"I have seen two things which I cannot reconcile: A man dead without question, and that same man alive again." Clavius (Fiennes) is a Roman Tribune who has just been told to go complete a crucifixion where a Sentinel has refused. The next day he is tasked with making sure the body stays in the tomb. When he arrives in the morning and finds the tomb empty the course of human history is changed forever. Many of these religious themed movies fall in a trap of becoming too cheesy and too in your face for a main stream audience. This one is an exception. As expected there are some very religious aspects to this, but its never in your face or distracting enough to make you feel like you are being preached to. In fact even though everyone knows the story of this movie they never use the name Jesus. The movie is movie of a detective/missing body movie that a religious epic. For that reason the movie is main stream, watchable and something I did like a lot more than I expected to. Overall, a religious movie for the masses that feels like an actual movie and not a Sunday school lesson. I give this a B.
Add a Review
-
larrys328 May 2016I'm normally not drawn to faith-based films, but I'm glad I ended up seeing this one. It's told in a non-preachy way, and if one can put their religious prejudices aside, I think the movie can be an absorbing watch.
Joseph Fiennes commands the screen here in a superb performance as Clavius, a loyal and intrepid Roman Tribune in Judea, in the year 33 A.D.. He's dispatched by Prefect Pontius Pilate (Peter Firth) to locate the body of Yeshua (Cliff Curtis) after his crucifixion and subsequent disappearance from his burial tomb. Rumors are rampant among the subjugated Judean people that Yeshua has risen from the dead and reappeared in human form thereafter. Pilate fears this will further incite insurrection among the Judeans, and with Emperor Tiberius Caesar visiting shortly he needs calm to be restored to the area.
However, when Clavius finally tracks down Yeshua's disciples, he will find certain miracles that occur before him. This will trigger a journey and a quest on his part to try and reconcile in his mind what exactly is the truth.
All in all, this very well presented movie, directed by Kevin Reynolds, who co-wrote the script with Paul Aiello, was, as some reviewers have noted, not what I expected and was for me a surprisingly good watch. -
amyamy-494219 March 2016Risen gave a fresh but solemn view of the biblical story of the aftermath of Jesus's crucifixion as it tells the story through the eyes of a conflicted and emotionally drained Roman soldier named Clavius. Clavius seems more of a tired observer with his deep stare and mellow manner, and he seems appalled by the violence that the Roman soldiers perform, violence that he himself is called on to perform as well. He is tired of it all and wants to retire to a quiet life with a family, without witnessing any more deaths. None-the-less, duty demands that he kill from time to time, which he dutifully does, and he seems half mortified over this, and half compliant. During the battle in the beginning of the movie, Clavius apathetically kills a Jewish rebel, and later, during the tri-crucifixion scene, he orders a Roman soldier to break a prisoner's leg as he's dying on the cross, then runs his spear through Jesus's ribs, and he's no more bothered by this than if someone fender-bendered him at the supermarket.
The way Fiennes played his role as a troubled Roman official was intriguing, capturing civilians to question them about the whereabouts of Jesus's body, then dismissing them at will. The viewer expected Clavius to perhaps resort to violence or torture to get his captures to speak and reveal where Jesus's body is, knowledge that he desperately needed to satisfy his commander, Pontius Pilate. However, Clavius never quite went that far, either out of compassion or exhaustion. While Fiennes was cast well, Curtis, who plays Jesus, is a cross between a California hippie and a happy skateboard dude in a Coke commercial. In his final good-bye scene, Jesus glibly calls across the sand yelling his farewell as if mom was telling her kids to be good while dad's in charge.
Clavius's young side kick Lucius is played by Tom Felton, and unlike Draco, Lucius follows Clavius around looking confused. Bartholomew was my favorite character. Clavius demands that Bartholomew tell him where Jesus's body is, and Bartholomew grins flippantly and conveys that he ain't telling nothing'! Clavius interrogates him more harshly, kicks him to the ground, and Bartholomew gets up and slowly approaches Clavius, solemnly bends down to his ear, and says, "he's everywhere!" Then Bartholomew beams and prances away; the joke's on Clavius! The only more comical scene was when Clavius asked a group of men, "Does any of you know Mary Magdalene?" and all of them raised their hands. One more -- I was amused when Mary Magdalene looked like Miss Karate Woman beats Godzilla when she kicked an advancing soldier out of her way and escaped through a stone window. Mary is cast well, but her role is too brief, as is all the twelve disciples who are never given any individual definition (except for Simon, who sometimes pouts, and who sometimes is as happy as Santa Claus). Pontius Pilate is old and whiny and is fixated on not upsetting public opinion. Maybe he was really like that, but they don't show the inner turmoil he must have felt being forced to kill an innocent man to placate the masses.
We all know the ending, but Risen takes an unorthodox (if you will) direction. We see facial expressions of shock and realization that tell the story better than computer-generated special effects, and we are constantly grounded into this time period with the frequent buzzing of flies over rotting bodies, hair filled with dust and sand, broken statues of the gods, and earthquakes that crack massive stone gates. Thus, Risen shows instead of tells, and doesn't preach, thank God. -
allstarrunner18 February 2016With the most recent Biblical movies that Hollywood has come out with, Noah and Exodus, the main complaint, at least from the Christian viewer-base, was that they didn't stick to the accuracy of the Bible; in this film they do - so it has that going for it, if you're a Christian.
At the top of the IMDb page it lists this movie as Action, Adventure, and Drama; but in reality it's pretty much just drama. There is a 3 minute action sequence at the beginning and that is about it. It's not bad that it's Drama, but it is a slower paced movie - I only point this out because that is one of things I like to know when going into a movie.
The movie itself wasn't terribly exciting, but for the Christian audience, who like to see portions of the Bible "brought to life", I think it will find a decent viewer ship. That being said, if it's Friday night and you're looking for a fun movie, then this probably isn't it.
Thankfully, this isn't another "God's Not Dead" where they smack you in the face over and over again with how awesome Christians are and how terrible atheists are - it basically just sticks to a fictional storyline of what might have happened to a Roman centurion who is in charge of finding the missing body.
The bottom line is this movie is the very definition of "good" to me, not bad, but not great...just good. -
If you are believer than you have to envy Joseph Fiennes playing a Roman Tribune who was the first outsider to witness the seminal event of human history, the resurrection of Jesus and his ascension into heaven. In fact the story of Risen which is a film about something I always wanted to see made is done from the Roman point of view.
Although when Jesus was crucified the Emperor Tiberius had absolutely no intention to leave the Isle of Capri where he had given himself over into all manner of debauchery (see I Claudius) it's an impending visit that is the reason for Judean Governor Pontius Pilate's concern. It's why for instance he ordered the arrest and trial of a former carpenter turned itinerant preacher named Yeshua in Hebrew. As Pilate Peter Firth puts Fiennes and his new assistant Tom Felton in charge.
It is known that this Yeshua predicted in three days that he would arise from the dead, some precautions are taken and the tomb of Joseph of Arimathea is opened by some magic and there's no body there. That starts what in effect is a police investigation with the Romans reaching out to their usual group of stoolies like any police force does. For Fiennes eventually he finds some real proof positive.
The Gospels aren't very clear as to the events of the next few weeks. I recall that it is said that Jesus just hung out with his disciples, was seen by a few witnesses, what we would call unconfirmed sightings as per the authorities who were the Romans. In this film Cliff Curtis as Jesus even heals a leper on the shores of the sea of Gallilee before his ascension.
For any who are expecting grand pageantry like King Of Kings or The Greatest Story Ever Told this ain't the film to seek it. Curtis is quite the workingman, dressed like a carpenter or any other tradesman would be of the time. This is a man who hung out with fishermen and a lowly bureaucrat in Matthew. No white raiment for this interpretation of Jesus. It's only when he heals the leper and at the end makes the ascension to heaven that you know he's special. In fact compare this film's interpretation of that event with Max Von Sydow in The Greatest Story Ever Told.
Risen is a well crafted piece of cinema with Fiennes as our witness/protagonist giving a great performance. Risen will do well in more than the Christian film circuit. -
Risen is a Biblical Drama/Adventure film that follows Roman Tribune 'Clavius' (Joseph Fiennes) who is tasked with investigating the disappearance of the body of 'Jesus of Nazareth', who has been rumoured to have resurrected. This movie was a very pleasant surprise as i went into it expecting just an average film about a story that has been represented on the big screen many many times, but i got a very interesting, and dramatic film that had me hooked right to the very end. Many of these biblical films do touch on many of the same beats, but this film approached the story in some interesting ways and offered enough new to differentiate it from the others. The film featured some excellent/very good and convincing performances, but also had one or two miscasts. The story progressed at a steady pace for most of the film making it very easy to follow, and the film was also accompanied by a pretty good soundtrack that i did not expect at all.
One thing this film did with its story that really worked in its favour was tell the story through the eyes of a non-believer, and that added so much more to the story and more interest in the film. This added element let the story take turns that you wouldn't get from just an average biblical film and was great to see. The film also 'looked' very good in terms of the scenery and cinematography, it was very subdued and didn't really have grand set pieces and scenery that were obviously CGI. This really helped the film seem very grounded and i couldn't be distracted by any obvious CGI.
I have to say that i enjoyed the last 2/3 of the film much more than the first 1/3. I felt that there were some pretty big pacing issues in the beginning where it either felt like it was progressing too slow or it was moving too fast. There was a lot of jumping through time and skipping over quite a few scenes, and it was quite jarring at times. But as the story developed it quickly flowed at a very steady pace for the rest of the film and i quickly forgave it for its earlier blunders. In terms of performance, Joseph Fiennes was fantastic in the film as 'Clavius', he was the standout in the film and put in a very convincing and engaging performance that carried the film, especially early on. There were also good performances from other side-characters who elevated the film especially later on, but they weren't all good. Peter Firth who was cast as 'Pontius Pilate' was really not good at all, the way he delivered his lines felt very forced and not natural at all. Tom Felton was also a complete miscast, he just did not work at all as a Roman Soldier and his dialogue was very wooden and fake and just gave the impression that he was overacting and did take me out of it a little.
So in the end this was a surprisingly very good biblical film that offered enough new elements to this familiar story to differentiate it from the countless other similar films. This film would have been much better had they cast someone other than Tom Felton, as he was bringing down the film when Joseph Fiennes was putting in a fantastic performance. It's no 'Passion of the Christ' but it is better than a lot of other biblical films to come out in recent years.
7.3/10 -
JohnDeSando19 February 2016For a fallen-down Catholic boy like me, seeing Risen, a take on the weeks after Christ's Resurrection, should have offered me a year's supply of cynicism. As it turns out, the film was a pleasant trip back to the days when I did believe, when awe was a companion of my faith.
This uninspired Biblical thriller shows a powerful Roman tribune, Flavius (an underplaying to good effect Joseph Fiennes), ordered by Pilate (Peter Firth) to get rid of the Nazarene, and after His resurrection, find Him, and kill Him again. With restraint, director Kevin Reynolds makes even me a brief believer because the actors, from Cliff Curtis (Yeshua--Jesus) to Mary Magdalene (Maria Botto), play their roles with a natural affection that's supported by no swelling music or dazed looks.
But it's Fiennes who impressed me most: As he plays a character who is probably meant to be a surrogate for doubters like me in the audience, he actually makes us believers for the moment. So dedicated he is to proving this Messiah a hoax that his growing belief becomes a balm for our disbelief.
Beyond this nicely played worship is a set that looks like it came from a hundred other "B" movie sword and sandal epics. Yet, the underplayed plot, which pretty much follows the New Testament depiction of Christ's resurrection, has a quiet charm that reminds us of the Biblical text that needs no resurrection: It is with us forever. -
askragh21 February 2016First of all, this review contains a spoiler.
Now this movie is 1:47 long. In that time, there was in fact two movies, the first hour was truly like a detective story unfolding during the time of Jesus Christ's death and resurrection. The development of the Tribune within the context of service to the emperor as well as locally to Pilate was well done. However, the greatest tragedy of writing in this movie was after the Tribune discovers Jesus meeting with his disciples, very much risen, welcoming him into the room. Initially, all that the Tribune can do is drop his sword. At that moment, all that made sense to this Roman - the Empire, the emperor, law, order, his role, everything - no longer had any relevance. This is when the movie should have ended. Unfortunately, what we get is a completely different tone from now on. With little character development we get a "Forest Gump" meets "Travels with Charley" tour of miracles and a jaunt to Galilee. Clearly, the movie had lost the focus from the first half and there was some felt need to show "Jesus in action" rather than people in action because of their faith in Jesus. Truly unfortunate. This made a 4 star movie into at best 3 stars, falling flat and shining little. -
mancuniangr29 April 2019I have to start by saying that it's a shame this film hasn't got the acclaim that it deserves.Why?Because it is a film that it has to do with the Christian religion and generally in today's society these kind of films aren't politically correct, if you know what i mean. I am a Christian Orthodox myself and i have to say that this movie ''touched'' me and moved me. It covers the period from the Crucifixion of Christ till his Ascension,but not through the eyes of a disciple or a follower of his.It's how a Roman tribune witnesses it, trying to find the body of Christ after his Resurrection. Tribune Clavius played superbly by Joseph Fiennes is ordered by Pilate to find the body of Christ because the Romans believed it was stolen. I don't want to say anymore because i don't want to spoil it,but through his quest for the truth he will experience things that he wouldn't believe if he hadn't seen them with his own eyes.The scenery is excellent and there is no exaggeration in the story. There is also an evident respect by trying to tell the story in a very honest way and not to add any unnecessary visual effects, just to make it extremely dramatic. Again Joseph Fiennes is excellent and he should be very proud of his performance. That is an Oscar winning performance in any other film, but as i have said because it is a religious film it hasn't got him the praise that he should got. Overall an excellent film, that for those who have read and know the facts, will in my opinion be a classic.
-
billcr1224 April 2016I must confess that I am a retired Catholic with strong antipathy towards all organized religion. Having stated that, I can still recommend Risen as a well made and well intentioned film by director Kevin Reynolds. The cast is uniformly excellent, with the lead, Joseph Fiennes as a Roman soldier drawn into the political intrigue at Jesus'(Yeshua here), Crucifixion and resurrection. Peter Firth is Pilate, the ultimate politician and deal maker. He uses Clavius(Fiennes) to track down the body of Yeshua after he goes missing after the required three days. It is, of course, a familiar story to most of the world. Clavius leaves no stone unturned(pardon the pun) in his search for the messiah. He eventually tracks down the twelve disciples and through a series of mysterious events, is transformed into a new man. Separating my own skepticism from the artistic merit of Risen is easy. It is a beautifully shot cinematic experience without the overdone violence of Mel Gibson's Passion of the Christ, an extremely unpleasant viewing experience. Kevin Reynolds kept it simple and straight forward without a preaching tone. Risen is worth your time.
-
mikoman228 August 2016Should you see this movie? You will probably WILL like this movie if: 1) You are a traditional Christian looking for a moving affirmation of your beliefs in the traditional post-crucifixion narrative. 2) You are anyone who enjoys the portrayal of world religions and mythos, even with creative liberties taken.
You will probably NOT like this movie if: 3) You are a traditional Christian who cannot abide any portrayal of your faith tradition that is not supported by scripture. 4) You are a non-traditional Christian hoping for a more daring re-interpretation of the Resurrection and Ascension motif in Christianity. 5) You are anyone offended by religious motif movies that positively portray core beliefs.
Personally, I am in the #2 camp. The first half of the movie was an excellent excursion into the political dynamics of Roman-occupied Judea and the psychology of Roman officials who have little interest in the internal conflicts of the local religious establishment but will do what it takes to maintain the Pax Romana. The sets are first-rate and the acting by Joseph Fiennes and Peter Firth offer an interesting dimension to the Roman mentality of the fictional Clavius and historical Pilate.
But half-way through the film, the film switches tracks (or simply derails) when Clavius has his conversion moment in the Upper Room. Afterwards, the movie loses its strongest thread and becomes a rather flat and plodding account of the familiar biblical story of the Resurrection and Ascension, all taken literally. The character of Clavius isn't really necessary except for those emotionally vested in his unfolding conversion. Pilate is likewise dropped from any meaningful character development. The focus is now on the disciples, who I think are best described as Judean hippies, and their relationship to an unimpressive Yeshua (Jesus) character.
The evangelical character of Risen is mostly kept to a low boil but is clearly, and painfully, expounded when Yeshua asks Clavius what he is afraid of and our transformed Roman tribune answers "Being wrong; and wagering eternity on it." A blatant use of Pascal's Wager, a common trope used by evangelical Christians. But that was the only occasion I felt the movie was trying to assault the audience and for the most part only passively invited the audience to come along for the ride to witness key moments in Christian mythology, draw their own conclusions and follow their own hearts. -
ma-cortes4 April 2018Acceptable and memorable film in which a Roman Agent : Joseph Fiennes along with his helper : Tom Felton are commissionated to resolve rumors of the resurrection of an executed convict : Cliff Curtis .In 33 AD in a remote part of the empire called Palestine , sent to to disprove the resurrection and on a spiritual quest the Tribune discovers faith, friendship , wonderful events and a revelation that could shatter the Roman Empire to find the body of Jesus Christ . This is the thrilling tale of a quest to uncover the mystery of all mysteries and while an officer finds out a surprising truth , to discover the body of Jesus Christ who rose from the dead .
Here is treated the Resurrection as a mystery thriller including noisy action , fights , suspense , intrigue and pursuits. This is an interesting treatment of the political and religious thought-world of the time convincingly developed and the intent of the filmmakers is ultimately both ambitious and entertaining. Interpretations are awesome, Joseph Fiennes as the doubtful Tribune gives a magnificent acting , he plays a hard-nosed investigator who finally finds out the marvelous truth , he rises to the occasion especially in the crucial last half-hour . Peter Firth is a credible governor Pontius Pilatus who sends Tribune Clavius off on a dangerous mission. And a nice support cast mostly formed by Spanish actors playing Apostles and Jews as Thomas: Jean Cornet, Andrew:MarioTardon, Thaddeus:Lorente, Joseph Arimatea: Antonio Gil , Jose: Luis Callejo, and Maria Botto as Mary Magdalene. All of them deliver some insightful dialogs.The picture has a Christian point of view that holds interest , delivering an enjoyable Catholic vision fitting itself to religious canon. This is an Usa-Spain coproduction being well set in Malta and Almeria ,Andalucia .Colorful and adequate cinematography by Lorenzo Senatore. Special mention for musical score marvelously composed by Roque Baños , plenty of catching and evocative sounds.
The motion picture was compellingly directed by Kevin Reynolds . Kevin is a good craftsman with hits and flops , including titles as Robin Hood,The beast of the war, Waterworld, 187 , Fandango , Tristan and Isolda. Rating : better than average , well worth watching .
This film by Kevin Reynolds had two previous renditions: 1987 titled The Inquiry by Damiano Damiani with Keith Carradine , Harvey Keitel, Phyllis Logan and 2oo6 The Final Inquiry by Giulio Base with Daniel Liotti , Dolph Lundgren, Monica Cruz , Ornella Muti. -
Set in Jerusalem in AD33, this is the tale of Clavius (Joseph Fiennes), a Roman tribune tasked with finding the body of Yeshua (Cliff Curtis) to destroy the rumours that he is the Messiah.
For Yeshua, read Jesus. It's a tale we know well, but Clavius has yet to discover the truth. His hard bitten Roman intellect, born out of military service and harsh necessity, refuses to accept the supernatural tale unravelling before him. Pontius Pilate (Colin Firth) exerts increasing pressure, needing to quell unrest before the Emperor arrives. What follows is a well played and involving detective story, as Clavius pursues clues and suspects in search of the truth and a body.
His search eventually leads him to a spiritual awakening, and the film changes. It's no longer a detective story. It's a story about something much bigger and I don't need to tell you what that is.
Fiennes is very good as Clavius. Convincing both as the put upon tribune, under pressure to solve the mystery of the missing body, and as the man for whom everything changes.
For this viewer, this is an interesting take on an oft told tale, from a very different perspective. If you are an atheist without an open mind, this probably isn't for you. Otherwise, I'd recommend it. -
drjgardner19 February 2016I was under the mistaken impression that this was a detective mystery set in Biblical times where two Romans are asked to investigate the death of Jesus. Superficially that is the premise of the story, but rather than a detective mystery it is more of a "faith film". People who are looking for a faith film will be more pleased with the film than I was.
The film seems more like a docudrama than a film, as the acting is certainly understated and the sets are not exactly overwhelming. Nonetheless it has appeal, and the acting of Joseph Fiennes (the Roman detective), Cliff Curtis (Jesus), and Maria Botto (Mary of Magdala) seems sincere.
There are problems with the film, the major one being the depiction of Mary as a street walker (which she wasn't) and the de-emphasis of her role as a disciple. As such the film has a view of the life of Christ which is more mid 20th Century than contemporary views.
I don't see where this film adds anything to the pantheon of films about the life of Jesus. It's not a bad film, and as I said, if you're looking for a faith film you will enjoy it. -
bunkyfoozil11 May 2019I am a show biz professional and tony voter and this is a lovely movie with a breathtaking performance by Joseph Fiennes. He is absolutely wonderful with an authentic disciplined and beautiful arc to his work.
-
SnoopyStyle27 August 2017Clavius (Joseph Fiennes) is a Roman military Tribune in 33 AD Judea. He puts down a rebellion by Barabbas. After the latest crucifixion, rumors spread that a man named Yeshua (Cliff Curtis) is set to rise again. Pilate (Peter Firth) assigns Clavius and his aide Lucius (Tom Felton) the task of investigating the impossible tale.
It's always nice to take a different spin on familiar iconic stories. This is one of the most iconic. It starts with Barabbas as a heroic rebel leader. While that's part of Biblical tradition, I like more the other interpretation of him as a lowly murderous bandit. It just makes the injustice of the pardon greater. The heroic version irked me while watching this. There are bits of good biblical yarn. It's not anything earth shattering. It's a nice and easy religious film. -
Mixture of facts and fiction. It is interesting to see the story through the eyes of Roman Official. It is also interesting to see him discovering the Risen Jesus himself. There is no records or even well documented tradition that it happened but though it is fiction, in fact it could happen. Unfortunately the action in Galilee is too much of mixing facts and fiction. It does not sell well. But in general portraying Jesus and the Apostles in each movie of this kind is a challenge. Overall, for those who know the Gospel well this film might be interesting and just interesting. For those who do not know the Gospel it might be confusing. But the message is there. And it counts.
-
rmax30482317 August 2017A tale of a responsible but weary Roman Tirbune in Judea (Feinnes, as Clavius) who is ordered by Pontius Pilate (Firth) to go and make sure the Nazarene Yeshua (Curtis), who has been crucified and hanging up there for three days is dead yet. "Do him a favor. Break his legs," suggests Pilate, no unkindly. Clavius does as ordered, reluctantly because as a soldier he's already seen so much death. Clavius decides to bring on Yeshua's death more quickly by ordering a spear thrust into his side, and Yeshua promptly dies.
But all the unrest isn't over. The Hebrew council, the Sanhedrin, need to be sure their authority isn't challenged by this newcomer who is considered the Messiah, so they ask Pontius Pilate to give them the body, which they will seal in a rocky tomb under the eyes of the Romans. This is to prevent any chicanery because there is this myth going around that Yeshua will rise from the dead. Despite the two Roman guards left overnight at the tomb, whose discipline was admittedly slack, the next day the ropes have been burst from the seal, the stone rolled away, and the tomb empty.
The rest of the film has Pilate ordering Clavius to find the body. During an extensive search Clavius does, in fact, find the body -- alive and well, and still bearing the wounds incurred during its crucifixion. Not only that, but Yeshua heals a leper and brings about the miracle of the fishes. Clavius more or less converts, helps the apostles to safety but, unable to bring himself to join them in spreading the gospel, he wanders off alone and thoroughly despondent. He gives his esteemed and valuable Tribune ring to the keeper of a dilapidated inn falling apart in the desert. In the words of the old song, "one thousand miles from home, and I don't even know my name," while the apostles are off on their several treks singing Gumbaya with all the converts they're making.
The theme of the pagan warrior being converted to Christianity or at least to a belief in the risen Christ isn't a new one. See films like "The Robe" or "Ben Hur." But this one is a cut above most, partly because of the ambiance and mostly because of the intelligent script and some first-rate performances. The green-speckled rocks and dunes are almost lavender. And although the iconography is not as raw as Pasolini's "The Gospel According to St. Mathew", it's pretty rough. Everybody is dusty and sometimes caked with blood. In other words, the characters and settings look credible. Feinnes is outstanding as Clavius, who undergoes a transformation but winds up more bewildered than before. As Yeshua, Curtis has a distinctly unprepossessing appearance. He's not Jeffrey Hunter, Robert Powell, or even Max von Sydow. He looks like an ordinary Mediterranean type who, except for his ever-present smile, might not appear out of place in a police mug shot. Firth is smooth as the practical and unflappable, but understanding Pontius Pilate.
Bad stuff. Not much of it. But the music is a cliché from beginning to end, what with holy choirs, as Yeshua backs away from the apostles into a rising sun and disappears in a blaze of glory, a blaze the mature viewer might well have done without. In "Faust," the devil was modest enough to disappear in a puff of smoke. -
barryjohnjones20 May 2016an okay film but 2 things were disappointing (spoiler Alert!) Portraying Mary Magdelane as a prostitute. Nowhere does it say that in any gospel (although many still believe the roman truth that she was) (I personally believe that she was portrayed as such because it suited a male led society to belittle her influence and power) Showing the (very dubious) Turin Shroud... laughable. Even if you believe it to be real What were the film makers thinking. Again... not a bad film just not a very good one. People will believe what they want, I would be surprised if this movie makes any difference to someone's faith (or lack of). Over to you, Jesus.
-
mjjusa-120 February 2016With nothing else to see, I went, somewhat reluctantly, to see the new Biblically inspired, movie, 'Risen' (which, as you can see, got good reviews on IMDb). Ostensibly about the crucifixion and resurrection of Christ, it's more a logical investigation imaginatively laid atop a history lesson, a key miracle of the New Testament, and a logical examination of rational thought challenged by inexplicable events. Told from the perspective of a Roman Tribune sent to investigate how Jesus' physical body disappeared from it's tomb, it's a story well told, seems historically authentic, and I (a lapsed Catholic/agnostic/skeptic) recommend it highly. It was also an interesting exercise in memory, as I strained to remember what I remember from hours of Catechism, and yearly celebrations of Good Friday, Easter, and the Feast of the Assumption...which turned out to be...not much.
There are parts which recall 'Life of Brian', it's a little bit long, the disciples resemble the inhabitants of the hippie commune in 'Easy Rider', Bartholomew is completely over the top, and the actor who plays Christ is iffy. But, then again, he is tasked with the impossible role of being man and God (just what expression would you choose if you played Christ?) without descending into camp farce. All in all, he does OK.
Joseph Fiennes plays the Tribune with authenticity, honesty, and an openness which allowed me to put myself in his place...how does a rational man deal with fundamental challenges to his heretofore solid as a rock, world? When do you surrender to faith when all the 'reason' in the world suggests that reason has little to do with it all?
It's a good movie, well worth seeing. -
It is pure coincidence that I watched Kevin Reynolds' Risen right after finishing Andrei Tarkovsky's body of work, but Tarkovsky's thematic focuses and motifs have really colored my reading of the 2016 film. It didn't influence my overall opinion of Risen, but it does provide some interesting context about why I think this film succeeds when it succeeds and fails when it fails.
The story follows Joseph Fiennes' Clavius, a Roman Tribune, in Judea at the time of Christ. After putting down a small rebel faction led by Barrabas, he returns to Pontius Pilate (Peter Firth) who gives him a new mission. The Jewish messianic figure, Yeshua (Cliff Curtis), has been crucified. Clavius is to go to the place of skulls and end the man's suffering to bring an end to the riotous Passover that just swept over Jerusalem. Clavius is a cynic and materialist. His objective in life is to acquire power and wealth to eventually see a day without death, as he puts it to Pilate. When he arrives at the crucifixion, his men are moved by the death of Yeshua, but Clavius is not. It's another task to be had, and he's perfectly willing to hand off the body to Joseph of Arimathea since it means that the task is done.
That's not the end of the story, though. The Jewish authorities come to Pilate and demand guards at Yeshua's tomb to prevent the disciples from stealing the body and claiming him to be risen after three days, as Yeshua had prophesized. Clavius puts two men on the tomb and goes home to the garrison. The next day, the guards are gone, the tomb looks like it has burst open, and the huge stone cover is a dozen feet from the entrance while the body is yet to be found.
What follows is Risen at its best. It's an investigation into the impossible by a materialist determined to find the truth. He needs to find Yeshua's body to help put down the new cult, especially in the face of the Roman Emperor's impending arrival. And yet, the evidence he's hearing from witness testimony doesn't make sense. There's the blind woman who insists she heard Yeshua's voice days after his death. There are the two guards who ran to the Jewish authorities afterwards out of fear of their Roman masters, telling obviously inconsistent tales of Yeshua's disciples overcoming them in the night. There's the apostle Bartholemew and the woman Mary Magdalene who look at Clavius with the eyes of zealots completely of the belief that Yeshua has returned.
Why I think of Tarkovsky in context with Risen is this section, especially Nostalghia. Andrei was a cynic with nothing to believe, much like Clavius. Domenico's faith is similar to the zealous faith of Magdalene and Bartholemew. These demonstrations of faith in the face of no solid evidence, pushing Clavius past his cynicism, and it's strongly compelling.
And then...Clavius witnesses a miracle himself. The moment itself is strong, and I think it would have worked better as the end of his actual story. Instead it's the midpoint, and Clavius ends up joining up with the apostles on a trip to Galilee. It's not that this journey is bad, but it is far less interesting and compelling than what came before. What's more interesting to watch? A man finding faith in something he can't see but can't deny? Or a man finding faith while witnessing actual miracles? To bring up Tarkovsky again, the journeys of his characters were compelling largely because they were about men finding faith in a world of Silence, needing to find meaning in a world where materialism didn't do enough to give their lives purpose. Actually witnessing miracles, like world peace breaking out at the completion of Andrei's task, just wouldn't be as interesting.
Clavius becoming witness to the apostles' journey also muddles the narrative focus of the film. There's a sudden influx of new characters, mostly Simon Peter, who help try to provide answers and context around the open questions left by Yeshua's resurrection. None of this is really bad, and the quest for further illumination isn't completely uncompelling, but it is less interesting than what came before.
A different tact, I think, that would have kept the film from declining in quality in its second half would be to have Tom Felton's character, Lucius, the new second in command for Clavius, become the main character. Assume Clavius has reached his own faith, and Lucius, in pursuing Clavius towards Galilee, Lucius would question how his materialist superior officer become a zealot. Lucius could go through a similar journey towards faith without direct evidence. Most people have faith without direct evidence, and the revelation of evidence for a character ends up less compelling to audiences because it's no longer relatable.
I ended up mixed on the film overall after the really compelling first half that I kind of loved. There's an interesting story in the first half and a far less interesting journey in the second. Well produced with a strong sense of making the most of real world locations and fairly well acted, Risen could have been more interesting than it ends up being. -
jlupia-7763026 February 2016RISEN –REVIEW
Risen is another rationalistic approach to religious filmmaking which never fails to disappoint. The dialogue is very poorly written. The characters are not recognizable as coming from the New Testament narratives. Kevin Reynolds and Paul Aiello have taken a very clever idea of telling the crucifixion, resurrection, and post resurrection accounts through the eyes of a detective but miserably failed and ruined it by giving us a very poorly developed, researched, written, casted, and acted film from its tragically weak and muddled beginning to its inauthentic anticlimactic end.
One should not place blame on the actors for their poor performances, but rather, to the poor direction given to them by Reynolds. The main character, Clavius (Joseph Fiennes), a Roman Tribune, is sent by Pilate (Peter Firth) to break the legs of Christ on the Cross as an act of mercy. When he arrives Jesus (Cliff Curtis) is already dead. Because of Jesus' mother Mary's presence (Frida Cauchi) and her insatiable weeping at the Cross he dispatches a Roman soldier to pierce his heart rather than break his legs as a gesture of courtesy to her. Historically, Romans broke legs to either hasten the death or to confirm it. Neither Martin Hengel, Crucifixion (1977) nor Gunnar Samuelsson, Crucifixion in Antiquity (2013) ever reports that Romans typically or optionally pierced the heart of the crucified with a lance. It gets worse. It seems the day after the crucifixion Caiaphas (Stephen Grief), the chief priest of the Temple in Jerusalem suggests Jesus' body should be burned to avoid the potential threat of propaganda from his disciples that he is risen from the dead as he had prophesied. So instead Pilate counter suggests that they seal his tomb and place a guard there.
Of course the two men (Andy Gathergood and Jacob Yakob) put on sentry duty are complaining like spoiled children moaning that they were supposed to get the night off. To appease them Clavius promises to send someone who will bring them their supper. He doesn't. The whiners whine (pun intended) getting drunk and pass out. All of this unnecessary nonsense caters to the skeptics in the audience who do not believe in the reality of the physical resurrection, supplying them with ample plausible deniability. Well, what do ya know, the body of Jesus is reported missing the next day, it being the third since the crucifixion. Pilate does not want problems with those very powerful Jewish priests who seem to have some secret influence over him at Rome. So he sends Clavius to find the body of Jesus and arrest the disciples who broke into the tomb and spreading the lie that he has risen. During the so-called investigation Clavius enters the tomb beginning at the scene of the crime. There he finds the linen shroud as a photographic replica of the Shroud of Turin. Very poor choice, indeed! The Shroud of Turin contains the negative, not the positive photographic image of Christ. So research goofs and foibles in the film abound.
Silliness was also a part of the script and production. The best example of this weird and very odd aspect of the film was when the apostle Bartholomew (Stephen Hagan) is brought in for questioning. The character is straight out of Jesus Christ Super Star or Godspell, a very late 1960's Encino flower child who ate too many happy meals.
It does get worse. Lo and behold, Clavius finds a dead male Jew who was crucified pierced in his hands, feet and side giving the hungry skeptics more chewable clatter cluttering up a film purportedly made about faith. Pilate is satisfied having the corpse, but Clavius for some unknown reason is not. The weaknesses in the plot only get even worse. For neither an apparent nor explainable reason Clavius directly disobeys Pilate, who commands him to go to Hebron where he and his troops are needed. Instead and inexplicably Clavius continues to investigate the whereabouts of the body of Jesus, which he already delivered to Pilate, and is dead set out to find and arrest his disciples. Go figure! Anyway he opens the door to the upper room finding the eleven apostles and Jesus all having a jolly good time.
And here you have it --- one quarter through the film Clavius is miraculously converted at this jovial dinning sight and the rest of the film could have been edited out in the editing room since the so-called detective story ends.
The remainder of the film ineptly wrestles with the consequences facing Clavius who has now deserted his post and Rome intertwined with new silly twists to the post resurrection narratives! The originally intended classic Hollywood big finish must have been the scene where Jesus is not ascended into heaven but simply disappears in a sonic boom that hits earth from the biggest sunspot of all time. However, they changed that as the ending to show a Cecil B. DeMillesque scene showing the arrival of Caesar to Judea with Pilate saying they will never see or hear from Clavius again. Let's hope so. -
AlsExGal17 October 2016This is the best Christian film I have seen in a long time. The worst of them are chock full of stereotypes, contradictions, and just plain bad writing and acting (cough...God Is Not Dead...cough). This one has none of that. It is the story of a Roman tribune, Clavius, who is stationed in Judea at the time of Christ. He puts down uprisings and kills the rebels, but he has neither joy nor sadness about this fate. It is simply his job and he is rather stoic about it. It is part of his long term plan that gets him back to Rome, position and power, wealth, a good family, and then a home in the country - "a day without death" as he puts it.
The governor of Judea, Pontius Pilate, assigns Clavius to find the body of Jesus when it disappears from its tomb. The next 20 minutes or so of the film is like an ancient CSI as Clavius methodically seeks out Jesus' believers and tries to get them to talk. He thinks he has tracked down the body to a small room. Clavius draws his sword, kicks down the door preparing to fight, and there, sitting in a circle are the twelve disciples with Jesus looking right at him. He knows this is the man he saw dead on the cross days ago, he sees his wounds, yet he is alive. He cannot just go back, so he follows these disciples to Jesus' ascension. Particularly moving is the conversation between Jesus and Clavius as they sit alone at night. What will Clavius do in the end? Watch and find out.
The filmmakers took the time to get so many aspects of the film right. The coin under the tongue of the dead Roman soldiers and the funeral pyres for them, the open grave where the bodies of the executed are tossed, not buried, the horror of an actual crucifixion, and the simple love and joy of the original Christian faith. And they don't try to paint Clavius as some searching soul. He is quite at home in Roman culture, praying to Mars - the Romans had a quid pro quo arrangement with their gods. The mortal offers to do something, if the god will do something. The only thing that stops him in his tracks is seeing something that reason tells him cannot be.
I like how for once Jesus looks like someone who actually was born at the intersection of Europe, Asia, and Africa. He has swarthy skin, and his physique is unremarkable. He is not ugly or handsome, neither tall nor short. Ironically Jesus is played by the New Zealand Maori actor, Cliff Curtis, born half a world away from the setting of the film.
Kudos to the actor who played Pontius Pilate too. He truly captures the essence of a toady politician who has enough conscience to regret doing something he thinks is wrong, but if it is you or his career he will choose his career every time. And the emperor is coming for a visit and Pilate above all wants the emperor to find order in Judea when he arrives. This is the motive for everything he does.
I'd highly recommend this film. -
Joseph Fiennes as Clavius carries this film and out-acts just about everyone, with the exception of Peter Firth who does a pretty good Pilate. (thought not quite as good as Hristo Shopov in 'The Passion')
I could not help compare this to Mel Gibsons excellent Passion of The Christ and although a good movie 'Risen' doesn't quite get there in my opinion.
In parts the movie is pretty accurate, showing the Pharasees and other religious leaders for the hypocrites that Jesus had said they were.
Some of the inaccuracies are unnecessary. According to the Bible, Jesus was already dead when they came to break his legs and was speared just to make sure he was dead and not as a mercy killing as shown in the film.
It was a shame they included the Shroud image in the tomb as this is seriously disputed as authentic and may even be a deliberate middle ages fraud.
The worse part for me was how Jesus followers were shown as hippy like bordering on mad at times (especially Bartholomew. None of them seemed in the least like men who had followed Jesus for three years.
Cliff Curtis is not too bad as Yeshua (Jesus) but it is a hard role for anyone to try to please everyone. At least he was not portrayed as a skinny weak Caucasian as he so often is in these type of films.
The film is at times unnecessary show and drawn out such as the disciples journey to the Sea of Galilee, but over all it is an enjoyable movie without too many of the modern Church doctrine bias we see in so many of these movies. In fact one of the best parts is when they get to the Sea of Galilee and meet the resurrected Jesus. This was all very well done and the movies conclusion is also very good. -
Tweetienator21 April 2016Many reviews praise Risen but I can't agree. Compared with the emotions Gibsons The Compassion of Christ stirred up in me this movie lacks it - I watched the movie totally unmoved. I remember an old movie with a similar approach to the story of Christ's resurrection - The Robe directed by Henry Koster and in the role of the tribune Marcellus Gallio the great Richard Burton. If I compare those two movies I will always prefer the flick from 1953. Whereas the transition of the tribune in The Robe showed the inner conflict of a Roman officer in changing his belief, his view on the world, the transition in Risen is not really compelling/convincing. The best part of the movie is a battle between Romans and Hebrew insurgents at the beginning. The production value of Risen is good, but really bad is the soundtrack - it sounds like sth made for a TV or DVD-directly-production. In short: Risen is not that bad, but I myself was a little bored watching. Someone else already noted in his/her review - some of those Jesus younger behaved in some scenes like stoned hippies, which I watched with a chuckle. Some of these scenes had a little of the flavor of Montys Life of Brian. I guess this reaction of me and/or that layer of comic was not really intended by the director because in a whole I would sum up the flick as belonging to those kinds of movies who tend to be propaganda for the Christian belief.