The Book of Daniel (2013)

to tell a well known story in the manner who gives to public not only a good adaptation but the feeling to be part of the story. that is the basic virtue of film. a director knowing remind characters and lines and the rhythm of words. a script who recreate the atmosphere. a form of fascination who is mark of the meeting with old Hollywood movies. and the circle of confession of Daniel , costumes, dialogues, miracle and honest fight for truth. a low budget film who impose the grace as measure of each scene. who reminds the soul of blockbusters - prisoners of image, ignoring the message. it is not a simple adaptation, it is not exactly a religious story. it could be a testimony. about God, of course. about Israel under conquerors. but , more interesting, about human values. in graceful manner.

"The Book of Daniel" surprised me. This movie has been in my Netflix cue for months. I kept passing it by suspecting it would be boring, like many other "religious movies". I love most of the popular movies; but, this is a non-blockbuster that I think is really good! Why? Maybe because it is faithful to its source -- The Book of Daniel.I got new appreciation of those fantastical stories: "Daniel in the Lions' Den", "The Fiery Furnace", and "The Handwriting on the Wall". More importantly, I got new insight to the Babylonian Captivity, Babylon's Kings and the person himself: Daniel.Again, this is not a "Hollywood Epic". Even though it's a low budget, modest presentation, it really works. I was engaged from its opening scene with a sword to the throat of Daniel, to its final scene which left "this Daniel" with a lump in his throat. (Know what I mean?)

I watch all Bible based movies available to me, half fall far short of my hopes for accuracy. This little low-budget gem won me over, so I purchased it for my library. Yes, there are some cheesy scenes looking out over Babylon, but they're few and short lived. Yes, some of the editing was careless (a bloodless sword being withdrawn from Belshazzar's body), but it is faithful to the story presented in the first six books of Daniel, and most of the performances are well done and sensitive to the characters.I find Bongiorno's younger Daniel as wonderful to watch as Miano's elder Daniel. Saxon's Nebuchadnezzar is a very nuanced performance (and my favorite of the four kings covered). If the magicians, enchanters, and sorcerers seem a bit campy, go grab a Coke from the fridge, and they'll be gone when you return.I give this production a ten for its effort, an eight for execution.NONE of this praise can translate to the horrible effort of PureFlix "Book of Esther", one of the worst Bible movies I've seen. That should have had a sword run clean through it. It nearly made me break out in hives for all it's egregious failures on every level.PureFlix movies can range from the great effort of Daniel, and Ruth, to the dregs of "Esther" and the mediocre "Blink of an Eye". I suggest viewing free before considering purchase. We all have different expectations for worthy viewing.

This work certainly has a deep respect for the source material and holds true to the mythology of Daniel. Unfortunately, the acting falls flat and is at times downright laughable with the notable exception of the main actor who plays "Old Daniel". I would have liked to see more true to life human reactions to the rather momentous actions taking place along with some deep explorations of humanity in the face of the inevitable rather than the wooden one-dimensional characters presented. It is worth watching if you are looking to get a better feel for the characters in the biblical myth this movie is based on and may even invoke a numinous pondering on the deeper theological questions underlying the literal narrative but don't expect to be blown away. However, flat acting aside, this is still a deeper movie than most of what is coming out of Hollywood.