User Reviews (11)

Add a Review

  • aksumkaffa28 April 2015
    This film has an authentic feel. The casting of Jesus is the best I've ever seen. The script is the text of John plus nothing. The film is visually simple and realistic. The people actually look Middle Eastern, like the real characters in the Gospel. What a novel idea!

    The story is carried by the facial expressions of the actors, since there is a narrator speaking over the actual dialogue. This is not a big budget epic, and it is quite different from other Bible films. If you want to grasp the content of the Gospel of John in a visually gripping way, without all of the typical glamor or director's distortions, This is the film.
  • I've seen I guess every movie made about the "Bible" and It's many stories. While most are based on getting box-office receipts, this movie does not appear to be looking for material gain. It provides in a most understandable way, The Gospel of John. While it is the New International version, it nonetheless provides the Life of Jesus as observed by John the Baptist...accurately and straight from the source without revision; and without the bias of poet's license of Hollywood writers. It gives anyone, Christian or not, a down to earth perspective and new understanding of the real story of the life of Jesus Christ.

    Many times bible oriented films are made to satisfy the writer's, producer's or directors particular criteria of how the script should be changed or otherwise rewritten to suit the eye of the camera; or the director's own interpretation. It is difficult to go wrong when one chooses simply to make the scenes exactly according to the script written about 2000 years ago. While the Bible is still being read today, many, if not all biblical oriented movies don't carry the same longevity.
  • I found this adaptation of The Gospel of John (KJV) was absolutely stunning and accurate to the Word of God. Granted, I was at first taken aback by the actors acting out scenes while a narrator read the Bible word for word from the book of John in the background, but after watching, and reading other reviews on this, I completely understood Lumo's reasoning behind it, if it is truly their reasoning.

    The reason I have read is because it makes it easier to put this movies out in multiple languages. Like Thai, German, Swedish, Russian, Spanish (which they already have), and a handful of other languages, and still remain accurate without filming the movie multiple times. The 1979 Jesus movie did this, in a way, when it put the movie out in multiple languages not only in subtitles, but dubbed.

    I love that the actors look like the roles they play. This Jesus is one of the most accurate portrayals as he finally looks Jewish rather than European or like someone from GQ magazine. While we do not know what He looked like, we do know He was born a Jew, so to have Him look like a Jew in this movie made it all that more wonderful to watch.

    Do not pass this movie up. It is two and a half hours long, but it is the best two and half hours you'll ever spend watching something as accurate and detailed to God's Word. It is probably the most accurate depiction of any Bible movie to date, that didn't take Hollywood license or compromise the truth of the Gospel.
  • I found this method of the telling of johns gospel ,incredible. Though the actors spoke a none English language ,I felt their acting to be captivating .The emotions they expressed while john was narrated,were authentic. The melding of the narrating ,with reverse subtitle style,was unique ,and spot on. Great job director Batty. The setting for the the telling of the story was beautiful to say the least, the look of the land ,texture ,and feel ,made me thirst ! Very realistic clothing also ,no 1950s Moses here. The authenticity of the sack cloth ,down to the sandals and well worn canes. Drew you in even more. Characters. Characters that the only thing more realistic than there acting was their look . Really ,they are authentic, I do not want to give away to much but let's just say that they are very good in all aspects of their craft. I can't say enough good about this telling of Johns gospel you gotta see it .Great job to the men and women who made this come to life . With that I would like to say Thank you , May the glory be to God !
  • I absolutely love this movie. It is narrated verse by verse from the Gospel of John, beginning to end. I wish there was a movie like this for every book of the Bible. I'd watch them all, over and over.

    I've watched/listened (sometimes in the background while doing other things on the computer) this movie probably close to 20 times now. I had my wife watch it a few times, told my friends and relatives about it as well. Everyone who has watched it really liked it.

    I tried to watch the King James Version, narrated by Brian Cox (on Netflix). I love his voice and narration, but the Old English language just doesn't sound natural like the New International Version narrated by David Harewood does.
  • k_alisher4 October 2018
    The Gospel of John is an inspiring telling of Jesus life and his mission. The story pictures main teachings and wonders done by Jesus: his first birth, baptism, feeding 5000 people, raising Lazarus, last Supper, crucifixion, and resurrection. All the scenes are told by narration using the original script from the Gospel of John. The film creates a thrilling atmosphere. It is not a blockbuster and does not have a huge budget, but the picture is aesthetically beautiful. Decorations are natural, which makes it look sincere. The environment looks real and makes you believe in the legitimacy of the story. Although most scenes were shot in Morocco, producers have undertaken a good work in selecting proper scenery to make the picture look like Palestinian nature. I think that setting a plausible scenery was crucial in creating immersing atmosphere of the movie. The picture does not have special effects and fancy decorations, but cast plays extremely well, which fulfills the viewer's satisfaction. The cast is very well selected. Each character looks authentic and harmoniously merge with the Middle Asian atmosphere. The designer also has undertaken a good work with the dressing and grim, which makes a viewer immerse into the story even more. The picture has an interesting format of storytelling. The whole movie is told through narration. The narration is a special ingredient of this picture. The narrator creates an atmosphere of this film. With a pleasant voice and diction, a narrator can make a viewer believe that his saying is Jesus' saying. I think that, for a producer, choosing a good narrator was the main priority for this picture. The use of the original text as a script of the movie is a genius move. It makes the movie preserve gospel's canonical feel. When Jesus tells his teachings, he often uses the phrase: "Truly, truly, I say to you..." This simple phrase from the Gospel makes Jesus sayings in the movie extremely sincere and convincing. In addition, due to the nature of the Gospel, the script flows and is pleasant to the ear. Listening to it becomes relaxing and sends you to meditation. There exist two versions of "The Gospel of John", with the other being filmed in 2003. I have watched about half an hour of it, but my reaction has been that the 2014 version of the Gospel was much better. Mainly because in the 2014 version of the Gospel the story is being told using the Gospel itself. No dialogs or long scenes, but a constant narration of the Gospel of John. It is like listening to an audiobook, but with a visual representation of the story. I think that the 2014 version is much more enlightening. The only thing that I hesitate about is the choice of actor for the role of Jesus. The role was given to Selva Rasalingam, a British actor with historical roots in Sri-Lanka. I have no doubts about his artistic talent; he was sincere and very plausible in his role of Jesus. However, it is something about his look that makes me feel uncertain. He has very sharp facial features that look hawkish. The reason for my uncertainty is the canonical look that Jesus has in all his depictions. The 2003 version of the Gospel has more Jesus looking actor. In the 2014 version, Jesus has a very aggressive look with a sharp nose and thick eyebrows. When someone thinks of Jesus, the image immediately comes from famous depictions of Raphael, Da Vinci, and Bloch. Jesus obtained some kind of canonical imagery of having an extremely kind look. Therefore, it is quite unusual to see a new representation of Jesus. In addition to the aggressive look, Jesus in the 2014 Gospel of John has a somewhat aggressive attitude too. This is debatable too, as I cannot adequately evaluate Jesus' attitude, as I do not know the attitude of a real Jesus. However, in the movie, it seems like Jesus is angry at people for not believing in him and his doings. This is especially notable in his debate with Pharisees when they passionately argued about who Jesus really is. The words of Jesus were still original, as the script was the Gospel of John itself, but the delivery of the actor was mildly aggressive. It contributes to the alternative representation of Jesus. The representation of Jesus in the 2014 Gospel of John is unusual, but I guess that this choice was made intentionally. People are used to the canonical imagery of the Holy Jesus. I think that producers wanted to show a different Jesus, with a different, more aggressive, look. The one, who is holy and ever kind, but can be harsh and severe when his teachings are not heard. This is a different Jesus on the outside, but on the inside, he is still a saint, who loves and forgives everyone. It is an interesting move from the filmmakers, which definitely leaves a mark and makes this version of the Gospel prominent. I would suggest watching this movie, as it is well directed and has an interesting format. The imagery of Jesus creates a different experience and makes a viewer think about his own beliefs about Jesus and his doings.
    • The best Jesus portrail ever.
    • Word for word with amazing narrative.
    • 99,9 % Accurate, true, beautiful and imaginative film.
    • Good overall quality in acting, music and production.
    • This is a movie for believers or those who wants to believe.


    I read in some other reivew that Peter does not walk on water in this film, thats true. Because that should be in "Gospel of Matthew" instead. It seems it also will become free in many languages for churches and organisations with "Lumo project". Hope it's true.
  • tammyliggins24 December 2016
    I love this movie!!!! I have a better understanding now of the life if Jesus!!! I love everything about it and I am praying there are more from this company that I can learn more of the Bible. It was captivating. The acting plus the narration was impeccable!!! We even heard a little Arabic which made it even more astonishing!!!! I found myself watching the whole movie with out a break. I didn't realize that the movie was from the Bible word for word. Nobody has ever done that in a movie. I hope that you will also do the book of Acts and the book of Genesis. Maybe all the books of the bible if possible. I'm so inspired by this movie! I look forward to the next book of the Bible in this same format!!!! Thank you so much!!!! I've watched this movie three times and I am sharing it with other believers! My church will never be the same after they see this movie!!! Christ is the answer!!!! Shalom!!!!
  • Visually, you are there. Extremely well done. Jesus looks like a middle eastern Jesus and authentic. Those who portray his mother, brothers, disciples, and so on look authentic. The 'script' is the gospel of John as written in the Bible. No artistic licensr is taken. The actors spark in Aramaic. The narrator reads the entire book through the entire movie. Odd as it may seem this works quite well. This is well worth watching.
  • As a person of faith I very much enjoy most movies about Jesus. To this day we have never been presented a movie that is accurate according to scripture; this one is no different. However, whereas most movies cater to drama over accuracy, this one does something pleasantly different:

    Jesus is portrayed as a Jew. No blue-eyed Englishman here... this is a swarthy, large-nosed, coarse-haired actor who is believable in the part.

    The actions of Jesus and those surrounding him are typical of that people and times (as we understand them).

    The movie relies on the Gospel of John as a narrative in telling the tale. The actors themselves speak in the language of the day, and the entire story is narrated in English.

    The later point is both the greatest strength and greatest weakness of the movie. On the one hand it is pleasant to see the people, times and language more accurately portrayed. On the other hand, after about an hour that narration starts droning on... and on... and on. This reaches an extreme during and following the Lord's Supper, in which dialog is taken right out of scripture-- for quite a very lengthy period of time. I actually had to fight falling asleep during this presentation, as the director drops all sense of drama and movie-making and basically "reads from the Bible". Some may applaud that. My question to the director: did you forget you were making a film and suddenly change to conducting a Sunday Morning sermon?

    As with all such films, "artistic liberties" were taken in the telling of the story. Despite heavy reliance on scripture, the film doesn't hold 100% to scriptural accuracy and portrayal... and like so many films really cuts on the special effects. We don't see the holy spirit coming from heaven in the form of a dove at Jesus' baptism, nor many of his other miracles. And by sticking solely to the Gospel of John there are significant parts of Jesus' time on Earth that are disappointingly left out entirely (such as Peter trying to walk on water to meet Jesus). Overall the impression is given of obsessive structure-no-matter-what, that actually removes from the quality of the film overall.

    That is what we're reviewing here-- not the story of Jesus but the quality of the movie itself. Corners were cut in all the wrong places, and in other places the story line dragged out to the point of being excessively word-for-word at the sacrifice of telling the story in movie format. In the end it comes to 2 hours and 40 minutes that felt like every bit of 2 hours and 40 minutes. It just dragged on. Parts of this film were fairly bad directing and story telling. If I wanted to read the account of John, I'd read the account of John. I'm a big fan of the main character, but this is supposed to be a movie, not a public Bible reading.

    Kudos for them pulling away from the standard movie tropes: we actually get to see Jesus's face, he looks like just an ordinary person (which is accurate according to scripture), the actors speak language that makes the movie feel more authentic. But the same things that benefit the movie drag it down-- the endless, droning narration, omission of vital parts of Jesus' ministry, and some actual scriptural inaccuracies are the downsides. Considering the number of times during this film I had to force myself to stay awake, all I can give it is a mediocre rating. Had the director employed a little more skill and focused on who Jesus was rather than word-for-word dialog of lengthy scriptural passages... it could have been a much more enjoyable movie.

    Spoiler: Jesus dies. But there's a twist ending. ; )
  • js180122 July 2019
    The Father and the Son are the Parents of the Holy Spirit, if most churches are correct. The Trinity is a Family-- two Parents and an Offspring, if most churches are correct. In the Bible, Jesus Himself said, " I and the Father are One".--John 10:30 On the topic of marriage in general,according to the Bible Jesus said "they are no longer two but one..."-Matthew 19:6