The Gospel of John (2014) User Reviews

Watch this film

[aksumkaffa · 9/10 · 28 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.

The Gospel of John

[k_alisher · 9/10 · 4 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.

Very Much Life-like

[sandynolen · 9/10 · 4 December 2022]

This makes me feel like I'm living back in Jesus' days. The lines are straight from the Bible, NIV I believe, spoken in Arabic but translated in English (or whatever language the viewer needs), so far all of the first four gospels are done well like this one.

I watch these daily as I would the Bible because my eye problem makes it hard for me to read extended times. I can follow my Lord easily through your portrayals and have learned so much more of Him since I have been able to follow these. God bless your production teams for putting the time and efforts into these! I wish I knew of a way to invest in your making more of the books you haven't done.

Your actors are very good, Jesus looks like the image of the shroud of Turin. But not just him, all the actors are well chosen & seem just as one would expect to find in Israel at this time after living under such conditions at the time. The direction, costuming, location, extras, & voiceovers are all perfectly done for the purpose!

Everything you need to know about Salvation

[ted-194-66156 · 10/10 · 24 December 2014]

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.

Strictly from the gospel of john no artistic license. Yet totally absorbing

[johnten-04776 · 10/10 · 11 April 2015]

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 watch this movie over and over...

[albright-g · 10/10 · 25 August 2015]

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.

Excellent! Accurate! Wonderful!

[truthapologist · 10/10 · 11 October 2015]

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.

Wonderful

[tammyliggins · 10/10 · 24 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!!!!

Pretty decent production, accurate representation of Jesus.

[aigerimduisembay · 6/10 · 28 February 2021]

The Gospel of John is one of the first movies narrating the life of Jesus Christ from the biblical text. The movie was directed by David Batty in 2015. One of the fascinating features of the movie is that the script is made of the exact initial narration of Jesus Christ from the Bible. Hence, the film is considered to bring a fresh light on religious book, the Bible. Generally, the movie has a high rating (7.8/10 on IMDB) with some good reviews of the viewers saying they have watched the movie for several times and and praising the choice of actors.

Basically, the production standards are pretty decent, the costumes and sets look realistic, and Palestine stands in the Moroccan countryside. John's script is read as the other characters play out the plot speaking Aramaic. With actor Selva Rasalingam's depiction of Christ, the crew seems to appear much more indigenous than other actors who previously were shot in movies about Jesus. It is said that he is of largely Tamil origin. Even if he is light-skinned, the protagonist has a more Mediterranean appearance. This aspect is important to note since Jesus and all his early disciples were of Jewish origin, hence choosing the right actor who will play Jesus Christ also affects the way the audience perceives and understands the story.

«The gospel of John» firstly makes few clarifications. According to the film, «it is set on a time when the Roman empire controlled Jerusalem». However, it is also said that «The gospel of John was written two generations after the crucifixion of Jesus Christ». So, the Gospel may not contain all of the toils of Jesus or may be somehow altered through time. The plot of the movie starts with Jesus exposing himself to the society through signs and his discourse about the God, eventually coming to a much more credulous and aggressive universe. As he speaks to the crowd of people and reveals them the truth about himself and the God, there is a lot of debate going on among the crowd. People often divided into groups of those who believed Jesus' words and those who thought he was some kind of a liar or charlatan. After that he draws his attention on the small group of those who have truly trusted in God and Jesus himself to encourage them to continue on his work. There were many disputes and miscommunication between the church established by the Roman Empire, the Jewish citizens and Jesus Christ. The church, thus, made up a motive for the King to crucify Jesus. The film ends with the scenes of death and burial of Jesus, followed by some of his appearances in his state of resurrection to his disciples.

The principle of «living Word», that Jesus represents as the creative source of life and light are clearly depicted in the film. These principles are shown in Jesus' ability to enliven and enlighten individuals who trust him, for instance when Jesus created wine out of water, cured royal representative's son from a serious disease, walked on the sea, made the blind man see again and some other supernatural abilities of Jesus. All these miracles have a meaning and a motive for people to show Jesus' power. To be precise, converting water into wine symbolizes the difference between being born in human form and being born from heaven. Jesus reveals that by giving the blind man eyes he is the light of the world and that by giving life to Lazarus and waking him up from dead, he is the resurrection. Thus, the movie clearly shows how interesting and important were these miracles performed by Jesus Christ not only to prove people that he was, indeed, the son of God, but also to make the audience elaborate on the concepts of belief and religion.

Another important issue depicted in the movie is the conflict between Jesus and religious leaders. "The gospel reflects the period of unprecedented polemic and antagonism between the emerging church and the religious establishment of the Jewish people". One of the reason for such a conflict may the the clash of views. Jesus criticized religious leaders for their wrong beliefs about God, exposed their hypocrisy and recommended people to not believe the religious representatives. Religious leaders, in contrast, criticized Jesus for performing miracles and curing people on the Jewish Sabbath Day, criticized for treason and generally were jealous since more and more people trusted Jesus Christ each day despite the ongoing debates.

Despite many advantages of the film, it is also vital to mention that The Gospel of John is fairly long (2.5 hours), which is why it is difficult sometimes to follow the plot. In addition, the film includes a number of violent scenes such as the crucifixion of Jesus and two other thieves with blood clearly depicted on the bodies. These kind of brutal and bloody scenes are definitely not recommended for children and teenagers, or at least it should be warned to watch at the presence of parents. Nevertheless, I would recommend the movie for the common audience to get general information about the life of Jesus Christ.

Different presentation but stretches on

[Snootz · 5/10 · 23 January 2018]

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. ; )

Best yet, truly the Gospel of John

[rebeccajern · 10/10 · 28 November 2019]

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.

They said jesus was a liar

[nickfreemanwork · 1/10 · 1 December 2020]

On time marked 50:35 jesus was talking to some of his disciples they asked "you go to the festival?" Asking Jesus if he was and then Jesus "says" "I am not going up to the festival." If Jesus did say this which he didn't then not a single one of us would be saved. Time stamp 50:54 it says he meaning Jesus "went also not publicly but in secret". That's not the gospel.

Wow !! Finally !!

[MichaelJayFox · 10/10 · 26 June 2018]

• 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.

Blessed to be of audience

[knxhv · 10/10 · 5 April 2023]

Thank you to all those involved in the production and publication of this film not only did the vivid depiction help illustrate the word of god but the narration of the bible brought the story to life itself. I gave this film a ten out of ten in that watching the film from beginning to end has touched my heart and opened my eyes in wonder to the life of Jesus Christ from the book of John. I pray many more will be of audience and accept Christ as their lord and savior who died on the cross for the world.

Blessed be the lord and christ our savior who died for all of us on the cross so that we may be with the father and have eternal life through the gift of the holy spirit! God bless you all and may we all rejoice and give glory to he who is HOLY HOLY HOLY

• sinner.

Incredible

[melaniekaufer · 10/10 · 24 January 2021]

This is an incredible film that helps you understand the gospel and how amazing Jesus truly was. It shows how He lived, His word, His miracles, all those who followed Him and how He died for us. As someone who was recently baptized and is learning the scriptures, it was wonderful and eye opening. The Bible can be difficult to read and this film really lays out all we need to know. Jesus Christ is our lord and savior and the only way to know the Father, is through the son.

Great Story that Could Be Told Better

[lisa-02571 · 3/10 · 4 March 2022]

We know the story of the Gospel. The story cannot be improved upon.

However...

There are some beautiful imsges of the Moroccan countryside. But the overall telling was lacking in emotion or drama. I felt like I was watching an audiobook.

Okay, but ...

[wbagot1 · 5/10 · 4 April 2024]

At first I liked it.

It is literally a complete reading of the Book of John in the Bible from beginning to end. While the book was being read, people playing the parts of the characters, are in the background acting out in a way that would tie into the reading. The visual recreation would give more of an idea of the era and a stronger way to remember than listening alone.

As it went on though, my perception changed. At first the narrator read everything the same. But at a certain point he started to give extra emphasis and change in tone and volume. It turned it more theatrical while I had liked just having the words speak for themselves.

Then a troubling aspect started to take place with Jesus in the background. All too often he was looking angry and he didn't seem to have the love of Jesus come out. In checking the actor and the studio, neither seem to have any Christian connection. So while providing the complete words from John with a backdrop was a novel idea, I found myself being pushed away from the actual Jesus presented.

Too stoic

[pjsailor · 5/10 · 10 October 2022]

This is a review of the movie, not the subject matter. I found this movie quite boring and too much of a straight Biblical interpretation. It isn't a bad movie if you are looking for a direct replication of the Bible. But the movie itself is quite boring. Since they all speak In the language of the time, you can't understand them and there are no subtitles though it doesn't really matter since the narrator is speaking scripture the entire time. So the movie itself is just a reproduction of what we read in the text itself. It removes the human element all together. If you have read the books of the Bible, you know how human the words make Jesus. This movie removes all that. So how can we, as humans, relate to it. We can't.