Unlike most reviews this one doesn’t have to worry too much about “spoilers” as most Christians are already quite familiar with the story. However, if you are someone who likes to see a movie without hearing about how the story was handled then you probably ought to go and see it now then come back and finish reading. You have been warned.

There is a lot to like about this most recent production of our Savior’s life. While not a traditional movie, it captures the movements and storyline of the Gospel of John well, even while taking a few liberties for the sake of more dramatic cinematography (especially in the resurrecting of Lazarus). The movie is told through John’s perspective, beginning with the first few verses of John’s gospel, and ending with John exiled on the Island of Patmos.

The movie strangely backtracks from John’s opening verses to cover the birth of Jesus (which John leaves out), then fast-forwards to the calling of Peter (leaving out Jesus’s first miracle which is only found in John). From a literary perspective this is inexplicable, but from a historical standpoint it makes more sense. Since this is produced by the creators of History Channel’s The Bible series it is, I suppose, to be expected.

The first item to strike the viewer is that this isn’t filmed like a normal movie. There isn’t a single thread of plot line with the usual climax and anti-climax. Instead the movie shows scenes from Jesus’ life much the way the gospels tell it, and not necessarily in the order they tell it. Though a chronological approach wasn’t strictly adhered to by the gospel writers Matthew, Mark or John either, so the approach isn’t a destructive one.

The next item of note is the casting, which is quite good and will be recognizable by those who watch The Bible series on cable. Diogo Morgado is a remarkably kind and compassionate Jesus who in turn also pulls off the exhausted, lost and forsaken Jesus leading up to the crucifixion. Some have complained he is too attractive or “sexy” for the part, an observation I don’t share. Likewise, Caiaphas (played by Adrian Schiller) was made interesting and even provocative. Sebastian Knapp plays John and, like the real disciple, was almost always in the background – an important element to every encounter to be sure, but not making a big deal of his role. Also noteworthy was Matthew Gravelle as Thomas. The rest of the cast performed admirably. Though none of the performances were award-worthy they are all watchable. In fact, the weakest link was Roma Downey, who played Jesus’s mother later in life.

Worthy of being called out separately is the role of Mary Magdalene. She travels with the disciples and plays the part with aplomb. This is an aspect of the Gospel’s frequently left out of most Jesus films and was a fresh idea. I would have liked to have seen her traveling with other women, however, as we are told there were a few who did follow Jesus and even helped finance his ministry.

Finally, what is noteworthy isn’t so much what they included but what they left out. The movie is over two hours long, so I understand some material had to find the cutting room floor, but to leave out the friendship Jesus had with John the Baptist is bewildering. In fact John the Baptizer is only mentioned in passing as the announcement of his beheading reaches Jesus, and it doesn’t appear to impact the Savior all that much. I believe the scene of Jesus’ baptism was originally intended for the movie, however, as scenes of it played during the closing credits.

Also left out was Jesus as an adolescent in the Temple. The Gospels make clear that Jesus’ understanding of the Scriptures was amazing even from youth, yet Caiaphas refers to Jesus as uneducated throughout the movie. This is clearly backwards as we read in the Gospels many people, including other Temple priests, referred to Jesus as Rabbi (teacher). The point of this characterization by the movie escapes me. Oh, and there were no scenes of Jesus casting out demons, though again a few seconds of such a scene played during the closing credits. Since this was a frequent occurrence in Jesus’ ministry its absence is glaring.

Over all the movie does a good job of capturing some of the highlights of Jesus’ life and does so in a realistic fashion. It is an excellent primer for a study on the life of Christ and will hopefully inspire viewers to read the book. Despite its few misses, this film largely hits the mark and is recommended. I encourage you to see the movie and enjoy it, then maybe watch it again after reading the four Gospels and try to find all the places the director took license.