Matar a Jesús

it has one virtue - the icons/religious images on film credits. and a lot of sins. the script is chaotic and too strange. nothing is coherent. crumbs from Gospels in disorder. fragments, slices, not purpose, mixture of a carpenter who discover his mission and the Son of God, the political intrigue and the atmosphere from a part from Roman Empire. it is only expression of good intentions without credible result. and, after so many films about Christ, Killing Jesus is only another deception. because it has not message, because its ambiguity has as fruit only confusion, because not bad actors are only hangers for the roles, because the image about politic of director/script writer/novel's authors remains contemporary, not exam of roots of the Jesus time. because all seems be a cultural fast food. because the ambition is different by possibilities to create a real good story. it could be only an eccentric sketch about Jesus. is it enough ? maybe not. because it is a story only for the teller , not for his audience. in fact, only one of bizarre news/documentaries about Jesus in the Easter's period.

To quote Mr O'Reilly: "this is not a religious book. We do not address Jesus as the Messiah, only as a man who galvanized a remote area of the Roman Empire and made very powerful enemies while preaching a philosophy of peace and love." The book is the historical and secular version of the life of Jesus. I found the movie to be refreshing and interesting. The problem was of casting. Joe Doyle stood out as Judas. The rest of the apostles look to be Hebrews of the area. The movie assumes the viewer is familiar with events prior to Jesus's birth and his early life. This is a disservice to those who are not. Smoother transitions in time could have been done better. Over all it is a good movie and the young actor playing Jesus gives a solid performance.

-Killing Jesus (2015) movie review: -Killing Jesus is a TV movie by National Geographic, giving a look at the ministry and death of Jesus of Nazareth from both his perspective and the perspectives of those who ordered his death. This attempt as a religious telling takes a non-biased look at the story of Christ, essentially adding biased against the truth told in the actual story. I'll get in to that later.

-Technically, it was not that bad. I will review part of it from that standpoint. However I am also going to review the content and what it represents, which was less than satisfying for a film that only needed to do the same as the other hundred films like this one.

-The story was told from both the perspectives of Jesus' captors as well as Jesus, so it feels inconsistent. They also skipped a few points that help develop other points in Christ's ministry.

-The film had a slow start and an odd pace that rushed through a bit of time without letting the audience know. Rushed ending too.

-The acting is functional. Haaz Sleiman plays a good Jesus, but not a great one. It also has some people like Kelsey Grammar, Rufus Sewell, and John Rhys-Davies in it, who do a good job.

-The characters are not all that good or accurate. Jesus whines and at one point talks about how He wants to lead a rebellion with swords. Because that obviously happened. To make this part short, when it comes to characters there is almost no regard for the actual Bible.

-I liked the music. It was very Bear McCreary-esque.

-The production value was acceptable, and I loved that they had a Jewish looking Jesus. Other than that, this film is both factually and Biblically inaccurate through most of its passive attempt to tell the story of Christ. Ending it ambiguously while not having things like the Holy Spirit in it once just truly take everything out of the meaning.

-Technically, it is not terrible. It has a decent design, acting that is not too bad, and a good score. Biblically and historically, it gets little right and takes the extra step to ensure this comes from a non-biased worldview, which in turn takes God out of it. Killing Jesus is not worth the time.

-Killing Jesus holds a PG-13 rating for violence and some partial nudity.

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.

the purpose of this film is the big question who remains after its end. because it is not portrait of the Savior or the portrait of a Prophet. the Gospels are only pretext. the implication of good actors - decorative. and the desire to redefine His existence and work - wrong. too long, too innovative and unclear, it is an exercise to present a good guy who has not specific identity, who not gives a specific message, who looking like Christ but at the level of poor sketch. something missing. and it is something fundamental for do a credible story, to remind the word of Jesus, for be a real testimony about a mission and about sacrifice. it is not a problem of freedom of expression or about the religious believes. but the manner to send a credible vision about the second person of Saint Trinity.