Son of God (2014)

This film tells the life of Jesus Christ as a story. Directed by Christopher Spencer, its a spin-off from the series "The Bible", of the "History Channel". The main role is played by Portuguese actor Diogo Morgado.This film has been subject of negative reviews for allegedly not do a literal reading of the biblical texts. Evangelical Christians were furious, conservative Catholics too. Some of the criticism has logic but others are pure religious fanaticism of people for whom the Bible is untouchable, no matter how many times it has been mistranslated, amputated (in pages or even entire books), rewritten and censored until get the version that we have in our house. This is the problem when we talk about movies with religious themes: people just aren't able to see beyond their beliefs.When I knew that "History Channel" would make this spin-off, I knew immediately that it was just to make the most profit of a production that had been very expensive. Since a few years ago, the contents of this TV channel (at least here, in the western corner of Europe) has had less and less quality (the programs come from America and speak only about pawn shops, cars, scrap and theories, absolutely idiotic, about ancient extraterrestrials). So I loved the original series, it was much better than the programs they normally broadcast. I didn't expect something too glued to the biblical text but a tale, inspired in the concept "Bible told as a story". The film follows this model, telling Jesus'story from birth to ascension. Purists may not like it but, nowadays, this material can be very useful, drawing attentions to the Bible in a world when every less people have it in home.The film does a very regular job telling the life of Jesus. Its greatest sin is still too much like the TV series, as if it were an expanded chapter. The special, visual and sound effects aren't cinematic enough, the soundtrack is not particularly relevant. As a movie film its bad, but as a TV film it works well. The actors, as expected, are absurdly unknown to most of the public. This includes the protagonist, the Portuguese actor Diogo Morgado, who made Jesus Christ. Like most of the Portuguese, I followed Morgado's career, who gained fame in our country through television soap operas and series, and a few Portuguese movies where he participated. Its not a bad choice for the role, although I think that Jesus will probably have been much darker than Morgado (the actor even has light brown hair), like most of the Jews.

I liked it. It did have my issues. For example, he calls Peter by that name right off, rather than Simon. Big issue. The name was changed so that Peter could be called "rock" to signify his deep faith as the Fathers teach us.Also the trial thing before Pilate is way off. And Pilate, who is a saint in the Orthodox tradition (he converted)is depicted too harshly. True, he was harsh before he converted, but in the case of Christ's Passion, he was mild, trying to avoid punishing him so far as possible. They depicted his wife, Claudia (St. Claudia) rather well, though not as clearly as they could have. Pilate seemed a mix of cruel and more kind. Gibson did a good job of balancing it out. Likely because he researched the oral traditions about Pilate and Claudia, who converted. There are a few accounts, generally positive, of this. The main point is that the whole trial is way off. It does not give the full account, and he was tried in private in this movie. Pilate asked the whole "what is truth" in some inner place in his palace. Totally off. How did the Gospel writers know this happened then? They wrote based on what they saw, which is why their are small discrepancies in the Gospel accounts, though yes they were guided by the Holy Spirit, etc.Then there is the Nicodemus thing. It's inaccurate how they depict his going to Jesus. He came a NIGHT according to St John, not day like in the film.Anyway, the good points. A thing many may not notice, but Mary is depicted in blue according the Catholic tradition--look at Marian art and notice this. Blue signifies her purity. Also, the bread and wine clearly are represented as literal body and blood.Some have said this is hippy love dovey. I do not think so. Maybe because they do not know the understanding of Christ according to the one, holy, catholic and apostolic tradition, but a fundamentalist one. They might do well to read the compassionate Desert Fathers, who though they lived strict lives, taught gentleness and love. There are many doctrinal accuracies in this movie first of all that the non-Christian watcher may not notice. Or the Protestant perhaps, that is someone who has no understanding of the Fathers of the Church. I do not see how Jesus was some hippy in this movie. I just do not see it. I think he is depicted accurately. I was very happy to see that this movie was not full of vile heresy. Hollywood's Jesus is often, well....Anyway, aside from the errors of Scripture on a superficial level, the substance of the Gospel and doctrine are followed. It is clearly a very Roman Catholic leaning film. Maybe that is why some Christians do not like it.

Lovers of Jesus, don't get upset. I don't like this movie. Why? Because I love Jesus! Just because you slap "Jesus" on the title doesn't make it perfect. The problems:We are given a mish mash jumble cluster of Bible sequence that seems like it went through a wood chipper. Most of the movie I was thinking "...wait a minute, that happened before/after/never" What audience is supposed to enjoy a jacked up sequence? People with limited knowledge will get wrong information and added confusion. Vets of the Bible will spend the whole time fact checking and finding out that the movie is WRONG.Near the beginning one of the disciples asks Jesus, "what are we going to do?" to which Jesus says, "Change the world!" Besides the fact that this exchange never happened in the Bible, Jesus came to SAVE the world. It wasn't a political movement, social movement, or self-help class. Jesus came, lived a perfect/sinless life so he could die in our place of punishment to cover our sins with His blood. Simple.The stoning scene was especially troubling to me. A group of leaders are gathered around the prostitute and want to execute her. They see this as a chance to test Jesus. Jesus gives the classic teaching "He who is without sin cast the first stone" to which we see all the stones drop from the crowd. The problem is they show Jesus like the rest of the crowd dropping His stone, implying that Jesus is guilty of sin. Either this is a terrible filming choice communicating the wrong message, OR an actual belief of the new age Downey... Jesus is blameless and without sin. This sinless life is critical to proving Jesus was God and also qualified Him to be the atonement for sin. Non biblical issue: SLOW MOTION ABUSE!!! Producers meeting: Guy 1 = Hmm, what is the best way to communicate that this moment is powerful/important... Guy 2 = I KNOW! Let's slow motion it. Guy 1 = I don't know, there are at least eleven important scenes. Guy 2 = Slow motion them all, it'll be great!!!

How dare we can write horrible reviews or even be a critic of a movie that is about our savior??? this movie was amazing and depicted Christ's suffering perfectly! This movie isn't only amazing but it shows how much God loves us. It breaks my heart that we would say such horrible things about this true and amazing story. I am so glad that it made so much money in theaters and i am so glad that people saw it. :)I love God and I love that movies like this were out this year! Glory to god! people need to hear the message of Christ and they need to hear the gospel. People need to hear and see this story and they need to know God loves them and they need to know that god cares about them. They need to know that there's something more to this life.