Killing Jesus (2015) Reviews

• A decidedly incomplete narrative on the death of Jesus Christ

  classicsoncall2016-03-28

  Bible purists and devout Catholics will probably find at least some fault with this production. There are a number of elements missing from the story that most viewers with a knowledge of the Scriptures would be looking for; when they aren't depicted one has to wonder the reason why. Time and budget constraints probably play into it but that argument doesn't help much. One of the first stunning moments in the story occurred for me when Jesus (Haaz Sleiman) seemed to be unaware of his Earthly mission to atone for Man's sins, this when he was conversing with John the Baptist (Abhin Galeya). Caiaphas (Rufus Sewell) and his adherents in the Sanhedrin appeared to be greater villains than Pontius Pilate in terms of culpability for Jesus' crucifixion. No mention of Barabbas seemed to be a major oversight, and during the crucifixion scene there was no reference made at all to the two thieves who were crucified along with Jesus. I guess most of my criticism here has to do with things that weren't included in the story of Jesus, so that may just be a particular quirk of mine. However my viewing of the picture occurred a day after watching the 1927 silent film "The King of Kings" which appeared to be a much more complete narrative of the events leading to the crucifixion and death of Jesus Christ. If one were to be faced with the choice of one or the other, my recommendation would go for the early film. Even though silent, the longer, one hundred fifty five minute version includes two wonderful sequences done in Technicolor, quite possibly the earliest use of color one might ever experience in a movie and more than a little impressive.

  More

• Cheap, unscriptural, and confusing.

  AdultAudienceMember2015-03-30

  I went in hoping. I really wanted to like it. But I didn't. Jesus looks confused half the time. The Holy Spirit is a no-show. The beards are glued on. Old commonly-held beliefs with no scriptural basis are recycled. Camels hadn't yet been domesticated. Nowhere does it say that Mary Magdalene was a prostitute but she is strongly hinted to be one. While talked about in one of the Gospels, there is zero historical evidence that the Slaughter of the Innocents ever occurred. Byzantine fortresses are used as stand-ins. Good things: Filmed in Tunisia so at least some of the people didn't look like they came from an Ikea advertisement. I simply can't recommend it. If you are wanting to learn about Jesus, this is not the place to look. If you are a Believer already, you will be sorely disappointed.

  More

• Why Not Get It Right?

  jroswald2015-04-15

  I am so happy to get this type of program but I don't understand why all the inaccuracies. It's not as if the story of Jesus isn't compelling enough without having to tweak it to keep the audience watching. Some of the inaccuracies seemed just random and serviced no purpose and others seemed very intentional and purposely misleading. I'm not sure which is worse. Who did the producers make this for anyway? It was not provocative enough for non-believers and not accurate enough for believers. A note to the producers: Next time, if you intend to tell a Christian story, get the facts right. At best the inaccuracies are a distraction and at worst they are insulting to those who know what is historically accurate. I feel confident that you won't lose believers or non-believers if Christian stories are well done and true.

  More

• This Movie is Not Well Done

  gdholm2015-04-05

  This is not an anti-Bill O'Reilly review as some others are. I like Bill. I watch his show most nights. I have enjoyed all of his "Killing" books, and "Killing Lincoln" was the best non-fiction book I have ever read. That said, the movie was a huge disappointment. Not sure I can say anything not already said, but to summarize the shortcomings, not with the book, but with just the movie: 1. Whoever cast Haaz Sleiman as Jesus made a horrible choice. While he looked more like a Jew of the period than some people who have played the part, his acting was just plain bad. 2. Having the actors mumble their lines (especially Sleiman) was not a good choice. 3. I have seen high school plays with more realistic-looking beards and wigs than the ones used in this movie. They were comical! 4. Jesus didn't know who he was until John the Baptist told him? Really? 5. Was 20 or 30 really the largest crowd they could buy to follow Jesus? 6. So the movie was designed to be emotionally dark, but did it have to be literally dark and hard to see at times as well? 7. The sound was poor. 8. Despite Bill's assurances otherwise, I found that some of the violence and torture was much more explicit and graphic than necessary. 9. Jesus seemed dazed and confused much of the time. What was the actor trying to portray? Was this just bad directing? 10. Jesus' accent changed from time to time. Sometimes he sounded like an Arab, sometimes like he was from India, sometimes Scotland, and sometimes the accent was just so heavy I have no idea what he was saying or trying to be. In short, a great book turned into a terrible movie due to bad acting, directing, and production. At least you can watch it for free, but be prepared to turn it off before the end. I did.

  More

• Bill O'Reilly seems to be an opponent of abortion, so why this one?

  jjenn-241972015-03-30

  Bill O'Reilly seems to be an opponent of abortion, so why this one? Most scenes are curiously flat, uninspired, incomplete, and lacking the balls of a bull butterfly. Missing features: no writing on the ground at saving the adulteress, the healing the leprous woman was just touchy- feelly, the ear of the high priest's servant wasn't healed, no open tomb, etc. Some production values were excellent, but still uneven. The big Sea of Galilee "fish on!" looked like it was filmed in a stagnant West Texas cow tank. Suggestion: spend a few more bucks to get enough extras. Even non- believers must concede that these events were big at the time, and would attract large crowds. Crucifixions in particular were always a large draw. This level of incompetence cannot be accidental, so why intentional? Didn't some famous guy with an English accent once say, "When Hollywood political correctness and the real facts differ, film the political correctness?"Or maybe just the typical Hollywood Easter scam, take the money and run. I strongly suspect that Bill O'Reilly has lost a chunk of his core constituency. I have read O'Reilly's book and, knew that the perspective was deliberately squeezed dry of faith elements, yet I reasoned thus. Any TV show that gets the post-modernist viewer watching about Jesus is better than nothing. I was wrong. It is possible that this is the only message about Jesus that many viewers will ever get. This is three hours of my life that I will never get back. (Why was it billed as a four hour event?) Hate to use the old cheap shot, but it has never been more appropriate. Read the book, its better. That is, the Real Book.

  More