I am so happy to get this type of program but I don't understand why all the inaccuracies. It's not as if the story of Jesus isn't compelling enough without having to tweak it to keep the audience watching. Some of the inaccuracies seemed just random and serviced no purpose and others seemed very intentional and purposely misleading. I'm not sure which is worse. Who did the producers make this for anyway? It was not provocative enough for non-believers and not accurate enough for believers. A note to the producers: Next time, if you intend to tell a Christian story, get the facts right. At best the inaccuracies are a distraction and at worst they are insulting to those who know what is historically accurate. I feel confident that you won't lose believers or non-believers if Christian stories are well done and true.
Add a Review
-
jroswald15 April 2015
-
To quote Mr O'Reilly: "this is not a religious book. We do not address Jesus as the Messiah, only as a man who galvanized a remote area of the Roman Empire and made very powerful enemies while preaching a philosophy of peace and love." The book is the historical and secular version of the life of Jesus. I found the movie to be refreshing and interesting. The problem was of casting. Joe Doyle stood out as Judas. The rest of the apostles look to be Hebrews of the area. The movie assumes the viewer is familiar with events prior to Jesus's birth and his early life. This is a disservice to those who are not. Smoother transitions in time could have been done better. Over all it is a good movie and the young actor playing Jesus gives a solid performance.
-
FlushingCaps31 March 2015Along with the criticisms others have added, I wish to add my complaints about the way this film mostly ignored the high points in the life of Jesus.
The story of him comforting the lady with leprosy was presented in such a way as to appear that nothing happened to her other than that Jesus was nice to her.
Almost all the other stories considered miraculous were omitted. When we got to the Last Supper--the key part of the scene was omitted.
I couldn't help but compare this to the 11 p.m. sports reader presenting us highlights of, let's say, a Tiger 6-5 win over the Yankees. He shows 2 minutes of clips of the game, 18 plays in all: 6 pitches that were simply called "Ball Two" by the umpire, 4 pop-up outs, 3 ground-outs, 3 fly outs, one single, and one run scoring on a wild pitch. Fans would be screaming, "Where are the highlights?" The crucifixion scene presented Jesus on the right side of the trio, instead of in the middle. Didn't matter, I guess, since in this film there was no exchange of words with the other two victims.
It was almost strange at the beginning, when we saw a new-born baby, but he seemed to just be in a room--not a stable/manger of any kind, and there was nothing else about the going's on in Bethlehem.
Jesus was depicted as having no idea who he really was, at least, for almost all of his life. Since the Bible makes it clear that his earthly parents knew from the get-go, I think it would be hard to figure they never told him what they knew--if indeed he didn't already know.
The oddest thing was that, at times, Jesus and a couple of the others seemed to be speaking with a Scottish accent. Now this wasn't true throughout the film, which only makes it more bizarre.
I liked many of the settings and costumes and there were some good scenes, but if you're going to present, under any title, a film depicting someone's life...
...for the love of...you know...include the scenes that almost anyone would say were the high points of the man's life! -
AdultAudienceMember30 March 2015I went in hoping. I really wanted to like it. But I didn't.
Jesus looks confused half the time. The Holy Spirit is a no-show. The beards are glued on. Old commonly-held beliefs with no scriptural basis are recycled. Camels hadn't yet been domesticated. Nowhere does it say that Mary Magdalene was a prostitute but she is strongly hinted to be one.
While talked about in one of the Gospels, there is zero historical evidence that the Slaughter of the Innocents ever occurred. Byzantine fortresses are used as stand-ins.
Good things: Filmed in Tunisia so at least some of the people didn't look like they came from an Ikea advertisement.
I simply can't recommend it. If you are wanting to learn about Jesus, this is not the place to look. If you are a Believer already, you will be sorely disappointed. -
Bill O'Reilly seems to be an opponent of abortion, so why this one? Most scenes are curiously flat, uninspired, incomplete, and lacking the balls of a bull butterfly. Missing features: no writing on the ground at saving the adulteress, the healing the leprous woman was just touchy- feelly, the ear of the high priest's servant wasn't healed, no open tomb, etc. Some production values were excellent, but still uneven. The big Sea of Galilee "fish on!" looked like it was filmed in a stagnant West Texas cow tank. Suggestion: spend a few more bucks to get enough extras. Even non- believers must concede that these events were big at the time, and would attract large crowds. Crucifixions in particular were always a large draw.
This level of incompetence cannot be accidental, so why intentional? Didn't some famous guy with an English accent once say, "When Hollywood political correctness and the real facts differ, film the political correctness?"Or maybe just the typical Hollywood Easter scam, take the money and run. I strongly suspect that Bill O'Reilly has lost a chunk of his core constituency. I have read O'Reilly's book and, knew that the perspective was deliberately squeezed dry of faith elements, yet I reasoned thus. Any TV show that gets the post-modernist viewer watching about Jesus is better than nothing. I was wrong. It is possible that this is the only message about Jesus that many viewers will ever get.
This is three hours of my life that I will never get back. (Why was it billed as a four hour event?) Hate to use the old cheap shot, but it has never been more appropriate. Read the book, its better. That is, the Real Book. -
gdholm5 April 2015This is not an anti-Bill O'Reilly review as some others are. I like Bill. I watch his show most nights. I have enjoyed all of his "Killing" books, and "Killing Lincoln" was the best non-fiction book I have ever read.
That said, the movie was a huge disappointment. Not sure I can say anything not already said, but to summarize the shortcomings, not with the book, but with just the movie:
1. Whoever cast Haaz Sleiman as Jesus made a horrible choice. While he looked more like a Jew of the period than some people who have played the part, his acting was just plain bad.
2. Having the actors mumble their lines (especially Sleiman) was not a good choice.
3. I have seen high school plays with more realistic-looking beards and wigs than the ones used in this movie. They were comical!
4. Jesus didn't know who he was until John the Baptist told him? Really?
5. Was 20 or 30 really the largest crowd they could buy to follow Jesus?
6. So the movie was designed to be emotionally dark, but did it have to be literally dark and hard to see at times as well? 7. The sound was poor.
8. Despite Bill's assurances otherwise, I found that some of the violence and torture was much more explicit and graphic than necessary.
9. Jesus seemed dazed and confused much of the time. What was the actor trying to portray? Was this just bad directing?
10. Jesus' accent changed from time to time. Sometimes he sounded like an Arab, sometimes like he was from India, sometimes Scotland, and sometimes the accent was just so heavy I have no idea what he was saying or trying to be.
In short, a great book turned into a terrible movie due to bad acting, directing, and production. At least you can watch it for free, but be prepared to turn it off before the end. I did. -
tsmith41730 March 2015Why do people keep thinking that the Bible isn't a good enough story, that they have to keep changing it and embellishing it with made-up stuff? It isn't enough that Ridley Scott completely changed the story of Exodus and Moses; now someone has to move up to the New Testament and mess with it too.
The Wise Men did not stop at King Herod's place for dinner and entertainment to tell him about the Baby Jesus.
The part about Jesus preaching in the temple apparently wasn't interesting enough to be included.
Jesus did not have to be told by John The Baptist that He was the Son of God; He knew very well who He was. And after being baptized, "the heavens were opened unto him, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove"; why was this "insignificant" fact left out of the film?
It was at this point that I turned the movie off and went back to the "Columbo" marathon on the Hallmark channel; at least that show was supposed to be fiction.
I thank God that there are only two Testaments to the Bible. Maybe Hollywood will find something else to use now to promote their atheist agenda.
Oh yeah, one more thing ... I didn't know Joseph looked like Sonny Bono. I never saw so many bad wigs in one movie since the Marx Brothers stopped making films. -
cwoliver-131 March 2015No need for a spoiler alert. This movie was spoiled before I wrote this. I understand that this was not the Bible. I understand that it was to depict only what was historically supportable. I understand that it was not a spiritual telling of the story. What I do not understand is how they managed to cast the lead with an actor who could not act. The actor portraying Jesus was terrible. O'reilly kept telling us on his FNC show that this Muslim actor "nailed" the audition. Given the performance I witnessed I can only believe that the actor was so nervous that he doubled up on the Valium. If not, the actor apparently nailed the audition by simply hitting his mark and mumbling his line (shades of Marlon in Apocalypse Now). I've seen greater emotional range from a cockatoo. When Jesus told his disciples, "Follow ME, and I will make you "Fishers of MEN!" I'm sure he gave it more emotion than the line, "would you like fries with that?". Too many better movies of the Bible - don't waste your time on the one. Try the one where Jesus ends up on Gilligan's Island.
-
crackedchina28 May 2015I found this film highly watchable. It was excellent viewing. It presented the historical context of Jesus's life in an intelligent way, explaining the tensions and conflicts between the Romans, their Jewish puppets and the people. There are many moving scenes. Judas and his betrayal are treated in a refreshingly new way, avoiding stereotypes. There is something real and gritty about the portrayal which neither of confirms nor denies that Jesus was truly the son of God. This is a film which can move and appeal to even non- believers because there are no incredible miracles; only a brave and charismatic man preaching a new creed of love and forgiveness in a society where stoning was still the punishment for adultery. You don't have to believe in God to be humbled and moved by this powerful story of that message, and how Jesus paid the ultimate price for confronting and challenging the Jewish religious authorities.
-
sicolemanjr13 April 2015So glad to know I wasn't the only perplexed person watching this movie. This is what I posted on Facebook. And no. Not intended to step on believers toes. All in fun. "Ok. When the holiday's are approaching I usually scour the channels for interesting things to DVR to get into the holiday mood. I was channel surfing last week and saw a show on National Geo Channel called...Killing Jesus. I thought...hmmm...catchy name, so DVR'd it and Stan and I watched it last night after going to church for the Maundy Thursday service. Taking into consideration it had commercials we could fast forward through, I think we only wasted 2 hours rather than the 3 of the original production time. Stan and I kept looking at each other and going...huh? But it was like the time when we were kids and had a "haunted house" my mom helped us put together that the neighborhood kids paid us money to see. One of the peek boxes was so dumb that I told my mom "that's so dumb no one will want to look at it". And she in her wisdom said "because it is so dumb everyone will pay their money to see how dumb it is". And she was right. So, I think that is why we sat and watched the whole thing. It was so dumb we had to watch the whole dang thing. After watching it and pondering a bit I came up with an analogy. I thought it was like a 6th grade boy who got an assignment at the beginning of the school year, to read the bible and then write an essay on it. He had all year to do it. He then waited until two weeks before and realizing he had to do something, went to Barnes and Noble and got Cliffs notes to help him with his project. Realizing he had all of two weeks he decided he would also produce a movie. Knowing the best costume source would be Wilson's 5 and dime he proceeded over and got only the best of wigs and mustache/beard combo's. Now that he was set he decided to ask the class clown (Kelsey Grammar) to be a character in his production. He put together a script made up of Cliffs Notes and a couple of notable Jesus phrases he had learned in Sunday school and randomly threw them in where he thought they might fit pretty well. "The heck with accuracy he said to himself...this is Hollywood!". And that, my dear friends, is...Killing Jesus. After watching that movie, although I am not claiming to be a biblical scholar or anything like it, I felt like one!!! The thing they finally got right, I must give them credit for, was the characters looked like people would have looked and not like Brad Pitt in all his blonde glory as Jesus. Oy Vey!!! Now being a Christian and well versed in the command to forgive, I will say to the writers and producers. You are forgiven...but GO AND SIN NO MORE!"
-
mm-394 April 2015Killing Jesus was created in the Spirit of Bill O'Rielly's book. Killing Jesus is about the historical social forces of Jesus' time. Passover with the money lenders, the Roman Ocupation and the politics of money and power. Jesus' teaching were a threat to the social forces of Jesus' time. (and a threat to many in modern times) Bill's movie omits many of the miracles etc for the message is about the times, and lets the viewer decide his or her opinion on the Son of God question. Regretablly, the Makers of Killing Jesus had to edit for time considerations many important parts which were in the book. I believe we would have a double reel movie (an old saying when movie makers used film) to add all the material. Regrettably, all biblical movies leave room for interpretation, and make controversial liberties of what historical individuals were thinking. Did Judas keep some of the money because Judas wanted a horse is more of trying to figure out Judas' motives? A hidden message of how heinous Judas was. What Killing Jesus mastered is the portrayal of Jesus' message about forgiveness, God is love, and Jesus is willing to stand up and sacrifice himself for us. The symbolic message with the fish at the ending states Killing Jesus' thesis. The message is about Jesus' movement and the crucifixion tried to stop the movement, but only resulted in the movement becoming stronger. As with the fish miracle, you decide if Jesus is the Son of God. An attempt at a historical portrayal of which hits the mark. Seven or eight out of ten stars.
-
This movie is very different from what you think a movie of the story Jesus would be. I have seen so many that I was a bit unsure of watching it mainly because its the same story over and over again. But I found that the movie shows us a normal guys Jesus that has no super powers and that is only trying to pass a message.
They said what I always thought it happened, the followers of Jesus might have stolen the body so people would think Jesus resurrected. He came back, yes he did but not like we were told he did. He came back as a thought, an ideal, and he is still alive and among us because 2000 years later we still talk about him.
The kingdom of God is within us. -
caj-8831830 March 2015My husband and I are devout Christians and have read the book, which we think was very well written. With great anticipation we watched the movie and were very disappointed. Although the part of Herod was very well done. The interruptions of the commercials were very distracting. The voices were very muffled and difficult to understand. If you were not someone who was familiar with the Bible it would have been very difficult to follow the story line and just which actor was playing what part ( maybe subtitles would have helped). In my humble opinion, I think it is very difficult for Hollywood to recreate the Biblical experience. I was also very disappointed that the actor who played Jesus was a Muslim, I am sure that there must have been a Christian actor who may have been able to play the role with a heart for the Lord. The actor who played Jesus, did not seem to be able to make me Believe, it seemed he was just repeating words that he memorized. Although I have a negative reaction to the film, I would very much recommend reading the book. I think that Bill O'Reilly and Martin Dugard have done amazing research creating these books and I am sure they must be a little disappointed with the production. Perhaps if this was a DVD and there were no interruptions with silly commercials it would have a better flow.
-
rstane30 March 2015This account of Jesus was supposed to be based on the best historical documents. The fallacy is that the Bible is without question, the very best historical document of antiquity! So why didn't Bill O'Reilly follow it??? I heard Bill ask on the Factor, "is Timothy a book in the Bible?" This speaks volumes about his lack of understanding of the Bible! And they hired a Muslim to play Jesus!!! The Koran explicitly states that Jesus was not the Son of God, nor did he die on a cross!! So how can a follower of Islam represent "Emmanual, God with us."? Throughout the film, they portrayed Jesus as not being aware of His own divinity. But, Mary was told by the angel Gabriel that she going to conceive a child by the Holy Spirit and He would be the Son of God. Gabriel then told Joseph as well. Don't you think Jesus parents ever told Him??? Killing Jesus is a confusion of the facts about Jesus...his character...his words...his actions...and the eternal significance of His substitution payment for our sins...that the Son of God atoned, paid the price for our sins to be forgiven... if we put our trust in Him as our Saviour...the only true God... Father, Son and Holy Spirit... I invite you to open your heart and ask Him in. In Jesus name. Robert
-
sfalloy30 March 2015This movie was not at all true to the Gospels. The very fact that Luke 2:41-49 was ignored, is a travesty. Jesus knew who he was and understood his purpose from the beginning. The movie portrays him as confused and unsure until a band of friends push him into a ministry that he cannot turn back from. It also squarely points a finger at the roman authority of that time period in Judea. This is hugely contradictory to the fact that Jesus lay down his life for us of his own accord, there is no pointing of a finger to blame anyone group. You are served far better watching Mel Gibson's The Passion which shows from The Garden of Gethsemane how Jesus the Man and Jesus Divine purposefully went to the cross alive and died upon that cross and then resurrected himself 3 days later. If you watch Killing Jesus there was none of that and it merely portrays a thirst for blood of a patronized gang leader whose presence threatened Rome's authority. O'Reilly does not know the Bible and did a disservice to it's truth. 1 star for the acting.
-
suedemaggio31 March 2015If I could give it a negative number I would! I know it was not supposed to be spiritual, I even read the book.... but it was not even historically accurate! Such a bad choice for Jesus... he just acted baffled and confused! Jesus knew by the time he was 12 that he was His Father's son and he was about HIS business.... this made him look bumbling! SO MANY historical inaccuracies, it was almost unwatchable! SORRY it was such a flop as I had high hopes that it would be of interest to non believers,... but I'm afraid it confirmed the stereotype of a human, not the son of GOD! We had recommended it to our grown children for their families but now I'm glad they just recorded it for later.... we are erasing those recordings! Even simple things that could have made it more historically correct were ignored or worse yet, done wrong! The sermon on the Mount was beside the sea, not in the hills.... the criminals hung that day were on either side of him, not far way and together, Judas gave the silver back to the evil priest, not some goat shepherd boy! .... and this production didn't mention SO MANY significant things! I was just flabbergasted at the inaccuracies!! SO SAD
-
bt-3026730 March 2015SPOILER ALERT (context vs content)
I LOVED Killing Jesus THE BOOK. O'Reilly over-hyped this made-for-TV portrayal, and I was let down.
From the baptism of Jesus on, the filmmakers seem to present that he was unaware of His mission and divinity and seemed skeptical when John the Baptist told Him who he was. This contradicts scripture as we know Jesus was aware of Abraham from even before the time of Abraham.
This inauthentic portrayal affected the remainder of the story as Jesus was portrayed as uncharismatic and seemed to not have many followers. Only a couple dozen people as He rode into Jerusalem on a donkey?! I would give them a pass in that this could have been a budgetary issue, but I know digital extras aren't that expensive to composite in.
I do applaud NatGeo, Bill O'Reilly and Ridley Scott for producing this as it's difficult to get anything religious made.
I also take issue with O'Reilly's "historian criteria" that they had to have 2 of 3 sources for inclusion in the book. It's a faulty criteria because the Romans and Jews would have never published or documented miracles of Jesus, for political reasons even if they knew them to be true. It would be like historians in 2000 years looking back on current events today and excluding scandals like Benghazi, IRS and Hillary's e- mails because only Fox News covered them. O'Reilly should get this and know better, and not let politics affect the truth. Miracles of Jesus shouldn't be excluded- they are a part of the HISTORY and divinity of the man. -
My husband and I sat down to watch this movie with much anticipation. We were so disappointed! It leaves so much out, doesn't follow scripture and the acting is awful. There was no emotion in this movie - it plodded along as we waited for something to show us the movie was worth watching. My husband actually fell asleep during it! The guy chosen to play Jesus was a terrible choice - he gives no emotion to the role and leaves you at the end wondering why people followed him. I would not recommend this movie at all - just watch the passion of the Christ by Mel Gibson. That movie is, as my husband said, a billion times better!
-
Bible purists and devout Catholics will probably find at least some fault with this production. There are a number of elements missing from the story that most viewers with a knowledge of the Scriptures would be looking for; when they aren't depicted one has to wonder the reason why. Time and budget constraints probably play into it but that argument doesn't help much. One of the first stunning moments in the story occurred for me when Jesus (Haaz Sleiman) seemed to be unaware of his Earthly mission to atone for Man's sins, this when he was conversing with John the Baptist (Abhin Galeya). Caiaphas (Rufus Sewell) and his adherents in the Sanhedrin appeared to be greater villains than Pontius Pilate in terms of culpability for Jesus' crucifixion. No mention of Barabbas seemed to be a major oversight, and during the crucifixion scene there was no reference made at all to the two thieves who were crucified along with Jesus. I guess most of my criticism here has to do with things that weren't included in the story of Jesus, so that may just be a particular quirk of mine. However my viewing of the picture occurred a day after watching the 1927 silent film "The King of Kings" which appeared to be a much more complete narrative of the events leading to the crucifixion and death of Jesus Christ. If one were to be faced with the choice of one or the other, my recommendation would go for the early film. Even though silent, the longer, one hundred fifty five minute version includes two wonderful sequences done in Technicolor, quite possibly the earliest use of color one might ever experience in a movie and more than a little impressive.
-
Well, I must admit I got sucked in because Kelsey Grammar was hyped in the ads as part of the cast. The made-for-TV film started out interesting, in a way, with Kelsey stumbling manically with throbbing boiled forehead o'er the ramparts of Jerusalem. OK. He is sufficiently disturbed, and does an OK job. What else do you want from Herod? Next, we get a believable-looking Jesus. Yeah, somebody who could be from that region of the world, not some white-washed European version on a holy card. Oh, some may say, but that ain't the Jesus I pray to. No? I think Jesus was Afro-Asian or Hamito-Semitic, not a bearded Caucasian. There is a difference. Anyway... Good casting, but his wig was frightful. Didn't look like real hair at all. Was that on purpose? The story actually started out pretty good. It seemed like this wasn't going to be just a simple parroting of the story many, many people know by heart. There was character development in the beginning and interesting interaction between the characters, but then as the story progressed, it was as if the plot got away with everyone and things were hurried up and sped up to get to the conclusion. One weirdness is that when Jesus changes Simon's name to Peter, one of the (what I thought was one of the lesser educated) apostles says in an aside to another apostle (and so the audience gets the reference) that Peter is the Greek word for "rock". Well, aside from the fact that there is some debate on the real Jesus' knowledge of Greek vs. poetic license of the authors of the gospels, it was interesting what the script writer and director "left in" and what they "left out" of this Biblical depiction of Jesus' life. I also found the last scene in which Peter gets a boat- load of fish like once before and deduces that "He is risen" or does he say "He's back!"? laughable.
-
mdrafa11230 March 2020Many people rant against the film about historical inaccuracy. But I the point is that Bible is not history. This is film where it is not answered that if Jesus is truly son of God or just another Preacher who claimed himself as Messiah. If you are open minded enough you will like the film.
-
Here is another example of Hollywood (or in this case some guy in a garage), rewriting the Bible. I am getting tired of it. I would much rather if people that can borrow enough money to rent a digital camera would spend their time on subject that have, at least, a limited knowledge of. Not so here. In no account of the Bible that I have seen is Jesus ever portrayed as clueless, confused and unaware of anything that was happening around him. I am wondering if they cut the scene where their fictitious Jesus was dropped on his head as a child? That might explain the character being so 'lost in the woods'. Furthermore, the events as portrayed are so grossly inaccurate that I began to wonder what this movie was supposed to be about. It had very little to do with the story of Jesus from the Bible. I more then fed up with Hollywood constantly bashing religions in their films, directly and indirectly, often by misrepresenting accepted beliefs. Now that amatures are also getting in on the act is just disgusting. OK, having vented that, let me take a moment to look at anything positive I could find about this mess:
Acting: Very very bad. Not sure if the accent they were faking was Scottish of Klingon. Anyone who may have had any previous acting experience certainly did not bring it with them.
Makeup: The beards looked like the ones you can buy at the dime store with the hooks to hang on your ears. And everyone had a beard. When they spoke their lips seemed to disappear behind the hair. The wigs clearly came from some Halloween costume shop.
Dialog: Appears to be written by a High School Student...in a hurry.
Camera-work: Boring
Sets: The scenery was fair, and the locations were adequate. THERE IT IS!!! THE ONE POSITIVE THING I COULD FIND!!
In short as I said in the title, those involved in this thing wasted their time...for your own sake, don't waste yours. -
kandit15 April 2015I understand when you make a movie about the life of Jesus, there has to be some liberty taken since there are big gaps in the story-line. That being said, this movie version of Jesus's life is like no other I've ever seen and that is for all the wrong reasons.
As many reviewers have stated before me, there are so many historical inaccuracies I stopped keeping count. You never get to understand why this Jesus would have any followers at all. In this version, he is a nice guy but not much more.
Too many holes in the story make this movie not worth the time spent to make and watch it. -
Bloviator Bill O'Reilly as author and executive producer made a grievous and indefensible error in casting a Muslim to play the role of Jesus in this film. That's the first big problem with this film.
The actor portraying Jesus lacks any charisma and looks dazed and confused in many scenes.
From the beginning, the tone is dark and sinister and very unlike Biblical epics of the past. I understand the purpose is to take a more secular look at the religious, financial and political forces behind Jesus' crucifixion but that's only a small part of a much bigger and more important story - the teachings of Jesus and his miracles, death, faith and resurrection and the beginning of the Christian religion.
King of Kings, Greatest Story Ever Told, Jesus of Nazareth, Ben-Hur even Jesus Christ-Superstar and Godspell told the story of Jesus much better than this. -
The film is chaotic and strange. nothing is coherent. The Gospels are in disorder and do not depict the truthfulness of the Bible. It is fragmented and difficult to follow with no real purpose. It may be full of good intentions but has absolutely no credible result. This film is only another deception of the life of Christ. There is absolutely no message. This film only breeds confusion for the follower of Christ and His teachings and anyone wanting to know more about Him. This film appears to be something that was thoughtlessly put together just in time for the Easter Season and has no real truth and is very ambiguous. I have not read the book but am hopeful that it is more to the true story of Christ than this hodge podge film. I do not recommend it to anyone, believer or non-believer.