Interesteg What makes it different from others?

Fluentiama Perfect cast and a good story

SoTrumpBelieve Must See Movie...

Voxitype Good films always raise compelling questions, whether the format is fiction or documentary fact.

kxyang Seriously, if Jesus knew when to shut his big mouth, he wouldn't have gotten tortured and killed. He was warned many times to stop yapping nonsense but he continued and continued. I truly believe the Jews must have thought that Jesus was mentally retarded and decided to kill him. Jesus' followers (who were probably not right in the head also) decided to write a book about him and make up stuff that he apparently can do. This movie is a HBO SERIES that had been out for some time, but the producers realized that RELIGIOUS folks would pay money to see anything about their "God." The producer cut up the HBO series down into 2 hours and put it in the theaters. I guess it worked because this movie made enough money.This is a TV series so the production is TV quality. This means that the film moves at a different framerate, the lighting is off, the costumes look like Halloween shop stuff, and the acting is just average.SKIP THIS MOVIE. Stop the brainwashing now. NO MORE brainwashing. This movie just shows you how silly the concept of Jesus is. He can't walk on water, it is impossible. He can't turn water to wine. Crazy man, this movie is an acid trip.

zkonedog In 2004, Mel Gibson's "The Passion of the Christ" was a landmark film in its unflinching look at the crucifixion of Jesus Christ. "Son of God" operates in a similar vein, while also focusing on more of the ministry of Christ before his death and resurrection. The difference between the two? This is a four-star solid film, while "Passion" is five stars because it was first and because it had a little more "passion" (pardon the pun) behind it.For a basic plot summary, "Son of God" is pretty much a straight re-telling of the Jesus story. After a brief prologue about the Old Testament and Christ's birth, it begins with Jesus (Diogo Morgado) meeting his disciples as they are struggling to catch fish in the Sea of Galilee. The "walking on water" scene quickly commences and the film is off and running. It doesn't touch on every aspect of Jesus's ministry, but certain key moments are rendering in fantastic dramatic detail. About half way through the film, it shifts gears and becomes a crucifixion/resurrection story, beginning with the involvement of Pontius Pilate (Greg Hicks)."Son of God" is not a bad film by any stretch of the imagination. It is a faithful re-telling of the Jesus story...as simple as that. Due to the success of "The Bible" miniseries on television, the show producers wanted to get something up on the big screen. Considering the short time frame they had to work with, I would say they did a fine job of putting together the film.The reason it will always be second fiddle (at least to me) to "Passion", though, is because of two main reasons (in this case I won't even fault "Son of God" for being second, even though that does have at least some impact): First, in "Passion", Gibson quite literally poured his entire life into that project. That kind of energy and effort showed up in the final product. With "Son of God", one can tell that even though the cast/crew/producers were trying, the effort was not to make a masterpiece. Secondly, Jim Caviezel was just flat out a better Jesus than Morgado. Like Gibson, Caviezel lived his role and set and (until recently with the success of "Person of Interest") was practically known as Jesus in the film industry!So, while "Son of God" was a solid Jesus story flick, it will probably always play second-fiddle to "Passion of the Christ" for some of the reasons I listed above. I don't see it as a problem that the Jesus story is re-told every 10 years or so in a new dramatic setting, but looking at things purely from a movie-critic perspective it just doesn't quite measure up to Gibson's 2004 piece.

Varghjarta I must say this is thus far my most favourite cinematic adoption of the gospel. I have watched them all I believe and I love them all for the interesting perspectives they offer, often very true to the written words.I will however say I was very pleasantly surprised by the breath of fresh air this brings. I was often surprised by the inclusion of parts of the story that is often neglected by other gospel adaptions, characters and dialog, and even the timing of the story is a bit different from the rest which kept me on my toes a bit and happy to see focus on bits that allowed me to reflect a second time and discover something new even.I feel this might be what "the passion of the Christ" should have been like, a less visually bloody affair but not any less touching.You should probably see it if you have not yet :)

Kirpianuscus the expectations of the public are only problems for this comfortable film. it not propose any new idea, it not change perception or represents a religious or historical lesson . part of a series, it propose another adaptation of the life of Jesus. without have ambition to be more than a soft exercise about the life and sacrifice of Jesus. it is difficult to blame it or admire. because , far to be bad movie, it is an ordinary sketch, sentimental but not convincing, nice but not useful for sustain emotions, interesting for compare with the many films about same subject but not enough for ignore the desire of director to impress in easy manner. a film who could remain in memory only for the presence of the lead actor. but that is far to be a virtue.