 2-DVD set (2005)" you can search on Amazon.com. It is 315 minutes long... That's the unabridged version.

I recommend this film, "Son of God" for those who love Jesus, and love the story of what Jesus did. I recommend this film for people who have not read the Bible.

If you're a theologian, stay home, read the Bible.

A New Age false Christ saying various words not found in the Gospels with more than half the folks who are fans of Jesus praising this film as authentic proves Christendom may be in trouble due to Bible illiteracy! One reviewer said she felt the Holy Spirit another said Great Documentary on another site. I'm pretty sure the Holy Spirit who the New Testament says lead and guides us into all truth is not applauding false words placed in Jesus mouth he never said.

Jesus never said he came to change the world. I challenge anyone to find that verse in any of the Gospels. It is not there! This was not his mission in his first coming into the world. He said he came to seek and save the lost (sinners).

Here is what Jesus said: Matthew 7:13 "Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. 14 But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a FEW find it" Did you all get the few will find it part! Most of this world will reject Jesus in favor of a lie and fall into deception right up till Jesus returns. From the looks of it the falling away has already began with this type of New Age Jesus and folks are falling for changed Gospel calling it accurate.

Too many changes from the Gospel text made this film lose credibility among my non-believing friends who now question the Bible as a whole. Therefore this film defeated its purpose by too many revisions. If you are going to sell a film as the non-fiction Bible why change major parts into fiction and words Jesus did not say in the Gospels?

In the Gospel of Matthew, chapter 24 Jesus told his Disciples things will get worst with false Christ and tribulations, NOT better.

Until Jesus second coming to this world he said in Matthew chapter 24 things will get worst & worst in this world, so how could they have Jesus telling Peter in this film he came to change the world? To see how bad things are going to be in this world, according to the Bible also read the Book of Revelation, the last book in the New Testament Bible.

Jesus first coming to earth was not to change the world. That will take place in the Second arrival of Christ when he cast Satan into the lake of fire to never get out.

Why this super gorgeous Jesus? Isaiah chapter 53:2 said the Messiah would not have outward beauty to make him appealing based on his physical beauty. Roma dropped the ball on this one by casting a overly good looking Jesus.

Jesus was a Middle Eastern Jew, not a male, model that looks like he is a surfer on the beaches of California. Judas had to point him out from the rest of the disciples ( and did so with a kiss of betrayal) because Jesus obviously looked like all the rest of the Middle Eastern Jews.

The bad guys in this film were more Middle Eastern looking. Christians are trying to win folks to Christ, not come off as racially bias & possibly offend people of color. Seems any wise person would not make most all the bad guys look Middle Eastern Jews and Jesus European with light hair! Why take the risk of making some think we Christians are promoting negative stereotypes against them? Not saying this was the purpose of the film just saying it is a negative to make the others more Middle Eastern looking that were against Jesus. I found this could be extremely offensive to insult half the population of color. Did anyone even consider how this comes across?

A major flaw in this film was that it ruined one of the most important scenes in the Gospel of John where Jesus wept. The Gospels never had Jesus going into the Tomb of Lazarus to get him out. Jesus stayed outside and wept with the crowd to show his compassion and how his can relate to our sorrows!!!!

The film failed to tell the story of what happened when Jesus raised Lazarus from the dead according to what was written in the Gospel of John. For this reason and the fact that they put many words in my Savior's mouth he never said I rate this film very low.

I value every word in the Bible and for this reason loathe when it is changed. And Yes, I read the entire Bible word for word, verse by verse so it is hard for me to take this film serious or love it with them placing words in Jesus mouth he never uttered. The proof is easy to find just open your Bibles and read it and compare!

There have been many films portraying life of Jesus Christ. Many of them were super good, however in the view of non-Christians, those films have their pros and cons.

For example, 'Passion of Christ' of Mel Gibson was a bit uncomfortable to see, because of its too detailed description on the very sufferings, the Passion of Christ. 'The Last Temptation of Jesus Christ', a film based on the novel of Karzantzakis, is a controversial but flawless literal art piece, just as it is. However if its audience is lack of understanding about the historical background of the time of Jesus, author Karzantzakis and Director Scorsese, the film is apt to be consumed just Humanistically. One of the recent film, 'Apostle Peter and the Last Supper' looks... very stubborn to me. It tried to follow the stories in the Gospel literally, so it has no room for imagination or allegory to make the story more persuasive and reasonable. It looks much alike an evangelical church's leaflet of some 30 years ago.

This is the point where this film has its difference and advantage. This one looks much persuasive than others. Even for the non-Christians of Atheists, I bet.

The plot follows the flow of the Gospel. However it doesn't repeat the bible word by word. It does not use amazing computer graphics to describe Jesus' miracles as God. In the contrary, it emphasizes Jesus as a human, has his own agony and weakness, should make choice in every moment to complete the Father's work.

Also it has some plausible explanations for the arising questions when you read the Gospel. Why Jesus had to be crucified? What did the crucifixion means to the ordinary Jews at that time? Just around the birth of Jesus, there rose a large scale rebellion against Roman colonial rules. It was crushed cruelly, and thousands of Jews were crucified because of that rebellion. In this film, on his way back home from Egypt, the boy Jesus saw Jewish people being crucified and rotten in the air, gnawed off and eaten away by ravens. This kind of room for imagination makes the story of Jesus more plausible and persuasive.

Why did the Rabbis, the Pharisees dislike Jesus so much? What did they think when people call Jesus 'King of the Jews'? Why the people of Jerusalem betrayed Jesus so dramatically? In the days before the Passover, they welcomed and hailed Jesus as Messiah, then why did they change their mind to free the criminal thief Barabbas instead of Jesus? The explanation and description of this film could be, may be controversial in the Theoretical view. But at this postmodern age, people need imagination to convince themselves.

There are many smart points in this film. For me, Peter's denial of Jesus was one of the most emotional and touching scene. In the film, Peter is asked by Jewish people and Roman soldiers if he knows Jesus or not. Peter denies, and he is hit by a Roman soldier, then fallen to the dusty ground. At the very moment, his eyes meet Jesus' eyes! Jesus is torn off his clothes, ridiculed, being scourged, bleeding nearly to death. Peter suddenly realizes that he denies his beloved teacher, respected Messiah, adored Son of God, for three times, just as he was told by Jesus, just in front of the eyes of Jesus himself!

In the latter part of this film, Apostle Paul's story is mixed a bit suddenly, so it could look a little confusing. However this is not a big problem. Of course this film is not a kind of art masterpiece, so do not have too much expectations!

In addition, the actor for Jesus's role, Diogo Morgado is said to be 'one of the hottest Jesus in the film history'! Goodness gracious! :-)

Anyway in conclusion, this film is worth a 130 minutes of your life. It doesn't matter if you're Christian, non-Christian, or Atheist. I would like to politely but strongly recommend this film.

This was by the far the worst 132 minutes of my life. I enjoy many types of movies and have even enjoyed some bad movies. You know the kind that are so bad they are good. Well this was just BAD... After leaving the theater I felt angry, and like my brain was molested by born again Christians. I feel cheated into paying money to watch this crap, if i had known what was to come I wouldn't have watched this movie if someone had paid me. This is not a gripe against religion, but against the movie itself. There was no depth to this movie what so ever. There was no dialogue besides literal quotes from the bible. The acting was terrible everyone was so 1 dimensional. The filming was terrible. The CG was awful. I cannot honestly say one good thing about this movie. Save your money, your time, and your brain and skip this one.

From beginning to end the movie is moving. The acting was amazing, the soundtrack was beautiful. Son of God impacts people all alike whether they're true believers or not. People left the movie in tears because the impact was so great and tissues were constantly being pulled out because everyone couldn't stop crying the movie was that awesome. Without hesitation I would pay to go see it again and take people with me over and over. Each person portrayed was exact, and the tension and the emotions that carried left people watching from the edges of their seats. Son of God reminds believers of how they should be impacting the world.

In 2004, Mel Gibson's "The Passion of the Christ" was a landmark film in its unflinching look at the crucifixion of Jesus Christ. "Son of God" operates in a similar vein, while also focusing on more of the ministry of Christ before his death and resurrection. The difference between the two? This is a four-star solid film, while "Passion" is five stars because it was first and because it had a little more "passion" (pardon the pun) behind it.

For a basic plot summary, "Son of God" is pretty much a straight re-telling of the Jesus story. After a brief prologue about the Old Testament and Christ's birth, it begins with Jesus (Diogo Morgado) meeting his disciples as they are struggling to catch fish in the Sea of Galilee. The "walking on water" scene quickly commences and the film is off and running. It doesn't touch on every aspect of Jesus's ministry, but certain key moments are rendering in fantastic dramatic detail. About half way through the film, it shifts gears and becomes a crucifixion/resurrection story, beginning with the involvement of Pontius Pilate (Greg Hicks).

"Son of God" is not a bad film by any stretch of the imagination. It is a faithful re-telling of the Jesus story...as simple as that. Due to the success of "The Bible" miniseries on television, the show producers wanted to get something up on the big screen. Considering the short time frame they had to work with, I would say they did a fine job of putting together the film.

The reason it will always be second fiddle (at least to me) to "Passion", though, is because of two main reasons (in this case I won't even fault "Son of God" for being second, even though that does have at least some impact): First, in "Passion", Gibson quite literally poured his entire life into that project. That kind of energy and effort showed up in the final product. With "Son of God", one can tell that even though the cast/crew/producers were trying, the effort was not to make a masterpiece. Secondly, Jim Caviezel was just flat out a better Jesus than Morgado. Like Gibson, Caviezel lived his role and set and (until recently with the success of "Person of Interest") was practically known as Jesus in the film industry!

So, while "Son of God" was a solid Jesus story flick, it will probably always play second-fiddle to "Passion of the Christ" for some of the reasons I listed above. I don't see it as a problem that the Jesus story is re-told every 10 years or so in a new dramatic setting, but looking at things purely from a movie-critic perspective it just doesn't quite measure up to Gibson's 2004 piece.

"Son of God" is the kind of movie I'd go out of my way to warn people NOT to see. It lacks narrative coherence, drive, and a point of view. It is visually unappealing. I was with a friend so I could not walk out of this movie; had I attended alone, I think I would have. I found it physically painful to sit through this entire film. I nodded off more than once.

The film took forever to get started, going through Adam, Noah, Abraham and Moses, and it took forever to end. Most lives of Christ select one gospel's passion narrative to recreate. For example, in the Gospel of John, Jesus speaks only three brief sentences. This film had Jesus speaking endlessly from the cross and were this not so painful it would have been funny.

The movie stumbles onward after Jesus' Resurrection and his Ascension into Heaven. St John mopes on an island waiting for death and has a vision of Jesus there. That this limping, pointless coda was tacked on after the obvious climaxes of the Resurrection and the Ascension is evidence of the filmmakers' ineptitude.

The film's best feature is Diogo Morgado as Jesus. He is charismatic and appropriately mysterious. You get the sense that there is more there than meets the eye. The rest of the cast is also fine. Adrian Schiller is especially good as Caiaphas the High Priest, depicted as Jesus' nemesis.

For me the biggest problem with the film was the lack of narrative drive. I had no sense that I was watching a coherent story with a beginning, middle, and end. There is no tension, no coherence, from one scene to the next. A viewer has to come to this movie with some background on Jesus' life. Anyone without that background would be watching an incoherent muddle.

There is no point of view. Who is telling this story? Why? Again, point of view is random and fluctuating and this adds to the film's lack of a spinal column.

The film appears to have been shot with hand-held cameras. There is little variation. The constant close-ups with shaky cameras get very, very monotonous. "Son of God" is 138 minutes long. Watching randomly tossed together scenes, almost all shot with hand-held cameras, was a soporific experience.

"Son of God" is ugly and inauthentic. Jesus was a Jew and he lived his entire life in a Jewish country. Jesus and his followers should have been played by Jews or people who look Jewish. The actors playing Jesus, Peter, John, Mary the mother of Jesus, are not Jewish and don't look Jewish. For the most part the actors look like models in a Benetton ad: white liberals' idea of multiculti. There are extras who could be African or Asian. But Israel isn't a Benetton ad. Producer Roma Downey should not have cast herself as Mary, the mother of Jesus. Roma Downey is a Hollywood actress in her fifties, and she looks like it. Her face shows evidence of Botox and other products and procedures. She doesn't fit in a film full of filthy faces untouched by modern surgical procedures.

For some reason, the filmmakers decided to make everyone filthy. I have lived in traditional, pre-modern villages and people in such settings don't walk around with dirt caked on their faces. They do groom their hair. Jerusalem is plunked down in the middle of a lifeless, moonscape desert. As any resident or pilgrim can tell you, it does rain, and there is green, in Jerusalem.

In the Huffington Post, Abe Foxman of the ADL argues that "Son of God" is without anti-Semitism. I'd have to disagree. Paul Marc Davis, an actor playing a hostile Pharisee, does look Jewish and he is dressed in Jewish garb. Touches like this impressed me as treading unnecessarily close to anti-Semitism. Another such touch: Caiaphas manipulates the crowds who voted for Pilate to release Barabbas instead of Jesus. This is not recorded in the Gospels. The film depicts Nicodemus praying Kaddish over Jesus. This may have been a conciliatory touch.

If you are looking for a cinematic life of Christ, there are many better options. George Stevens' "The Greatest Story Ever Told" is gorgeous, if slow. Mel Gibson's "The Passion of the Christ" is undeniably powerful, but disturbingly violent. The PBS miniseries "From Jesus to Christ" is fascinating.

This movie's portrayal of Jesus is astounding. Diogo Morgado's acting is superb. The nuances in his expressions and voice as he interacts with the disciples revealed many sides to Jesus I'd never before realized. I HIGHLY recommend this excellent film to anyone over the age of 12 (the crucifixion, while not as drawn out as in The Passion, is still traumatic and too much for a child). Besides the film's portrayal of Jesus, I also appreciated the bold and very human character of Peter, the conflicted character of Pilate, the soft, beautiful, and empathic character of Mary (played by Roma Downey), and so many others--including even the Roman soldiers caught up in an epic story so much larger than themselves. This movie is a gift--and that increased my own love for Christ. I found it a much richer, fuller, portrayal of the gospel than did The Passion (which I also greatly appreciated).

It was bad, but not nearly as bad as Noah (2014), which was really stupid and painful to watch. I'm glad I have a theater that only charges $5 for a new movie. If the script would have followed one of the gospels, it could have been better. Jesus ministry was much about his disciples, which were essentially omitted in this story. Some people must have money to burn and don't mind duping audiences, cause this was a waste of millions of dollars, and countless hours of production time. I feel sorry for all of the churches who flocked to see this movie as congregations because they must have felt very disappointed--like myself.