Bests & Worsts Reviews from Amazon

Let me start off by admitting that I have seen virtually every ‘Jesus’ movie ever made. From King of Kings, to The Greatest Story Ever Told, to Jesus of Nazareth to The Passion of Christ—yep, seen ‘em all. Some were good. Most were reverent but tedious. Risen is nothing like any of these. Although about Jesus, His life is not the focal point. In fact, I don’t think I ever heard the name ‘Jesus’ once mentioned. Just as a reference, I also taught Hebrew and Roman history for many years, and I approached this movie wondering how accurate both would be—in presenting Jesus and His followers—and in depicting the Romans. While I have not read the book on which this movie is based, if it is reflected accurately in the film, it was certainly written with a skilled and knowledgeable hand. Someone knew these cultures well. First off, every Christian will note the inaccuracies in the movie. The healing of the leper and the Ascension are geographically and chronologically just wrong, and the Ascension itself is quite diappointing.Too, the Shroud of Turin linen in the empty tomb was a bit of a frown, but so be it. But other discrepancies, inaccuracies, and inconsistencies in Christian and Roman history are few and far between. Risen is not a polished and cheesy Jesus flick. If you are looking for the four-gospel story, the life of Christ, the inspirational Sermon on the Mount, or a strong evangelistic outreach, you will be disappointed. If you are looking for stunning special effects which have overtaken the celluloid world today, you won’t find many. If you’re looking for young, Hollywood starlets and Clooney-esque faces, they’re not there. What you will see is what Hollywood can really create—when it has unlimited resources—and when it can muster the best in acting, technology, and tight script-writing. In short, Risen delivers. This is a gritty, salty, and realistic film. The crucifixion scene is both accurate and graphic (not nearly in the ilk of The Passion of Christ, however). The disgust of rotting corpses in the potters' field is all too real, as is the heft of Roman crucifixion nails, the sordid description of that death, and the hurried disosal of crucified corpses. As a history teacher, what I especially appreciated was attention to detail in the meticulously accurate representation of Charon's coin (for crossing the river Styx) given to the dead, the Greco-Roman concept of Poseidon causing earthquakes, and depiction of the Roman seals which commanded authority of life and death. Risen is presented from a Roman point of view, through the eyes of the Tribune Clavius (Joseph Fiennes), Pontius Pilate, and the tomb guards. It reflects superbly the superstitious nature of the Roman culture, the classic Roman turtleshell defensive battle formation, as well as tribute offered in Roman (Mars) shrine-worship. The Latin terms used for crucifixion instruments and the Roman military paraphernalia are spot on. The Hebrew names for Jesus (Yeshua) and God (YHWH) are, thankfully, used exclusively. The costuming is first century Israel—not over-wardrobed and anachronistic Hollywood excess—and even the smallest referential detail—payment by Roman salt—is subtle and accurate. Without mentioning an array of individual performers (other reviewers will do that), let me just say that there are no weak links among the cast. Everyone is convincing, and obviously serious about the parts they portray. The disciple Bartholomew stands out, as does Fiennes, Pilate, and the tomb guards. Risen does not preach. It excels in depicting the contagious joy Christianity imparts—a joy reluctantly caught by Clavius himself in his personal quest for "...a day without death". The film is based upon strict evidence from which faith grows, not mere speculation which merely hinders belief. Christianity is portrayed as it was meant to be portrayed—spread through example, not mere sermonhood. The questions in the film are precisely the questions we would ask if we could transport back to first century Jerusalem. How is the missing body explained by unbelievers? What lengths would first century skeptics go to in order to disprove a miracle? How would those who beheld the resurrection firsthand describe it? And, in the film’s most memorable scene—what would a Tribune who participated in killing Christ say to Him in a private conversation? Finally, there is Jesus. The character says very little in the film. But the questions He asks are probing, insightful, and draped in love and joy. While the Christ role is secondary in this film, Jesus is portrayed exactly how He might have lived. He is neither distracted by the mundane, nor unsympathetic to those who seek Him. He is forgiving, and smiling, and His penultimate meeting with the Tribune is an understated masterpiece of conversation. Risen is a philosophical, evidential, and emotional pièce de résistance in the telling of one man’s journey to explain the contradiction of what he saw, and what he sees. It is undoubtedly the portrayal of what many skeptics endured the week following Christ’s death. The gospel message is presented ever-so-subtly, but is summed up near the end of the film in the question Jesus asks the Tribune Clavius: “What are you afraid of?” The answer is everyman’s: “Being wrong...going into eternity.”