THE GOSPEL OF JOHN (2003) has been released in Poland recently. Some people did not feel encouraged to see it since they claimed that Gibson's PASSION was enough to see being the utmost naturalism of the death of Christ. However, this film is worth seeing since it is entirely different, and so is its aim even though both movies are about Jesus Christ. Therefore, I don't even dare compare them, unless I limit my comparison to the choice of the cast.
This movie by Philip Saville concentrates on the life and message of Christ only according to what John the Apostle said. As a result, it may sometimes be boring since it seems not to leave much interpretation, and the content may be condensed since John's Gospel is not that wide as Mathew's, for instance. It does not concentrate that much on what happened but rather centers on the message of Christ. However, being word for word from one Gospel only, it is a unique experience not so widespread in cinema so far. The cast, however, are limited in their performances and if you are a movie fan and expect to evaluate it as a MOVIE, you will be disappointed. Hardly any originality! Nevertheless, it is important to state that the director makes good use of the Holy Scriptures and what we get is a chance to know the New Testament better in a more visualized manner.
Some scenes are made in a very memorable way, for instance, the wedding at Cana and Jesus' first miracle; the moment He brings his friend Lazarus back to life from the dead; His first meeting with Mary Magdalene after resurrection. Truly, moments that have an impact on the faith of a viewer! SPOILERS: There are, however, scenes that disappointed me, particularly, the Last Supper. The director does not show the gist of this event, i.e. the beginning of the Holy Eucharist. It is so important for the Christian that skipping it is a harm done to the life and message of love that Jesus brought. Even if it is not in John, this should be added. And isn't the presence of Mary Magdalene on the Last Supper controversial? Another simplification is the figure of Virgin Mary who has a very profound spiritual connection with Her Son and which is not very noticeable in the movie. The director skips the word "woman" that Jesus says to his mother from the cross. This word has its roots in the pro-to Gospel, in the book of Genesis and the prophesy about the struggle of the outcome of the snake and the outcome of the "woman". Therefore, skipping it may occur to be a severe simplification of the Bible.
The cast perform well, some very well, but it is difficult to evaluate their performances because of, as I already mentioned, the narrator and limited interpretation of particular characters. Henry Ian Cusick is not bad as Jesus, however, he is not that good as some earlier portrayals of Christ. Sometimes, I get the feeling that he did not feel the role profoundly enough. Here, I must admit that Robert Powell in Zeffirelli's Jesus of Nazareth (1977) was better. He clearly combined Christ's divinity and humanity. The same can be said about Jim Caviezel in Gibson's latest film. Daniel Kash's portrayal of Simon Peter is really good! I liked his performance of a man weak on the one hand but of great faith on the other hand. Scott Handy does a memorable job as John the Baptist... he is as good as Michael York in Zeffirelli's movie. However, Alan Van Sprang's Judas is not that memorable as Luca Lionello's in THE PASSION. The same can be said about Cedric Smith as Caiaphas. Mattia Sbragia or Anthony Quinn are incomparable.
SPOILER! As far as the narrator and the limited originality in the movie are concerned, I feel a need to draw your attention to one more thing. Consider how the crowds move. It's deadly boring and horribly unnatural! Like in a silent movie... Comparing it to Gibson's naturalist PASSION, this movie is boring as far as this aspect is concerned.
However, in spite of some drawbacks of the film (mostly technical), I would be unjust to say that THE GOSPEL OF JOHN (2003) is not worth seeing. In no way! It is a good movie, in most cases, it achieves its aim of the Visual Bible, some moments are moving and help a viewer get to know Jesus and His Message more profoundly. It indeed shows the truth about Jesus being totally based on the Gospel of John, the only disciple who did not leave Jesus till the cross and the sorrow of Golgotha. And one more thing - the film is not violent at all, which makes it possible for all kinds of viewers to see.
I rate it 7/10 as a movie. See and evaluate for yourself. It's good to keep in mind that a movie is still a movie, but can occur to be useful, especially at Easter when the whole Christian world is particularly full of joy thanks to the Risen Christ.
This movie by Philip Saville concentrates on the life and message of Christ only according to what John the Apostle said. As a result, it may sometimes be boring since it seems not to leave much interpretation, and the content may be condensed since John's Gospel is not that wide as Mathew's, for instance. It does not concentrate that much on what happened but rather centers on the message of Christ. However, being word for word from one Gospel only, it is a unique experience not so widespread in cinema so far. The cast, however, are limited in their performances and if you are a movie fan and expect to evaluate it as a MOVIE, you will be disappointed. Hardly any originality! Nevertheless, it is important to state that the director makes good use of the Holy Scriptures and what we get is a chance to know the New Testament better in a more visualized manner.
Some scenes are made in a very memorable way, for instance, the wedding at Cana and Jesus' first miracle; the moment He brings his friend Lazarus back to life from the dead; His first meeting with Mary Magdalene after resurrection. Truly, moments that have an impact on the faith of a viewer! SPOILERS: There are, however, scenes that disappointed me, particularly, the Last Supper. The director does not show the gist of this event, i.e. the beginning of the Holy Eucharist. It is so important for the Christian that skipping it is a harm done to the life and message of love that Jesus brought. Even if it is not in John, this should be added. And isn't the presence of Mary Magdalene on the Last Supper controversial? Another simplification is the figure of Virgin Mary who has a very profound spiritual connection with Her Son and which is not very noticeable in the movie. The director skips the word "woman" that Jesus says to his mother from the cross. This word has its roots in the pro-to Gospel, in the book of Genesis and the prophesy about the struggle of the outcome of the snake and the outcome of the "woman". Therefore, skipping it may occur to be a severe simplification of the Bible.
The cast perform well, some very well, but it is difficult to evaluate their performances because of, as I already mentioned, the narrator and limited interpretation of particular characters. Henry Ian Cusick is not bad as Jesus, however, he is not that good as some earlier portrayals of Christ. Sometimes, I get the feeling that he did not feel the role profoundly enough. Here, I must admit that Robert Powell in Zeffirelli's Jesus of Nazareth (1977) was better. He clearly combined Christ's divinity and humanity. The same can be said about Jim Caviezel in Gibson's latest film. Daniel Kash's portrayal of Simon Peter is really good! I liked his performance of a man weak on the one hand but of great faith on the other hand. Scott Handy does a memorable job as John the Baptist... he is as good as Michael York in Zeffirelli's movie. However, Alan Van Sprang's Judas is not that memorable as Luca Lionello's in THE PASSION. The same can be said about Cedric Smith as Caiaphas. Mattia Sbragia or Anthony Quinn are incomparable.
SPOILER! As far as the narrator and the limited originality in the movie are concerned, I feel a need to draw your attention to one more thing. Consider how the crowds move. It's deadly boring and horribly unnatural! Like in a silent movie... Comparing it to Gibson's naturalist PASSION, this movie is boring as far as this aspect is concerned.
However, in spite of some drawbacks of the film (mostly technical), I would be unjust to say that THE GOSPEL OF JOHN (2003) is not worth seeing. In no way! It is a good movie, in most cases, it achieves its aim of the Visual Bible, some moments are moving and help a viewer get to know Jesus and His Message more profoundly. It indeed shows the truth about Jesus being totally based on the Gospel of John, the only disciple who did not leave Jesus till the cross and the sorrow of Golgotha. And one more thing - the film is not violent at all, which makes it possible for all kinds of viewers to see.
I rate it 7/10 as a movie. See and evaluate for yourself. It's good to keep in mind that a movie is still a movie, but can occur to be useful, especially at Easter when the whole Christian world is particularly full of joy thanks to the Risen Christ.